Gpu for ultra wide

[Prysin]

I agree with you in regards to the 390x being the best bet.

 

"as a rule of thumb. AMD generally does better at higher resolutions. So if you are running 1440p or higher (like 3440x1440 or 4k) then AMD usually have the better solution FPS, AND price wise."

 

Crossfire vs SLI, yes, I also agree towards AMD.  But to say this for a single card solution and as a blanket statement is STUPID.  Plain and simple.  Reading a lot of comments coming from you leads me to believe you are fanboying it up.  Fury X vs 980 Ti @ 4k  Clearly shows that is very close but 980 Ti still leads on average.  Some games lead towards Fury X. (FC4 and Shadow of Mordor)  Again this can be subjective because different people will get different cards and overclock differently. 

 

http://www.maximumpc.com/gtx-980-ti-vs-fury-x-overclocking-showdown/#page-2

 

 

At this point I could care less anymore if I was being rude.

You may think I am leaning towards NVIDIA?  I could give a shit.  I buy whatever is faster.  But to say ""as a rule of thumb. AMD generally does better at higher resolutions. So if you are running 1440p or higher (like 3440x1440 or 4k) then AMD usually have the better solution FPS, AND price wise" is complete ignorance and toxic. You also said "usually" (taken with a grain of salt) so it could be interpreted as in general, AMD is better for higher resolutions.  

 

OT:  I used to have a 2560x1080 monitor.  You would do quite well with a 390 or 390X.  I do not recommend the 980 or even 970.

well, usually being a deciding factor here. The 980Ti sort of breaks this trend, but short of the 650 USD 980Ti, if you are going to play at higher resolutions, AMD is the better solution. Performance per dollar wise, Fury (non X) gives better 4K results then 980Ti. In sheer FPS, no, but costing 100 USD less can getting within 5-10% at 4K, that is admirable for a cheaper card. However at 1440p and 1080p the 980Ti is superior. So outside of the 980Ti, Nvidia sort of loses.

I often disregard OC as a deciding factor, knowing full well how well maxwell cards can OC, i look towards stock performance. Why? Because NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO OC, EVEN IF THERE IS LITTLE CHANCE OF FRYING THE CARD.

This is just a fact. Not everyone wants to do so. And at this point, stock for stock, AMD has a better price to performance offer. Reviews, you know those things we watch then later on refers to as proof of your statements, also indicate that the current 300 series and Fury, barring the FuryX, is capable of OCing enough to keep up (usually not beating) their OCd counterparts. Why? Well, AMD was leading or presening similar performance, so they really just gotta OC to keep the lead, while atm Nvidia gotta OC to first get up to their AMD counterparts in performance (as in 970 needs 5-10% to catch up to 390 before it matches it in all titles), then they need to OC further to BEAT the AMD offering.

So for the time being, AMD has the upper hand.

Yes you can harp on my suggestions all you want, but there is a red line through all of it.

Performance to dollar wise, none of my suggestions are bad.

And often i find other members of this forum suggesting people to burn excessive amounts of money for performance they will NEVER truly enjoy. Like all the morons that suggest 980Ti for 60Hz (ahem 60FPS i mean) 1080p gaming. Completely unrealistic and way too expensive.

Or those who stubbornly demand that you MUST have an i5 to get 60FPS at 1080p or 1440p... No, you dont. There is so many benchmarks out there proving that an i3 or even a Athlon 860k, coupled with the right GPU, can give you the experience you want. Sure SOME GAMES wont let you get 60FPS with those CPUs, but SOME GAMES are just poorly optimized, plain and simple. And if you still MUST play those games, if that shoody optimization must be overcome then ofcourse you need better hardware.

disagree with me all you want. I simply aim to let people build the best possible for the least possible. 200FPS wont do you a damn thing if your monitor can only display 60 of them. That is a fact. Same goes for CSGO players too, 200 FPS wont do a jack shit unless you have a 144Hz monitor. Because with a 60Hz monitor, you see only 60 frames per second, and that means the hardware needed to reach 200 FPS is so excessive on so many levels you simply wasted your money.

[RyGuy99]

I5 4690k

I was struggling with with the evga 970 to stay above 30-40 on certain games

That's your first problem. EVGA 970s don't really overclock that well at all. What was your core clock? I'm sure something like a MSI Gaming or G1 would have fared better. But anyways going for a 980ti or 390x would be your best options more likely.

[ablangc]

well, usually being a deciding factor here. The 980Ti sort of breaks this trend, but short of the 650 USD 980Ti, if you are going to play at higher resolutions, AMD is the better solution. Performance per dollar wise, Fury (non X) gives better 4K results then 980Ti. In sheer FPS, no, but costing 100 USD less can getting within 5-10% at 4K, that is admirable for a cheaper card. However at 1440p and 1080p the 980Ti is superior. So outside of the 980Ti, Nvidia sort of loses.

I often disregard OC as a deciding factor, knowing full well how well maxwell cards can OC, i look towards stock performance. Why? Because NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO OC, EVEN IF THERE IS LITTLE CHANCE OF FRYING THE CARD.

This is just a fact. Not everyone wants to do so. And at this point, stock for stock, AMD has a better price to performance offer. Reviews, you know those things we watch then later on refers to as proof of your statements, also indicate that the current 300 series and Fury, barring the FuryX, is capable of OCing enough to keep up (usually not beating) their OCd counterparts. Why? Well, AMD was leading or presening similar performance, so they really just gotta OC to keep the lead, while atm Nvidia gotta OC to first get up to their AMD counterparts in performance (as in 970 needs 5-10% to catch up to 390 before it matches it in all titles), then they need to OC further to BEAT the AMD offering.

So for the time being, AMD has the upper hand.

Yes you can harp on my suggestions all you want, but there is a red line through all of it.

Performance to dollar wise, none of my suggestions are bad.

And often i find other members of this forum suggesting people to burn excessive amounts of money for performance they will NEVER truly enjoy. Like all the morons that suggest 980Ti for 60Hz (ahem 60FPS i mean) 1080p gaming. Completely unrealistic and way too expensive.

Or those who stubbornly demand that you MUST have an i5 to get 60FPS at 1080p or 1440p... No, you dont. There is so many benchmarks out there proving that an i3 or even a Athlon 860k, coupled with the right GPU, can give you the experience you want. Sure SOME GAMES wont let you get 60FPS with those CPUs, but SOME GAMES are just poorly optimized, plain and simple. And if you still MUST play those games, if that shoody optimization must be overcome then ofcourse you need better hardware.

disagree with me all you want. I simply aim to let people build the best possible for the least possible. 200FPS wont do you a damn thing if your monitor can only display 60 of them. That is a fact. Same goes for CSGO players too, 200 FPS wont do a jack shit unless you have a 144Hz monitor. Because with a 60Hz monitor, you see only 60 frames per second, and that means the hardware needed to reach 200 FPS is so excessive on so many levels you simply wasted your money.

Cliff notes for this? Regardless, your credibility went out the window a long time ago with a lot of fan boy comments coming from you. Even more so when I was against your comment on you recommending a 295x2 as a cheaper and better option when they only had a 650W PSU?

I have severely derailed this topic and I apologize to the original poster. I just get annoyed when I read fanboy/biased comments. I hope you got your answer from other posts.

[Mate]

well, usually being a deciding factor here. The 980Ti sort of breaks this trend, but short of the 650 USD 980Ti, if you are going to play at higher resolutions, AMD is the better solution. Performance per dollar wise, Fury (non X) gives better 4K results then 980Ti. In sheer FPS, no, but costing 100 USD less can getting within 5-10% at 4K, that is admirable for a cheaper card. However at 1440p and 1080p the 980Ti is superior. So outside of the 980Ti, Nvidia sort of loses.

I often disregard OC as a deciding factor, knowing full well how well maxwell cards can OC, i look towards stock performance. Why? Because NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO OC, EVEN IF THERE IS LITTLE CHANCE OF FRYING THE CARD.

This is just a fact. Not everyone wants to do so. And at this point, stock for stock, AMD has a better price to performance offer. Reviews, you know those things we watch then later on refers to as proof of your statements, also indicate that the current 300 series and Fury, barring the FuryX, is capable of OCing enough to keep up (usually not beating) their OCd counterparts. Why? Well, AMD was leading or presening similar performance, so they really just gotta OC to keep the lead, while atm Nvidia gotta OC to first get up to their AMD counterparts in performance (as in 970 needs 5-10% to catch up to 390 before it matches it in all titles), then they need to OC further to BEAT the AMD offering.

So for the time being, AMD has the upper hand.

Yes you can harp on my suggestions all you want, but there is a red line through all of it.

Performance to dollar wise, none of my suggestions are bad.

And often i find other members of this forum suggesting people to burn excessive amounts of money for performance they will NEVER truly enjoy. Like all the morons that suggest 980Ti for 60Hz (ahem 60FPS i mean) 1080p gaming. Completely unrealistic and way too expensive.

Or those who stubbornly demand that you MUST have an i5 to get 60FPS at 1080p or 1440p... No, you dont. There is so many benchmarks out there proving that an i3 or even a Athlon 860k, coupled with the right GPU, can give you the experience you want. Sure SOME GAMES wont let you get 60FPS with those CPUs, but SOME GAMES are just poorly optimized, plain and simple. And if you still MUST play those games, if that shoody optimization must be overcome then ofcourse you need better hardware.

disagree with me all you want. I simply aim to let people build the best possible for the least possible. 200FPS wont do you a damn thing if your monitor can only display 60 of them. That is a fact. Same goes for CSGO players too, 200 FPS wont do a jack shit unless you have a 144Hz monitor. Because with a 60Hz monitor, you see only 60 frames per second, and that means the hardware needed to reach 200 FPS is so excessive on so many levels you simply wasted your money.

YOU WANNA ALWAYS DO OVERCLICKING WITH AN NVIDIA CARD, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCH A LOW TDP, AMD CARDS ARE CRAPPY CARDS THAT ALREADY HAVE THE HIGHEST CLOCK POTENTIAL WITH 1,1Ghz, where as every Nvidia will do 1450mhz+

[Prysin]

YOU WANNA ALWAYS DO OVERCLICKING WITH AN NVIDIA CARD, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCH A LOW TDP, AMD CARDS ARE CRAPPY CARDS THAT ALREADY HAVE THE HIGHEST CLOCK POTENTIAL WITH 1,1Ghz, where as every Nvidia will do 1450mhz+

 

And that is a lie.

 

MOST nvidia cards will do 1450 or more. There is this thing called the silicon lottery, and you are by no means EVER, guaranteed that your card will go over stock speeds, EVER. However MOST CARDS WILL go over 1450. As for AMD, not going to super high clocks. They dont need to. The way AMD cards work, clock for clock, they get more improvements in FPS per clock then Nvidia does, atleast when talking about Maxwell cards. So if you ever found a AMD card in the GTX 970 or 980 range, able to get 1450 or higher (as if that will ever happen), then you would probably smoke most Nvidia cards on the market due to how AMDs OCing scales. You would also set fire to your town, as the heat output would set fire to even a concrete wall.

[Mate]

And that is a lie.

 

MOST nvidia cards will do 1450 or more. There is this thing called the silicon lottery, and you are by no means EVER, guaranteed that your card will go over stock speeds, EVER. However MOST CARDS WILL go over 1450. As for AMD, not going to super high clocks. They dont need to. The way AMD cards work, clock for clock, they get more improvements in FPS per clock then Nvidia does, atleast when talking about Maxwell cards. So if you ever found a AMD card in the GTX 970 or 980 range, able to get 1450 or higher (as if that will ever happen), then you would probably smoke most Nvidia cards on the market due to how AMDs OCing scales. You would also set fire to your town, as the heat output would set fire to even a concrete wall.

Nvidia has a way higher per core performance ffs

[incarnate]

Nvidia has a way higher per core performance ffs

You're comparing two completely different architectures here in a way that is meaningless. Steam processors=/=Cuda cores it's pointless trying to compare them at a core vs core level anyway.