Fanboys.

[Clyne]

Thats right there is a moral of the story.

 

When it comes down to it, that's what matters. That the OP gets the best choice for them, not the best choice for you.

Except this is what people do the most on this forum, recommend things based on their preference. 

It's like this

"Sorry, i just prefer a lower heat output and power consumption and features instead of performance so that's why i recommend a 960 over 285/380"

blatant fanboy....

[themaniac]

This forum is heavy Nvidia bias so what do you except. 

Intel=Don't matter as Intel makes better CPUs than AMD, AND THAT'S A FACT

Nvidia=now that just pisses me off, ATi/AMD still make great graphic cards for it's price. 

Any one who says a 960 is better than 285 or a 970 better than a 390 is a straight up Nvidia fanboy, bias, or just plain stupid. 

Facts and benchmarks count, otherwise we can just say a FX 8350 is way better than a 4790K. 

AMD/ATi still makes the best price to performance GPUs, sorry Nvidia but you lost this title for the 970 when it came out last year. How's the 3.5/4GB vram compared to 8GB vram on a 390, plus the 390 performs way better than the 970 in almost every benchmark(except GTA 5, GTA 5 likes nvidia cards).

If you talk about heat and power consumtion, that means you're probably a blatant Nvidia fanboy. You're probably recommending based on your preference, NOT YOURS. GO ON BASED WHAT THE PERSON WANTS, NOT YOU. IT'S UNETHICAL.

can you show some benchmarks of the 390 vs the 970, the benchmarks I've seen show that they perform about the same maybe a 1-3 more fps on the 390

[Clyne]

can you show some benchmarks of the 390 vs the 970, the benchmarks I've seen show that they perform about the same maybe a 1-3 more fps on the 390

Take a look for yourself.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/1.html

Sure trade off in some games or better fps, but the 8GB vram is the advantage that the 390 has over the 970.

Not to mention the 390 costs the same as a 970. 

[themaniac]

Take a look for yourself.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/1.html

Sure trade off in some games or better fps, but the 8GB vram is the advantage that the 390 has over the 970.

Not to mention the 390 costs the same as a 970. 

thanks aslo how much improvement would the 390 have over the 970 in an extremely modded skyrim?

[pckid]

Right now we are only having actual fanboy problems with GPUs. CPUs we are having problems with retard fanboys who still think AMD CPUs are good for gaming.

Just because they may be a bit dated doesn't mean they aren't good for gaming.

[Clyne]

thanks aslo how much improvement would the 390 have over the 970 in an extremely modded skyrim?

.............

It's the vram amount.......

[kipper]

A 390 will destroy a 970 in Skyrim due to Vram, you simply cannot put as many mods in a 4GB framebuffer as you can an 8GB one.

[RyGuy99]

can you show some benchmarks of the 390 vs the 970, the benchmarks I've seen show that they perform about the same maybe a 1-3 more fps on the 390

The problem is finding a benchmark that doesn't use either a near stock 970 vs a overclocked 390 or near stock 390 vs an overclocked 970. Considering those benchmarks show one beating the other by about the same amount in their favoring benchmarks it's safe to say they perform nearly the same at 1080p. However the 390 does beat out the 970 consistently at 1440p and 4K.

[themaniac]

.............

It's the vram amount.......

I know that

[ANewFace]

Just because they may be a bit dated doesn't mean they aren't good for gaming.

They arn't. When Intel's  $115 i3 4160, is beating AMDs $225 FX 9590 in games. Then you know AMD CPUs are bad for gaming.

[Clyne]

You know, I had one in my thread as well, not the same person either

And I'm gonna listen to you why? you offer no facts to back up the claim, no suggestion as to WHY I shouldn't buy an AMD card, other than "it's trash"

I think that user was fed up with AMD fed parts so he blamed AMD. But it was either the store fault or that user's ignorance that got him to that mess and he put the cpu maker to blame. 

[kipper]

They arn't. When Intel's  $115 i3 4160, is beating AMDs $225 FX 9590 in games. Then you know AMD CPUs are bad for gaming.

It's a bit too open a sentence "AMD CPU's are bad for gaming"

 

I mean come on, Phenom II? Was a monster vs C2Q...

 

[don_svetlio]

They arn't. When Intel's  $115 i3 4160, is beating AMDs $225 FX 9590 in games. Then you know AMD CPUs are bad for gaming.

That is not true >.> Please provided your sources.

[tomas710]

I'm sick of it, just because you own X or Y GPU, does not mean you need to talk shit about a different company just to approve your own purchase and stroke your tiny 3rd leg.

 

I will just link some evidence of what is going down as of late.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/413691-gtx-960-vs-r9-380/

 

It's boring and selfish, help the community not your own ego/ ignorance and bias.

Only way i would be a fanboy is if i had stock of the company. Otherwise, they couldn't give 2 shits about you, like the CEOs of Nvidia and AMD go to sleep thinking about their fanboys...pfft, pathetic

[pckid]

They arn't. When Intel's  $115 i3 4160, is beating AMDs $225 FX 9590 in games. Then you know AMD CPUs are bad for gaming.

You are just biased towards Intel. Enough said

[don_svetlio]

Only way i would be a fanboy is if i had stock of the company. Otherwise, they couldn't give 2 shits about you, like the CEOs of Nvidia and AMD go to sleep thinking about their fanboys...pfft, pathetic

I hope Sue senpai notices me today

[kipper]

Only way i would be a fanboy is if i had stock of the company. Otherwise, they couldn't give 2 shits about you, like the CEOs of Nvidia and AMD go to sleep thinking about their fanboys...pfft, pathetic

Well yeah agreed, if i was anything to do with AMD i would be doing this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

But instead i tend to say things like, sure 970 Sli>>>>>>>> 7990 Quad crossfire, but at 4K? i recommend 390 crossfire for those lovely 8GB's Vram.

[ANewFace]

Just because they may be a bit dated doesn't mean they aren't good for gaming.

 

 

It's a bit too open a sentence "AMD CPU's are bad for gaming"

 

I mean come on, Phenom II? Was a monster vs C2Q...

 

 

 

That is not true >.> Please provided your sources.

 

 

You are just biased towards Intel. Enough said

Look at Anandtech, this is an i3 4130t, even worse then a 4160, and this is beating out an FX 9590 in most benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367  But keep im mind that a 4160 is faster so some of the ones that are really close a 4160 would pull ahead.

[pckid]

DirectX12 is going to be better off with the six or eight core processors than the dual cores and quad cores.

[Sovek]

I think that user was fed up with AMD fed parts so he blamed AMD. But it was either the store fault or that user's ignorance that got him to that mess and he put the cpu maker to blame.

Oh, THAT one. I read that thread, and alot of the blame layed on him and and/or the store.

[don_svetlio]

Look at Anandtech, this is an i3 4130t, even worse then a 4160, and this is beating out an FX 9590 in most benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367  But keep im mind that a 4160 is faster so some of the ones that are really close a 4160 would pull ahead.

Mate, check your epeen again. The 9590 beats out the i3

[ANewFace]

Mate, check your epeen again. The 9590 beats out the i3

No the i3 4160 beats of ties a FX 9590

[pckid]

No the i3 4160 beats of ties a FX 9590

What happens when you use multi-threaded applications?

[Clyne]

Well yeah agreed, if i was anything to do with AMD i would be doing this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

But instead i tend to say things like, sure 970 Sli>>>>>>>> 7990 Quad crossfire, but at 4K? i recommend 390 crossfire for those lovely 8GB's Vram.

Have fun using Intel 32 Bit CPUs if AMD ever went bust and the X86-64 license/patent went to Samsung or something.

[ANewFace]

What happens when you use multi-threaded applications?

We are talking about gaming here. With workloads that needs lots of core the 9590 is better, not by as much as you would think but it is, but gaming doesn't need alot of cores, an i3 4160 with it's 2 hyperthreaded cores with usually beat a 9590 with it's 8 slow cores