AMD's Phil Rogers jumps to nVidia

[LukaP]

Overclocked 970 loses to overclocked 390.

If its in the category of "can i use it instead of central heating" then definitely. No matter how good of a cooler, when your GPU when overclocked chugs out 350-400W of heat, you will feel it.

 

For now, maybe. Come back and say that when that 3.5Gb isn't sufficient enough. (Which isn't far off.) 

It is. As long as Ubisoft and EA decide to properly code their engines, 3GB is more than enough VRAM for anything up to including 4K. which means atleast a few more years (which honestly is more than a life cycle of a midrange card)

[LukaP]

The difference between generations is small from Sandy Bridge and onward. Lynnfield, Clarkfield and Bloomfield are FAR weaker than Sandy Bridge, and it is a massive jump from them to any later generation.

not really, Nahalem (Lynnfield) is about 10-12% slower than Sandy Bridge. Haswell is then 10-15% faster than SB. not really an anomaly as people put it

[4960X]

somebody buy them already.

[ivan134]

If its in the category of "can i use it instead of central heating" then definitely. No matter how good of a cooler, when your GPU when overclocked chugs out 350-400W of heat, you will feel it.

 

It is. As long as Ubisoft and EA decide to properly code their engines, 3GB is more than enough VRAM for anything up to including 4K. which means atleast a few more years (which honestly is more than a life cycle of a midrange card)

No, I'm pretty sure I was talking about performance. Thanks for caring about my well being, but I think I'll be alright.

[don_svetlio]

If its in the category of "can i use it instead of central heating" then definitely. No matter how good of a cooler, when your GPU when overclocked chugs out 350-400W of heat, you will feel it.

 

It is. As long as Ubisoft and EA decide to properly code their engines, 3GB is more than enough VRAM for anything up to including 4K. which means atleast a few more years (which honestly is more than a life cycle of a midrange card)

I think you're over exaggerating. the 390 OCed produces a lot of heat, yes but TDP is an arbitrary number which the engineer who designed it made up - a different engineer might rate the 390 as 200W TDP or 500W TDP - it's down to personal opinion as there is no unified source on the matter.

As for Performance - 390 is a better bet, both in DX11 and DX12. 970 is severely bandwidth starved (being a 224-bit 3.5GB + 32-bit 0.5GB card) and needs OCing to be remotely able to compete with a 390

[MageTank]

I think you're over exaggerating. the 390 OCed produces a lot of heat, yes but TDP is an arbitrary number which the engineer who designed it made up - a different engineer might rate the 390 as 200W TDP or 500W TDP - it's down to personal opinion as there is no unified source on the matter.

As for Performance - 390 is a better bet, both in DX11 and DX12. 970 is severely bandwidth starved (being a 224-bit 3.5GB + 32-bit 0.5GB card) and needs OCing to be remotely able to compete with a 390

It's not that TDP is an arbitrary number, its that different companies gauge it differently. Some companies will list the TDP as the absolute maximum heat a processor will use, while others will list it as the general heat produced under normal circumstances. This is where we get mix-ups. Intel tried to change this by listing what is called a "Scenario Design Power" which basically means "if you use the product exactly how it is designed, this is what you should expect". It is by no means a way to gauge the absolute maximum heat a processor can produce, but it helps having more points of reference.

 

To be honest with you, as long as the cooler gets the job done, TDP is not important for most users. If you are an ITX fanatic, it might have a huge impact on you, but for normal, high air flow cases or people that throw waterblocks at things, it won't make a difference. After all, most cards are tested and designed to work at their rated speeds. 

 

Also, before anyone dares to mention it, no, the Titan cards did not "throttle" that bad. Yes, they throttled, but they never fell outside of their advertised clock speeds, and in some cases, still went above their rated boost speeds. 

[Mix]

I have no issues with drivers, heat or anything on my 750 TI by EVGA. So thanks for the assumptions people. All the posts after the og are basically memes

[spartaman64]

this is nothing new i bet there are plenty of people at amd that worked for nvidia

[Sauron]

Uh oh. AMD, please get stuff together and make great CPUs/GPUs again...

 

their current gpu lineup is very good

[FireFox]

Why do you find that even remotely funny, we all know that AMD "sinking" isn't a good thing.

 

Yeah remember that 480 and 580?

 

 

Don't forget the GTX 285, she was a warm one.

[MrDynamicMan]

At least he makes his stance clear up front unlike a lot of people who continue to deny their bias. Either way the facts are being reported. So if you don't want him reporting the facts, do it before him.

yeah, I guess so. It just gets a bit over the top when anything bad about AMD is garunteed to be his post.

[don_svetlio]

yeah, I guess so. It just gets a bit over the top when anything bad about AMD is garunteed to be his post.

Well - I personally find his posts sort of silly - I mean - disclosing resent is one thing, doing it like a 12-year-old is another

Don't forget the GTX 285, she was a warm one.

[ErickS89]

Im talking about First gen i5/i7 series, which, only have about a 25% difference in ipc over a modern 6600.

But, that also tells you something.

First Gen i5/i7s are actually still in use mainly because games haven't outgrown them and most upgrades have been to the GPU and PSU and leaving the mobo and cpu alone.

5 years is really the golden time to upgrade, any sooner and you're seeing little improvements in ipc but big improvements in features.  

 

I'm building a z170/sma8 rig now but will be upgrading to skylake-e in year for more ram and core count, and skylake has more features on board that I need than x99 had to offer minus more ram and cores.  Even still, an MSI Z170 M9 ACK, a i7-6700k, titan-x, 32gb of ddr4 memory, and everything watercooled minus ram(there's like.. no gains just bling factor) will be plenty fast, adding more cores and ram would just help out rendering times, but I don't make my money on making videos I make my living off of web development, design, and logos. 

 

But back on point, if you want a significant upgrade than it's best to wait a couple of years and just check up on it to see if an upgrade is worth it.   I went from a core 2 duo to an i7-3820 in 2012 and that was a pretty big upgrade, and again from an 8800 Ultra to a 680 boosted game performance by a decent margin.   It will be awhile before I need to upgrade my Titan-X, and if I need moar powah I can just add another GPU (and another $160 for water cooling) for gpu performance.

[Dabombinable]

Well - I personally find his posts sort of silly - I mean - disclosing resent is one thing, doing it like a 12-year-old is another

I thought that was Intel when trying to make a faster Pentium 4.

[patrickjp93]

I thought that was Intel when trying to make a faster Pentium 4.

No no no. You're both wrong. It's AMD when they first tested the FX 9590 and didn't have a strong enough heat sink.

[MageTank]

No no no. You're both wrong. It's AMD when they first tested the FX 9590 and didn't have a strong enough heat sink.

I found leaked footage of that very fire.