Fury x or 980ti

[El Diablo]

But u know what it all depends down to the game devs, i doubt they will waste time specificialy programming every thread properly into asyncronous compute, thats why microsoft stated the fable benchmark is more realistic because it was,,

 

il state

 

DISREGARD FPS

 

fps isnt a indicator of quality

 

i do however admit that nvidia cards deliver a much more solid and fluid frame pacing than the amd cards

 

but look at the gpu features

 

FPS is always fluctuating

 

1-5 fps wont  make no difference man when the end of your day your pc setup isnt going to be the setup and conditions of a benchmark

 

go with gpu features, temps,, what you find sexy

 

fps does not equal quality

[El Diablo]

and rember,, EVERY GAME IS MADE TO BE RAN ON THE AMD JAGUAR WHICH FEATURES GCN architecture which heavily revolves around async

 

nvidia needs gameworks to stay in the game

 

amd run the gaming market, every game is made for their platform

 

but nvidia are just too shady for me

[Big-G]

3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

How, referance 980ti gets beat by the fury x every time

 

 

Who buys reference these days?

[Big-G]

3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

EXACTLY

 

AMD HAVE HAD THE DX12 FEATURE SET SINCE LIKE 2009

 

NVIDIA CANT OVERNIGHT THE DX12 FEATURES

 

look im sorry,im not attacking you guys

 

look NON REFERANCE 980 TITANIUMS are faster than a fury x

 

but in dx12  NOPE they geat beat

Do you actually understand the meaning of DX12 support? There's two feature sets 12_0 and 12_1, both based on minimum requirements for DX12 with additional features.

 

Async... is a feature but not a requirement of DX12 base or 12_1 which is supported by Nvidia.

 

Please understand the differences in DX12 support.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12

[El Diablo]

59 minutes ago, GidonsClaw said:

Do you actually understand the meaning of DX12 support? There's two feature sets 12_0 and 12_1, both based on minimum requirements for DX12 with additional features.

 

Async... is a feature but not a requirement of DX12 base or 12_1 which is supported by Nvidia.

 

Please understand the differences in DX12 support.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12

I knew that, but not the requirement thing

 

so what are dx12 requirements then?

 

why havent nvidia addressed the async stuff

 

computer geeks usually love doing stuff like that

[Big-G]

33 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

so what are dx12 requirements then?

Did you actually read the link?

Quote

Direct3D 12 requires graphics hardware conforming to feature levels 11_0 and 11_1 which support virtual memory address translations.

12_0 and 12_1 are feature levels optional to these...

 

Nvidia's Maxwell architecture was CUDA focused which helped it exceed in DX11 support, this meant throwing out hardware Async. The design still supports Async, but not as optimal to hardware implementation. Although some may say the architecture might be strong enough to handle software Async faster than AMD's hardware Async But still Async is not a requirement for DX12 support.

 

Time will tell... but back to the bottom line... both AMD and Nvidia GPU's are DX12 compliant... just in different ways.

[Kryptyx]

8 hours ago, El Diablo said:

im talking about released games

 

sory wrong comment

 

blud they had 6months

 

why did they ask the feature to be turned off

 

comeon man

 

fuck nvidia

 

bro

 

fuck them

OK, I see you're just another fanboy who isn't interested in factual information. Carry on.

[A/C]

11 hours ago, Kryptyx said:

OK, I see you're just another fanboy who isn't interested in factual information. Carry on.

 

@El Diablo

...and nobody likes fanboys over here.

 

And please stop posting comments in a row, there's an edit function you know... It de-rails the thread.

 

This post isn't meant to insult anyone, it's meant to inform that actions like these are generally frowned upon on tech forums, and  that they don't help your credibility as a venerable source.

 

[WynLore]

16 hours ago, El Diablo said:

go look yourself

I checked and the 980 Ti still won more often than the Fury X.

So, unless you're gonna provide me proof on your statements, whether we like it or not (I actually hate Nvidia more than AMD, honestly) the Fury X took that L.

[El Diablo]

15 hours ago, Kryptyx said:

OK, I see you're just another fanboy who isn't interested in factual information. Carry on.

the facts are they havent addressed it

 

half a year to address a situation that makes their cards look like bad purchases is not acceptable

 

im not hating, im just going by what i see

 

if anything you guys should be all in nvidia flipping bricks complaining why they havent addressed it

[El Diablo]

7 hours ago, WynLore said:

I checked and the 980 Ti still won more often than the Fury X.

So, unless you're gonna provide me proof on your statements, whether we like it or not (I actually hate Nvidia more than AMD, honestly) the Fury X took that L.

i saw the latest benchmarks a few days ago

 

fury x was ontop on all of them

 

they were in the comment section of the wccftech website 

[El Diablo]

15 hours ago, A/C said:

 

@El Diablo

...and nobody likes fanboys over here.

 

And please stop posting comments in a row, there's an edit function you know... It de-rails the thread.

 

This post isn't meant to insult anyone, it's meant to inform that actions like these are generally frowned upon on tech forums, and  that they don't help your credibility as a venerable source.

 

im not fanboying

 

yea its cool im not taking anything as an insult

 

i hope i dont come off as agressive here

[WynLore]

Just now, El Diablo said:

i saw the latest benchmarks a few days ago

 

fury x was ontop on all of them

 

they were in the comment section of the wccftech website 

Then link it to me since you really want to prove it. And no, I've pretty much wasted an effort replying to you and I'm not gonna waste any more effort searching for it. Afterall, you're the one insisting its the better card.

[El Diablo]

Just now, WynLore said:

Then link it to me since you really want to prove it. And no, I've pretty much wasted an effort replying to you and I'm not gonna waste any more effort searching for it. Afterall, you're the one insisting its the better card.

same

 

cant be fucked to go look for it

 

u dont have to believe me

 

thats fine

 

 

[WynLore]

Just now, El Diablo said:

same

 

cant be fucked to go look for it

 

u dont have to believe me

 

thats fine

 

 

Because you're not linking us to anything that supports your statement. Its your statement, back it up.

[kronickiller]

i am a amd guy

woulda still get me a 980ti lol

or just save a ton of cash and get a nano

[BuckGup]

On 3/8/2016 at 10:43 PM, El Diablo said:

DONT JUST LOOK AT FPS

 

Fury x has LIQUID VR

HBM.. GAMES LOAD UP SOOO FAST

VCE 3.0 (1-2 Fps loss when recording at high bitrates and upto 4K 60FPS or more i think and nvidia shadowplay comes nothing close to the quality and file sizez ,nor does intel)

TrueAudio (takes audio off the cpu and puts it on a special audio chip on the chip giving way more fps even though no benchmarkers bother to use it)

UVD

LIQUID V.R

VERY LOW TEMPS

feels very sexy ,it has a rubbery thing on it

wont make the inside of your pc hot

has WAAAAAAAAAY better 3.d support, will run basicaly any game in 3.d on any 3d capable tv

 

e.c.t

I am pretty sure HBM doesn't make games load faster. Large amounts of fast RAM, virus free OS, and an SSD would change that. The higher bandwidth in Vram would allow for higher res textures and not a bottleneck on the Vram but I have yet to see a game do this unless you are using more then it has. Also liquid cooling doesn't cool your PC down, it is the same temp as air cooling. Linus just did a video on this. I think you are either a troll or a fanboy that has it all wrong

[grayperview]

52 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

I am pretty sure HBM doesn't make games load faster. Large amounts of fast RAM, virus free OS, and an SSD would change that. The higher bandwidth in Vram would allow for higher res textures and not a bottleneck on the Vram but I have yet to see a game do this unless you are using more then it has. Also liquid cooling doesn't cool your PC down, it is the same temp as air cooling. Linus just did a video on this. I think you are either a troll or a fanboy that has it all wrong

I think he is referring to shader caching has now disappeared from AMD drivers for some reason, this did actually work quite well, in terms of loading games a bit faster...unsure where its gone or why it's now gone in crimson 16.2.1

[2dfx]

On a side note regarding team red vs team green...you have to wonder what is going through Nvidia's head at the planning level.  Seems to me like they're slacking on the innovation side of things.  No async compute aside, Nvidia has traditionally been ahead of AMD or toe-to-toe with them from a hardware perspective.  

 

But it almost seems like they're taking an "Intel vs AMD" position where their market lead is so great that they can afford to rest on their laurels.  To me, their market lead isn't THAT great that they can be doing it.  AMD, at least on the graphics front, is working on new emerging tech and innovating in the space to have that robust, future proof edge.

 

I do NOT see Nvidia doing this.  And I think it's going to cost them...

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, super_skank said:

I think he is referring to shader caching has now disappeared from AMD drivers for some reason, this did actually work quite well, in terms of loading games a bit faster...unsure where its gone or why it's now gone in crimson 16.2.1

Oh weird

[Kryptyx]

4 hours ago, El Diablo said:

the facts are they havent addressed it

 

half a year to address a situation that makes their cards look like bad purchases is not acceptable

 

im not hating, im just going by what i see

 

if anything you guys should be all in nvidia flipping bricks complaining why they havent addressed it

Why? The games aren't out yet so it's a non issue for me. I'll wait to see what happens when more games use DX12 but by then I'm sure I'll have moved on to Pascal or whatever comes next. My cards perform great at the moment. In my opinion no game that matters is using DX12.

[Big-G]

4 hours ago, El Diablo said:

the facts are they havent addressed it

 

half a year to address a situation that makes their cards look like bad purchases is not acceptable

 

im not hating, im just going by what i see

 

if anything you guys should be all in nvidia flipping bricks complaining why they havent addressed it

Nvidia has addressed it with updated drivers... fact.

 

Now let it go...

[El Diablo]

[El Diablo]

[El Diablo]

 

NUFF SAID