R9 470 to be only 5% slower than the 970

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

To be fair to Patrick there is a world of difference between the game engine guys at Dice, Epic, Valve, Crytek, id software etc and the competence of the typical game developer.

And there's a difference between a nasa programmer and the programmers making a foghorn app for your mobile.

 

In gaming you are hired for the job that needs to be done. Being incompetent for that job is an issue. Not knowing things you don't need to is irrelevant.

[vanished]

16 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I've always found it really wonky to run. At least the original PC version and not the newer port. 

I always thought it was really inefficient.  Later in life I learned it was just locked to 30 fps, which would explain a lot.  Glad I played it while I was young because there's no way I would tolerate that today

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I always thought it was really inefficient.  Later in life I learned it was just locked to 30 fps, which would explain a lot.  Glad I played it while I was young because there's no way I would tolerate that today

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with SA that isn't in 3 or VC. Not much support for 16:9 resolutions like 1280x720, 1360x768, 1920x1080, etc. but it sure as hell supports 16:10 or 5:3 resolutions like 1280x768 or 1440x900

I believe the game is actually capped at 25FPS natively, frame pacing is horrible, too much wrong with it.

[Castdeath97]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

All of his assumptions are sound from a microeconomic perspective and they fall I line with trends from previous years.

Still may or may not occur; it's not certain. I didn't comment on their probability.

[EunSoo]

16 hours ago, GidonsClaw said:

Like the 1080Ti or Pascal Titian? I'll believe it when I see it...

 

 

Vega comes out early January. Would be extremely surprised if AMD didn't release a high end card with HBM2

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I've always found it really wonky to run. At least the original PC version and not the newer port. 

I bought it the day it launched on PC and never patched it (can't lose Hot Coffee ) and I never had any problems. 

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I bought it the day it launched on PC and never patched it (can't lose Hot Coffee ) and I never had any problems. 

kek

Hmm. I might be the oddball out then.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

kek

Hmm. I might be the oddball out then.

What OS did you use? I ran both XP Pro and 2000 Pro. I never tried it on 98SE or Vista though.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Actually, I take it back. I did play it on my work computer which used Vista when we were in between projects one time. 

[Sammael]

It's k.

 

Even if there is only a 5% difference from the 470 to the 970, at 150 cost, nvidia dropped the 970 cost to 280 dollars so it's all k.

 

only twice the price for the same performance on nvidia and maxwell that handles preemption and async so well.

 

nvidia for life, long live nvidia, watch all the nvidia fans snap up 970s

 

 

/and so it began, the destruction of human civilization and the launching into a real world idiocracy.

[captain cactus]

2 hours ago, SCGazelle said:

Vega comes out early January. Would be extremely surprised if AMD didn't release a high end card with HBM2

I fully expect Vega 10 (490(X)) to be coming with GDDR5X just because it's way easier to produce in great quantities, with Vega 11 being the super high-end beast with HBM2. And yes, I know we're putting the same architecture on two vastly different memory interfaces, but at the same time it seems kinda logical to get the slightly lower end stuff on the (still super fast) G5X and the true high-end enthusiast stuff on HBM2.

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

4 hours ago, Humbug said:

To be fair to Patrick there is a world of difference between the game engine guys at Dice, Epic, Valve, Crytek, id software etc and the competence of the typical game developer.

The re: is that most devs shouldnt be using their own engine anyway 

[SLAYR]

2 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

I fully expect Vega 10 (490(X)) to be coming with GDDR5X just because it's way easier to produce in great quantities, with Vega 11 being the super high-end beast with HBM2. And yes, I know we're putting the same architecture on two vastly different memory interfaces, but at the same time it seems kinda logical to get the slightly lower end stuff on the (still super fast) G5X and the true high-end enthusiast stuff on HBM2.

It could be feasible to put hbm on vega 10, even hbm1, they have had time to figure out how to mass produce it by now with the fury lineup, the only difference is that hopefully they will have larger amounts of vram like 8gb or 16gb.

[Agosto]

5 minutes ago, SLAYR said:

It could be feasible to put hbm on vega 10, even hbm1, they have had time to figure out how to mass produce it by now with the fury lineup, the only difference is that hopefully they will have larger amounts of vram like 8gb or 16gb.

You can't put more than 4 GB of HBM1 on a GPU because of the technology itself, that's why both AMD and nvidia are waiting for HBM2.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Agost said:

You can't put more than 4 GB of HBM1 on a GPU because of the technology itself, that's why both AMD and nvidia are waiting for HBM2.

You can, but you have to make a larger interposer and increase the bandwidth by 1024 bits for every GB of VRAM. So it's a bad choice, but it's technically possible.

[minibois]

If it actually performs like that I might get that and a CPU upgrade

[TheAmazingCookieFromSquare]

18 hours ago, Minibois said:

If it actually performs like that I might get that and a CPU upgrade

Isn't your i7 cutting it ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)