Is the R9 295x2 still worth it?

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Might want to recheck. Under DX12 8350s are on par with i5s

In GPU bound scenario's <40 fps maybe.

 

 

[Majestic]

7 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Don't. Maxwell's DX12 performance is terrible. Furthermore, 3.5GB of VRAM won't get you anywhere as almost all the mid-range cards coming out are 8GB cards. VRAM is a factor

Maxwell's DX12 performance isn't terrible. The hardware just isn't very fast. 970 only has 3.5Tflops, and the 980 4.6, being just shy of the 390. AMD's hardware is simply faster, but that doesn't imply inability on Nvidia's part. Atleast get the nuance right, will you?

 

They perform just as well in DX12 as AMD does. As is demonstrated by the 1080 wiping the floor with the Fury X in DX12 games.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

Maxwell's DX12 performance isn't terrible. The hardware just isn't very fast. 970 only has 3.5Tflops, and the 980 4.6, being just shy of the 390.

 

They perform just as well in DX12 as AMD does. As is demonstrated by the 1080 wiping the floor with the Fury X in DX12 games.

And the 390X beating the 980 Ti?

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

And the 390X beating the 980 Ti?

What game, that POS Quantum Break? Before or after the patch?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Quantum-Break-Spiel-15745/Specials/Technik-Test-1191358/

 

Why do I even bother, your cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.

 

So i'll refrain to the OP: @Sanderman135

8320 isn't very fast, get the GPU which works best in Synergy. I'd suggest getting a second hand 970 or better 980 if you can get them at a nice price. Which should be imminent given the 480's expected performance. 980 second hand prices should drop. Giving you a card which in theory should be as fast, but runnning on more efficient drivers and give you better performance with a lower-end CPU.

 

295X isn't good value and comes with too many caveats, and will be terrible synergy with the 8320.

[Ryoutarou97]

5 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Maxwell's DX12 performance isn't terrible. The hardware just isn't very fast. 970 only has 3.5Tflops, and the 980 4.6, being just shy of the 390. AMD's hardware is simply faster, but that doesn't imply inability on Nvidia's part. Atleast get the nuance right, will you?

 

They perform just as well in DX12 as AMD does. As is demonstrated by the 1080 wiping the floor with the Fury X in DX12 games.

295x2 is a perfectly fine card, but I would go for a 480 instead. It's not on the same level of performance, but it'll be $450 for two new ones that will have much lower power consumption.

4 minutes ago, Majestic said:

They perform just as well in DX12 as AMD does. As is demonstrated by the 1080 wiping the floor with the Fury X in DX12 games.

It's almost like that's not Maxwell. Great that the 16nm flagship  card is beating the 28nm one.

[Majestic]

7 minutes ago, Ryoutarou97 said:

It's almost like that's not Maxwell. Great that the 16nm flagship  card is beating the 28nm one.

Pascal is Maxwell on steroids. There is nothing special about it. And if AMD's edge in DX12 was apparent, their 4096bit HBM, 8.5 teraflop card should have no trouble with the 9 teraflop GTX 1080.  They butt heads in Ashes (gee, suprise given their raw compute), but in drawcall heavy games the 1080 wins, because it's always had more driver drawcall throughput.

 

Nvidia's DX12 performance isn't any better or worse. They just didn't want to admit their hardware was weak, and that they capitalized on AMD's inability to saturate their hardware. Look at the GTX 680, that wasn't supposed to be the flagship. GK104 was supposed to be the midrange, GK110 the top-end. They've been selling midrange chips as top-end chips, because they could. 

 

But can we stop debating semantics and leave the tribalism out of this? 

[Brad Rifkin]

The R9 295x2 is like:

Large, powerful and power hungry.

Any benefits at the moment?  Nope.

Unstable?  Yep.

Waste of money?  Yep.

[othertomperson]

No. Get a 1080, 1070, 980 Ti or Fury X instead

[Ryoutarou97]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

Pascal is Maxwell on steroids. There is nothing special about it. And if AMD's edge in DX12 was apparent, their 4096 bit HBM, 8.5 teraflop card should have no trouble with the 9 teraflop GTX 1080.  They butt heads in Ashes (gee, surprise given their raw compute), but in draw call heavy games the 1080 wins, because it's always had more driver draw call throughput.

Pascal is as much Maxwell on steroids as Maxwell is Kepler. It's a new architecture. TFLOPS are a measure of computer performance- not how well the cards do in gaming. In compute performance, sure, the Fury X is on par with the 1080 (although it lacks half the VRAM) but we're not measuring compute. Look at benches or just ask anyone- the 1080 and the fury X do not compete. The two cards are not in the same bracket.

[Majestic]

45 minutes ago, Ryoutarou97 said:

Pascal is as much Maxwell on steroids as Maxwell is Kepler. It's a new architecture. TFLOPS are a measure of computer performance- not how well the cards do in gaming. In compute performance, sure, the Fury X is on par with the 1080 (although it lacks half the VRAM) but we're not measuring compute. Look at benches or just ask anyone- the 1080 and the fury X do not compete. The two cards are not in the same bracket.

You literally only repeated what I said. Meaning you didn't actually read what I said.

 

They're on par in raw performance, but not in games. Implying inefficiencies on AMD's drivers part to turn properly saturate the hardware and deal with many drawcalls. Which is what I said. And why i'm also saying that for the OP, going for the nvidia hardware with a lower-end CPU is the better option. AMD has more driver overhead, also with newer drivers, DX12 and new graphics cards. All they do is raise the bar or change the absolute figures, never fix the underlying problem.

[Ryoutarou97]

4 hours ago, Majestic said:

You literally only repeated what I said. Meaning you didn't actually read what I said.

It was two sentences. I read it.

4 hours ago, Majestic said:

They're on par in raw performance, but not in games. Implying inefficiencies on AMD's drivers part to turn properly saturate the hardware and deal with many drawcalls. Which is what I said. And why i'm also saying that for the OP, going for the nvidia hardware with a lower-end CPU is the better option. AMD has more driver overhead, also with newer drivers, DX12 and new graphics cards. All they do is raise the bar or change the absolute figures, never fix the underlying problem.

But it doesn't imply inefficiency there specifically! It could be any part of the graphics pipeline holding it back, not necessarily drivers. Games and computing don't necessarily use the same parts of a graphics card as heavily. Saying that it's driver inefficiency is too simplistic when in reality it could be one or many causes. If it was as simple as a driver problem holding cards back by 30%, I really think that AMD (or writers of custom drivers) would have fixed that.

[Majestic]

18 minutes ago, Ryoutarou97 said:

It was two sentences. I read it.

But it doesn't imply inefficiency there specifically! It could be any part of the graphics pipeline holding it back, not necessarily drivers. Games and computing don't necessarily use the same parts of a graphics card as heavily. Saying that it's driver inefficiency is too simplistic when in reality it could be one or many causes. If it was as simple as a driver problem holding cards back by 30%, I really think that AMD (or writers of custom drivers) would have fixed that.

If you can remedy it by applying a faster CPU, i'm pretty sure it's software...

[Ryoutarou97]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

If you can remedy it by applying a faster CPU, i'm pretty sure it's software...

If you include software pipeline faster CPU affects the game engine, batching, etc. For OP I would still recommend a 480 or if willing to spend the extra $30 a 1070, though.

[Sanderman135]

I come back hours later to see the chaos I have started. It doesn't look good for either the AMD or nVidia fanboys. 

 

In all seriousness though, I'll probably just wait for Polaris and skip the 295X2, as much as a badass, power-hungry, bohemoth it is. But the performance of the RX 480 looks very promising and if for some reason it doesn't meet my needs, I could get a second one down the road. Thanks to all for the input.