again with the fud and nonsense... the 290X ($300) is only ~8% slower on average than the GTX 980 ($560). if you wan't to compare cards in the same price class, the 295x2 ($650) is roughly 80% faster on average than the GTX 980 ($560, and the 290X ($300) is roughly 10% faster than the GTX 970 ($300+). so get out of here with the games running poorly nonsense.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index8.html
it's very clearly faster than even a highly overclocked 970 in all but one game at 1440p. significantly so in some games. so yes, yes it is faster than a 970, while also being cheaper. and comparing a dual card to a single card is fair game when they are in the same price class. even with the issues, the 295x is a MUCH faster card than nvidia's closest priced competitor (the gtx 980), and faster than the $1000 titan-x in most cases as well.. so its a completely fair comparison. the GTX 980 is embarassingly poor for its pricepoint compared to a $300 290X as well, it costs $200 more than it should given its performance. and those are simply the facts.
It is unrelated to what was being discussed.yea its worse since you cant ever fix it.
I'm certainly not going to go into this song and dance with you again.http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index8.html
it's very clearly faster than even a highly overclocked 970 in all but one game at 1440p. significantly so in some games. so yes, yes it is faster than a 970, while also being cheaper. and comparing a dual card to a single card is fair game when they are in the same price class. even with the issues, the 295x2is a MUCH faster card than nvidia's closest priced competitor (the gtx 980), and faster than the $1000 titan-x in most cases as well.. so its a completely fair comparison. the GTX 980 is embarassingly poor for its pricepoint compared to a $300 290X as well, it costs $200 more than it should given its performance. and those are simply the facts. were the GTX 980 $379 - 399, i wouldnt even be arguing against it. at $560, its a complete joke. AMD's 18 month old card that currently retails for $300 is fairly competitive, and that says a whole lot, especially given Nvidia's massive cash reserves to devote to R&D, the 980 shouldve been 50% faster than the 290X at its pricepoint, and with the time advantage nvidia had.
Putting aside the fact that I don't believe you about the above, I was actually just making a joke about it being silly to criticise Nvidia for releasing compatibility profiles given how differently the various game engines in use today perform similar tasks.
That's... not a $300 video card.
nvidia cards aren't any quieter than their amd counterparts if you ignore reference coolers (almost nobody has a reference 290/290X, and nobody is making/selling them anymore). they draw more power, true, but nvidias quoted TDP figures are far far too conservative, the cards often exceed them under load, where AMD cards rarely hit their TDP figures (unless overclocked). its just another way nvidia is lying to people really. I have a 290X in a silverstone RVZ01B case, heat isn't an issue, at all, so stop spreading fud please.
![]()
would you look at that, aftermarket 290X is quieter than a GTX 970? you don't say?
![]()
what's that? 290X only uses 30 - 60 watts more than GTX 970? not the 150+ more watts people are constantly claiming? come on get real with that nonsense about heat/power and noise.
![]()
what's this? the aftermarket 290X runs cooler than the GTX 970 (and thus 980 as well)? Gee.......
Yep, I much prefer the AMD approach of making every game run poorly.
It is unrelated to what was being discussed.
What is stopping AMD from working with devs with coding? I love how Nvidia is blamed for poor AMD performance even it's ultimately up to AMD to approach devs and support them. Nvidia cares about Nvidia performance. They have no obligations towards AMD cards. Yet we don't see AMD do the same. Why? Why is working with devs and optimizing their games for your GPU brand such an impossible task for AMD? Just look at Ground Zeroes PC port. Nvidia gave KojiPro a wide range of Nvidia cards to test GZ on. Tests that most likely ended up benefitting AMD users aswell. Did AMD do anything similiar? Nope.Which games specifically? I'm sure the ones in your head are a bunch of nVidia Gameworks titles that contractually prevent developers giving AMD access to the game to optimize before release.
Why is it unrelated? Even if its hardware vs software why can't hardware problems be brought up in software problems regarding graphics cards?
Don't understand that line of thought. Amds heat issues are brought up when talking drivers and such but thats hardware and not considered unrelated.
Seems like a lot of people got burnt by ATi/AMD over the years and have since turned into Nvidia-only users. I'm among them.
It is perfectly fine to bring it up in the thread. It is just unrelated to bring it up as a counterargument for AMD having bad driver support.
I disagree. AMD's mind-numbingly stupid strategy of releasing drivers (and Crossfire profiles) every 3-4 months is probably up there in the list of reasons why people defect to team green.
In what way has 3,5GB VRAM in the 970 been an issue for you?Well actually is was problems with amd that he never had with nvidia. So i said a problem i had with nvida that i never had with amd.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index8.html
it's very clearly faster than even a highly overclocked 970 in all but one game at 1440p. significantly so in some games. so yes, yes it is faster than a 970, while also being cheaper. and comparing a dual card to a single card is fair game when they are in the same price class. even with the issues, the 295x2is a MUCH faster card than nvidia's closest priced competitor (the gtx 980), and faster than the $1000 titan-x in most cases as well.. so its a completely fair comparison. the GTX 980 is embarassingly poor for its pricepoint compared to a $300 290X as well, it costs $200 more than it should given its performance. and those are simply the facts. were the GTX 980 $379 - 399, i wouldnt even be arguing against it. at $560, its a complete joke. AMD's 18 month old card that currently retails for $300 is fairly competitive, and that says a whole lot, especially given Nvidia's massive cash reserves to devote to R&D, the 980 shouldve been 50% faster than the 290X at its pricepoint, and with the time advantage nvidia had.
In what way has 3,5GB VRAM in the 970 been an issue for you?
After buying a AMD card around 2010, I aint touching them again for a long time.
Best thing I did for my PC was jumping over to Nvidia a few months ago.
Wouldn't be shocked if a decent percentage of the Nvidia spike in recent times are disgruntled former AMD users who felt burned. They had a real bad rough patch for a while and it has cost them dearly.
Your performance at higher resolutions are going to be same whether it's 3,5 GB or 4GB. There are other factors that limit the 970 at higher resolutions first and foremost. Any actual examples where you hit such "VRAM walls"?Was told i was getting 4gb when im not. So getting lied to sucks. stuttering when hitting 4gb of vram early when i thought i wouldnt. Performing worse at higher resolutions then it should because of hitting a vram wall that i didnt know existed.
Etc.
Yet, it will still outsell AMD's offerings until they're able to flip their company around. This is all AMD's fault. Nvidia's high prices are AMD's fault.
Your performance at higher resolutions are going to be same whether it's 3,5 GB or 4GB. There are other factors that limit the 970 at higher resolutions first and foremost. Any actual examples where you hit such "VRAM walls"?
Wait, wait wait.
I clearly read the chart wrong. I thought it was AMD that was winning. What happened? I thought Nvidia shit the bed with their tech and that's why none of the big 3 console makers were using them anymore?
Is this a joke? It's hard to tell.
We have you and Chris Tucker to thank next time midrange costs $400 D:As an Nvidia fan this graph pleases me.
Glad to have done my part, I won't leave the green team anytime soon. Their hardware is amazing and so is their software support.
We have you and Chris Tucker to thank next time midrange costs $400 D:
970 costs 360 new here in Germany.GTX 970 is 270 bucks brand new... 960 is $190.
the midrange on the nvidia side already costs $330, it's bad enough already. long gone are the days of performance/dollar on the nvidia side. if amd goes under expect to pay $2500 for high and and $750 for midrange. and people will pay because they wont have a choice. actually if amd goes under intel will actually put resources into making good gpus, my guess is they are waiting for AMD to die before trying to go after nvidia. and intel has the money and the engineers to put nvidia under if and/or when they decide to go to war.
the midrange on the nvidia side already costs $330, it's bad enough already. long gone are the days of performance/dollar on the nvidia side. if amd goes under expect to pay $2500 for high and and $750 for midrange. and people will pay because they wont have a choice. actually if amd goes under intel will actually put resources into making good gpus, my guess is they are waiting for AMD to die before trying to go after nvidia. and intel has the money and the engineers to put nvidia under if and/or when they decide to go to war.
Nvidia's mid-range GPU, the 960 does not cost 330.
No?
I don't follow the graphics card industry.
It's so very sad to identify yourself as a 'fan' of any corporation and at being pleased at a lack of competition.As an Nvidia fan this graph pleases me.
Glad to have done my part, I won't leave the green team anytime soon. Their hardware is amazing and so is their software support.
AMD only have themselves to blame.
the midrange on the nvidia side already costs $330, it's bad enough already. long gone are the days of performance/dollar on the nvidia side. if amd goes under expect to pay $2500 for high and and $750 for midrange. and people will pay because they wont have a choice. actually if amd goes under intel will actually put resources into making good gpus, my guess is they are waiting for AMD to die before trying to go after nvidia. and intel has the money and the engineers to put nvidia under if and/or when they decide to go to war.
the 970 is the midrange maxwell part, the titan-x is the high end maxwell part. nvidia has been doing this shit for a couple years now, releasing midrange cards as upper midrange/high end and charging absurd prices for the actual high end card.
I'm beyond salvation and not unhappy with that.It's so very sad to identify yourself as a 'fan' of any corporation and at being pleased at a lack of competition.
Misguided lost lamb.
Nvidia's mid-range GPU, the 960 does not cost 330.
Wait for the 300 series to launch before panicking. If the market share doesn't increase substantially, that's when you'll know it's time.