Slightly surprised there wasn't a bump for AMD during the bitcoin mining craze. The 300 series cards are shaping up to be pivotal for AMD, I'd hate to see them be bought out by Sammy to refocus mostly on mobile chips.
Slightly surprised there wasn't a bump for AMD during the bitcoin mining craze. The 300 series cards are shaping up to be pivotal for AMD, I'd hate to see them be bought out by Sammy to refocus mostly on mobile chips.
There are trade-offs though. A 290x has a much higher TDP and gets much hotter than any 970, with or without overclocks.
I kind of disagree. For instance, when I bought my 780ti, I bought it the day it launched. My version cost 730$. A GTX 980 which is a faster card (by about 10-15% overall) and has 1GB more Vram released at 550$. The 970, for instance released at 330$ I believe and is faster than the GTX 780 which released for 550$ while having more Vram. A 10-15% jump each generation is just fine and most people will probably upgrade every 2-3 years.
It depends on whether they can offer that same kind of boost AND the solid price-performance ratio the way that the 900 series managed. NVIDIA's stinginess with VRAM in the 700 series for all but the most expensive cards totally put me off of those, because I figured that more would be necessary once next-gen titles started coming out. And that's exactly what happened.
I vowed to never buy AMD again after 3 strikes. First was my Phenom II processor which had a faulty third core. Second and third were multiple 4670s from different manufacturers that ran so hot the thermal paste just disappeared, even after multiple reapplications. The bonus round is my old HP laptop video card that never got new drivers, but that was more HP's fault for having some weird proprietary discrete/dedicated card.
I'm strictly Intel/Nvidia now, and I don't anticipate leaving anytime soon now that I have 3DVision and GSync.
No, you don't. Nobody that's had an AMD card in the last 3 or 4 years should have any complaints.
The fact that you're referring to them as "ATI" in 2015 tells me all I need to know about your current knowledge and experience with their products.
Oh come on. You don't speak for other people. Fucking Gabe Newell called them ATI in a recent interview he did at GDC. Clearly that guy has no idea what he's talking about in computer hardware and software.
GTX970 is now about $430 beaver bucks.
960s float in the low 300s.
Am cry.
Shame. I've owned both GPU's and want healthy market competition. It serves us, the consumer, for the better.
The fact that you're referring to them as "ATI" in 2015 tells me all I need to know about your current knowledge and experience with their products.
It's not just consumers (or at least it doesn't look like). It's also reviewers and so on. I recently saw some site label the R9 290 as a mid-range graphic card, while the 970 (which are pretty much in the same range) be labeled as a high-end graphic card.
If we're not honest in all fronts, it's no wonder AMD will perform terribly. I've recently switched from a GTX 660 to a R9 290 because, in Spain, it's literally 90 cheaper (that's over 100$) than the 970s, and the card runs great with a 650 watt PSU. I haven't experienced any issues with drivers, and the only thing I miss (and not that much) is Shadowplay, but GVR and OBS with AMD VCE support for the games that don't support GVR works just as well.
There's a lot of false information being spread around in both fronts, and that doesn't help...
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.......
In regards to TDP, I think toms or anandtech mentioned in an article that nvidia uses a different definition that isn't what is conventional, whereas AMD uses the standard, which is why nvidia can draw more than what they state and AMD doesn't.
When anandtech and other reviews review the card, they still measure power consumption. It doesn't really matter if Nvidia calls it something else the reviews still get the proper power consumption readings.
30-40+ watts over two years is a HUGE difference in energy usage and money savings which are things I consider when choosing similar cards.
Not trying to argue one brand over another just throwing facts out there.
40 watt difference under load for 8 hours a day, every single day is, based on the US average, $14.016 per year. when the AMD equivalent to the GTX 980 costs $260 less than it, $14/yr isn't even relevant to this discussion (unless you plan to use these cares for 18 and a half years, which is how long it would take for the added energy cost to make their price equal).
The AMD equivalent to the 980 doesn't yet exist. I fail to see your point. I'm talking about when people are looking towards similar performing cards with smaller price differences.
The funny thing is, I dont even consider buying AMD hardware ever any longer. The last time I considered it was around the R600 era, but we know how that turned out.
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.......
i mean for as much as people complain about nvidias prices, its pretty clear a lot of that revenue gets recycled into R&D to keep pushing tech forward
AMD's innovations on the otherhand...its pretty clear their earnings mostly just go to keeping the status quo
Nice try.
Reference 970 boost clock:1178 Mhz
970 Superclocked boost clock: 1317 Mhz
Keep talking about spreading fud.
Nice try.
Reference 970 boost clock:1178 Mhz
970 Superclocked boost clock: 1317 Mhz
Keep talking about spreading fud.
I'm sure it took you awhile to gather that information but the person you were responding to made an uneditted post (before you finished your response) where they believe 40 watt difference is amazing for energy cost savings.
I see this as less than fud and more like some very liberal standards.
Nope, that HIS R9 290X 4GB works at reference clocks, meanwhile both Nvidias are overclocked.
It isn't that difficult to find reference 970 reviews.
Nope, that HIS R9 290X 4GB works at reference clocks, meanwhile both Nvidias are overclocked.
It isn't that difficult to find reference 970 reviews.
Yeah it's a terrible time to buy a new video card in Canada atm
My old gal GTX460 died on me two weeks ago....so I set out to buy GTX960 2gig for 260 beavers in GTA, ended up paying 310 beavres for 4gig version.
Wonder if throwing 100 more beavers and buying GTX970 (4gig)would have been better idea?
I mostly agree, though regarding your point a), when the rebranding happened AMD wasn't quite in such a terrible position CPU-wise.Some thoughts:
a) I do think re-branding ATi to AMD was a mistake, especially considering that AMD's desktop processors has been a complete joke for the last half a decade.
b) I also do think that AMD's software package is a bit pants. Their driver support as always been sub-par and their attempt to replicate GeForce Experience with Raptr sunk my opinion on Raptr. While in terms of pure pixel-pumping power, AMD's graphics cards are competitive with Nvidia's, I can quite easily see why people are prepared to pay the premium for team green, and it is the software.
c) Ultimately, I do think AMD has to work on improving their reputation with regards to drivers and other software, and considering they haven't even started on fixing that, I can't be too surprised that their fortunes are continuing to decline.
holy shit you guys pay way too much for stuff. you could've gotten an R9 290 for $330CAD, which would've been ~40% faster than that 960. I'm just sayin.
EDIT: also, is it true that you guys have money made of plastic?
the 290X is 8% slower than the GTX980 at 1440p/4k (you don't buy cards of this class for 1080p, or you shouldn't rather, 970/290 is the 1080p card IMO). 290X is absolutely in the same class as the 980, it isn't amd's fault that nvidia priced the 980 nearly twice what it should've been.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/29.html
even the reference model 290X (which has throttling issues) is within 7% of the GTX 980 at 1080p, 1440p, and 4k on average. a non reference model will average 2 - 3% better without the throttling. so yes, yes they are in the same fucking class, despite the enormous price difference.
yes...and dipped in maple syrup so it smells like sweets for looong time.
I am kind of done with AMD stuff for a while.
Percentages don't work like that. It is 7% difference relative to the Titan, doesn't mean it is within 7% less powerful than a GTX 980. The difference is higher.
Besides that, the GTX 970 is much closer than that and more within the same price range, so those are in the same class, not the GTX 980.
The GTX 980 is known to not be a great value proposition, but it is not competing with a lot because people can just go for the GTX 970 to compete with the AMD offering.
fair enough, i bounce back and forth whenever one offers a significant performance/dollar advantage. i have owned 7 nvidia and 6 amd cards over the years, never had any major issues with any of them. I suspect that eventually i will grab an nvidia card again, but this go around and the last, AMD won the perf/dollar war.