Lactose_Intolerant
Member
With 75% marketshare currently, I'm disappointed that more games on PC don't take advantage of Nvidia technology like PhysX.
A good chunk of people just use Intel for their graphics.
With 75% marketshare currently, I'm disappointed that more games on PC don't take advantage of Nvidia technology like PhysX.
i cannot and will not in good faith reccomend the GTX 970 to anyone, if for no other reason than the deliberate lies coming from nvidia about it for many months until they got caught, and even continuing afterwards. also the design flaw. I will NEVER reccomend a 970 for any reason because of this. If it didn't have the issues it has, i would have no problem reccomending it. as it is, the GTX 980 is the only upper end nvidia card (in the sane price segments) that doesnt have a significant hardware design issue, as well as false advertising. so the GTX 980 is my point of comparison at the upper midrange/high end.
So you buy stuff depending on what people tell you, because you don't inform yourself?I like buying stuff and not having to wonder whether it will work right or not. I don't like waiting a month to have something work.
And if AMD truly is better than it used to be judging by some of these posts, it needs to go on a marketing and interview blitz. It's not my job to change the bad perceptions.
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
If AMD lost market share while the R9 290 was the best value, then there is no hope for them.
I can understand after the 970 launched, because that was a really good value proposition. But before that, while the R9 290 sat unchallenged in the 350-400 dollar space? For almost a year? With the only competition within the same price bracket being the fucking 770? If nothing else it's pretty clear that there's nothing AMD can do at this point, the market just doesn't want what they've got.
Rather than release a new product line, they should wrap up loose ends and prepare to salvage what they can before going under.
The real question is how does this trickle down to mass market situations.
Most people are not buying Titans, X90's, X70's but x60's and everything below that.
So while you have the continual obscene hi end back and forth that doesnt account for this graph.
I wonder if those mid-low end cards are just more prominent in prebuilt systems.
Boss★Moogle;160738633 said:I remember when the 290 and 290X came out they were inane steals at their launch price and a lot of people, myself included, were really excited about getting one, but AMD didn't make that many at launch and they were being bought up by miners and then the prices got inflated by $200 and they were no longer worth it. When prices finally got back to normal nVidia had come out with better cards at that price point.
AMD lost big there I think. Hopefully they don't fuck up the 390 / 390X launch this time.
With 75% marketshare currently, I'm disappointed that more games on PC don't take advantage of Nvidia technology like PhysX.
"Over double" is still a marginal difference, doesn't make up for how the Sapphire card has objectively superior heat metrics.
"Over double" is still a marginal difference, doesn't make up for how the Sapphire card has objectively superior heat metrics.
"Over double" is still a marginal difference, doesn't make up for how the Sapphire card has objectively superior heat metrics.
"Lower is better".
397W > 310W.
Remove the rest of the components and isolate the power comsumption of the cards and the difference is obscene.
In this case I think it is somewhat fallacious. The Sapphire produces more heat, it is just that the cooler is a lot more effective at extracting that heat from the gpu. That heat is dumped into the rest of the case. Sometime that won't matter but it is something that has to be considered.
This looks really bleak.
At this rate, Nvidia will be enjoying 80% margin on their desktop cards.
laws regarding monopolies might actually prevent AMD from going under, up to and including government bailouts specifically to keep them afloat. in any event, AMD going under would be very, very bad news for everyone, including nvidia fans.
I agree AMD going under would be bad. But laws can't stop them from bankruptcy, and I promise the government would never, ever, ever, intervene. Obama isn't sweating the compelling national interest in gaming GPU competition.
This doesn't exist in use. "Take away the cooling system and it's so much worse."
What?
What?
That means that you can use a 500W power supply with the GTX, but need a better one for the 290X.
That means you need a better cooling with that model of AMD than with that model of Nvidia.
That means more heat and noise on the whole system. As better as the Vapor X cooling system is, that heat will be spread into the case.
Thats mean a bigger power bill.
All those things cost money and silence.
When you try to measure cost by performance only, you miss a lot of things. I'm a guy who spent 19 bucks on every fan of my case instead of just 6, because I'm a bigger fan of silent PC's over top performance ones. That's why I avoided things like high end Fermi and now AMD's.
You don't just measure value for the money with FPS. At least I don't.
A good chunk of people just use Intel for their graphics.
Because physX is proprietary and doesn't work on consoles. They're only going to support it if there are incentives to do so.
You need to give more margin of error with PSU's like that unless they're absolutely top quality.an i5/290X system only draws ~470 watts peak, you can absolutely run a 290X build with an intel cpu on a decent 500w psu, again with the fud dude?
You need to give more margin of error with PSU's like that unless they're absolutely top quality.
And please stop writing 'stop with the fud/nonsense' in every single damn post FFS.
I was just making fun of your constant 'stop with the fud and nonsense' nonsense.it isn't fud and it isn't nonsense. i have a 290 in a system with a 500w psu and a 3570k, no issue whatsoever. it's a.... seasonic... something or other i forget, but its just a cheap 80+ bronze psu.
It got that way for a reason. Nvidia supplies the better product.
I was just making fun of your constant 'stop with the fud and nonsense' nonsense.
I cant in good faith recommend somebody have so little margin of error with a PSU, especially with an overclocked k CPU. It's just gambling.
Good news! AMD won't exist as an independent entity by the time the next consoles are released. Might not exist at all.
A good chunk of people just use Intel for their graphics.
That graph kinda says the opposite, their best times as a whole is when they were releasing guff GPU's, either in the form of the fx series, cards that died by the hundreds of thousands because of shit manufacturing, re-badged product and hot 'n loud GPU's (ironically something ATi get's hammered for)
What it says to me is that nvidia's marketing has been absolutely on the ball when ATi has a competitive product.
Not really talking about those people. It's hard to run many games on integrated graphics.
Yea, 600w would be about right. I'm in an awkward middle ground with 550w bronze CPU, with an overclocked i5 and I'm hesitant to get any card that can hit the peaks of the 290X/OG Titan or whatever.perhaps so, but the majority of users don't overclock. i would reccomend a 600 watt psu for users that wan't to overclock their cpus, 500w is fine for stock gpu/cpu clocks though, as long as its an 80+ certified psu.
See my above build in the RVZ01B (http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3DWyTW), 600w. temps are just fine btw, even in this ridiculously small, and amazing case.
Yea, 600w would be about right. I'm in an awkward middle ground with 550w bronze CPU, with an overclocked i5 and I'm hesitant to get any card that can hit the peaks of the 290X/OG Titan or whatever.
But I wouldn't recommend somebody do a 290X with a 500W PSU. Just a bit too close for comfort.
Is their Zen CPU supposed to compete this time or is it going to get destroyed by Intel again? I'm curious because from what I understood there's literally no point to getting an AMD CPU right now.
People comparing this gen's release with last gen's release purposely omit the fact that this had consoles distributed to a wide range of regions whereas PS3 was released in Japan exclusively for a time and 360 wasn't done releasing in regions until around 2008. If you ask me... the number aren't looking too good for a world wide release of these consoles. The funny thing is is that they know the average consumer that reads "the numbers" are going to take that into account.
AMD can make the hardware, but their software side is atrocious. Everytime I think about buying an AMD card I read some horror story about their drivers and just move on. They have an excellent engineering team being hamstrung by their software guys.