Do you agree with Hardocp?

AMD's GPU program for the first time has truly reminded us of its CPU program.

  • Total voters
    372
KazeoHin said:
I agree, but Mid-Range is determined by Price. Nothing else. If the Nano comes out priced to compete with the 980, it's not a Mid-Range card. The 960 is a Mid-Range card, and it is so because of its price, and nothing else. If it costed the same as a 980, it would be a High-End card. It would be a terrible High-End card, but the words 'High-End' would be use to describe it. So really, the only thing that would make or break the Nano as a Mid-Range card is the Price. It would have to be priced to compete with the 960, which the 380 already does. So I highly doubt we'll see the nano in the same price bracket. In fact, I would venture a guess that the Nano would be priced to compete with the 970 or 980, based on AMDs recent 390 launch.
Click to expand...

While your assumptions aren't with out merit I don't think they would try to shoe-horn the Nano into a segment, I bet it will be placed along side the 380-390 series.

At this point all it has to do is beat the 970 and the competitive pricing.
 
Huddy confirms, performance it 290x/390x/980 level.

It will be priced acordingly ie higher than 390x

It an enthusiast card.
 
The Mac said:
Huddy confirms, performance it 290x/390x/980 level.

It will be priced acordingly ie higher than 390x

It an enthusiast card.
Click to expand...

If its priced higher than a 970 then it will be considered a flop by the community.
 
Trimlock said:
If its priced higher than a 970 then it will be considered a flop by the community.
Click to expand...

Is it statistically possible to agree 200%? Do I need to clone myself to agree twice at 100%?

Edit:
I have repeatedly claimed that the 980's price is outrageous, and it is, as is the case with the 200/300 series and the 970 as well. But I will sooner buy a 980 than I buy a Nano above the 970's price, unless when comparing the coolest/quietest/most-stable third-party version of each, the Nano is equally as powerful as the 980 AND the same price or lower AND the same noise-level or lower. If AMD tries to price the Nano above the 970, I really hope Nvidia releases a 970 TI with 4GB vram instead of 3.5GB, at a lower price than the Nano, then I would get the 970 TI in an instant, even if it ends up less powerful than the Nano. But all that is assuming I build a new PC later this year, which I may or may not.
 
Last edited:
GearChoices said:
Is it statistically possible to agree 200%? Do I need to clone myself to agree twice at 100%?

Edit:
I have repeatedly claimed that the 980's price is outrageous, and it is, as is the case with the 200/300 series and the 970 as well. But I will sooner buy a 980 than I buy a Nano above the 970's price, unless when comparing the coolest/quietest/most-stable third-party version of each, the Nano is equally as powerful as the 980 AND the same price or lower AND the same noise-level or lower. If AMD tries to price the Nano above the 970, I really hope Nvidia releases a 970 TI with 4GB vram instead of 3.5GB, at a lower price than the Nano, then I would get the 970 TI in an instant, even if it ends up less powerful than the Nano. But all that is assuming I build a new PC later this year, which I may or may not.
Click to expand...

I, for the most part, agree with this and am thinking along the same lines. But Ti or no Ti version, I'd still buy a 970.
 
If the Fury X had a lower price, then it would be a winner!

However, if my grandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather. But she does not, and neither does the Fury X.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have no problems with the data, it is how they trash the card in the conclusion and throughout the review.... what a turn off.... they KNEW what the limitations of HBM were but trashed AMD anyways....

4Gb card on first drivers almost hangs with 980ti..... now that was the pretty impressive part.... not to mention temps.... ya bought into the marketing hook line and sinker instead of keeping an open mind...
Click to expand...

If AMD is going to misrepresent the card and spew out BS such as how the VRAM acts like a cache, then they should be called out on it, and I'm glad [H] did.
 
^ if you are going to buy into the marketing hype, maybe you would be interested in this here bridge that is for sale in Brooklyn.....
 
Yep. Fury X completely fell short on performance, features, and specs for the price. Should be priced closer to the 980 than the 980ti, since that's what it really competes with. Would be surprised if it isn't price-dropped to that level in 30-60 days.
 
The Mac said:
Huddy confirms, performance it 290x/390x/980 level.

It will be priced acordingly ie higher than 390x

It an enthusiast card.
Click to expand...

So if AMD say's it's 980 performance level than after release it will be trading blows with 970 for 100+$ more? :D
 
For this test I probably would have pulled Dying Light and replaced it with Shadow of Mordor, Crysis 3, or Metro: LL (in that order).
Far Cry 4 actually runs better on AMD hardware despite being a GameWorks game.

BattleField 4 & FC4 in AMD's favor.
Dying Light & Witcher 3 in Nvidia's favor.
GTA V neutral.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
For this test I probably would have pulled Dying Light and replaced it with Shadow of Mordor, Crysis 3, or Metro: LL (in that order).
Click to expand...

Dying Light is the one game we have that will truly reach into the VRAM when it is there to do so. It is actually the last game I would drop. I would suggest is much more widely played than those mentioned as well.
 
GearChoices said:
Is it statistically possible to agree 200%? Do I need to clone myself to agree twice at 100%?

Edit:
I have repeatedly claimed that the 980's price is outrageous, and it is, as is the case with the 200/300 series and the 970 as well. But I will sooner buy a 980 than I buy a Nano above the 970's price, unless when comparing the coolest/quietest/most-stable third-party version of each, the Nano is equally as powerful as the 980 AND the same price or lower AND the same noise-level or lower. If AMD tries to price the Nano above the 970, I really hope Nvidia releases a 970 TI with 4GB vram instead of 3.5GB, at a lower price than the Nano, then I would get the 970 TI in an instant, even if it ends up less powerful than the Nano. But all that is assuming I build a new PC later this year, which I may or may not.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Doing so would basically be a public admission of guilt, and they'd get their pants sued off in a heartbeat.
 
I don't agree

With AMDs cpu program, Intel's lead is massive in performance, but AMD keeps the prices lower to compete.

With AMDs gpu program, the performance is nearly on par, but the price is too high to compete.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I don't agree

With AMDs cpu program, Intel's lead is massive in performance, but AMD keeps the prices lower to compete.

With AMDs gpu program, the performance is nearly on par, but the price is too high to compete.
Click to expand...

But in both cases their flagship tech is inferior to the competition's flagship tech.
 
Simmonz said:
I don't agree. The Fury X is a card that for the most part was within 5-8 FPS of the 980Ti. I think that the real issue was it was $50 too much. Had they debuted the card at $600 it would have been ok to lose some FPS here and there.
Click to expand...


While I applaud the ability to see the positives by taking such a stance, I still think that's the wrong way to look at it. It's giving someone a break because they are the small guy and everyone loves to root for the underdog. It would be the same way if Nvidia was in the same position. Suddenly you'd see a lot of people flip flopping to root for the underdog.

Sad truth is AMD dropped the ball since the HD 7000 Series. They took 2 years to release a refresh Titan esque R9 290X chip. They spent almost another two years to release a refresh once more copying and barely matching Nvidia's Titan X chip. They needed to be first on both accounts. The world sees it as reactionary, and failed at that.


Cutting the cost of Fury wasn't going to change that. People didn't wait all this time to see the R9 290X get dethroned almost instantly after release by an equally priced Nvidia part. People didn't wait all this time and suck in all that hype only to see Fury barely trade blows with Nvidia's finest. Its been awhile since we've seen a product in the works for so long come out and NOT dominate the opposition card thoroughly. AMD can't keep making small margins of profit by undercutting their products when they have 1/4th the market share as Nvidia. That's not how you get ahead. It didn't work for their CPU business and it doesn't work for the GPU either. In that sense [H] is dead on accurate.

Frankly, I applaud [H] for taking longer than expected to come to this conclusion and giving AMD the benefit of the doubt. I doubt they've come to this conclusion lightly seeing how the rest of the world has written AMD off 2 years ago.
 
Usually (in a competitive tech landscape), when a product is released, it takes the performance crown from its competitor.

Many expected (and wanted) AMD to take the performance crown from Nvidia this time, having not released a flagship card in such a long time.

What resulted (Fury X) was a disappointment. All PC gamers have been let down. We want better performance at lower prices!
 
> I really hope Nvidia releases a 970 TI with 4GB vram instead of 3.5GB

They did, they just used name 980 instead of 970Ti.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
that's about the only comparison, but AMDs flagship in this case, is very close.
Click to expand...

Since when did the 980Ti become Nvidia's flagship? An overclocked Fury X is nowhere close to a watercooled overclocked Titan X, much less a watercooled overclocked 980 TI. Not to mention even an overclocked air-cooled 980 Ti beats an overclocked Fury X. How is any of this "close?"

Edit:
But just to clarify, I do not believe AMD has to compete in the flagship sector in order to be praised for offering good products. But it is failing completely across the board. The only reason Nvidia is also "failing" is because they are doing so voluntarily - they don't have to offer anything decent in the non-crazy high-end and mid-range, and lower, in order to compete. If the 970 had 4GB, Nvidia would absolutely be the consumer-friendly company right now. AMD could also be the consumer friendly company right now, if they were not matching Nvidia with disgraceful price gouging tactics.
 
I don't think AMD is there yet, but I think they are getting there fast. I keep rehashing in my head what the E3 presentation said. Things like "fastest GPU in the world and "meant for 4k" and "overclockers dream" and so on and so on....and this card is none of that. I think if the card was priced according to what it is performance wise, and AMD hadn't hyped this thing up so much I wouldn't be so pissed but I feel like they decieved us.
 
I am not avoiding your question as I work also and I don't even play any of the games tested but I have friends that play many other games like ..

Civilization: Beyond Earth
Star Citizen
Alien: Isolation
Shadow of Mordor
RYSE Son of Rome

Just to name afew.. I play games like iRacing Sims in Eyefinity if you want to push a gpu to it's knee's..
 
Last edited:
PRIME1 said:
Compare Fury to a 980ti with a watercooler and clocked high enough to match Fury's power draw. It's really not close all things considered.
Click to expand...

So add another $75-100 to the price of the 980 TI (20% cost) and it will run faster? Wow.
 
DracoNB said:
So add another $75-100 to the price of the 980 TI (20% cost) and it will run faster? Wow.
Click to expand...

A.) It's already faster.

B.) He was saying that if you add a water cooler and overclock the 980ti so that it matches the power draw of the Fury X, it wouldn't even be a contest. Which is true. It may add $75-100 to the price, but it would absolutely trounce the Fury.

C.) I can't believe I'm defending PRIME1. But this time he does have a point, even though it came off kinda shitty.
 
xLokiX said:
A.) It's already faster.

B.) He was saying that if you add a water cooler and overclock the 980ti so that it matches the power draw of the Fury X, it wouldn't even be a contest. Which is true. It may add $75-100 to the price, but it would absolutely trounce the Fury.

C.) I can't believe I'm defending PRIME1. But this time he does have a point, even though it came off kinda shitty.
Click to expand...

So the Fury is $100 over priced, but you can add $100 to the 980 TI and its still even comparison? Thats what I don't get. Sure it would still be faster, but again, its $100 more.

Should AMD have released the fan version? I think so, it seems a lot of the hate (even though it does good) is that the 980 TI (which just came out with a price drop from the titan) is slightly faster for the same price. Having a fan version vs the $85 waterblock would have helped them price it $50 or so less.
 
The problem here isn't that the Fury X is a bad card. It isn't. BUT for AMD that's not good enough anymore. They needed a product that would blow Nvidia's competing GPU out of the water to win this round. Unless they start doing so it's going to be hard for them to catch up and they'll just lose more of the market.
"Almost as good" was alright a few years ago but you can only do it for so long before it starts to hurt you.
As for HBM, i'd think that by the time AMD gets it matured, Nvidia will most likely have their HBM offerings also ready to compete.Hopefully i'mwrong but like so many others here i'll go with whatever offering is the best regardless of who makes it. :)
 
kamxam said:
The problem here isn't that the Fury X is a bad card. It isn't. BUT for AMD that's not good enough anymore. They needed a product that would blow Nvidia's competing GPU out of the water to win this round. Unless they start doing so it's going to be hard for them to catch up and they'll just lose more of the market.
"Almost as good" was alright a few years ago but you can only do it for so long before it starts to hurt you.
As for HBM, i'd think that by the time AMD gets it matured, Nvidia will most likely have their HBM offerings also ready to compete.Hopefully i'mwrong but like so many others here i'll go with whatever offering is the best regardless of who makes it. :)
Click to expand...

NVIDIA isn't sitting still, they have more R&D power than AMD does. I'm certain when they do release HBM 2 powered Pascal, it'll go off without a hitch just like Titan X and 980 Ti did.
 
DracoNB said:
So the Fury is $100 over priced, but you can add $100 to the 980 TI and its still even comparison? Thats what I don't get. Sure it would still be faster, but again, its $100 more.

Should AMD have released the fan version? I think so, it seems a lot of the hate (even though it does good) is that the 980 TI (which just came out with a price drop from the titan) is slightly faster for the same price. Having a fan version vs the $85 waterblock would have helped them price it $50 or so less.
Click to expand...

No, it definitely wouldn't be a fair comparison. A water-cooled 980ti, that's balls to the wall overclocked would be in a different class entirely. But, to some people, the extra $100 might be justifiable for the performance increase. Personally, I would never put water into my case. I've seen a friend's $3000 computer go poof from a CLC springing a leak, and I don't feel like having that happen.
 
Problem for AMD is that nVidia have gotten *much* more professional these last few years, almost Apple-like as it were and they've been left behind (see the amateurish E3 'presentation' for proof). No more wood-screwing around by nv it seems! ;) :D
 
This was a scathing review and in my opinion entirely justified. We as consumers owe nothing to these companies that will gladly take our money and give little to nothing in return. The reason this happens is because nobody speaks up and calls them on their mistakes. Luckily hardocp is out there and I expect 100% brutal honesty from them.
 
At the current price and with its current featureset (4GB VRAM, no HDMI 2.0), I'm inclined to agree. The moment it drops to $550, I think we have a very different scenario and it becomes a real alternative to spending $100 more for a 980Ti. That said, hopefully NVidia would knock at least $50 off the 980Ti's price at that point, which is win-win for the consumer. I miss the old days of aggressive price wars. Then again, I also miss when GPUs were $200-400 instead of $350-650.

I feel bad for AMD since I think this is the best they could do given their financial constraints and I don't want to see them disappear, but it really isn't a great deal for the consumer at its current price.
 
yacoub35 said:
I feel bad for AMD since I think this is the best they could do given their financial constraints and I don't want to see them disappear, but it really isn't a great deal for the consumer at its current price.
Click to expand...

If AMD wants to play the part of the heroic underdog, they have to be honest, which they are not. They are being almost as deceptive as Nvidia right now. Maybe I would have sympathy if they were honest before the launch. But all of that lying from their PR/Marketing people, who WERE told by non-PR/Marketing management to say what they said (I laugh when people act like the marketing/PR people in companies are rogue actors not actually part of the same company), makes me not care in the least about their situation. If they refuse to offer consumer-friendly products or prices, then let them go bankrupt or get bought, and hope that frees up just enough space for a new competitor to give competing-with-nvidia a shot. Maybe even some of the more talented of AMD would join the new company and be more successful there without bad management bogging them down.
 
GearChoices said:
Since when did the 980Ti become Nvidia's flagship? An overclocked Fury X is nowhere close to a watercooled overclocked Titan X, much less a watercooled overclocked 980 TI. Not to mention even an overclocked air-cooled 980 Ti beats an overclocked Fury X. How is any of this "close?"

Edit:
But just to clarify, I do not believe AMD has to compete in the flagship sector in order to be praised for offering good products. But it is failing completely across the board. The only reason Nvidia is also "failing" is because they are doing so voluntarily - they don't have to offer anything decent in the non-crazy high-end and mid-range, and lower, in order to compete. If the 970 had 4GB, Nvidia would absolutely be the consumer-friendly company right now. AMD could also be the consumer friendly company right now, if they were not matching Nvidia with disgraceful price gouging tactics.
Click to expand...

the 980ti is within what, 5% of a Titan X? and I'm talking about stock numbers, lets wait for real ocing of the fury cards to happen before you make OC comparisons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top