FuryX users = Dust in the wind on these forums

Status
Not open for further replies.

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
It's bad if you recommend someone to buy one now, it wouldve been fine as a 2 year old purchase,
Bad because expensive and slow.

It's 60 fps in 99.9% of the games I have played. The FX-8320 was $99 on Amazon this past Black Friday and you can OC the heck out of it. The only game I had problems with was Tera. But in that game if you hit the hotkey to disable the UI my fps would literally triple. Not sure what the problem was with that game.

The new AMD motherboards have USB 3.1 and all the new bells and whistles.

Intel hasn't made a truly new chip since the 2500K. There is very little difference in my FX-9370 and a 2500K. That's why many of the forum users here keep running their 900 series Intel chips; not enough of an upgrade to justify the expense. The only worthwhile upgrade for me is a 6, 8 or more core Intel. I'll do that when I stop getting 60 fps in games.

If I were on a budget and I had to choose between a 4790K for $350 and a FX-8320 for $99, I'd go with the FX and spend the other $250 on a better video card or upgrade my monitor to FreeSync / GSYNC. If I had an unlimited budget I would spring for the Intel. Heck I would toss in 4x Titan X for kicks.

They even do well with SLi.

Here are my motherboard's stats circa 2011. I'd like PCIe 3.0, but look what it gets you in the tests I linked above.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
I check the price of the R9 Fury (air cooled) cards about once a week. Once they get below $400 I would likely pick one up. However I suspect Nvidia will either drop prices or release new hardware before this happens. The card interests me more of a curiosity than a top shelf performer, however I am not dropping $500+ for a card that performs poorly against a 980Ti.

Yeah I think the Fury X, Nano were over priced at launch, and still are, for the performance. Nano, possible can sell better than Fury X because its a niche product for small cases, and there is no other card that comes close to it. But Fury X if it was $50 bucks less to $100 less that its release price it would have been a great deal at the time.

I don't know why AMD thought they could put it into the 980ti price bracket, didn't make much sense, since its marginally slower over all (5%). Yes it ties at 4k, but anything lower its slower, so the Ti wins over all (and we aren't even talking about overclocked Ti's).

Fury can be a good buy if people are looking at the $400 and it gets down to that range, its main competitor the gtx980 is priced cheaper than the Fury.
 

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
It's 60 fps in 99.9% of the games I have played. The FX-8320 was $99 on Amazon this past Black Friday and you can OC the heck out of it. The only game I had problems with was Tera. But in that game if you hit the hotkey to disable the UI my fps would literally triple. Not sure what the problem was with that game.

The new AMD motherboards have USB 3.1 and all the new bells and whistles.

Intel hasn't made a truly new chip since the 2500K. There is very little difference in my FX-9370 and a 2500K. That's why many of the forum users here keep running their 900 series Intel chips; not enough of an upgrade to justify the expense. The only worthwhile upgrade for me is a 6, 8 or more core Intel. I'll do that when I stop getting 60 fps in games.

If I were on a budget and I had to choose between a 4790K for $350 and a FX-8320 for $99, I'd go with the FX and spend the other $250 on a better video card or upgrade my monitor to FreeSync / GSYNC. If I had an unlimited budget I would spring for the Intel. Heck I would toss in 4x Titan X for kicks.

They even do well with SLi.

Here are my motherboard's stats circa 2011. I'd like PCIe 3.0, but look what it gets you in the tests I linked above.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/bF7qNG vs http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B8Y4bv
took cheapest 8 core vs cheapest i3, do you think the 8320e on this mobo ( whatever clocks you can get on this mobo ) can even come close to the 3.7 skylake i3 in FPS in CPU limited scenarios? it is cheapest on both sides. total is same on both sides.
Why would you recommend the 8320 if you had no love for either brand to a person building a gaming PC?
 

Xinmosni

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
1,974
AMD is my only option, as I'm limited to 2 PCIe slots, the others dedicated to hardware RAID controller and PCIe SSD (same limitations will be in place even when I upgrade to M.2 soon, whenever Revodrive 400 finally releases). For this same reason, I run 4x 16x via ASUS X99-E WS mobo. I can afford 4x Titan X, but for my money and use-case 295X2 quadfire blows it away without question unless CF isn't supported (I.e. halfassed port or Lameworks).

I look forward to buying 2x Fury X2, and agree that this place became a haven for NVIDIA trolls in the past year who are shielded by likeminded mods who don't call out their actions. I'm silent not because of fear or uncertainty, but because I don't need the approval of idiots to validate why I spend my hard earned money however I please :p
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,585
295x2 still undefeated.

Depending on the game and, in some cases, screen resolution in the same game, the Titan Z wins. Albeit by a small margin for double the already ridiculous 295x2 MSRP of $1500. In most tests, yes, the 295x2 does edge out the win. Hell, both are still viable gaming cards today...if the price tags didn't hold anyone back from actually getting one or the other. :)
 

Draconian

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
333
Depending on the game and, in some cases, screen resolution in the same game, the Titan Z wins. Albeit by a small margin for double the already ridiculous 295x2 MSRP of $1500. In most tests, yes, the 295x2 does edge out the win. Hell, both are still viable gaming cards today...if the price tags didn't hold anyone back from actually getting one or the other. :)

I was going to rebut your price quote as a short while a go the 295X2's were available for as low as $699 but it appears stock has dried up and people on amazon and ebay are charging at least double the price.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,585
I was going to rebut your price quote as a short while a go the 295X2's were available for as low as $699 but it appears stock has dried up and people on amazon and ebay are charging at least double the price.

The $700 price drop came along a good while after release and was not it's MSRP when released....same as the $3000 MSRP for the Titan Z.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/bF7qNG vs http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B8Y4bv
took cheapest 8 core vs cheapest i3, do you think the 8320e on this mobo ( whatever clocks you can get on this mobo ) can even come close to the 3.7 skylake i3 in FPS in CPU limited scenarios? it is cheapest on both sides. total is same on both sides.
Why would you recommend the 8320 if you had no love for either brand to a person building a gaming PC?

Because I can game and encode video at the same time. Aka streaming to Twitch? It's really great on the i7's also. That's just one example. Also who would be dumb enough to buy a dual core? Like seriously?
 

Geforcepat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
1,026
Weird that the second fastest single gpu card avail atm inst even talked about here. Where are all the Fury X threads if the card is that awesome. I am looking to upgrade and I'm hesitating between a 980ti and a Fury X. Lots of 980ti threads but not much in regard to the FuryX here at H even on the AMD side....what gives ?

The answer is in your question.
over the last 5+ years there are more intel core i5,i7 threads than amd threads.:eek: i'll let you figure out why.;)
:)
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,647
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/bF7qNG vs http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B8Y4bv
took cheapest 8 core vs cheapest i3, do you think the 8320e on this mobo ( whatever clocks you can get on this mobo ) can even come close to the 3.7 skylake i3 in FPS in CPU limited scenarios? it is cheapest on both sides. total is same on both sides.
Why would you recommend the 8320 if you had no love for either brand to a person building a gaming PC?

Ah, here we go: Dual Core, Dual Core, Dual Core, Dual Core or Go Dual Core, Go Dual Core, Go Dual Core...... :D Using a dual core in a custom build is a waste of money, period. In a laptop or OEM machine, they are fine though.
 

Lorien

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
5,197

This x a million. True enthusiasts are gathering elsewhere these days.

People need to ask themselves this question. When was the last time ANYTHING interesting and original was developed in the [H] forums such as work on custom bios, gpu unlocking, overclocking/cooling guides with bilateral collaboration from true enthusiasts blind to brand favoritism?
 

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
Ah, here we go: Dual Core, Dual Core, Dual Core, Dual Core or Go Dual Core, Go Dual Core, Go Dual Core...... :D Using a dual core in a custom build is a waste of money, period. In a laptop or OEM machine, they are fine though.

It would be a viable alternative to spend extra 50 bucks for a quad, but not get a 8 core with ~60% less IPC. Not really worth buying something you can never upgrade which trade blows with a dual core and needs a motherboard that costs over $50 in a budget build.

jcDqurk.jpg


Because I can game and encode video at the same time. Aka streaming to Twitch? It's really great on the i7's also. That's just one example. Also who would be dumb enough to buy a dual core? Like seriously?

and you buy dual cores for gaming when you are broke, and you put a quad in there when you aren't.
 
Last edited:

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
It would be a viable alternative to spend extra 50 bucks for a quad, but not get a 8 core with ~60% less IPC. Not really worth buying something you can never upgrade which trade blows with a dual core and needs a motherboard that costs over $50 in a budget build.

jcDqurk.jpg

Like TGrove said it's all about trolling. I would like to see your i3 playing Battlefront and CPU encoding while streaming to Twitch at the same time. That's why I report news from other websites so much. It's more enjoyable to be able to read and not get trolled.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,568
Because I can game and encode video at the same time. Aka streaming to Twitch? It's really great on the i7's also. That's just one example. Also who would be dumb enough to buy a dual core? Like seriously?

Well, I just recently picked up one of the Skylake i3-6100 CPUs, and I have to say, in single-thread performance, it utterly destroys a stock FX-8350, and even in full SMP, it is over half as fast.
All of that for a 65 watt TDP vs a 125 watt TDP.

Now granted, I won't be gaming on it, but for a user who just wants to game (no streaming or side rendering), and have a system that runs cool and can still OC by a good amount, the i3 is the clear winner, by far.
I'm not bashing AMD, but their designs are very dated and have been showing their advanced age for some time now.

I've been using the modern FX series since late 2011, from the FX-4100 to the FX-8350, for everything from gaming to video editing to data crunching, and I know exactly what these CPUs and systems are capable of, as well as their limitations.
Most games don't utilize more than four threads/cores, so when that i3-6100 @ 3.7GHz out performs four (out of eight) cores of a FX-8350 @ 4GHz, the i3 is the clear choice for raw gaming.

I've also used a Skylake i5-6600 @ 3.3GHz, and it is still faster than that FX-8350 @ 4GHz in IPC and single thread applications and FPU-usage, and is fairly close in full SMP, though the FX-8350 is faster in full SMP (all eight cores being utilized), and imo, a better value for the cost (for full SMP), though the FX-8350 does run MUCH hotter at stock, let alone OC'ed.
I was hoping for good things from Zen, but everything is just speculation right now, and for just about anything, Intel is the clear winner except for maybe budget SMP-based workload builds, but even then, it comes at a cost of added heat and power-usage.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
Well, I just recently picked up one of the Skylake i3-6100 CPUs, and I have to say, in single-thread performance, it utterly destroys a stock FX-8350, and even in full SMP, it is over half as fast.
All of that for a 65 watt TDP vs a 125 watt TDP.

Now granted, I won't be gaming on it, but for a user who just wants to game (no streaming or side rendering), and have a system that runs cool and can still OC by a good amount, the i3 is the clear winner, by far.
I'm not bashing AMD, but their designs are very dated and have been showing their advanced age for some time now.

I've been using the modern FX series since late 2011, from the FX-4100 to the FX-8350, for everything from gaming to video editing to data crunching, and I know exactly what these CPUs and systems are capable of, as well as their limitations.
Most games don't utilize more than four threads/cores, so when that i3-6100 @ 3.7GHz out performs four (out of eight) cores of a FX-8350 @ 4GHz, the i3 is the clear choice for raw gaming.

I've also used a Skylake i5-6600 @ 3.3GHz, and it is still faster than that FX-8350 @ 4GHz in IPC and single thread applications and FPU-usage, and is fairly close in full SMP, though the FX-8350 is faster in full SMP (all eight cores being utilized), and imo, a better value for the cost (for full SMP), though the FX-8350 does run MUCH hotter at stock, let alone OC'ed.
I was hoping for good things from Zen, but everything is just speculation right now, and for just about anything, Intel is the clear winner except for maybe budget SMP-based workload builds, but even then, it comes at a cost of added heat and power-usage.

Some modern games require a quad nowadays or you have to edit .ini files to fool the game into running on a dual core. Or you can just buy something that runs the same game at 60 fps without editing files. In another words for gaming an i3 is useless. And nowadays people with PS4 and XBONE can stream to Twitch while gaming. Why would you build a system that can't accomplish what a console can do?
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
When a 8 core is $99 you can afford to put it into a budget build.


Who pays for the extra $25 bucks for a more powerful PSU?

Or you saying that comes for free?

AMD is not a viable option for CPU's right now. Its just not. Doesn't matter how much you like them.

Granted yes if you are using rendering programs or multiple programs like you are yes it can have its benefits, but that's a rarity. And pairing a low end CPU, yes the CPU you are talking about is low end, and putting it with a high end GPU doesn't make any sense, what would be better, drop a tier in the GPU and go up a tier in the CPU.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
Some modern games require a quad nowadays or you have to edit .ini files to fool the game into running on a dual core. Or you can just buy something that runs the same game at 60 fps without editing files. In another words for gaming an i3 is useless. And nowadays people with PS4 and XBONE can stream to Twitch while gaming. Why would you build a system that can't accomplish what a console can do?


Now you are talking about consoles? Where are you coming from and where are you going?
 

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
Some modern games require a quad nowadays or you have to edit .ini files to fool the game into running on a dual core. Or you can just buy something that runs the same game at 60 fps without editing files. In another words for gaming an i3 is useless.

There hasn't been a gaming scenario where something refused to run on an i3. Pentium Yes. i3 no.
And when you have a limited budget you try to limit your expectations or go used. If you see no problem with a FX in 2015 - 2016, you should see i7 920 as relevant used option for budget gamers too.
How can you not see a problem with a dual core beating a 5 ghz octa core that is still being sold as of today? ( IN FPS that is)

Also how much did you get your motherboard for?
 

Tgrove

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
1,490
Like TGrove said it's all about trolling. I would like to see your i3 playing Battlefront and CPU encoding while streaming to Twitch at the same time. That's why I report news from other websites so much. It's more enjoyable to be able to read and not get trolled.

There's nothing wrong with an amd Cpu. Just like the people around here using 2500ks and older. Does it really matter what your using if it meets your needs and/or gets you 60 fps? That's what I shoot for, 60 fps
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,568
People need to ask themselves this question. When was the last time ANYTHING interesting and original was developed in the [H] forums such as work on custom bios, gpu unlocking, overclocking/cooling guides with bilateral collaboration from true enthusiasts blind to brand favoritism?

Hate to say it, because I really like this forum, but there is a little bit of truth to this.
I've been seeing a log e-peen going on, along with conjecture and speculation, but this forum has gone from being enthusiast and technical forum to a more general-knowledge forum in the last few years.

I don't think it is [H]ard's fault, it is just where the technology has gone, and for the most part, it has really stagnated in the last five years in terms of innovation, new ideas, new concepts, etc.
CPUs have almost nothing new outside of enterprise, and GPUs, sadly, have been kind of the same deal.

AMD has at least introduced HBM, and I will give it to them for bringing a lot of new technologies forward in the last 15 years, with innovations.
The sad thing is, is that Intel is just so far ahead that few people want to discuss an inferior product/company.

AMD brings the innovation and Intel (and NVIDIA) bring the performance, and this forum is all about performance, plain and simple.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
There hasn't been a gaming scenario where something refused to run on an i3. Pentium Yes. i3 no.
And when you have a limited budget you try to limit your expectations or go used. If you see no problem with a FX in 2015 - 2016, you should see i7 920 as relevant used option for budget gamers too.
How can you not see a problem with a dual core beating a 5 ghz octa core that is still being sold as of today? ( IN FPS that is)

Also how much did you get your motherboard for?

In 2011 I paid $179 or so for my motherboard. If I were to buy a used 990FX motherboard as you suggest, I would spend less than $60 on EBAY by just glancing at the first page of 990FX motherboards. I have seen used Vishera processors for less than $70 on the forums here. This would build a PC that allow CPU encoding and gaming at the same time. A dual core processor is useful for word processing only. Sorry but they suck at multitasking.

There is nothing wrong with a used 920, 2500K, 3770K, etc. When did I say that something was wrong with them?
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
In 2011 I paid $179 or so for my motherboard. If I were to buy a used 990FX motherboard as you suggest, I would spend less than $60 on EBAY by just glancing at the first page of 990FX motherboards. I have seen used Vishera processors for less than $70 on the forums here. This would build a PC that allow CPU encoding and gaming at the same time. A dual core processor is useful for word processing only. Sorry but they suck at multitasking.

There is nothing wrong with a used 920, 2500K, 3770K, etc. When did I say that something was wrong with them?


So now you want to talk about used components?

So you're entire logic statement is this, lets talk about consoles, lets talk about used parts and then compare them to retail new prices for Intel? Come on.....

If you want to talk about that

Then what AMD system for the price can beat this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2465553

hmm?

You get a quad core Intel i5 which blows away any AMD processor even if you want to do what you are saying. All for under $400.
 
Last edited:

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
In 2011 I paid $179 or so for my motherboard. If I were to buy a used 990FX motherboard as you suggest, I would spend less than $60 on EBAY by just glancing at the first page of 990FX motherboards. I have seen used Vishera processors for less than $70 on the forums here. This would build a PC that allow CPU encoding and gaming at the same time. A dual core processor is useful for word processing only. Sorry but they suck at multitasking.

There is nothing wrong with a used 920, 2500K, 3770K, etc. When did I say that something was wrong with them?

You argument is valid for a power user with a very limited budget, which is often a rare case.
But it doesn't really hold up for a person building a PC for sole purpose to play his/her favorite games at the max possible FPS, with least possible cost. This even allows you to upgrade later, which is nice to have.
Spending 179 on a mobo, when you can spend $40 is LOL. You have computing all wrong (it suits your need but it is a horrible plan for anyone else)
 

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,369
Some modern games require a quad nowadays or you have to edit .ini files to fool the game into running on a dual core. Or you can just buy something that runs the same game at 60 fps without editing files. In another words for gaming an i3 is useless. And nowadays people with PS4 and XBONE can stream to Twitch while gaming. Why would you build a system that can't accomplish what a console can do?

I don't mean to get involved in this crapstorm full time or anything, but doesn't Shadowplay stream straight to Twitch as is? You don't need the CPU to do anything, afaik. Or you can just use OBS with NVENC. That being said, you build one that can't do what a console can do because you don't necessarily need to do everything a console can do. For instance I could do well without all of those share features most of the time... but where I don't, Shadowplay takes care of me.

As far as the whole Fury X getting "discriminated against"... I don't see much trolling going on. It's a simple fact. The Fury X is overall a weaker card at a similar price tag. If it wasn't, I would have gotten one. Likewise, AMD CPU's are just not as good right now. If AMD's next architecture actually brings them close to (or beating) Intel, I would buy one just to fund the competition. But chances are, it's just not going to happen. They're kind of losing on both fronts. AMD has its niche applications (ie the Nano), but for most people that have enough money to build an enthusiast computer, it just not a choice that makes sense.

I don't see many people deliberately going around and trolling AMD users...
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
You argument is valid for a power user with a very limited budget, which is often a rare case.
But it doesn't really hold up for a person building a PC for sole purpose to play his/her favorite games at the max possible FPS, with least possible cost. This even allows you to upgrade later, which is nice to have.
Spending 179 on a mobo, when you can spend $40 is LOL. You have computing all wrong (it suits your need but it is a horrible plan for anyone else)

So you're on [H]ardocp telling power users that power users are building their PC's wrong because they want to do things that others may not find fun or exciting. Glad you're not in charge of Dell, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc. You would bring back the beige box from the 1980's.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
I don't mean to get involved in this crapstorm full time or anything, but doesn't Shadowplay stream straight to Twitch as is? You don't need the CPU to do anything, afaik. Or you can just use OBS with NVENC. That being said, you build one that can't do what a console can do because you don't necessarily need to do everything a console can do. For instance I could do well without all of those share features most of the time... but where I don't, Shadowplay takes care of me.

As far as the whole Fury X getting "discriminated against"... I don't see much trolling going on. It's a simple fact. The Fury X is overall a weaker card at a similar price tag. If it wasn't, I would have gotten one. Likewise, AMD CPU's are just not as good right now. If AMD's next architecture actually brings them close to (or beating) Intel, I would buy one just to fund the competition. But chances are, it's just not going to happen. They're kind of losing on both fronts. AMD has its niche applications (ie the Nano), but for most people that have enough money to build an enthusiast computer, it just not a choice that makes sense.

I don't see many people deliberately going around and trolling AMD users...

NVidia's NVENC and AMD's VCE are a part of OBS already as you stated. They are nice medium-low grade alternatives to CPU encoding. Until AMD and Nvidia increase the power of their GPUs greatly, the image quality from these solutions will always be second fiddle to the quality that a 5820K or 5960X can produce. XEON processor encoding is a wet dream for most Twitch streamers. I find it cute everytime that I read an NVIdia article talking about how GPUs are going to change the world when they can't even encode a video that matches a CPU on Twitch.

It's not even close. But they are nice if you can't afford the real tools for the job. A 5960X makes my FX-9370 look like shit when it comes to CPU encoding . That's truth.
 

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
So you're on [H]ardocp telling power users that power users are building their PC's wrong because they want to do things that others may not find fun or exciting. Glad you're not in charge of Dell, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc. You would bring back the beige box from the 1980's.

Most power users don't want to buy a $99 CPU from 2010, that takes the power out of the user. Power user and limited budget dont go hand in hand, it can in rare cases and your argument is good for that particular case. There is one CPU in AMD lineup that beats everything for its price, it is the X4 860k.
After that you can't really argue for ancient hardware that can get the job done vs newer hardware that can get the job done and can also be upgraded later for the same $. In your case too, $278 spent on intel would've gotten you a faster system with a baseline mobo and a 3.4 ghz i5.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
Most power users don't want to buy a $99 CPU from 2010, that takes the power out of the user. Power user and limited budget dont go hand in hand, it can in rare cases and your argument is good for that particular case. There is one CPU in AMD lineup that beats everything for its price, it is the X4 860k.
After that you can't really argue for ancient hardware that can get the job done vs newer hardware that can get the job done and can also be upgraded later for the same $. In your case too, $278 spent on intel would've gotten you a faster system with a baseline mobo and a 3.4 ghz i5.

How can you translate what I spent in 2011 to 2016? Hmm? Nostradamus?

And you're telling me to replace my 60fps gaming rig with an AMD APU? WTF is wrong with you? Daft? For $20 more you can have a 8 core. Come on man. Stop pulling straws out your ass.
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
23,363
Jeezus last dozen posts or so prime example of what another member said about people leaving the forum. Somebody trolls someone else, mentions offtopic (in this case CPU's) and both sides proceed to derail thread. Kudos to making things worse guys...ALL of you.:rolleyes:

Let's get back on topic. :cool:
 

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,369
NVidia's NVENC and AMD's VCE are a part of OBS already as you stated. They are nice medium-low grade alternatives to CPU encoding. Until AMD and Nvidia increase the power of their GPUs greatly, the image quality from these solutions will always be second fiddle to the quality that a 5820K or 5960X can produce. XEON processor encoding is a wet dream for most Twitch streamers. I find it cute everytime that I read an NVIdia article talking about how GPUs are going to change the world when they can't even encode a video that matches a CPU on Twitch.

It's not even close. But they are nice if you can't afford the real tools for the job. A 5960X makes my FX-9370 look like shit when it comes to CPU encoding . That's truth.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure that's what consoles are doing. They use the GPU for video capture and encoding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_technical_specifications#Hardware_modules

So the CPU is kind of irrelevant as an argument on that front. That is, no matter what CPU you get, you won't be behind consoles as far as streaming and video capture goes.

Personally I think AMD users are being a bit prickly. It's easy to see everything as trolling if you act like that. You got what you did, and you had reasons for why you did it. So just state it loud and proud. Ignore trolls. It is what it is.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,161
Jeezus last dozen posts or so prime example of what another member said about people leaving the forum. Somebody trolls someone else, mentions offtopic (in this case CPU's) and both sides proceed to derail thread. Kudos to making things worse guys...ALL of you.:rolleyes:

Let's get back on topic. :cool:

Very true. I'll leave it alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top