This is why Fury X can't ever touch Maxwell

TaintedSquirrel said:
Umm excuse me, that was an overblown smear campaign by AMD fanboys just to make Maxwell look bad. It still hasn't been proven to cause any performance problems in real games, okay? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything either way. He just said it was 3.5GB + 0.5GB, which is exactly what the Nvidia apology statement said.
 
Hey Tainted are you still mad that the new AMD card didn't lower prices so you could afford a new card? Guess you will just have to wait for the great GPU die shrink that's coming, then maybe prices will come down for ya.
 
Gideon said:
Hey Tainted are you still mad that the new AMD card didn't lower prices so you could afford a new card? Guess you will just have to wait for the great GPU die shrink that's coming, then maybe prices will come down for ya.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're being snarky or if you're genuinely concerned.
If it's the first one, be less thinly veiled next time so I can report you for harrassment. In which case, shame on me for not wanting to spend $650 on a video card...? :cool:

If you're genuinely concerned, then yes, it does look like I'm stuck waiting until next year. A significant sale would be enough to sway me. ~$250 GTX 970 or similar. Hawaii would have to be much less for me to consider buying... I just need something to get me through the Fall gaming season which I can re-sell to buy a flagship Pascal next year.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
I can't tell if you're being snarky or if you're genuinely concerned.
If it's the first one, be less thinly veiled next time so I can report you for harrassment. In which case, shame on me for not wanting to spend $650 on a video card...? :cool:

If you're genuinely concerned, then yes, it does look like I'm stuck waiting until next year. A significant sale would be enough to sway me. ~$250 GTX 970 or similar. Hawaii would have to be much less for me to consider buying... I just need something to get me through the Fall gaming season which I can re-sell to buy a flagship Pascal next year.
Click to expand...

You answered this exactly how I expected. All the people that seem so upset with Fury are the ones that think they need to upgrade and now video card prices did not drop like everyone was hoping for. Thus the rage on the forums lately. Price wars have been killing AMD for quite some time and it looks like they have figured out a way to end that issue, just slightly under perform the top card. But they managed to do even better by having crossfire outshine sli thus making people need to get two cards thus a double sale and profit for them. But no matter how you look at it, the truth is Monolithic dies are just never going to be cheap, the non die shrink is why gpu prices are so high right now.

Since you use a 280 why not just pick up a 290x for 250 bucks and sell the 280 now. You most likely are gaming at 1080p and a 290x has no problems running games at that resolution. This would easily tide you over till the next gen cards arrive.
 
PRIME1 said:
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/07/26/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_4k_video_card_review/8
Click to expand...

With the performance we have evaluated on all three video cards we can now talk about the level of 4K gaming with current single-GPU video cards. Frankly put, single-GPU video cards do not perform well enough to enjoy immersive gaming at 4K.

Even the $999 TITAN X is far and away from high settings in most newer games at 4K and has to make many graphics options image quality sacrifices to find playable performance.

It does better in CF than even Titans do in SLI, so I look forward to that review from [H] even though many other sites have already done theirs.
 
DracoNB said:
It does better in CF than even Titans do in SLI, so I look forward to that review from [H] even though many other sites have already done theirs.
Click to expand...
"better in CF"

as a long time amd user.. good luck with that crossfire support, or the lack of it.

also these fury x cf vs 980ti/titan sli tests forget to overclock both cards and we both know which ones can overclock..
 
Kaori said:
"better in CF"

as a long time amd user.. good luck with that crossfire support, or the lack of it.

also these fury x cf vs 980ti/titan sli tests forget to overclock both cards and we both know which ones can overclock..
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are enjoying your 980 TI SLi setup.
 
5150Joker said:
Well so much for overclocking. Just like many of us speculated, this thing is maxed out from the factory and despite having water cooling, the vrm still hit 95c with over volt. I wonder what excuses we'll be treated to now.
Click to expand...

yep. and pointing out that it was probably maxed from the factory got you labeled a hater.

unfortunately this isn't one of those times it feels good to be right. Fury without overclocking headroom hurts both camps,. and erases what would've been a nice price drop on that next Nvidia card.

I want Lisa Su out before the end of the year.
 
DPI said:
yep. and pointing out that it was probably maxed from the factory got you labeled a hater.

unfortunately this isn't one of those times it feels good to be right. Fury without overclocking headroom hurts both camps,. and erases what would've been a nice price drop on that next Nvidia card.

I want Lisa Su out before the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Lets be real here.

Two things. What percentage of the people buying these cards actually overclock? I don't even always do it. In fact with reference tis in sli I probably never would due to noise. The enthusiasts at the forums don't necessarily make up the average end user. That said I did go with a non-reference ti due to overclocking head room. I wanted to move to a single card.

Secondly there is noise. FuryX is clearly king here. Might be tougher to run with two cards in most cases but in the right case its going to be far quieter even when overclocking. To me that would compensate for the lower overclocking headrrom.

I won't pay the same price for a similarly performing amd card that I would for the nvidia equivalent. Going by current marketshare I would imagine that I'm not alone here. AMD needs to grab some marketshare back from existing nvidia users. I would have been all over a fury x at $550.
 
PRIME1 said:
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/07/26/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_4k_video_card_review/8

Let's be honest, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is getting its butt kicked at 4K.
Click to expand...

Frankly put, single-GPU video cards do not perform well enough to enjoy immersive gaming at 4K.
Click to expand...

Bit academic when none of the cards are fast enough right? So desperate to praise Nvidia that you'll trumpet a win even when games are not playable on any of the cards.

Playing games is the point remember? Not some pathetic pissing contest between brands.

I'd expect such a seasoned troll to be more proficient by now. :eek:
 
Last edited:
BababooeyHTJ said:
Lets be real here.

Two things. What percentage of the people buying these cards actually overclock? I don't even always do it. In fact with reference tis in sli I probably never would due to noise. The enthusiasts at the forums don't necessarily make up the average end user. That said I did go with a non-reference ti due to overclocking head room. I wanted to move to a single card.

Secondly there is noise. FuryX is clearly king here. Might be tougher to run with two cards in most cases but in the right case its going to be far quieter even when overclocking. To me that would compensate for the lower overclocking headrrom.

I won't pay the same price for a similarly performing amd card that I would for the nvidia equivalent. Going by current marketshare I would imagine that I'm not alone here. AMD needs to grab some marketshare back from existing nvidia users. I would have been all over a fury x at $550.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but overclocking is extremely easy these days, unless you're the kind that overvolts and aims for max OC.

How hard is it to slide 2 sliders into place and call it a day? You wouldn't even have to stress test it. For NVIDIA cards, just slide the slider until core is 1400MHz, thermal target to max and you're set.

I don't buy the excuse that people who buy $650 cards don't usually overclock. People don't overclock because it's hard and time consuming, or they don't know how. Can't see both happening with NVIDIA cards, at least.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Lets be real here.

Two things. What percentage of the people buying these cards actually overclock? I don't even always do it. In fact with reference tis in sli I probably never would due to noise. The enthusiasts at the forums don't necessarily make up the average end user. That said I did go with a non-reference ti due to overclocking head room. I wanted to move to a single card.

Secondly there is noise. FuryX is clearly king here. Might be tougher to run with two cards in most cases but in the right case its going to be far quieter even when overclocking. To me that would compensate for the lower overclocking headrrom.

I won't pay the same price for a similarly performing amd card that I would for the nvidia equivalent. Going by current marketshare I would imagine that I'm not alone here. AMD needs to grab some marketshare back from existing nvidia users. I would have been all over a fury x at $550.
Click to expand...
Well I think overclocking is one of the biggest factors people look at when buying expensive cards like this.
 
misterbobby said:
Well I think overclocking is one of the biggest factors people look at when buying expensive cards like this.
Click to expand...

(I'm agreeing with this post, BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm trying to argue otherwise.)

Overclocking matters when the company claims that it will overclock like a dream (not that overclocking is going to only be experienced in a dream). 4K performance matters when a card is called a 4K card. Regardless of whether or not anyone else's cards can or cannot drive modern games at a reasonable playable setting on a 4K display is not (in my view) the issue.

It's quite possible that this card is designed to be experienced at its best when there are two (or more) in your system but this puts the price of admission almost at the price point I spent in making two identical systems (sans video cards) for my wife and my own gameplay.
 
Back in the day being real hardcore was not about buying the top self card but more about spending less to get more and buying your time.. it's sad to think that an 8800GT like card with a low price could be coming to make got to have now fans feel real bad.. as $659 to $999 for 28nm gpu is insane.
 
DPI said:
yep. and pointing out that it was probably maxed from the factory got you labeled a hater.

unfortunately this isn't one of those times it feels good to be right. Fury without overclocking headroom hurts both camps,. and erases what would've been a nice price drop on that next Nvidia card.

I want Lisa Su out before the end of the year.
Click to expand...

As much as you want to set yourself up as a victim of "haters" and feel good being right, you're not either. It's clearly not "maxed from the factory" the review shows a 100MHz overclock with negative 24mV. How is that "maxed out"?

Clearly 980ti is a better overclocker but anyone familiar with GCN on 28nm wouldn't be at all surprised that it maxes out at around 1200MHz (notice how this isn't the factory clocks as you claim?) with some extra voltage.

5150Joker said:
Well so much for overclocking. Just like many of us speculated, this thing is maxed out from the factory and despite having water cooling, the vrm still hit 95c with over volt. I wonder what excuses we'll be treated to now.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "so much for overclocking"? it overclocks just as you'd expect. Read above regarding it being "maxed out from the factory". VRMs are rated for 150c so I'm not sure there is any need to fret over 95c. Who would need excuses the fact are the facts?

It's a worse overclocker than the 980ti (I'll say it twice to avoid fanboy insinuations) but it's very in-line with expectations for GCN. Hyperbole here is out of control. I own Nvdia cards, in fact over 2:1 compared to AMD but I feel like I'm being one sided just countering the rampant misinformation.
 
AllBlackFan said:
As much as you want to set yourself up as a victim of "haters" and feel good being right, you're not either. It's clearly not "maxed from the factory" the review shows a 100MHz overclock with negative 24mV. How is that "maxed out"?

Clearly 980ti is a better overclocker but anyone familiar with GCN on 28nm wouldn't be at all surprised that it maxes out at around 1200MHz (notice how this isn't the factory clocks as you claim?) with some extra voltage.



Not sure what you mean by "so much for overclocking"? it overclocks just as you'd expect. Read above regarding it being "maxed out from the factory". VRMs are rated for 150c so I'm not sure there is any need to fret over 95c. Who would need excuses the fact are the facts?

It's a worse overclocker than the 980ti (I'll say it twice to avoid fanboy insinuations) but it's very in-line with expectations for GCN. Hyperbole here is out of control. I own Nvdia cards, in fact over 2:1 compared to AMD but I feel like I'm being one sided just countering the rampant misinformation.
Click to expand...

Because there are other components on the board not rated for 150C? 95C is with the cover off. I still want to see someone TC the VRMs with the cover on.

I think the concerns are valid since the AIBs reduced their usual warranties for the Fury X.

I haven't seen any data that would suggest this card isn't maxed out.
 
DracoNB said:
With the performance we have evaluated on all three video cards we can now talk about the level of 4K gaming with current single-GPU video cards. Frankly put, single-GPU video cards do not perform well enough to enjoy immersive gaming at 4K.
Click to expand...

AMD was the one pushing this card for 4K and an "overclockers dream". Instead they got their butt kicked.

Fury is the worst card since the 2900. It may even take the crown from the 2900.
 
PRIME1 said:
AMD was the one pushing this card for 4K and an "overclockers dream". Instead they got their butt kicked.

Fury is the worst card since the 2900. It may even take the crown from the 2900.
Click to expand...

Lol so if Fury is so bad, what does that make Nvidia considering they are about equal. Nvidia is faster, but larger, louder and more power hungry (especially when you OC it to the MAX!!!!!). Fury X doesn't match its hype, but its still a good card its own right, and CREATED the 980 TI price point so you aren't stuck with the 980 and Titan X as your only two options. The premium on price is because its a small card and comes water cooled. Please show me a watercooled 980 TI for $650.
 
AllBlackFan said:
As much as you want to set yourself up as a victim of "haters" and feel good being right, you're not either. It's clearly not "maxed from the factory" the review shows a 100MHz overclock with negative 24mV. How is that "maxed out"?

Clearly 980ti is a better overclocker but anyone familiar with GCN on 28nm wouldn't be at all surprised that it maxes out at around 1200MHz (notice how this isn't the factory clocks as you claim?) with some extra voltage.
Click to expand...

Nope, the expectations AMD fans and AMD themselves hyped up is that it would be an overclocker's dream. The OC they are getting with minimal gains in FPS is a complete fail. Making excuses for GCN being an outdated architecture not fit to take on Maxwell v2 is at least partially true but it still doesn't excuse the $650 price tag and "overclocker's dream" statements.

DracoNB said:
Lol so if Fury is so bad, what does that make Nvidia considering they are about equal. Nvidia is faster, but larger, louder and more power hungry (especially when you OC it to the MAX!!!!!). Fury X doesn't match its hype, but its still a good card its own right, and CREATED the 980 TI price point so you aren't stuck with the 980 and Titan X as your only two options. The premium on price is because its a small card and comes water cooled. Please show me a watercooled 980 TI for $650.
Click to expand...

What graphs have you been reading? The OC'd Fury X with barely any gain in performance is hitting 600W while the OC'd Zotac 980 Ti Amp (you know, my first post in this thread) hums along quietly while sipping on power (relative to Failure X) even with 1400+ MHz under its belt. Or are you trying to pretend that this card doesn't exist?

d079d695-d8d9-4b77-bf79-c9f61a7667c3.png

9add4ca8-5df0-4e0b-94e9-153da2a6bad6.png

dcd46b90-d2f5-4fdd-aeb0-013ecbcf3efd.png

power.gif
 
5150Joker said:
Nope, the expectations AMD fans and AMD themselves hyped up is that it would be an overclocker's dream. The OC they are getting with minimal gains in FPS is a complete fail. Making excuses for GCN being an outdated architecture not fit to take on Maxwell v2 is at least partially true but it still doesn't excuse the $650 price tag and "overclocker's dream" statements.
Click to expand...

Not sure why I'm getting a "nope"? I didn't create those expectations, AMD marketing and their "fans" were clearly wrong. Same architecture and same process node. It's not exactly going out on a limb (or worthy or self congratulation) to predict the clocks would reach a similar level. My point was and is that just because the 980ti is a better overclocker doesn't mean that Fury is "maxed out from the factory" like you claim. It still overclocks.
 

I guess the words "Full System load" escaped your view, even though its the title of the graph.

The 980 TI went from 290 watts as stock to over 340 for that card, that's over 50 watt (20%) gain and is using 20 more than the Fury X.

The fact they were able to pump 150 more watts into the Fury X means its not running @ full capacity at stock.They were also able to undervolt it by 40 watts

Again, way to completely miss the point of my post.
 
DracoNB said:
I guess the words "Full System load" escaped your view, even though its the title of the graph.

The 980 TI went from 290 watts as stock to over 340 for that card, that's over 50 watt (20%) gain and is using 20 more than the Fury X.

The fact they were able to pump 150 more watts into the Fury X means its not running @ full capacity at stock.They were also able to undervolt it by 40 watts

Again, way to completely miss the point of my post.
Click to expand...

You said the 980 Ti was loud and power hungry yet I showed you were clearly wrong. Even when OC'd the Zotac 980 Ti consumes less power than an undervolted OC'd Failure X while running circles around it in performance at all levels. Those power readings are both system power consumption/draw. PRIME 1 is right, this card is one of AMD's biggest blunders in a long long time. It was marketed as an overclocker's dream and isn't, the HBM was hyped to no end yet it made no difference vs 980 TI/Titan X and worst of all, it gets stomped against aftermarket 980 Ti cards (a cut down GM200 no less). All NVIDIA has to do at this point is allow AIB's to make full GM200 6 GB cards to really pound AMD into the dirt.

Just FYI, both of my Titan X's on a Tech|Inferno vbios hit 1500+ MHz stable using a reference cooler. Because it's a ref. cooler the fans do get pretty loud but if I had the willpower, I could toss it on a custom loop and run 1500 MHz 24/7. At those speeds, AMD doesn't come close and now imagine an AIB 980 Ultra (full GM200) that's built like this Zotac, we'd probably easily see up to 40% difference in many games (especially 1440P). Hell I think we're getting close to 40% in some games already at that resolution.
 
Last edited:
DracoNB said:
I guess the words "Full System load" escaped your view, even though its the title of the graph.

The 980 TI went from 290 watts as stock to over 340 for that card, that's over 50 watt (20%) gain and is using 20 more than the Fury X.

The fact they were able to pump 150 more watts into the Fury X means its not running @ full capacity at stock.They were also able to undervolt it by 40 watts

Again, way to completely miss the point of my post.
Click to expand...

Dude stop beating the same drum. You're absolutely being ridiculous. FuryX has lost this round, now go home and take a rest.
 
5150Joker said:
You said the 980 Ti was loud and power hungry yet I showed you were clearly wrong. Even when OC'd the Zotac 980 Ti consumes less power than an undervolted OC'd Failure X while running circles around it in performance at all levels. Those power readings are both system power consumption/draw. PRIME 1 is right, this card is one of AMD's biggest blunders in a long long time. It was marketed as an overclocker's dream and isn't, the HBM was hyped to no end yet it made no difference vs 980 TI/Titan X and worst of all, it gets stomped against aftermarket 980 Ti cards (a cut down GM200 no less). All NVIDIA has to do at this point is allow AIB's to make full GM200 6 GB cards to really pound AMD into the dirt.Just FYI, both of my Titan X's on a Tech|Inferno vbios hit 1500+ MHz stable using a reference cooler. Because it's a ref. cooler the fans do get pretty loud but if I had the willpower, I could toss it on a custom loop and run 1500 MHz 24/7. At those speeds, AMD doesn't come close and now imagine an AIB 980 Ultra (full GM200) that's built like this Zotac, we'd probably easily see up to 40% difference in many games (especially 1440P). Hell I think we're getting close to 40% in some games already at that resolution.
Click to expand...

I was talking reference cards, you are talking about $50 premium cards with extra large coolers (AMP Extreme) or custom water loops.
 
madgun said:
Dude stop beating the same drum. You're absolutely being ridiculous. FuryX has lost this round, now go home and take a rest.
Click to expand...

You are right, its not worth trying to argue with a bunch of people who bought Titan X's. I'll let your circle jerk continue.
 
I see a certain circle jerk has been working overtime, I wonder which one of them is going to eat the cookie?
 
Last edited:
^^ Lol this for the last 2 pages.

I think you are all ( well at least some) are forgetting the main picture. So lets take a look at the basics. People who are paying for these cards and who are also not fanbois are looking for the best experience possible and everyone loves icing on the cake which the 980ti has plenty of in comparison. So lets recap, with empathy to a new buyer weighing up the cards.

1. Performance under 4k. Many either dont have and/or really want these cards to power a lower than 4k screen, namely 1440p at max setting. 980ti does this best to make a short story of that. Big selling point to me.
2. Overclocking - whether you do or you dont is sort of irrelevant here, knowing that theres a lot more power available just spells that youve got a better card. I also say not knowing is worse than knowing it cant, because that can lead to butthurtitis. 980ti has clearly won this argument to date, and even if furyx can in a driver update or whatever, it missed my boat for sure.
3. Inputs - debatable to a degree but silly things like the hdmi 2.0 thing is a bit confusing whether you care or not, and in the realms of point 2, everyone loves having more possibilities available and 980ti with its DVI DL (selling point for me in a way as i use it) and hdmi 2.0 secures the sale.
4. Drivers - Yeah im bringing this up. Im not saying Catalyst is bad but i find the 2 little things that go a long way for me is the ability to easily change the number of prerendered frames and also DSR works for me just lovely. VSR kinda scared me, although i have no experience with it. Based on my research prior to buying, it appeared to me however DSR was better.
5. Power consumption - sure the 980ti can get up and go and chew a bit more watts, but seemingly when it is leaving the Fury X in the dust ;).
6. A plus to AMD, cooling - Pretty obvious the AMD has the watercooler out of the box, that said however...
7. Noise - Hopefully your Fury X isnt a whiner XD. So far we know that air coolers on most of the 980tis are pretty quiet to a certain level. And mine is personally quiet at 1494/3758 so thats a double plus (although i couldnt of really known this until i had it, but that info is now readily available on forums now from many users.)
8. Whats in the box? - Well Nvidia has a free game. Even if it was fucked (batman) this is still a plus.

So looking at that, if i were in the market for one of these cards, as I was, the 980ti takes my cash. Fanboi or not, there is no argument for the Fury X unless it is for a quad xfire rig or whatever, if those reviews can be believed. Even then im not so sure because if i bought 4 980tis id get 4 games and sell 3 to make a few quid back so then in that situation its actually fairer for the nvidia 980tis to be a touch slower in sli, although still valid to say it loses here, again if the reviews on this can be believed.

So unless you are fanboi or the watercooler caught your fancy, you made a mistake in purchasing the Fury X.
 
SsmB_92 said:
^^ Lol this for the last 2 pages.

I think you are all ( well at least some) are forgetting the main picture. So lets take a look at the basics. People who are paying for these cards and who are also not fanbois are looking for the best experience possible and everyone loves icing on the cake which the 980ti has plenty of in comparison. So lets recap, with empathy to a new buyer weighing up the cards.

1. Performance under 4k. Many either dont have and/or really want these cards to power a lower than 4k screen, namely 1440p at max setting. 980ti does this best to make a short story of that. Big selling point to me.
2. Overclocking - whether you do or you dont is sort of irrelevant here, knowing that theres a lot more power available just spells that youve got a better card. I also say not knowing is worse than knowing it cant, because that can lead to butthurtitis. 980ti has clearly won this argument to date, and even if furyx can in a driver update or whatever, it missed my boat for sure.
3. Inputs - debatable to a degree but silly things like the hdmi 2.0 thing is a bit confusing whether you care or not, and in the realms of point 2, everyone loves having more possibilities available and 980ti with its DVI DL (selling point for me in a way as i use it) and hdmi 2.0 secures the sale.
4. Drivers - Yeah im bringing this up. Im not saying Catalyst is bad but i find the 2 little things that go a long way for me is the ability to easily change the number of prerendered frames and also DSR works for me just lovely. VSR kinda scared me, although i have no experience with it. Based on my research prior to buying, it appeared to me however DSR was better.
5. Power consumption - sure the 980ti can get up and go and chew a bit more watts, but seemingly when it is leaving the Fury X in the dust ;).
6. A plus to AMD, cooling - Pretty obvious the AMD has the watercooler out of the box, that said however...
7. Noise - Hopefully your Fury X isnt a whiner XD. So far we know that air coolers on most of the 980tis are pretty quiet to a certain level. And mine is personally quiet at 1494/3758 so thats a double plus (although i couldnt of really known this until i had it, but that info is now readily available on forums now from many users.)
8. Whats in the box? - Well Nvidia has a free game. Even if it was fucked (batman) this is still a plus.

So looking at that, if i were in the market for one of these cards, as I was, the 980ti takes my cash. Fanboi or not, there is no argument for the Fury X unless it is for a quad xfire rig or whatever, if those reviews can be believed. Even then im not so sure because if i bought 4 980tis id get 4 games and sell 3 to make a few quid back so then in that situation its actually fairer for the nvidia 980tis to be a touch slower in sli, although still valid to say it loses here, again if the reviews on this can be believed.

So unless you are fanboi or the watercooler caught your fancy, you made a mistake in purchasing the Fury X.
Click to expand...

How did they make a mistake if they bought exactly what they wanted? You seem to forget people have a freedom of choice.
 
wizzi01 said:
How did they make a mistake if they bought exactly what they wanted? You seem to forget people have a freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

As i mentioned at the top of the post, this is considering a new buyer who is not biased by brand deciding on which card is best. I also did say that unless you were fanboi or enticed by the watercooling of the fury x and its so far unfound overclocking potential (and even then), you made a mistake.

If you bought a fury x simply because thats what you wanted then good for you, sure you got freedom of choice, but its definitely the poorer choice atm. At least on the single card side of things, as mentioned above apparently quad fire is the way to go with these things.
 
wizzi01 said:
How did they make a mistake if they bought exactly what they wanted? You seem to forget people have a freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

They have a freedom to make a bad decision, yes :p The Fury is objectively a failure and not worth buying. Denying that is ridiculous.
 
SsmB_92 said:
As i mentioned at the top of the post, this is considering a new buyer who is not biased by brand deciding on which card is best. I also did say that unless you were fanboi or enticed by the watercooling of the fury x and its so far unfound overclocking potential (and even then), you made a mistake.

If you bought a fury x simply because thats what you wanted then good for you, sure you got freedom of choice, but its definitely the poorer choice atm. At least on the single card side of things, as mentioned above apparently quad fire is the way to go with these things.
Click to expand...

Sure, but then the 980ti is a mistake as well regardless of what you want. :rolleyes: Not everyone has $650 to just throw away on a video card that will be obsolete come this time next year. Also, gaming is not a need at all but simply a want, which is fine but, to some, you made a mistake spending your money on gaming.

I think you need to look more at the big picture and not at simply your own small sample size. The real issue I have is the same folks who cried that Mantle will fracture the game market are praising real loudly that NVidia Gameworks is the second coming well it fractures the game market.

Personally, I wish AMD would have pushed proprietary tech that made their cards look way better than the NVidia cards. However, they are not going to do that so, oh well.
 
kalston said:
They have a freedom to make a bad decision, yes :p The Fury is objectively a failure and not worth buying. Denying that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It isn't a bad decision if they like their choice. I know it is hard for you to understand that concept.
 
ManofGod said:
Personally, I wish AMD would have pushed proprietary tech that made their cards look way better than the NVidia cards. However, they are not going to do that so, oh well.
Click to expand...

You mean like Mantle, Freesync, Brook+ or TrueAudio? AMD has plenty of proprietary stuff. It's just either really bad or AMD drops support for it because no one uses it.

Trying to paint AMD as the good guy is like trying to clean a dirt floor.
 
PRIME1 said:
You mean like Mantle, Freesync, Brook+ or TrueAudio? AMD has plenty of proprietary stuff. It's just either really bad or AMD drops support for it because no one uses it.

Trying to paint AMD as the good guy is like trying to clean a dirt floor.
Click to expand...

Trying to paint either company as not in the business of making profits is idiotic. Good guys and bad guys are both weirdly sentimental notions here.

As someone who used AMD products for many years due to features they had that nV didn't, I am now just as comfortable using a 980ti. It lacks for a couple things I would have preferred, but it's just not a generation of significant leaps forward in features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top