Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good companies stay ahead of the curve and the bad ones are always trying to catch up.
I could go on and cherry pick but the point remains that just because you may favor one company or they happen to have the niche compatibility you want at a moment doesn't mean another company is not good. Try to keep your bias in check.
AMD could have taken more time to add HDMI 2.0 and 8 Gigs of vram. Everyone would have appreciated that release. It's not that the FuryX is bad in any way but it's missing a few key ingredients that would sway away a lot of buyers apart from the usual red team fans.
No proof those adapters will come out this summer. Also what I saw from that one manufacturer (Bizlink) said that they planned to release it Q4 of 2015 (I can't find where).
Those active adapters usually cost at least $100 and introduce problems like lag,
BizLink DisplayPort to DVI-D Dual Link Adapter , ACTIVE , Powered by USB Port , Brand NEW , Dell P/N : XT625"
Electronics; £29.99
He's talking about DP -> HDMI 2.0, not DVI.
Adapters are a horrible solution. Do some research, the add about 20 to 30ms of latency.
Honestly, keep what you have especially if guys are at 1080p. There is literally no point in upgrading to the Fury X, Pro, etc.
The entire community is stunned that these cards do not have DVI or HDMI 2.0 on top of, not enough memory to do high to ultra settings at 4k.
I'm going to wait for pascal in 2016.
Besides, we all know the driver situation / support from AMD is still a nightware.
I'm not saying you are crazy, but I have played most of the major releases this year on my 290X CF setup and my girlfriend games all the time on her 290 and we haven't had many major problems. Even NVIDIA's current driver set for the 980 Ti has some issues for many users, nothing is perfect unfortunately. My point was more along the lines that AMD's driver quality is substantially better now than common internet opinion reflects.I have had a ton of problems with my 280X that I know are specifically caused by this GPU and yet other people say I am crazy because their card is "fine".
Not all TVs have terrible input latency, you get what you pay for.Wait, WHAT? So these tvs with an already high latency compared to monitors are now worried about latency?
I'm not saying you are crazy, but I have played most of the major releases this year on my 290X CF setup and my girlfriend games all the time on her 290 and we haven't had many major problems. Even NVIDIA's current driver set for the 980 Ti has some issues for many users, nothing is perfect unfortunately. My point was more along the lines that AMD's driver quality is substantially better now than common internet opinion reflects.
Not all TVs have terrible input latency, you get what you pay for.
Here are input lag findings for tv's http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
It seems fairly up to date and you can select to only see 4k tvs. A total of 6 tv's, only 4 in the 20ms range, have under 40ms input lag as far as 4k. All of those cost a 2000+ dollars and offer no better than 21ms of input lag.
So everyone who has been talking about input lag in this thread has a $2000 4k tv in their house and enjoys 21ms of input lag?
Wait, WHAT? So these tvs with an already high latency compared to monitors are now worried about latency?
Bear in mind that input lag is somewhat subjective and some people do not notice it as much as other people. For couch gaming, and certain types of games, it's not as important. Would I play COD or Battlefield on 20+ ms of input lag? No. Would I play turn-based RPGs or strategy games? Probably.Here are input lag findings for tv's http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
It seems fairly up to date and you can select to only see 4k tvs. A total of 6 tv's, only 4 in the 20ms range, have under 40ms input lag as far as 4k. All of those cost a 2000+ dollars and offer no better than 21ms of input lag.
So everyone who has been talking about input lag in this thread has a $2000 4k tv in their house and enjoys 21ms of input lag?
Here is another site that has more input lag results... http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
Again nothing much under 20ms ( 2 tvs are 17ms that were 20ms on the other web site I listed) several $1000+ tv's with 27ms of lag (released in 2015) and only 2 of them are 40" at $1000.
And them we get back to the 40+ms of lag.
Bear in mind that input lag is somewhat subjective and some people do not notice it as much as other people. For couch gaming, and certain types of games, it's not as important. Would I play COD or Battlefield on 20+ ms of input lag? No. Would I play turn-based RPGs or strategy games? Probably.
Either way, I don't really see this as a valid reason to not include HDMI 2.0 support. The standard was released 2 years ago and is backwards compatible. It's a lack of foresight if they really didn't include it, given how well these cards would work in SFF media PCs and Steamboxes otherwise.
Man 980 Ti owners are out in full force this week.
Gotta prevent that early on-set buyers' remorse.
AMD wouldn't market a new flagship as a 4K card when its not even capable of handling the games being tested in the launch benchmarks. Stop comparing it to bandwidth-starved GDDR5 Nvidia cards.
I have had a ton of problems with my 280X that I know are specifically caused by this GPU and yet other people say I am crazy because their card is "fine".
Man 980 Ti owners are out in full force this week.
Gotta prevent that early on-set buyers' remorse.
AMD wouldn't market a new flagship as a 4K card when its not even capable of handling the games being tested in the launch benchmarks. Stop comparing it to bandwidth-starved GDDR5 Nvidia cards.
Unless you have a Fury X, I will wait for official reviews before getting my pitchfork, if it's all the same to you.They were not able to achieve anything greater than 4GB with HBM1. And 4GB is not enough. Period.
Now you've hurt my feelings.What are you talking about AMD shill.
Only fanboys would get outraged over something that isn't even released yet.
If I actually said that, please link me the post so I can correct it.He mentioned earlier that AMD didn't feel a need to put more than 4 Gb of vram whereas clearly they were limited to it by HBM1.
There have been wrong facts presented by Tainted Squirrel throughout. He mentioned earlier that AMD didn't feel a need to put more than 4 Gb of vram whereas clearly they were limited to it by HBM1.
They would have loved to add more considering FuryX is an ultra high end card.
With a series of deceits and lies only make one conclusion in my mind that he's on a personal agenda and I rightly called him a shill.
The original 5K benchmarks w/ 4-Way SLI turned out to be quite bad because of the horrendous 347.88 drivers.
If you see the 3-Way SLI review at 5K (here: https://youtu.be/NQIc9MuP8ck), the performance is way better.
3-Way SLI Titan X w/ 350.05:
If I actually said that, please link me the post so I can correct it.
I would never claim that AMD intentionally put 4 GB on these cards because we know they were limited to gen1 HBM for months.
If you can't find the post (which you can't, because I never said that) please edit that statement out. Misquoting someone for the purpose of pushing your agenda is a dick move.
Maybe he owned 970 SLI and is on a revenge scheme? Not a shill unless you get paid. To me that's two different levels. Revenge is ok in my book where being a shill is like selling your soul.
I personally think HBM at this capacity was premature. As far as I can tell the bandwidth was not needed yet and the capacity is a hindrance. I am too lazy to find it, but someone did trisli Titan X's at 5k and 9 of 15 of the games used over 4GB (up to 10GB IIRC) and had playable framerates. I use DSR and that slaughters VRAM. But we shall see on the 24th. [H] has definitely even paying attention to VRAM and the Fury X is the first card with the power to go over 4GB at playable rates (as far as I can tell).
I lied, I took the time to find it, I couldn't help myself and 5k is relevant to me because I use DSR (or VSR on AMD's side) up to 6880x2880:
But isn't the memory used there total across 3 cards so individual card memory is 1/3 of the total. Hell I have yet to go over 3.5Gb using VSR @1800, highest being Skyrim modded. Wither3 used a max of 2.2Gb Vram with full Ultra. Now I don't use AA with VSR or at most maybe X2 so could be why mine is low.
add: honestly from that chart cant tell if it is x3 or they took that into account and that is on each card. Some show 3Gb so not likely it is only using 1Gb.
It's not 3x. I used over 3GB all the time on my single 980 when I had it. It's not crazy for a system 4x's as powerful to use those numbers.
Anywho in this case when I see data of high end systems using over 4GB I prefer a "prove to me 4GB is ok" not a I hope "AMD will pull magic out of their ass and all is ok" perspective. If this card did slaughter a Titan X it's not beyond me to switch to team red.