And all you'll need to power it is a small pebble bed thorium reactor.
Batteries not included! Or thats the reasonthey use water cooling, too keep the reactor save.
Jokes aside. Im curious about the stacked memory and how it will perform. My guess about the price range I'd place it a tiny bit lower than the Nvidia... maybe a $ or ten.
Btw about the titan, is it really 12gb or just 10+2 like they did in other cards?
Why the fuck do you need this monster cards , i play games perfectly with my 4 year old alienware laptop.
it's my first rig that never had issues except some hot tea spill on it but still working lol, keyboard died ...
For the most part I agree, they are well beyond excessive for most peoples needs, even most hardcore gamers. That said I am interested in these monster cards because I plan on being a VR early adopter and I expect it will be very taxing on the GPU. That said for now my three year old card is handling everything thrown at it and VR is still not till the end of the year )for valves and may be even longer for occulus) so I will still wait and see what I need when the time comes.
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. For years, AMD released monthly driver updates, while Nvidia released driver updates less commonly--only when they had something that it made sense to package up as a major driver release. AMD finally conceded that their monthly driver releases were ridiculous, as in a lot of them, they didn't have anything new worth releasing, so they joined Nvidia in only releasing new drivers when it made sense. Now both AMD and Nvidia's main driver releases (as opposed to beta, hotfix, or game-specific optimizations) are much less than monthly. Nvidia has had six regular driver releases since the start of 2014.
Now, it's not a bad thing that Nvidia does that. But arguing that Nvidia is better because of more frequent driver updates is nonsense when:
a) Nvidia's driver updates are about as common as AMD's, and
b) driver update frequency isn't the appropriate metric.
And all you'll need to power it is a small pebble bed thorium reactor.
Batteries not included! Or thats the reasonthey use water cooling, too keep the reactor save.
Jokes aside. Im curious about the stacked memory and how it will perform. My guess about the price range I'd place it a tiny bit lower than the Nvidia... maybe a $ or ten.
Btw about the titan, is it really 12gb or just 10+2 like they did in other cards?
On the flagship, it will be 12 GB at full bandwidth. On cut down versions, it's less predictable. Nvidia has done dumb stuff with memory on other GPUs on a number of occasions, including the GeForce GTX 550 Ti, GeForce GTX 660, GeForce GTX 660 Ti, and most recently, the GeForce GTX 970. Also some versions of the GeForce GTX 460, but not the ones that they told reviewers about.
We need to rant on NVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire for the lack of support in games recently. Whether the fault of NVIDIA, AMD, or said game company, many games have been released in the past several months with lacking or no SLI or CrossFire support. In fact, Far Cry 4 has been out over four months now and still does not support CrossFire.
Dying Light came out at the end of January, but AMD hasn't released a new driver in over three months! There is simply no AMD CrossFire profile support for this game because AMD hasn't provided one and hasn't kept up to date with new games. If that does not give you a reason to not buy a second AMD card, there is not much that will.
NVIDIA is a little bit better, or rather not at bad. NVIDIA is aware of the SLI issues in Dying Light and did come up with a solution to provide a profile through GeForce Experience. However, we still cannot get SLI to work properly in this game. It is understood that a game update patch or further driver/profile updates from NVIDIA will be needed to get it working well. This game has already been out almost six weeks however, and that SLI support is still lacking. Again, more reasons to not buy a second GeForce card...
We are extremely disappointed at the lack of attention from game developers, and in part NVIDIA and AMD, for not having SLI and CrossFire support working in these games on launch day.
Both suck at supporting their products with drivers. Sure, you can say nVidia released a new driver, but it didn't work at all, so I'd say on the scale of good to bad, I agree with HardOCP - it still sucks.
So I wouldn't be so quick to defend nVidia just because they appear to have better driver support - they don't. Or at least, offer some concrete proof that they do. Here is one recent example where both GPU vendors are falling down in a more or less equal amount.
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. For years, AMD released monthly driver updates, while Nvidia released driver updates less commonly--only when they had something that it made sense to package up as a major driver release. AMD finally conceded that their monthly driver releases were ridiculous, as in a lot of them, they didn't have anything new worth releasing, so they joined Nvidia in only releasing new drivers when it made sense. Now both AMD and Nvidia's main driver releases (as opposed to beta, hotfix, or game-specific optimizations) are much less than monthly. Nvidia has had six regular driver releases since the start of 2014.
Now, it's not a bad thing that Nvidia does that. But arguing that Nvidia is better because of more frequent driver updates is nonsense when:
a) Nvidia's driver updates are about as common as AMD's, and
b) driver update frequency isn't the appropriate metric.
That's nice if they are doing that now, but oh, 2 years ago or so when I had an AMD card I went the better part of a year without a driver update because my card was over 2 years old. I looked it up to find out if other people were having the same issues and found an encyclopedia worth of people complaining about AMDs long term driver support.
Originally posted by DMKano One thing I've learned over the years - every major MMO studio has Nvidia cards in dev machines that games are developed on.All korean MMO devs use nvidia cards 100%.All major Western MMO studios are 100% nvidia (yes QA tests on AMD cards as well - but devs workstations are all nvidia). I am yet to hear of a single exception to this - not sure why.Just something I found quite interesting.
Im sure there is, probably from studios that have partnerships with amd.
Firefall comes to mind, wonder what they have in their rigs?
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. For years, AMD released monthly driver updates, while Nvidia released driver updates less commonly--only when they had something that it made sense to package up as a major driver release. AMD finally conceded that their monthly driver releases were ridiculous, as in a lot of them, they didn't have anything new worth releasing, so they joined Nvidia in only releasing new drivers when it made sense. Now both AMD and Nvidia's main driver releases (as opposed to beta, hotfix, or game-specific optimizations) are much less than monthly. Nvidia has had six regular driver releases since the start of 2014.
Now, it's not a bad thing that Nvidia does that. But arguing that Nvidia is better because of more frequent driver updates is nonsense when:
a) Nvidia's driver updates are about as common as AMD's, and
b) driver update frequency isn't the appropriate metric.
That's nice if they are doing that now, but oh, 2 years ago or so when I had an AMD card I went the better part of a year without a driver update because my card was over 2 years old. I looked it up to find out if other people were having the same issues and found an encyclopedia worth of people complaining about AMDs long term driver support.
So cool story.
That you don't know how to go to AMD's web site and download a driver for yourself doesn't mean that AMD doesn't make drivers available. Nvidia does tend to offer new drivers for a little longer than AMD, but AMD will reliably offer new drivers for at least 5+ years. AMD tends to discontinue drivers for a few generations at a time, so the earliest of the batch might get new drivers for 8 years, while the latest only gets new drivers for 5. Drivers for older cards are going to be limited to bug fixes, anyway, and not performance improvements--regardless of your vendor.
Now, it is possible that you got an AMD GPU for which you genuinely can't update the drivers. Some laptop vendors disable video driver updates, but that's not AMD's fault. If that's your situation, blame the laptop vendor, not AMD, as AMD offers the drivers, but the laptop vendor won't let you install them.
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. For years, AMD released monthly driver updates, while Nvidia released driver updates less commonly--only when they had something that it made sense to package up as a major driver release. AMD finally conceded that their monthly driver releases were ridiculous, as in a lot of them, they didn't have anything new worth releasing, so they joined Nvidia in only releasing new drivers when it made sense. Now both AMD and Nvidia's main driver releases (as opposed to beta, hotfix, or game-specific optimizations) are much less than monthly. Nvidia has had six regular driver releases since the start of 2014.
Now, it's not a bad thing that Nvidia does that. But arguing that Nvidia is better because of more frequent driver updates is nonsense when:
a) Nvidia's driver updates are about as common as AMD's, and
b) driver update frequency isn't the appropriate metric.
That's nice if they are doing that now, but oh, 2 years ago or so when I had an AMD card I went the better part of a year without a driver update because my card was over 2 years old. I looked it up to find out if other people were having the same issues and found an encyclopedia worth of people complaining about AMDs long term driver support.
So cool story.
That you don't know how to go to AMD's web site and download a driver for yourself doesn't mean that AMD doesn't make drivers available. Nvidia does tend to offer new drivers for a little longer than AMD, but AMD will reliably offer new drivers for at least 5+ years. AMD tends to discontinue drivers for a few generations at a time, so the earliest of the batch might get new drivers for 8 years, while the latest only gets new drivers for 5. Drivers for older cards are going to be limited to bug fixes, anyway, and not performance improvements--regardless of your vendor.
Now, it is possible that you got an AMD GPU for which you genuinely can't update the drivers. Some laptop vendors disable video driver updates, but that's not AMD's fault. If that's your situation, blame the laptop vendor, not AMD, as AMD offers the drivers, but the laptop vendor won't let you install them.
If he had Radeon HD 4000 -series graphic card, AMD moved some of those models to legacy driver support just 3 years after releasing them.
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. For years, AMD released monthly driver updates, while Nvidia released driver updates less commonly--only when they had something that it made sense to package up as a major driver release. AMD finally conceded that their monthly driver releases were ridiculous, as in a lot of them, they didn't have anything new worth releasing, so they joined Nvidia in only releasing new drivers when it made sense. Now both AMD and Nvidia's main driver releases (as opposed to beta, hotfix, or game-specific optimizations) are much less than monthly. Nvidia has had six regular driver releases since the start of 2014.
Now, it's not a bad thing that Nvidia does that. But arguing that Nvidia is better because of more frequent driver updates is nonsense when:
a) Nvidia's driver updates are about as common as AMD's, and
b) driver update frequency isn't the appropriate metric.
That's nice if they are doing that now, but oh, 2 years ago or so when I had an AMD card I went the better part of a year without a driver update because my card was over 2 years old. I looked it up to find out if other people were having the same issues and found an encyclopedia worth of people complaining about AMDs long term driver support.
So cool story.
That you don't know how to go to AMD's web site and download a driver for yourself doesn't mean that AMD doesn't make drivers available. Nvidia does tend to offer new drivers for a little longer than AMD, but AMD will reliably offer new drivers for at least 5+ years. AMD tends to discontinue drivers for a few generations at a time, so the earliest of the batch might get new drivers for 8 years, while the latest only gets new drivers for 5. Drivers for older cards are going to be limited to bug fixes, anyway, and not performance improvements--regardless of your vendor.
Now, it is possible that you got an AMD GPU for which you genuinely can't update the drivers. Some laptop vendors disable video driver updates, but that's not AMD's fault. If that's your situation, blame the laptop vendor, not AMD, as AMD offers the drivers, but the laptop vendor won't let you install them.
If he had Radeon HD 4000 -series graphic card, AMD moved some of those models to legacy driver support just 3 years after releasing them.
Legacy support doesn't mean no more updates. It does mean that the end of driver updates is nearer, but it's also a way for AMD to split their DX 10 class drivers from DX 11 class. Or for the previous move to legacy drivers, to split DX 9 class hardware from DX 10 class, as the hardware is so different that what the drivers needed to do is very different. The most recent drivers for those are late 2013--more than five years after the last 4000 series card launched.
These charts you should take with grain of salt but if its true and price is right 390x will be the NEW king in town(im positive it will anyway even with out these bench)
These charts you should take with grain of salt but if its true and price is right 390x will be the NEW king in town(im positive it will anyway even with out these bench)
I'm going to call fake. Why do the top six give higher performance at 3840x2160 than at 2560x1600, while the rest give slightly lower performance at 2560x1600 than at 3840x2160? The higher resolution is nearly twice as many pixels as the lower resolution, which should make a huge difference in performance.
I'm going to call fake. Why do the top six give higher performance at 3840x2160 than at 2560x1600, while the rest give slightly lower performance at 2560x1600 than at 3840x2160? The higher resolution is nearly twice as many pixels as the lower resolution, which should make a huge difference in performance.
Did you miss the grain of salt part?
Yeh probably fake but with what we know now and HBM memory which is insanely fast it can be close to truth.
But its all speculations we still know little.
I just hope AMD pulls this of it benefit ALL PC USERS(don't understand why majority Nvidia fans don't see this?).
We need good competion and innovations not stagnant prices and less innovation if only Nvidia rules.
But i already see a trend changing and i hope it happens. Many pc sites i see nvidia users all hope 390x is good price and fast so they switch, i've not seen this for long time. This also because of knowledge over prices titan's and titan x prolly expensive but not as fast as 390x.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
I remember the last time everyone was so hyped up for AMD. And then they released Bulldozer.
Or in the interest of being fair, other times other companies have overhyped a release resulting in a collective sigh of disappointment from the enthusiast community: Or Intel's Devil's Canyon release. Or nVidia's 480GTX release.
tl;dr Don't let yourself get on that hype train - wait until it ships
Even if those things are true about AMD's next card, i'm positive that the TDP will limit its possibilities. I believe it's 2x as much as a Titan X is what the rumours are.
I'm going to call fake. Why do the top six give higher performance at 3840x2160 than at 2560x1600, while the rest give slightly lower performance at 2560x1600 than at 3840x2160? The higher resolution is nearly twice as many pixels as the lower resolution, which should make a huge difference in performance.
Did you miss the grain of salt part?
Yeh probably fake but with what we know now and HBM memory which is insanely fast it can be close to truth.
But its all speculations we still know little.
I just hope AMD pulls this of it benefit ALL PC USERS(don't understand why majority Nvidia fans don't see this?).
We need good competion and innovations not stagnant prices and less innovation if only Nvidia rules.
But i already see a trend changing and i hope it happens. Many pc sites i see nvidia users all hope 390x is good price and fast so they switch, i've not seen this for long time. This also because of knowledge over prices titan's and titan x prolly expensive but not as fast as 390x.
There are three types of claimed leaks:
1) Actual leaks from someone who has hardware a little before launch,
2) Plausible fakes by someone making stuff up but with the technical savvy to create numbers that could plausibly be in line with real performance, and
3) Stupid fakes that are obviously wrong because they're claiming ridiculous things.
It's hard to tell the difference between (1) and (2). But once you spot a (3), the appropriate thing isn't a grain of salt. It's discarding it entirely.
And this is very much a case (3) leak. There is no way that the new cards will offer higher frame rates at higher monitor resolutions than they offer at lower resolutions.
Originally posted by Timesplit Even if those things are true about AMD's next card, i'm positive that the TDP will limit its possibilities. I believe it's 2x as much as a Titan X is what the rumours are.
That's extremely unlikely. Even if AMD got no energy efficiency gains over what they had three years ago, they still wouldn't need double the TDP of Titan X to match its performance. And if AMD did need double the TDP of a Titan X to match its performance, it's very unlikely that they'd make such a card; they'd go with a slower, lower power card instead.
The MSRP sounds good. Relatively speaking - that is. I'm never really thrilled with a $1k video card, especially when we have been so used to top tier being $500-600... but I guess in for a penny, in for a pound if your in the market for a top tier GPU.
I will reserve judgement until I see what supply and demand does for that. Availability means a lot here too, not that I expect demand to be huge for a $1k card, but if this is a paper launch like the 680 was -- "released" in March, but you could hardly get your hands on one for several months after that.
The MSRP sounds good. Relatively speaking - that is. I'm never really thrilled with a $1k video card, especially when we have been so used to top tier being $500-600... but I guess in for a penny, in for a pound if your in the market for a top tier GPU.
I will reserve judgement until I see what supply and demand does for that. Availability means a lot here too, not that I expect demand to be huge for a $1k card, but if this is a paper launch like the 680 was -- "released" in March, but you could hardly get your hands on one for several months after that.
I am impressed with a 250W stock TDP
I agree, although according to anandtech this may be different.
Nvidia is actually only selling the card for the first 3-4 weeks directly through nvidia, so, the whole retailers chargin 50% more because of supply/demand may not be an issue as the aftermarket companies will only be able to manufacturer and sell cards after that period.
As to your other point, i agree, im never excited about a 1k card because i will quite literally never spend that much on any single PC component, but, im happy it exists, its nice to see companies pushing the envelope of technology.
"Finally, for launch availability this will be a hard launch with a slight twist. Rather than starting with retail and etail partners such as Newegg, NVIDIA is going to kick things off by selling cards directly, while partners will start to sell cards in a few weeks. For a card like GTX Titan X, NVIDIA selling cards directly is not a huge stretch; with all cards being identical reference cards, partners largely serve as distributors and technical support for buyers."
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
The MSRP sounds good. Relatively speaking - that is. I'm never really thrilled with a $1k video card, especially when we have been so used to top tier being $500-600... but I guess in for a penny, in for a pound if your in the market for a top tier GPU.
I will reserve judgement until I see what supply and demand does for that. Availability means a lot here too, not that I expect demand to be huge for a $1k card, but if this is a paper launch like the 680 was -- "released" in March, but you could hardly get your hands on one for several months after that.
I am impressed with a 250W stock TDP
Apparently it's available for sale on Nvidia's web site:
"24 GB system memory (48 GB or higher recommended)"
I don't know if that's a typo or what, but there's something severely wrong with a consumer graphics card that won't function properly in a desktop with "only" 16 GB of memory.
-----
My speculation is that Nvidia is doing this to rush the cards to market more quickly, as they can start selling cards immediately without having to wait for them to be shipped all over the world. Of course, this could turn into quite a fiasco if you buy a card today and it takes three weeks to get shipped to you because nearly all of the cards were in Taiwan when they went up for sale. And then the Radeon R9 390X launches before you get the Titan X you ordered, and you regret the purchase before you even have the card in your hands.
Will that actually happen? Probably not. But Nvidia has done crazier things.
The MSRP sounds good. Relatively speaking - that is. I'm never really thrilled with a $1k video card, especially when we have been so used to top tier being $500-600... but I guess in for a penny, in for a pound if your in the market for a top tier GPU.
I will reserve judgement until I see what supply and demand does for that. Availability means a lot here too, not that I expect demand to be huge for a $1k card, but if this is a paper launch like the 680 was -- "released" in March, but you could hardly get your hands on one for several months after that.
I am impressed with a 250W stock TDP
Apparently it's available for sale on Nvidia's web site:
"24 GB system memory (48 GB or higher recommended)"
I don't know if that's a typo or what, but there's something severely wrong with a consumer graphics card that won't function properly in a desktop with "only" 16 GB of memory.
-----
My speculation is that Nvidia is doing this to rush the cards to market more quickly, as they can start selling cards immediately without having to wait for them to be shipped all over the world. Of course, this could turn into quite a fiasco if you buy a card today and it takes three weeks to get shipped to you because nearly all of the cards were in Taiwan when they went up for sale. And then the Radeon R9 390X launches before you get the Titan X you ordered, and you regret the purchase before you even have the card in your hands.
Will that actually happen? Probably not. But Nvidia has done crazier things.
Ill honestly be surprised if we see a 390x in the next 3 months. My guess is 4-6
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
"24 GB system memory (48 GB or higher recommended)"
I don't know if that's a typo or what, but there's something severely wrong with a consumer graphics card that won't function properly in a desktop with "only" 16 GB of memory.
That is interesting, because HardOCP says they tested it in their "Standard Test System" versus a 980GTX. Their "standard" system is a 16G i7 3770.
That being said, if you can afford to run a Titan X, you can probably afford 8G more RAM. (read that sarcastically, because I agree it's a ridiculous requirement)
Comments
Batteries not included! Or thats the reasonthey use water cooling, too keep the reactor save.
Jokes aside. Im curious about the stacked memory and how it will perform. My guess about the price range I'd place it a tiny bit lower than the Nvidia... maybe a $ or ten.
Btw about the titan, is it really 12gb or just 10+2 like they did in other cards?
For the most part I agree, they are well beyond excessive for most peoples needs, even most hardcore gamers. That said I am interested in these monster cards because I plan on being a VR early adopter and I expect it will be very taxing on the GPU. That said for now my three year old card is handling everything thrown at it and VR is still not till the end of the year )for valves and may be even longer for occulus) so I will still wait and see what I need when the time comes.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. For years, AMD released monthly driver updates, while Nvidia released driver updates less commonly--only when they had something that it made sense to package up as a major driver release. AMD finally conceded that their monthly driver releases were ridiculous, as in a lot of them, they didn't have anything new worth releasing, so they joined Nvidia in only releasing new drivers when it made sense. Now both AMD and Nvidia's main driver releases (as opposed to beta, hotfix, or game-specific optimizations) are much less than monthly. Nvidia has had six regular driver releases since the start of 2014.
Now, it's not a bad thing that Nvidia does that. But arguing that Nvidia is better because of more frequent driver updates is nonsense when:
a) Nvidia's driver updates are about as common as AMD's, and
b) driver update frequency isn't the appropriate metric.
On the flagship, it will be 12 GB at full bandwidth. On cut down versions, it's less predictable. Nvidia has done dumb stuff with memory on other GPUs on a number of occasions, including the GeForce GTX 550 Ti, GeForce GTX 660, GeForce GTX 660 Ti, and most recently, the GeForce GTX 970. Also some versions of the GeForce GTX 460, but not the ones that they told reviewers about.
One decent, recent, third party measure of the "driver debate"
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/10/dying_light_video_card_performance_review#.VP9r4vnF8Xw
Both suck at supporting their products with drivers. Sure, you can say nVidia released a new driver, but it didn't work at all, so I'd say on the scale of good to bad, I agree with HardOCP - it still sucks.
So I wouldn't be so quick to defend nVidia just because they appear to have better driver support - they don't. Or at least, offer some concrete proof that they do. Here is one recent example where both GPU vendors are falling down in a more or less equal amount.
That's nice if they are doing that now, but oh, 2 years ago or so when I had an AMD card I went the better part of a year without a driver update because my card was over 2 years old. I looked it up to find out if other people were having the same issues and found an encyclopedia worth of people complaining about AMDs long term driver support.
So cool story.
Im sure there is, probably from studios that have partnerships with amd.
Firefall comes to mind, wonder what they have in their rigs?
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Yes i think star citizen, and dragon age and mass effect 4 and battlefield 3,4, hardline devs definitely use nvidia cards when optimizing for Mantle.
How can u say 100% and not have a grain of doubt ? what do you know that's 100% out of anything in the world now, ...
That you don't know how to go to AMD's web site and download a driver for yourself doesn't mean that AMD doesn't make drivers available. Nvidia does tend to offer new drivers for a little longer than AMD, but AMD will reliably offer new drivers for at least 5+ years. AMD tends to discontinue drivers for a few generations at a time, so the earliest of the batch might get new drivers for 8 years, while the latest only gets new drivers for 5. Drivers for older cards are going to be limited to bug fixes, anyway, and not performance improvements--regardless of your vendor.
Now, it is possible that you got an AMD GPU for which you genuinely can't update the drivers. Some laptop vendors disable video driver updates, but that's not AMD's fault. If that's your situation, blame the laptop vendor, not AMD, as AMD offers the drivers, but the laptop vendor won't let you install them.
If he had Radeon HD 4000 -series graphic card, AMD moved some of those models to legacy driver support just 3 years after releasing them.
Legacy support doesn't mean no more updates. It does mean that the end of driver updates is nearer, but it's also a way for AMD to split their DX 10 class drivers from DX 11 class. Or for the previous move to legacy drivers, to split DX 9 class hardware from DX 10 class, as the hardware is so different that what the drivers needed to do is very different. The most recent drivers for those are late 2013--more than five years after the last 4000 series card launched.
These charts you should take with grain of salt but if its true and price is right 390x will be the NEW king in town(im positive it will anyway even with out these bench)
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-r9-390xnvidia-gtx-980-ti-and-titan-x-benchmarks.html
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
I'm going to call fake. Why do the top six give higher performance at 3840x2160 than at 2560x1600, while the rest give slightly lower performance at 2560x1600 than at 3840x2160? The higher resolution is nearly twice as many pixels as the lower resolution, which should make a huge difference in performance.
Did you miss the grain of salt part?
Yeh probably fake but with what we know now and HBM memory which is insanely fast it can be close to truth.
But its all speculations we still know little.
I just hope AMD pulls this of it benefit ALL PC USERS(don't understand why majority Nvidia fans don't see this?).
We need good competion and innovations not stagnant prices and less innovation if only Nvidia rules.
But i already see a trend changing and i hope it happens.
Many pc sites i see nvidia users all hope 390x is good price and fast so they switch, i've not seen this for long time. This also because of knowledge over prices titan's and titan x prolly expensive but not as fast as 390x.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
I remember the last time everyone was so hyped up for AMD. And then they released Bulldozer.
Or in the interest of being fair, other times other companies have overhyped a release resulting in a collective sigh of disappointment from the enthusiast community:
Or Intel's Devil's Canyon release.
Or nVidia's 480GTX release.
tl;dr
Don't let yourself get on that hype train - wait until it ships
There are three types of claimed leaks:
1) Actual leaks from someone who has hardware a little before launch,
2) Plausible fakes by someone making stuff up but with the technical savvy to create numbers that could plausibly be in line with real performance, and
3) Stupid fakes that are obviously wrong because they're claiming ridiculous things.
It's hard to tell the difference between (1) and (2). But once you spot a (3), the appropriate thing isn't a grain of salt. It's discarding it entirely.
And this is very much a case (3) leak. There is no way that the new cards will offer higher frame rates at higher monitor resolutions than they offer at lower resolutions.
That's extremely unlikely. Even if AMD got no energy efficiency gains over what they had three years ago, they still wouldn't need double the TDP of Titan X to match its performance. And if AMD did need double the TDP of a Titan X to match its performance, it's very unlikely that they'd make such a card; they'd go with a slower, lower power card instead.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
The MSRP sounds good. Relatively speaking - that is. I'm never really thrilled with a $1k video card, especially when we have been so used to top tier being $500-600... but I guess in for a penny, in for a pound if your in the market for a top tier GPU.
I will reserve judgement until I see what supply and demand does for that. Availability means a lot here too, not that I expect demand to be huge for a $1k card, but if this is a paper launch like the 680 was -- "released" in March, but you could hardly get your hands on one for several months after that.
I am impressed with a 250W stock TDP
I agree, although according to anandtech this may be different.
Nvidia is actually only selling the card for the first 3-4 weeks directly through nvidia, so, the whole retailers chargin 50% more because of supply/demand may not be an issue as the aftermarket companies will only be able to manufacturer and sell cards after that period.
As to your other point, i agree, im never excited about a 1k card because i will quite literally never spend that much on any single PC component, but, im happy it exists, its nice to see companies pushing the envelope of technology.
Edit:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9059/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-review
"Finally, for launch availability this will be a hard launch with a slight twist. Rather than starting with retail and etail partners such as Newegg, NVIDIA is going to kick things off by selling cards directly, while partners will start to sell cards in a few weeks. For a card like GTX Titan X, NVIDIA selling cards directly is not a huge stretch; with all cards being identical reference cards, partners largely serve as distributors and technical support for buyers."
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Apparently it's available for sale on Nvidia's web site:
http://www.geforce.com/geforce-gtx-titan-x/buy-gpu
From the "minimum system requirements":
"24 GB system memory (48 GB or higher recommended)"
I don't know if that's a typo or what, but there's something severely wrong with a consumer graphics card that won't function properly in a desktop with "only" 16 GB of memory.
-----
My speculation is that Nvidia is doing this to rush the cards to market more quickly, as they can start selling cards immediately without having to wait for them to be shipped all over the world. Of course, this could turn into quite a fiasco if you buy a card today and it takes three weeks to get shipped to you because nearly all of the cards were in Taiwan when they went up for sale. And then the Radeon R9 390X launches before you get the Titan X you ordered, and you regret the purchase before you even have the card in your hands.
Will that actually happen? Probably not. But Nvidia has done crazier things.
Ill honestly be surprised if we see a 390x in the next 3 months. My guess is 4-6
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I didn't even know nVidia had a direct-to-market retail shop.
That is interesting, because HardOCP says they tested it in their "Standard Test System" versus a 980GTX. Their "standard" system is a 16G i7 3770.
That being said, if you can afford to run a Titan X, you can probably afford 8G more RAM. (read that sarcastically, because I agree it's a ridiculous requirement)