As long as AMD keeps making shitty linux drivers, I will keep buying intel and nvidia.
If they sometime in the future starts to care a little about their software then I might consider them again. My first and last ATI card was radeon 9800 pro.
~ Great performance at 4K ~ Low gaming noise ~ Compact form factor ~ Low temperatures ~ Power efficient gaming ~ HBM memory, tons of bandwidth ~ Multi-monitor power consumption greatly improved ~ Backplate included ~ ZeroCore power ~ Dual-BIOS ~ Support for AMD FreeSync ~ Supports AMD Virtual Super Resolution and Framerate Target Control
The bad
~ Slower than expected in sub-4K resolutions ~ Pump emits permanent high-pitched whine ~ Some coil noise ~ Could be much quieter in idle ~ 4 GB of VRAM ~ Lack of HDMI 2.0 ~ No memory overclocking ~ Radiator takes up extra space ~ No DVI / analog VGA outputs
The card performs way better at 4k than at 1440p or 1080p, lol, it's the anti-aliasing which is killing it, and half the benchmarking websites used 14.2/15.4 drivers. Still focusing on driver tweaking for 4k performance is not a productive thing.
Fury X average performance compared 980 Ti is exactly the same @4k and then it just drops at 1440p to about 6% and then an abysmal 14% difference @1080p, ...
I expect once more drivers come along that some of those negative will be taken care of especially lower res performance.
This is also the first I have heard of any high pitched whine. Could have been a bad pump. I dont see how noise is a negative though since its noise level stays pretty much the same from idle to under load. It is much quieter than other cards in that regard.
Radiator taking up extra space? Really? The card itself is much smaller than other cards and the radiator somehow is a negative?
HDMI 2.0.. Not needed at all but would have been nice to have. No DVI or analog is certainly not a negative.
The 4GB VRam isnt a negative either. It is the first release of something new and much different than what is out there now.
I am wondering if they will with later released enable overclocking or if it can be with a driver release. It is new memory and such after all. They may be taking a cautious approach.
Water Cooling as standard should be listed as a " Good " also. That is an extra 100 bucks right there saved.
IMO once more efficient drivers and Win 10 come along it will out perform the 980 Ti.
The water cooling is both a positive and a negative, so leaving it neutral is the right thing IMO. Also Nvidia drivers are never at a standstill. Historically Nvidia are more skilled and release at a quicker pace than AMD. so your last point is kind of a stretch. Only time will tell.
Anyways... no better way to move technology along than some nice healthy competition.
Just the ones on Passmark, and at Novatech, the nearest Intel equivalent, is about £70 more than the Amd one i ended up buying. And Price/Performance were the deciding criteria, which, is something that Amd actually do pretty well at, Intel's CPU's have always been a bit pricey, and you get what you can afford.
it sits roughly between the I7 4770 and the I7 4790, and since the nearest in price was the I7 4820K, which is about £250, and only has a passmark score of 9833 compared to the 9590's score of 10,286 the decision was a pretty easy one. The I5 you listed only has a passmark score of 7650, so it was never a consideration.
Intel does undoubtedly make the best CPU's that was never in question, AMD just make the best affordable ones.
I facepalm that anyone likes AMD. AMD is and always will be garbage! You get what you pay for and thats the case here. NVIDIA will always be a superior product and thats just a fact. The most recent example of yet more problems with AMD and games, is the latest Batman release. AMD sucksssssssssssssssssssss. Spend the money and get NVIDIA, quit being lame.
Just the ones on Passmark, and at Novatech, the nearest Intel equivalent, is about £70 more than the Amd one i ended up buying. And Price/Performance were the deciding criteria, which, is something that Amd actually do pretty well at, Intel's CPU's have always been a bit pricey, and you get what you can afford.
it sits roughly between the I7 4770 and the I7 4790, and since the nearest in price was the I7 4820K, which is about £250, and only has a passmark score of 9833 compared to the 9590's score of 10,286 the decision was a pretty easy one. The I5 you listed only has a passmark score of 7650, so it was never a consideration.
Intel does undoubtedly make the best CPU's that was never in question, AMD just make the best affordable ones.
It does indeed depend where you look, by everything I find, the 9590 only really outperforms the 4690k in artificial benchmarks and some encoding jobs. All real world benchmarks I can find, especially gaming, have the 4690k firmly in the lead while using less than half the power all for about 5 bucks more.
The i5 is also nearly 2 years newer, has a smaller die, handles new instruction sets and has more mobo and cooling options.
To each their own though, I hope you enjoy your 8350...er...9590.
Personally I prefer Nvidia but I do have AMD in my other build. That being said, give it time, the first gen cards of a new design always have issues wait for the 2nd maybe 3rd gen.
Originally posted by LedZeppelin8413 I facepalm that anyone likes AMD. AMD is and always will be garbage! You get what you pay for and thats the case here. NVIDIA will always be a superior product and thats just a fact. The most recent example of yet more problems with AMD and games, is the latest Batman release. AMD sucksssssssssssssssssssss. Spend the money and get NVIDIA, quit being lame.
Batman is running like crap across both AMD and Nvidia. Always know what you are talking about before speaking.
Just the ones on Passmark, and at Novatech, the nearest Intel equivalent, is about £70 more than the Amd one i ended up buying. And Price/Performance were the deciding criteria, which, is something that Amd actually do pretty well at, Intel's CPU's have always been a bit pricey, and you get what you can afford.
it sits roughly between the I7 4770 and the I7 4790, and since the nearest in price was the I7 4820K, which is about £250, and only has a passmark score of 9833 compared to the 9590's score of 10,286 the decision was a pretty easy one. The I5 you listed only has a passmark score of 7650, so it was never a consideration.
Intel does undoubtedly make the best CPU's that was never in question, AMD just make the best affordable ones.
It does indeed depend where you look, by everything I find, the 9590 only really outperforms the 4690k in artificial benchmarks and some encoding jobs. All real world benchmarks I can find, especially gaming, have the 4690k firmly in the lead while using less than half the power all for about 5 bucks more.
The i5 is also nearly 2 years newer, has a smaller die, handles new instruction sets and has more mobo and cooling options.
To each their own though, I hope you enjoy your 8350...er...9590.
Intel does better with single core performance because their cores are faster. AMD does better when it can use the many cores available in their processors. With DX12 allowing multiple cpu cores to talk to the gpu at the same time, Intel's advantage in gaming is going to decline.
Though, it's not like the current crop of cpus are the bottleneck anyway. DX12 is going to address some of those too. :-)
Originally posted by LedZeppelin8413 I facepalm that anyone likes AMD. AMD is and always will be garbage! You get what you pay for and thats the case here. NVIDIA will always be a superior product and thats just a fact. The most recent example of yet more problems with AMD and games, is the latest Batman release. AMD sucksssssssssssssssssssss. Spend the money and get NVIDIA, quit being lame.
Batman is running like crap across both AMD and Nvidia. Always know what you are talking about before speaking.
Originally posted by LedZeppelin8413 I facepalm that anyone likes AMD. AMD is and always will be garbage! You get what you pay for and thats the case here. NVIDIA will always be a superior product and thats just a fact. The most recent example of yet more problems with AMD and games, is the latest Batman release. AMD sucksssssssssssssssssssss. Spend the money and get NVIDIA, quit being lame.
Batman is running like crap across both AMD and Nvidia. Always know what you are talking about before speaking.
I lean towards AMD cards due to Nvidia's past (and possibly present) shady business practices. They have to be 20% better, or 20% cheaper for me to look at them. And I don't care at all about either one's $500+ models. Prefer to pick up the last generation's top o' the line model when they drop below $200. When you go bleeding edge, you are going to bleed some.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Originally posted by LedZeppelin8413 I facepalm that anyone likes AMD. AMD is and always will be garbage! You get what you pay for and thats the case here. NVIDIA will always be a superior product and thats just a fact. The most recent example of yet more problems with AMD and games, is the latest Batman release. AMD sucksssssssssssssssssssss. Spend the money and get NVIDIA, quit being lame.
Batman is running like crap across both AMD and Nvidia. Always know what you are talking about before speaking.
Batman runs like crap everywhere, except on my PS4. :-)
Given the reviews of the new batman game, chances are it will be the most refunded game currently on Steam, they couldn't have improved their returns policy at a better time
It's not bad, if you look at it objectively. It's a decent performing card, and it is a significant improvement from Hawaii.
It's just AMD's hype train got out in front of themselves (again, just like Bulldozer), and the product doesn't come close to the hype.
It could be a matter of driver optimization - it's not unusual to see driver improvements gain another 10-15% on a new generation of GPUs. That would still be a failure on the part of AMD, as it certainly isn't putting their best foot forward, and the first impression is going to be the one that sticks, not the reviews that come after 3-4 driver iterations.
All I can really say is "Ouch". If your thing is going to be 4K gaming, and your competition is beating you with the same priced product, all you can do is lower your price to be competitive on a performance per dollar basis - which is the game AMD has been playing for the past few years. They are not necessarily in a bad place - the top performing card is definitely not the top selling card, but it does help with brand recognition and reputation; something AMD sorely needs right about now. This isn't a hardware failure, the card runs and performs well, this is a PR debacle and failure to properly manage expectations.
AMD has made a crucial mistake and this is an amateur mistake which immediately disqualifies them for me.
They make a great card with high bandwidth memory which is exceptional for high resolutions especially 4K but these muppets include only 4GB of it. You can't run full steam when you do not have enough coal.
When you run games like Witcher 3 in 4K and see how the AMD FX drops to 4FPS because it runs out of memory while the NVIDIA 6GB cards chugg along nicely you can't but wonder what they where thinking at AMD when they designed this card. If you turn down some memory intensive options the FX is on par if not better than NVIDIA.
It's sad because they could have single-handedly taken the 4K market like a storm but they stumble on a rookie mistake.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
Who cares if it only trades blows with the 980ti, they are trying to innovate with HBM. Without companies like AMD bringing cards like the Fury out the GPU market would stagnate.
AMD has made a crucial mistake and this is an amateur mistake which immediately disqualifies them for me.
They make a great card with high bandwidth memory which is exceptional for high resolutions especially 4K but these muppets include only 4GB of it. You can't run full steam when you do not have enough coal.
When you run games like Witcher 3 in 4K and see how the AMD FX drops to 4FPS because it runs out of memory while the NVIDIA 6GB cards chugg along nicely you can't but wonder what they where thinking at AMD when they designed this card. If you turn down some memory intensive options the FX is on par if not better than NVIDIA.
It's sad because they could have single-handedly taken the 4K market like a storm but they stumble on a rookie mistake.
---
Maybe next time AMD...maybe.
Stop trolling max settings 4k witcher 3 doesnt go over 2.1GB vram, and amd fx is not a graphic card, admins pls remove comment, it's blatant trolling and baiting.
Sorry i even thought AMD now would comeback with big bang and be KING again oh man was i wrong. I dunno what AMD is doing but this is as i see it now last nail in the coffin.
I won't upgrade only thing they improved is TEMPATURE which is extremely good but noise watt and performance mediocre at best very sad indeed.
I will never buy Nvidia because of greedy manipulative company but now i won't upgrade because of AMD FAILED HARD saying fastest card in world while it way behind 980 ti and Titan X.
Also i refuse to pay 750 euros for card thats not even faster then 980 ti.
Sorry AMD unless DX12 do wonders(no game in DX12)or next year HBM 2.0?(don't think you survive this disaster)im done with upgrading. Stick with my 290x 2x forever:P
Sorry guys you can burn me down now as you all do so well(it was never personal but some always think is so im done with hardware section)
This all based on REVIEW GURU3D so burn them is they showed a bad made review?
I really don't understand your thread. Even though the 980 came close I still don't understand why you have to belittle AMD. It's still a good card that competes with Nvidia in performance and price. Why the hatred for a company trying to compete? Granted I don't use amd products, but I still respect an open and competitive market.
AMD has made a crucial mistake and this is an amateur mistake which immediately disqualifies them for me.
They make a great card with high bandwidth memory which is exceptional for high resolutions especially 4K but these muppets include only 4GB of it. You can't run full steam when you do not have enough coal.
When you run games like Witcher 3 in 4K and see how the AMD FX drops to 4FPS because it runs out of memory while the NVIDIA 6GB cards chugg along nicely you can't but wonder what they where thinking at AMD when they designed this card. If you turn down some memory intensive options the FX is on par if not better than NVIDIA.
It's sad because they could have single-handedly taken the 4K market like a storm but they stumble on a rookie mistake.
---
Maybe next time AMD...maybe.
As of right now 4GB is the limitation for HBM on a graphics card ( or so some reviews have said. ). That should change in the future though.
Tied with Nvidia at 4K, but struggles more at lower resolutions. What's really surprising to me is that, even relative to other GCN-based cards, Fiji wins by a lot more at 4K than at lower resolutions. The performance advantage over a 390X is twice as big at 4K as it is at 1600x900.
GCN has been around for quite a while, so I wouldn't expect driver miracles coming shortly to improve Fiji performance, unless it's a problem of not having figured out how to utilize HBM properly. Which is plausible, as it doesn't beat the 390X by nearly as much as you'd expect from the specs.
And no, this is hardly the end of AMD. If Fiji were 20% faster, how big of a difference would it make? Of course they'd prefer that it be 20% faster rather than 20% slower. But $650 parts are low volume, and this isn't going to trickle down to the low end. Furthermore, all 28 nm cards will be obsolete pretty abruptly (in the sense of, not what you want to buy new anymore) when 14/16 nm hit next year.
My gripe with NVIDIA is that multi-monitor gaming through the NVIDIA control panel is utter and total shit. I want to play most of my FPS titles using all three monitors as a single display, but I want to play EVE and some other games like Pillars of Infinity on a single monitor at a time. Switching between the two monitor settings is a giant headache full of many pointless clicks.
I want TWO buttons NIVIDIA! TWO! One should say "Use all my fucking monitors as one monitor". The other button should say "Use all my fucking monitors individually". These are the only two goddamn buttons I should ever need to click to swap back and forth.
Here in Canada the the 980 TI is cheaper than the FURY X yet the 980 TI is significantly better... it really makes no sense to me.
Zotac 980 TI: Price: $809.99
Powercolor FURY X: $829.99
Both are the cheapest prices currently avaliable in Canada of any make.
So AMD wants me to spend more on their card that performs worse on almost every benchmark and only has 4gb memory and won't be future proof like the 980 TI? What a joke. AMD is done.
Here in Canada the the 980 TI is cheaper than the FURY X yet the 980 TI is significantly better... it really makes no sense to me.
Zotac 980 TI: Price: $809.99
Powercolor FURY X: $829.99
Both are the cheapest prices currently avaliable in Canada of any make.
So AMD wants me to spend more on their card that performs worse on almost every benchmark and only has 4gb memory and won't be future proof like the 980 TI? What a joke. AMD is done.
Because the definitive time to compare prices is on the day of a soft launch when a part is already out of stock. Right.
Here in Canada the the 980 TI is cheaper than the FURY X yet the 980 TI is significantly better... it really makes no sense to me.
Zotac 980 TI: Price: $809.99
Powercolor FURY X: $829.99
Both are the cheapest prices currently avaliable in Canada of any make.
So AMD wants me to spend more on their card that performs worse on almost every benchmark and only has 4gb memory and won't be future proof like the 980 TI? What a joke. AMD is done.
Because the definitive time to compare prices is on the day of a soft launch when a part is already out of stock. Right.
AMD chose to set a ridiculous MSRP for the card and that's what it is based off. When the 980 TI was released it is the same price now as it was then. AMD knew people were waiting to see what they were offering and they chose to make that offering at a price point that makes no sense for Canadians.
What was the price of the Zotac 980 TI on release day? Same as it is now.
What is the price of the AMD Fury X on release day? More expensive than a card much better than it.
Comments
As long as AMD keeps making shitty linux drivers, I will keep buying intel and nvidia.
If they sometime in the future starts to care a little about their software then I might consider them again. My first and last ATI card was radeon 9800 pro.
The water cooling is both a positive and a negative, so leaving it neutral is the right thing IMO. Also Nvidia drivers are never at a standstill. Historically Nvidia are more skilled and release at a quicker pace than AMD. so your last point is kind of a stretch. Only time will tell.
Anyways... no better way to move technology along than some nice healthy competition.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
all depends where you look.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
it sits roughly between the I7 4770 and the I7 4790, and since the nearest in price was the I7 4820K, which is about £250, and only has a passmark score of 9833 compared to the 9590's score of 10,286 the decision was a pretty easy one. The I5 you listed only has a passmark score of 7650, so it was never a consideration.
Intel does undoubtedly make the best CPU's that was never in question, AMD just make the best affordable ones.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1261?vs=1289
It does indeed depend where you look, by everything I find, the 9590 only really outperforms the 4690k in artificial benchmarks and some encoding jobs. All real world benchmarks I can find, especially gaming, have the 4690k firmly in the lead while using less than half the power all for about 5 bucks more.
The i5 is also nearly 2 years newer, has a smaller die, handles new instruction sets and has more mobo and cooling options.
To each their own though, I hope you enjoy your 8350...er...9590.
Batman is running like crap across both AMD and Nvidia. Always know what you are talking about before speaking.
http://www.vgstations.com/en/news/item/4012-batman-arkham-knight-pc-port-outsourced-to-external-developer.html
Steam Reviews ( Mostly Negative 7,473 reviews )
http://store.steampowered.com/app/208650/#app_reviews_hash
NeoGaf
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1069190
Intel does better with single core performance because their cores are faster. AMD does better when it can use the many cores available in their processors. With DX12 allowing multiple cpu cores to talk to the gpu at the same time, Intel's advantage in gaming is going to decline.
Though, it's not like the current crop of cpus are the bottleneck anyway. DX12 is going to address some of those too. :-)
Batman runs like crap everywhere, except on my PS4. :-)
PS4 is a beast. I dont care what anybody says.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Given the reviews of the new batman game, chances are it will be the most refunded game currently on Steam, they couldn't have improved their returns policy at a better time
It's not bad, if you look at it objectively. It's a decent performing card, and it is a significant improvement from Hawaii.
It's just AMD's hype train got out in front of themselves (again, just like Bulldozer), and the product doesn't come close to the hype.
It could be a matter of driver optimization - it's not unusual to see driver improvements gain another 10-15% on a new generation of GPUs. That would still be a failure on the part of AMD, as it certainly isn't putting their best foot forward, and the first impression is going to be the one that sticks, not the reviews that come after 3-4 driver iterations.
All I can really say is "Ouch". If your thing is going to be 4K gaming, and your competition is beating you with the same priced product, all you can do is lower your price to be competitive on a performance per dollar basis - which is the game AMD has been playing for the past few years. They are not necessarily in a bad place - the top performing card is definitely not the top selling card, but it does help with brand recognition and reputation; something AMD sorely needs right about now. This isn't a hardware failure, the card runs and performs well, this is a PR debacle and failure to properly manage expectations.
AMD has made a crucial mistake and this is an amateur mistake which immediately disqualifies them for me.
They make a great card with high bandwidth memory which is exceptional for high resolutions especially 4K but these muppets include only 4GB of it. You can't run full steam when you do not have enough coal.
When you run games like Witcher 3 in 4K and see how the AMD FX drops to 4FPS because it runs out of memory while the NVIDIA 6GB cards chugg along nicely you can't but wonder what they where thinking at AMD when they designed this card. If you turn down some memory intensive options the FX is on par if not better than NVIDIA.
It's sad because they could have single-handedly taken the 4K market like a storm but they stumble on a rookie mistake.
---
Maybe next time AMD...maybe.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Stop trolling max settings 4k witcher 3 doesnt go over 2.1GB vram, and amd fx is not a graphic card, admins pls remove comment, it's blatant trolling and baiting.
I really don't understand your thread. Even though the 980 came close I still don't understand why you have to belittle AMD. It's still a good card that competes with Nvidia in performance and price. Why the hatred for a company trying to compete? Granted I don't use amd products, but I still respect an open and competitive market.
As of right now 4GB is the limitation for HBM on a graphics card ( or so some reviews have said. ). That should change in the future though.
This chart sums it up:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
Tied with Nvidia at 4K, but struggles more at lower resolutions. What's really surprising to me is that, even relative to other GCN-based cards, Fiji wins by a lot more at 4K than at lower resolutions. The performance advantage over a 390X is twice as big at 4K as it is at 1600x900.
GCN has been around for quite a while, so I wouldn't expect driver miracles coming shortly to improve Fiji performance, unless it's a problem of not having figured out how to utilize HBM properly. Which is plausible, as it doesn't beat the 390X by nearly as much as you'd expect from the specs.
And no, this is hardly the end of AMD. If Fiji were 20% faster, how big of a difference would it make? Of course they'd prefer that it be 20% faster rather than 20% slower. But $650 parts are low volume, and this isn't going to trickle down to the low end. Furthermore, all 28 nm cards will be obsolete pretty abruptly (in the sense of, not what you want to buy new anymore) when 14/16 nm hit next year.
My gripe with NVIDIA is that multi-monitor gaming through the NVIDIA control panel is utter and total shit. I want to play most of my FPS titles using all three monitors as a single display, but I want to play EVE and some other games like Pillars of Infinity on a single monitor at a time. Switching between the two monitor settings is a giant headache full of many pointless clicks.
I want TWO buttons NIVIDIA! TWO! One should say "Use all my fucking monitors as one monitor". The other button should say "Use all my fucking monitors individually". These are the only two goddamn buttons I should ever need to click to swap back and forth.
Nvidia = great drivers and support . AMD = shitty drivers and garbage support
Nuff said!!
Here in Canada the the 980 TI is cheaper than the FURY X yet the 980 TI is significantly better... it really makes no sense to me.
Zotac 980 TI: Price: $809.99
Powercolor FURY X: $829.99
Both are the cheapest prices currently avaliable in Canada of any make.
So AMD wants me to spend more on their card that performs worse on almost every benchmark and only has 4gb memory and won't be future proof like the 980 TI? What a joke. AMD is done.
Because the definitive time to compare prices is on the day of a soft launch when a part is already out of stock. Right.
AMD chose to set a ridiculous MSRP for the card and that's what it is based off. When the 980 TI was released it is the same price now as it was then. AMD knew people were waiting to see what they were offering and they chose to make that offering at a price point that makes no sense for Canadians.
What was the price of the Zotac 980 TI on release day? Same as it is now.
What is the price of the AMD Fury X on release day? More expensive than a card much better than it.