Printable View
That's funny cos I went x1900XT - 8800GT - 4870 - 6950 - r9 390 all based on best bang for buck at the time. I rma'd the 8800GT due to the heat thing killing it but Zotac replaced it no problem, I bought the 4870 and the 8800GT is still going in my brother's PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plasmastorm
Strange indeed ;)
My 8800gtx died from heat after 3 years, re flowed the pcb 4x and got another 6 months out of it but then died fully.
Same with the 5850 after 3 years. My cards get a hard life >.<
That depends entirely on whether or not Nvidia is *actually* going to be ready for DX12 though doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
Let's think about something that nobody in the tech press has thought about yet. What if Nvidia intends to simply shrink Maxwell for the vast majority of their 2016 lineup, leaving only big Pascal at the extreme enthusiast end? For me this is a pretty likely scenario. In fact almost nothing else makes sense.
Even if AMD simply intends to shrink their current GCN they obviously have a lead on DX12, VR etc. This is the risk that Nvidia is running by not having the tech now. Maybe they didn't plan on really having it next year either.
Whoever offers more changes all the time, although I have to say NVidia has been the stronger recently. It's not just pure performance that matters, but features too. When I got my ATi/AMD HD5850 many years back, I loved that the drivers allowed fan speeds and frequency to be changed without any registry hacks; NVidia used to hide all that by default (back when I used a 6600GT and 7900GS). However, when a friend got his GTX970 last year, he wowed me by saying that NVidia drivers now had native game capture without having to use a third-party app like FRAPS, and that it was very efficiently gathering the frames without too much of a performance hit. I have no idea if ATi/AMD have done the same with their newer cards, but it just made me think how all the time, both companies are offering cool new features, and we're still getting relatively decent performance jumps with GPU's compared to the more stagnant CPU market. I just find the current market share worrying for AMD, since it is very unbalanced in NVidia's favour, which wouldn't be good for competition.
It was available in their older cards as VCE or "Video Coding Engine" before Shadowplay existed - http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/a...-7970-review/9Quote:
Originally Posted by =assassin=
I am on the same page as Plasmastorm and Iranu. It isn't one-sided and depends on the generation you look at.
Yes, forward thinking. My old 290 still gives excellent performance even at 1440p. DirectX 12 / Vulkan will only increase this performance as the hardware was designed for these new APIs. BTW I use 980Ti atm.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithisForward-thinking in a GPU? So by the time that tech is useful, the card is obsolete....no wonder AMD are in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrinkly
For me value for money equals amount spent over the time something remains useful, using that as a basis I would say AMD.
As a non gamer selecting a graphics card is not solely about performance for me.
A card has to be quiet, fit the case and have the necessary ports.
My experience with Nvidia cards is less than satisfactory, always seeming rather flakey whereas AMD, particularly Sapphire cards just work and do the business.
For me it's AMD, since I aim for GPU's costing <400 euro, kinda between GTX 970 and GTX 980. Nvidia doesn't have anything in the middle, and I wasn't interested in 970, so I'm going with R9 390 (I also considered a cheap 390X, but ultimately went for 390 Nitro). If I had a lot more money, I would probably think about 980Ti... Or maybe just buy a second Radeon :D. Though I must say, that had I invested in Shield hardware (I was planning it, but didn't have the money), I would definitely have bought a GF.
So ture but with the FURY line up you alway count new tech to be high at frist I'm sure it will as they work out any bug also keep the fab die size 28nm is petty big which limited the number chip per waffer so if they move 16nm that should the number of chip pre waffer dring down the custQuote:
Originally Posted by AskForDetails
But then you could buy a riva TNT2 and run windows for even better performance :PQuote:
Originally Posted by directhex
AfD nailed this for me. I don't think I'd mind a 970, but an 8gb 390 with DX12 and Vulcan coming up just feels a little more future proof. It clocked up nicely, too.
I can't really say for sure though, not having owned any Nvidia tech for a while now.
As been AMD for a while for me x1950pro - 3870 - 4870 -5850 -7950 -290x.
I was between the 970 and 290x but as I am a 1080p 3D or 1440p gamer the 290x has the edge (plus I got it for £205 brand new in the new range sell off).
My 2 general use/HTPCs are using AMD APUs as the value is epic.
If I had money to burn and wanted absolute top end I would have to leave AMD but if the have the best value or its a close call they will get my business each time.
Amvidia
They both have pros and cons. They're offering roughly equivalent value. We've seen price cuts before when either side offers better value, so they even each other out. Its almost price fixing. Just choose the card that fits you best and run with it.