Well that review was useless. Between the 980 reviews and this you've changed the length of the benchmarks making the results non-comparable, and then you test the Sapphire R9 390X against stock cards.
1) Keep tests consistent or
2) Add in 3rd party cards to the graphs
It's not an overclocked 7970. It's an overclocked 290x. It truth be told it's a little bit facelifted. Some efficiencies in production are showing through such as the reliability of the memory and memory controller to support faster VRAM. Fine card just a little too expensive, it'll defiantly go down in price very quickly.Originally Posted by directhex
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/80658-pny-geforce-gtx-980-oc2-pure-performance/?page=3 So it's nothing like a 3rd party GTX 980 and at times performs like a 3rd party GTX 970.
The test methods have been changed due to feedback AFAIK. People are complaining the old ones are looking a bit tired.
If you're interested in a 3rd party card I would find a specific review and use that or use a calculated to feed the numbers back in.
With driver refreshes the numbers aren't representative anyway in some instances.
Third-party cards are to be added as and when. This review is as much about AMD's R9 390X is as it about Sapphire's. AMD doesn't do a reference card for this GPU.
There's always a crossover point when games are added and newer drivers used; this is one of those times.
I was wondering about that, are the cards in the picture below just CGI for show?
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2015...c339579804.jpg
I was at Scan yesterday before 1pm. Took an eternity to get to 1pm. Had the card in my hand.. Just about to part with my cash. I thought hang on, will it work with my new Samsung 55" JS9000 4k TV? Read the spec as HDMI 1.4 Put my money back in my pocket. If AMD wanted to your this card as 4k and made sure it sold well, you would have thought this would have been a no brainer inclusion in the specs. Disappointment didn't describe what I felt.
What about the Fury Nano as a HTPC Card? If a person is gonna build a HTPC with this card, I could get my bottom dollar he would have mostly likely built it for a 4k TV.
EPIC FAIL by AMD.
Damn auto correct on my tablet. Made my rant sound stupid...lol Why the hell didn't AMD not include HDMI 2.0? When you design something with 4k in mind, you'ld think as an engineer you would include support for all the relevant specs.
There will apparently be a displayport to hdmi adapter coming out in the next couple of weeks which will directly address the issue.
As someone coming at this from the other direction, I am looking for a new monitor for gaming on and am really only interested in DisplayPort. I expect the 144Hz update DisplayPort and multi screen 1080p markets are much larger than the 4K gaming TV output market.
Edit to add: Oh, I see Nvidia can't really manage 4K hdmi either. Got the impression they could. With a big TV I would probably want to go Nvidia anyway just for the better 3D glasses support.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8191/n...upport-kind-of
Another edit: Oh, except the 980 *can* do it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/n...x-980-review/5
Minefield isn't it. reminds me why I don't buy things like 4K TVs when they first come out.
Last edited by DanceswithUnix; 25-06-2015 at 03:56 PM.
not to mention you could land a plane on that thing.
I wouldn't visit your review site. You are a generation behind on your comparison.
Still not a fan of the orange, bit of an awkward colour...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote