I currently run Nvidia GTX570 and it runs everything perfectly fine that I play, most of the time maxed out, and if I get performance problems it's mostly because I'm currently running my last AMD processor (Phenom 2 X4 970 BE), next time I build a computer I'll definately jump onboard with Intel.
So basically, you're saying that the reason that your four year old processor doesn't perform well enough for you is because it's AMD, and that being four years old has nothing to do with it?
Originally posted by vission You could have at least tried to proofread your post before submitting it. It's just a chore to read otherwise. Mine may not be perfect but they are at least easy to understand. Also, don't make additional posts covering the same thing.
Ill bet if someone makes more post about nvidia you would not complain.
Plus its not the same i state facts on a importend videocard released which is a real new card other topic was a gues or announcement topic.
I imagine English is not your native language, however Vission is not trying to dispute the information contained within your post, but in how you went about writing it, spellchecker is your friend if your having problems ie importend I'm assuming is meant to be important.
I currently run Nvidia GTX570 and it runs everything perfectly fine that I play, most of the time maxed out, and if I get performance problems it's mostly because I'm currently running my last AMD processor (Phenom 2 X4 970 BE), next time I build a computer I'll definately jump onboard with Intel.
So basically, you're saying that the reason that your four year old processor doesn't perform well enough for you is because it's AMD, and that being four years old has nothing to do with it?
No not really because the 3 letters happen to be there, but I did some research back at the launches of GW2 and PS2, the general opinion were that AMD processors for whatever technological reasons performed poorly compared to Intel with these games. I browsed some "tech" sites that had charts based on some test runs to indicate this same trend. I dont recall them pitting 4 years old AMD vs. 1 year old Intel.
Intels cost more, sure, but it never were the reason why I always picked AMD processors, I kinda had the same story there as with the GPU's. Since my 300MHz PC back in the day I always built AMD because it worked and performed, never had trouble with it, so not really any reasons to hop into Intel camp, but everything seems to be pointing towards Intel right now if I want a balanced PC with minimal amount of bottlenecks.
Originally posted by skeaser I don't care if it's a million times faster than NVidia's best card. I will NEVER put another P.O.S. AMD/ATI card in my computer again. I made that mistake during one build and regretted it daily. They have no clue how to work drivers and their Catalyst Control Panel doesn't make sense half the time and doesn't work the other half.
Totally agree, never AMD again, I've coped with it for the past 3 years but I'm glad I finally got rid of it. For one, Crossfire doesn't work in windowed mode, which is a big deal for me as I use dual monitors; fullscreen has too much of a delay to switch between monitors. Secondly, the drivers are horrendous, again for Crossfire especially, lots of micro stuttering which they have apparently fixed this summer (took them over 3 years!).
I don't care if their cards are cheaper, if you're a power user and use your PC every single day for quite some hours, you want something you can fully rely on.
Originally posted by Horusra got my first Radeon with the 7970 and I will never buy another Radeon again...Nvidia over 8 years never caused me issues...I will pay extra for better software even if Radeon put up better hardware.
Thats strange i have for years AMD and never have any problems how come?
Yeah, why is that? Maybe it never occurred to you that Nvidia cards are better at working with a larger number of system configurations than AMD cards? I'm no slouch when it comes to system building and I know my way around the circuit board. If I consistently have driver issues with one company's component, yet not with another, then my sense of logic says to go with the other. I really don't care if you didn't have issues as we obviously didn't have the same systems.
Yeah, why is that? Maybe it never occurred to you that Nvidia cards are better at working with a larger number of system configurations than AMD cards? I'm no slouch when it comes to system building and I know my way around the circuit board. If I consistently have driver issues with one company's component, yet not with another, then my sense of logic says to go with the other. I really don't care if you didn't have issues as we obviously didn't have the same systems.
If regularly can't make AMD cards work with your system something is wrong with your ability.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Originally posted by miguksaram I'm just going to leave this right here for those that have an open enough mind to accept a different perspective on the card from a well respected review site.
If you have the time and care about this card or it's potential impact on the market I suggest reading the written review and watching the associated video.
I follow all the sites listed in this thread and find the majority of them to be decent but none of them are as up front as TTL IMHO.
They advertise to buy nvidia the reviewer is nvidia fan and all replyers to review are nvidia fans lol.
While almost all sides show benchmarks that beats titan you show a nvidia side with 780 beats not only on most occasions 290x but also titan lol.
Way to go nvidia showing a nvidia fansite link.
People can check your thread history you know. You're accusing others for being nvidia fans, yet you're a fanboy as well.
Originally posted by vission You could have at least tried to proofread your post before submitting it. It's just a chore to read otherwise. Mine may not be perfect but they are at least easy to understand. Also, don't make additional posts covering the same thing.
Ill bet if someone makes more post about nvidia you would not complain.
Plus its not the same i state facts on a importend videocard released which is a real new card other topic was a gues or announcement topic.
Your story would be mor ebelievable if you posted facts, statistics, benchmarks etc.
Yet you claim AMD > Nvidia in your title, then you tear your claim down 'AMD > Nvidia in MOST benchmarks
So not all?
I am not a Nvidia fanboi, but if you make a bold claim -which may be true btw- the LEAST you could do is provide some proof funding your claims. I don't know you, so why should I take your word for it?
Now you just sound like a WOW fanboi blowing hot air.
Fund your statement.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Sorry for making another topic but this is to importend NEW CARD to not let you know about fastest single gpu plus cheap price.
I know most nvidia fans dont believe or wanne hear this but AMD 290x is faster in most benchmarks that countS and firestrikes which is showcase from futuremark in DX11 beats TITAN also.
AMD 290x OC(easy OC) is even more rediculously fast.
And that for half the price!!!
Its HOT very hot so you need a good cooling case and noise is also louder then most but card is fast and cheap.
ADVICE: I should wait for the branch makers like ASUS-XFX-MSI or others who will prolly have alot better cooling fans on the BEAST.
I really wish Corsair would develop a closed loop cooler for video cards. I am not and suggest no one buy the reference card. The noise factor gets to me after a while and the card simply runs to hot if you keep it in uber mode. Once the 290x releases with custom coolers, then that will be a must get but until then, I pass....
I have been an ATI fan for a long time, but I just do not got why you would create such a card and then hinder its capability due to utilizing such a poor cooling solution. Its time for AMD to put some money towards developing a new cooling solution. I dont care if this card can beat a TItan for 10 minutes at a time and then it under clocks itself. My current 6950 is OC'd and can run full blast for hours and never get above 70 degrees. 10 minutes of stress and the 290x hits 95 degrees.
I really hope sapphire, asus, or msi release custom coolers soon...
Sorry for making another topic but this is to importend NEW CARD to not let you know about fastest single gpu plus cheap price.
I know most nvidia fans dont believe or wanne hear this but AMD 290x is faster in most benchmarks that countS and firestrikes which is showcase from futuremark in DX11 beats TITAN also.
AMD 290x OC(easy OC) is even more rediculously fast.
And that for half the price!!!
Its HOT very hot so you need a good cooling case and noise is also louder then most but card is fast and cheap.
ADVICE: I should wait for the branch makers like ASUS-XFX-MSI or others who will prolly have alot better cooling fans on the BEAST.
If loud and hot are not problems then Im guessing the TiTan if it were loud and hot would be faster than its existing version and cheaper due to lower demand of a lower quality product.
Hotter hardware have an unreliable life span. Good luck keeping that card longer than 2 years. I have had my old video cards for almost 4 years now, and I can still over clock them in the future for 2 more years. Thats an investment.
Imagine buying an R9 every 2-3 years, then one is costlier than the other.
Also Titan came out a long time ago, theres going to be a new nvidia card out any time to beat the new amd, and its going to be quieter and producing less heat. I probably wont buy it, but its cheaper versions will be better than the older AMD and its nvidia which has better video game support.
I appreciate AMD for trying, but my money is on a sure thing with better support. That for me is more important than stats in the spur of the moment. I am not going to be wooed by the next big thing if its rushed.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
When benchmarking the card is like.. a F16 taking off.
thank god my case has no wheels else it would be on the ground.
Already have the rest of the WC stuff like a 4x180 Mo Ra3 rad for 2 cards now that should be enough.
(Was keeping my 4xGTX570 at 40c max on my sr2 while doing boink 2x290x should not be a problem)
I wish I had the time to buy a decent water solution and build it. I got an Silverstone FT02 back in the day, with the notion of going water but I just didnt have the time so I got a closed loop instead. I have my 1090T OC'd at 3.9 ghz stable. I tried pushing 4ghz but I just cant get it stable.
The funny thing is I worked on hornets and tomcats for years. hehe...
I currently run Nvidia GTX570 and it runs everything perfectly fine that I play, most of the time maxed out, and if I get performance problems it's mostly because I'm currently running my last AMD processor (Phenom 2 X4 970 BE), next time I build a computer I'll definately jump onboard with Intel.
So basically, you're saying that the reason that your four year old processor doesn't perform well enough for you is because it's AMD, and that being four years old has nothing to do with it?
No not really because the 3 letters happen to be there, but I did some research back at the launches of GW2 and PS2, the general opinion were that AMD processors for whatever technological reasons performed poorly compared to Intel with these games. I browsed some "tech" sites that had charts based on some test runs to indicate this same trend. I dont recall them pitting 4 years old AMD vs. 1 year old Intel.
Intels cost more, sure, but it never were the reason why I always picked AMD processors, I kinda had the same story there as with the GPU's. Since my 300MHz PC back in the day I always built AMD because it worked and performed, never had trouble with it, so not really any reasons to hop into Intel camp, but everything seems to be pointing towards Intel right now if I want a balanced PC with minimal amount of bottlenecks.
May I recommend that, the next time you buy a processor, you base your decisions on the processors that are available then--and not on the processors that were available several years earlier. The latter would make about as much sense as buying AMD forever because they were ahead of Intel from late 2003 until mid-2006 (Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 X2 vs Pentium D eras).
The Phenom II X4 was slower than Bloomfield, its Intel contemporary, but it wasn't a huge gap unless you were an overclocker. But Intel opened up a huge lead with the launch of Sandy Bridge in early 2011, while AMD's Llano and Zambezi chips were rather bad on a desktop, and Vishera wasn't that much of an improvement. But Intel hasn't improved much in desktops since Sandy Bridge, and isn't likely to do so until at least 2015. I expect AMD's Kaveri to cut Intel's lead in per-core performance roughly in half early next year, and AMD will likely make further gains with subsequent products.
But it's not just a question of which processor is faster, but how much faster. If you're willing to spend $220 for a proper Intel quad core, then yes, Intel is faster for gaming. But if you're unwilling to spend more than $150 on a processor, there isn't much sense in buying Intel. Intel's $220 processor is better for gaming than AMD's $130 processor, but Intel's $130 processor sure isn't.
For many years, Intel enjoyed a major process node advantage over AMD. Today, they still do, and in terms of getting to new process nodes faster, the gap is widening if anything. But increasingly small geometry is likely to mean that, while power consumption continues to go down, performance for desktop purposes doesn't go up. It might even go down; there are conflicting rumors about whether Intel will bother to release a meaningful desktop version of its next generation Broadwell CPU at all.
Originally posted by skeaser I don't care if it's a million times faster than NVidia's best card. I will NEVER put another P.O.S. AMD/ATI card in my computer again. I made that mistake during one build and regretted it daily. They have no clue how to work drivers and their Catalyst Control Panel doesn't make sense half the time and doesn't work the other half.
Totally agree, never AMD again, I've coped with it for the past 3 years but I'm glad I finally got rid of it. For one, Crossfire doesn't work in windowed mode, which is a big deal for me as I use dual monitors; fullscreen has too much of a delay to switch between monitors. Secondly, the drivers are horrendous, again for Crossfire especially, lots of micro stuttering which they have apparently fixed this summer (took them over 3 years!).
I don't care if their cards are cheaper, if you're a power user and use your PC every single day for quite some hours, you want something you can fully rely on.
Crossfire and SLI really only target two types of people: the technically clueless and those for which one high end video card isn't good enough, so they'll spend more and buy two. Budget considerations mean that very few people are in the latter category. No one else has any reason to care how well (or whether!) Crossfire or SLI work.
As to how well Crossfire and SLI work, about two years ago, Tech Report started doing frame pacing tests to see just how useful in the real-world multi-GPU setups were. Their initial results were that Crossfire and SLI were both a complete mess. Nvidia realized that this was important quickly and started working on fixing frame timing in SLI, while AMD ignored it.
About a year later, Nvidia had fixed the frame pacing problems (though not other problems that plague multi-GPU setups), while AMD still hadn't. So Nvidia sent hardware to various tech review sites that would allow for more precise frame pacing measurements (and a better system than the software-based stuff that Tech Report had previously used), which made the differences really obvious. There still wasn't much of a difference for single-card systems, but as far as frame pacing went, SLI basically worked and Crossfire basically didn't.
So AMD figured out that this was a problem and went to work fixing Crossfire. Today, they've mostly fixed it (entirely for the Radeon R9 290X, but that took some hardware changes not available to older cards), and both SLI and Crossfire work, at least as far as frame pacing goes.
So does it matter that Nvidia fixed their frame pacing problems about a year before AMD did? If you were buying a multi-GPU setup six months ago, it did. (It also mattered that Titan was a lot faster than a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition--and if you were looking at a multi-GPU setup, you should have been looking at Titan or at least a GTX 780.) But today? Does it matter that AMD had DirectX 11 support about six months earlier than Nvidia? DirectX 11 surely matters vastly more than SLI or Crossfire. But once the other side catches up, it doesn't matter who got there first.
Originally posted by skeaser I don't care if it's a million times faster than NVidia's best card. I will NEVER put another P.O.S. AMD/ATI card in my computer again. I made that mistake during one build and regretted it daily. They have no clue how to work drivers and their Catalyst Control Panel doesn't make sense half the time and doesn't work the other half.
Totally agree, never AMD again, I've coped with it for the past 3 years but I'm glad I finally got rid of it. For one, Crossfire doesn't work in windowed mode, which is a big deal for me as I use dual monitors; fullscreen has too much of a delay to switch between monitors. Secondly, the drivers are horrendous, again for Crossfire especially, lots of micro stuttering which they have apparently fixed this summer (took them over 3 years!).
I don't care if their cards are cheaper, if you're a power user and use your PC every single day for quite some hours, you want something you can fully rely on.
Crossfire and SLI really only target two types of people: the technically clueless and those for which one high end video card isn't good enough, so they'll spend more and buy two. Budget considerations mean that very few people are in the latter category. No one else has any reason to care how well (or whether!) Crossfire or SLI work.
As to how well Crossfire and SLI work, about two years ago, Tech Report started doing frame pacing tests to see just how useful in the real-world multi-GPU setups were. Their initial results were that Crossfire and SLI were both a complete mess. Nvidia realized that this was important quickly and started working on fixing frame timing in SLI, while AMD ignored it.
About a year later, Nvidia had fixed the frame pacing problems (though not other problems that plague multi-GPU setups), while AMD still hadn't. So Nvidia sent hardware to various tech review sites that would allow for more precise frame pacing measurements (and a better system than the software-based stuff that Tech Report had previously used), which made the differences really obvious. There still wasn't much of a difference for single-card systems, but as far as frame pacing went, SLI basically worked and Crossfire basically didn't.
So AMD figured out that this was a problem and went to work fixing Crossfire. Today, they've mostly fixed it (entirely for the Radeon R9 290X, but that took some hardware changes not available to older cards), and both SLI and Crossfire work, at least as far as frame pacing goes.
So does it matter that Nvidia fixed their frame pacing problems about a year before AMD did? If you were buying a multi-GPU setup six months ago, it did. (It also mattered that Titan was a lot faster than a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition--and if you were looking at a multi-GPU setup, you should have been looking at Titan or at least a GTX 780.) But today? Does it matter that AMD had DirectX 11 support about six months earlier than Nvidia? DirectX 11 surely matters vastly more than SLI or Crossfire. But once the other side catches up, it doesn't matter who got there first.
And if one is running v-sync or frame cap limiter (using something like radeon pro), the CF solution wasn't that behind the SLI solutions.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
If loud and hot are not problems then Im guessing the TiTan if it were loud and hot would be faster than its existing version and cheaper due to lower demand of a lower quality product.
Hotter hardware have an unreliable life span. Good luck keeping that card longer than 2 years. I have had my old video cards for almost 4 years now, and I can still over clock them in the future for 2 more years. Thats an investment.
Imagine buying an R9 every 2-3 years, then one is costlier than the other.
Also Titan came out a long time ago, theres going to be a new nvidia card out any time to beat the new amd, and its going to be quieter and producing less heat. I probably wont buy it, but its cheaper versions will be better than the older AMD and its nvidia which has better video game support.
I appreciate AMD for trying, but my money is on a sure thing with better support. That for me is more important than stats in the spur of the moment. I am not going to be wooed by the next big thing if its rushed.
Heat and temperature aren't the same thing.
The R290X dissipates something like 30W more than a titan or something like 5% higher power consumption.
That is insignificant.
The high temperature is due to the weaker cooler.
These cards will last more than 2 years (in Europe hardware is under guarantee for 2 years). The current process node can easily have chips lasting for years at temperatures around 100C.
People that buy $500 plus cards don't keep their cards for 2 years.
It is better to buy midrange cards and upgrade more often than buy a ultra high end to have it for 3-4 years.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I currently run Nvidia GTX570 and it runs everything perfectly fine that I play, most of the time maxed out, and if I get performance problems it's mostly because I'm currently running my last AMD processor (Phenom 2 X4 970 BE), next time I build a computer I'll definately jump onboard with Intel.
So basically, you're saying that the reason that your four year old processor doesn't perform well enough for you is because it's AMD, and that being four years old has nothing to do with it?
No not really because the 3 letters happen to be there, but I did some research back at the launches of GW2 and PS2, the general opinion were that AMD processors for whatever technological reasons performed poorly compared to Intel with these games. I browsed some "tech" sites that had charts based on some test runs to indicate this same trend. I dont recall them pitting 4 years old AMD vs. 1 year old Intel.
Intels cost more, sure, but it never were the reason why I always picked AMD processors, I kinda had the same story there as with the GPU's. Since my 300MHz PC back in the day I always built AMD because it worked and performed, never had trouble with it, so not really any reasons to hop into Intel camp, but everything seems to be pointing towards Intel right now if I want a balanced PC with minimal amount of bottlenecks.
May I recommend that, the next time you buy a processor, you base your decisions on the processors that are available then--and not on the processors that were available several years earlier. The latter would make about as much sense as buying AMD forever because they were ahead of Intel from late 2003 until mid-2006 (Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 X2 vs Pentium D eras).
The Phenom II X4 was slower than Bloomfield, its Intel contemporary, but it wasn't a huge gap unless you were an overclocker. But Intel opened up a huge lead with the launch of Sandy Bridge in early 2011, while AMD's Llano and Zambezi chips were rather bad on a desktop, and Vishera wasn't that much of an improvement. But Intel hasn't improved much in desktops since Sandy Bridge, and isn't likely to do so until at least 2015. I expect AMD's Kaveri to cut Intel's lead in per-core performance roughly in half early next year, and AMD will likely make further gains with subsequent products.
Thanks for the info, good to hear AMD isnt out of the loop, like some rumours claimed last year. I recall hearing something that they'd focus less on the desktops even furthering Intel's lead on the newer CPU's. I dont follow the tech news too closely anymore, which might even force my hand to buy one of those "premade" gaming rigs the next time I replace my PC /gasp.
I guess it was just the wrong time when I bought my Phenom 2 X4, it was still enough respected processor, cant remember if it was 2 or 3 years ago. However shortly after that the news were you should be buying Intel and many new games would benefit a lot from this new and awesome Intel super power. I dont buy new graphics cards or new components in general the year they come out because the price is stupid, never before saw that much of a risk to get trampled by some new stuff very quickly.
You cannot look at any of these hardware sites because they are often given higher end replicas of the same hardware knowing they might influence buyers.If they go out and purchase heir own that is different but even still THEIR config and setup will almost never match yours.
I simply look back over the last 30+ years and have seen over hyped pc hardware day after day.They are almost never worth the added upgrade cost and never perform as well as hyped.
I would lean towards Nvidia before ATI,again through experience over many years comparing so called equal value cards.I would also lean towards Intel over AMD.
I suggest if you need a new pc then go for the best bang for your buck but don`t expect miracles with small expensive upgrades.If you have a decent system that dos the job,save your money,your system will probably suffice another 3 years.
Geesh i have what is a so called ancient machine AMD5200-8800gt yet i can run any mmorpg on the market.My I5 laptop is plenty powerful.i can run 2+ instances of the same game,so all these I7 and other GPU`s are wasted money,overkill.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I currently run Nvidia GTX570 and it runs everything perfectly fine that I play, most of the time maxed out, and if I get performance problems it's mostly because I'm currently running my last AMD processor (Phenom 2 X4 970 BE), next time I build a computer I'll definately jump onboard with Intel.
So basically, you're saying that the reason that your four year old processor doesn't perform well enough for you is because it's AMD, and that being four years old has nothing to do with it?
No not really because the 3 letters happen to be there, but I did some research back at the launches of GW2 and PS2, the general opinion were that AMD processors for whatever technological reasons performed poorly compared to Intel with these games. I browsed some "tech" sites that had charts based on some test runs to indicate this same trend. I dont recall them pitting 4 years old AMD vs. 1 year old Intel.
Intels cost more, sure, but it never were the reason why I always picked AMD processors, I kinda had the same story there as with the GPU's. Since my 300MHz PC back in the day I always built AMD because it worked and performed, never had trouble with it, so not really any reasons to hop into Intel camp, but everything seems to be pointing towards Intel right now if I want a balanced PC with minimal amount of bottlenecks.
May I recommend that, the next time you buy a processor, you base your decisions on the processors that are available then--and not on the processors that were available several years earlier. The latter would make about as much sense as buying AMD forever because they were ahead of Intel from late 2003 until mid-2006 (Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 X2 vs Pentium D eras).
The Phenom II X4 was slower than Bloomfield, its Intel contemporary, but it wasn't a huge gap unless you were an overclocker. But Intel opened up a huge lead with the launch of Sandy Bridge in early 2011, while AMD's Llano and Zambezi chips were rather bad on a desktop, and Vishera wasn't that much of an improvement. But Intel hasn't improved much in desktops since Sandy Bridge, and isn't likely to do so until at least 2015. I expect AMD's Kaveri to cut Intel's lead in per-core performance roughly in half early next year, and AMD will likely make further gains with subsequent products.
Thanks for the info, good to hear AMD isnt out of the loop, like some rumours claimed last year. I recall hearing something that they'd focus less on the desktops even furthering Intel's lead on the newer CPU's. I dont follow the tech news too closely anymore, which might even force my hand to buy one of those "premade" gaming rigs the next time I replace my PC /gasp.
I guess it was just the wrong time when I bought my Phenom 2 X4, it was still enough respected processor, cant remember if it was 2 or 3 years ago. However shortly after that the news were you should be buying Intel and many new games would benefit a lot from this new and awesome Intel super power. I dont buy new graphics cards or new components in general the year they come out because the price is stupid, never before saw that much of a risk to get trampled by some new stuff very quickly.
No one builds processors targeted primarily at desktops anymore; AMD's Phenom II X6 from 2010 may well be the last such pure desktop chip. Rather, desktop processors are desktop variants of chips built primarily for laptops (Intel Haswell, AMD A-series) or servers (Intel Ivy Bridge-E, AMD FX-series).
For example, the main advantage of Intel's Haswell over their previous generation Ivy Bridge is reduced idle power consumption. That's a huge deal in a laptop, as it extends your battery life. In a desktop, burning a few extra watts amounts to a rounding error.
Also, today's mid-range products aren't yesterday's high end. Rather, yesterday's high end gets discontinued, while new mid-range products get introduced. The new mid-range might be as fast as the old high-end, but it will be a lot cheaper to produce, and burn a lot less power. Unless you have extreme reliability requirements, a processor or video card being new shouldn't scare you off.
Originally posted by Wizardry You cannot look at any of these hardware sites because they are often given higher end replicas of the same hardware knowing they might influence buyers.If they go out and purchase heir own that is different but even still THEIR config and setup will almost never match yours.
I simply look back over the last 30+ years and have seen over hyped pc hardware day after day.They are almost never worth the added upgrade cost and never perform as well as hyped.
I would lean towards Nvidia before ATI,again through experience over many years comparing so called equal value cards.I would also lean towards Intel over AMD.
I suggest if you need a new pc then go for the best bang for your buck but don`t expect miracles with small expensive upgrades.If you have a decent system that dos the job,save your money,your system will probably suffice another 3 years.
Geesh i have what is a so called ancient machine AMD5200-8800gt yet i can run any mmorpg on the market.My I5 laptop is plenty powerful.i can run 2+ instances of the same game,so all these I7 and other GPU`s are wasted money,overkill.
I will not judge your experience over the years, its what you prefer and like right. Sometimes something go broke and your in kind of mood saying ill never buy this product ever and switch over.
You go to other camp and have np for many years and stick to what you know like and experience thats sound and good way of doing things nothing wrong with that.
That still dont mean the other camp keep failing. I for one started with nvidia back in old days then i switch dirung the ati 9700/9800PRO era but switch back to nvidia with 8800gt. I had on both camps sometimes problems and manytimes good gaming time with both products.
I switch back to ati in 2009 just becouse of DX11/win7 release and ATI 5870 bought whole new system for that.
I stick with them sinds 2009 and had ZERO problems i got 5870 first then 6970 and latest 7970 and happy gamer in prices and performance.
If nvidia came with videocard thats good and also price friendly(this is what they are not OR ill switch again).
But AMD so far give me good cards and good drivers sinds 2009 and price is always right.
Sadly many claim ATI/AMD fail with Drivers which is not even close to truth its just not true there drivers are good and stable and ive np at all.
AMD R9 290x is cheap for highend card so ill doub i soon switch to nvidia unless 290x is terible card and i can't game normally as a happy camper.
This don't mean i hate nvidia or say there bad im just at moment in favor of AMD and they did not dissapoint me sinds 2009.
Have fun with you nvidia for years to come:)
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
You could buy a ps4 and a couple of games for that price.
Thats what I am doing. Pc is all over the place and for what? Pricing is out of this world and exactly what game would I need that card for that I won't be playing on ps4? High pc gaming will return, but right now the value is in that ps4. The games will just keep getting better and you won't have to keep up with the hardware.
Selling my Titan this week. If you have one now is the time to move it. In a few months when the next gen Nvidia cards hit its value will plummet. I play video cards like the stock market. If you do it right you can always be in the newest card for less than $100 year. Essentially what you pay when you buy a new midrange card every few years and throw away your worthless old one.
6 Months ago I sold my pair of GTX 670 4gb for slightly more than what I paid($900). I then paid $850 for my Titan. If I sell it now I'll probably still get about that back(minus ebay/paypal). Now I'll snag one of the first aftermarket 290x cards and pocket at least $150 after paypal/ebay fees. In 4-5 months I'll sell the 290x for a small loss and buy the new Nvidia big dog again.
Comments
So basically, you're saying that the reason that your four year old processor doesn't perform well enough for you is because it's AMD, and that being four years old has nothing to do with it?
I imagine English is not your native language, however Vission is not trying to dispute the information contained within your post, but in how you went about writing it, spellchecker is your friend if your having problems ie importend I'm assuming is meant to be important.
No not really because the 3 letters happen to be there, but I did some research back at the launches of GW2 and PS2, the general opinion were that AMD processors for whatever technological reasons performed poorly compared to Intel with these games. I browsed some "tech" sites that had charts based on some test runs to indicate this same trend. I dont recall them pitting 4 years old AMD vs. 1 year old Intel.
Intels cost more, sure, but it never were the reason why I always picked AMD processors, I kinda had the same story there as with the GPU's. Since my 300MHz PC back in the day I always built AMD because it worked and performed, never had trouble with it, so not really any reasons to hop into Intel camp, but everything seems to be pointing towards Intel right now if I want a balanced PC with minimal amount of bottlenecks.
Totally agree, never AMD again, I've coped with it for the past 3 years but I'm glad I finally got rid of it. For one, Crossfire doesn't work in windowed mode, which is a big deal for me as I use dual monitors; fullscreen has too much of a delay to switch between monitors. Secondly, the drivers are horrendous, again for Crossfire especially, lots of micro stuttering which they have apparently fixed this summer (took them over 3 years!).
I don't care if their cards are cheaper, if you're a power user and use your PC every single day for quite some hours, you want something you can fully rely on.
Yeah, why is that? Maybe it never occurred to you that Nvidia cards are better at working with a larger number of system configurations than AMD cards? I'm no slouch when it comes to system building and I know my way around the circuit board. If I consistently have driver issues with one company's component, yet not with another, then my sense of logic says to go with the other. I really don't care if you didn't have issues as we obviously didn't have the same systems.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
If regularly can't make AMD cards work with your system something is wrong with your ability.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
People can check your thread history you know. You're accusing others for being nvidia fans, yet you're a fanboy as well.
Your story would be mor ebelievable if you posted facts, statistics, benchmarks etc.
Yet you claim AMD > Nvidia in your title, then you tear your claim down 'AMD > Nvidia in MOST benchmarks
So not all?
I am not a Nvidia fanboi, but if you make a bold claim -which may be true btw- the LEAST you could do is provide some proof funding your claims. I don't know you, so why should I take your word for it?
Now you just sound like a WOW fanboi blowing hot air.
Fund your statement.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Nice and silent enough to play games.
lil over 10k in firemark.
Step up over my oold CF GTX570 setup.
CPU used is a 200,- Euro costing xeon e3-1230 v2 at stock.
And 4x8Gb Crucial Balistic Tracer at 1800Mhz
Corsair 540 Air case wirh 3x 120sp cosair in the front
I really wish Corsair would develop a closed loop cooler for video cards. I am not and suggest no one buy the reference card. The noise factor gets to me after a while and the card simply runs to hot if you keep it in uber mode. Once the 290x releases with custom coolers, then that will be a must get but until then, I pass....
I have been an ATI fan for a long time, but I just do not got why you would create such a card and then hinder its capability due to utilizing such a poor cooling solution. Its time for AMD to put some money towards developing a new cooling solution. I dont care if this card can beat a TItan for 10 minutes at a time and then it under clocks itself. My current 6950 is OC'd and can run full blast for hours and never get above 70 degrees. 10 minutes of stress and the 290x hits 95 degrees.
I really hope sapphire, asus, or msi release custom coolers soon...
Already got a waterblock on the way.
When benchmarking the card is like.. a F16 taking off.
thank god my case has no wheels else it would be on the ground.
Already have the rest of the WC stuff like a 4x180 Mo Ra3 rad for 2 cards now that should be enough.
(Was keeping my 4xGTX570 at 40c max on my sr2 while doing boink 2x290x should not be a problem)
If loud and hot are not problems then Im guessing the TiTan if it were loud and hot would be faster than its existing version and cheaper due to lower demand of a lower quality product.
Hotter hardware have an unreliable life span. Good luck keeping that card longer than 2 years. I have had my old video cards for almost 4 years now, and I can still over clock them in the future for 2 more years. Thats an investment.
Imagine buying an R9 every 2-3 years, then one is costlier than the other.
Also Titan came out a long time ago, theres going to be a new nvidia card out any time to beat the new amd, and its going to be quieter and producing less heat. I probably wont buy it, but its cheaper versions will be better than the older AMD and its nvidia which has better video game support.
I appreciate AMD for trying, but my money is on a sure thing with better support. That for me is more important than stats in the spur of the moment. I am not going to be wooed by the next big thing if its rushed.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I wish I had the time to buy a decent water solution and build it. I got an Silverstone FT02 back in the day, with the notion of going water but I just didnt have the time so I got a closed loop instead. I have my 1090T OC'd at 3.9 ghz stable. I tried pushing 4ghz but I just cant get it stable.
The funny thing is I worked on hornets and tomcats for years. hehe...
Yeeah i know the fealing.
I realy liked it for a long time. but water in my pc ? leaks ? hard to do ?
I am in Europe and moost (affordable) WC stuff comes from here EK, Watercool
so for us here is cheaper.
I started with a CPU set from XSPC (witch now cools my i7 920) for 80 euro's and have never looked back since.
Just buy a set like that u have it up and running in less then an hour.
Just get some good cooling fluid the cheap set i have has been running for 3 years now with 1 little refill.
Trust me if u try once your hooked.
May I recommend that, the next time you buy a processor, you base your decisions on the processors that are available then--and not on the processors that were available several years earlier. The latter would make about as much sense as buying AMD forever because they were ahead of Intel from late 2003 until mid-2006 (Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 X2 vs Pentium D eras).
The Phenom II X4 was slower than Bloomfield, its Intel contemporary, but it wasn't a huge gap unless you were an overclocker. But Intel opened up a huge lead with the launch of Sandy Bridge in early 2011, while AMD's Llano and Zambezi chips were rather bad on a desktop, and Vishera wasn't that much of an improvement. But Intel hasn't improved much in desktops since Sandy Bridge, and isn't likely to do so until at least 2015. I expect AMD's Kaveri to cut Intel's lead in per-core performance roughly in half early next year, and AMD will likely make further gains with subsequent products.
But it's not just a question of which processor is faster, but how much faster. If you're willing to spend $220 for a proper Intel quad core, then yes, Intel is faster for gaming. But if you're unwilling to spend more than $150 on a processor, there isn't much sense in buying Intel. Intel's $220 processor is better for gaming than AMD's $130 processor, but Intel's $130 processor sure isn't.
For many years, Intel enjoyed a major process node advantage over AMD. Today, they still do, and in terms of getting to new process nodes faster, the gap is widening if anything. But increasingly small geometry is likely to mean that, while power consumption continues to go down, performance for desktop purposes doesn't go up. It might even go down; there are conflicting rumors about whether Intel will bother to release a meaningful desktop version of its next generation Broadwell CPU at all.
Crossfire and SLI really only target two types of people: the technically clueless and those for which one high end video card isn't good enough, so they'll spend more and buy two. Budget considerations mean that very few people are in the latter category. No one else has any reason to care how well (or whether!) Crossfire or SLI work.
As to how well Crossfire and SLI work, about two years ago, Tech Report started doing frame pacing tests to see just how useful in the real-world multi-GPU setups were. Their initial results were that Crossfire and SLI were both a complete mess. Nvidia realized that this was important quickly and started working on fixing frame timing in SLI, while AMD ignored it.
About a year later, Nvidia had fixed the frame pacing problems (though not other problems that plague multi-GPU setups), while AMD still hadn't. So Nvidia sent hardware to various tech review sites that would allow for more precise frame pacing measurements (and a better system than the software-based stuff that Tech Report had previously used), which made the differences really obvious. There still wasn't much of a difference for single-card systems, but as far as frame pacing went, SLI basically worked and Crossfire basically didn't.
So AMD figured out that this was a problem and went to work fixing Crossfire. Today, they've mostly fixed it (entirely for the Radeon R9 290X, but that took some hardware changes not available to older cards), and both SLI and Crossfire work, at least as far as frame pacing goes.
So does it matter that Nvidia fixed their frame pacing problems about a year before AMD did? If you were buying a multi-GPU setup six months ago, it did. (It also mattered that Titan was a lot faster than a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition--and if you were looking at a multi-GPU setup, you should have been looking at Titan or at least a GTX 780.) But today? Does it matter that AMD had DirectX 11 support about six months earlier than Nvidia? DirectX 11 surely matters vastly more than SLI or Crossfire. But once the other side catches up, it doesn't matter who got there first.
And if one is running v-sync or frame cap limiter (using something like radeon pro), the CF solution wasn't that behind the SLI solutions.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Heat and temperature aren't the same thing.
The R290X dissipates something like 30W more than a titan or something like 5% higher power consumption.
That is insignificant.
The high temperature is due to the weaker cooler.
These cards will last more than 2 years (in Europe hardware is under guarantee for 2 years). The current process node can easily have chips lasting for years at temperatures around 100C.
People that buy $500 plus cards don't keep their cards for 2 years.
It is better to buy midrange cards and upgrade more often than buy a ultra high end to have it for 3-4 years.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Thanks for the info, good to hear AMD isnt out of the loop, like some rumours claimed last year. I recall hearing something that they'd focus less on the desktops even furthering Intel's lead on the newer CPU's. I dont follow the tech news too closely anymore, which might even force my hand to buy one of those "premade" gaming rigs the next time I replace my PC /gasp.
I guess it was just the wrong time when I bought my Phenom 2 X4, it was still enough respected processor, cant remember if it was 2 or 3 years ago. However shortly after that the news were you should be buying Intel and many new games would benefit a lot from this new and awesome Intel super power. I dont buy new graphics cards or new components in general the year they come out because the price is stupid, never before saw that much of a risk to get trampled by some new stuff very quickly.
You cannot look at any of these hardware sites because they are often given higher end replicas of the same hardware knowing they might influence buyers.If they go out and purchase heir own that is different but even still THEIR config and setup will almost never match yours.
I simply look back over the last 30+ years and have seen over hyped pc hardware day after day.They are almost never worth the added upgrade cost and never perform as well as hyped.
I would lean towards Nvidia before ATI,again through experience over many years comparing so called equal value cards.I would also lean towards Intel over AMD.
I suggest if you need a new pc then go for the best bang for your buck but don`t expect miracles with small expensive upgrades.If you have a decent system that dos the job,save your money,your system will probably suffice another 3 years.
Geesh i have what is a so called ancient machine AMD5200-8800gt yet i can run any mmorpg on the market.My I5 laptop is plenty powerful.i can run 2+ instances of the same game,so all these I7 and other GPU`s are wasted money,overkill.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No one builds processors targeted primarily at desktops anymore; AMD's Phenom II X6 from 2010 may well be the last such pure desktop chip. Rather, desktop processors are desktop variants of chips built primarily for laptops (Intel Haswell, AMD A-series) or servers (Intel Ivy Bridge-E, AMD FX-series).
For example, the main advantage of Intel's Haswell over their previous generation Ivy Bridge is reduced idle power consumption. That's a huge deal in a laptop, as it extends your battery life. In a desktop, burning a few extra watts amounts to a rounding error.
Also, today's mid-range products aren't yesterday's high end. Rather, yesterday's high end gets discontinued, while new mid-range products get introduced. The new mid-range might be as fast as the old high-end, but it will be a lot cheaper to produce, and burn a lot less power. Unless you have extreme reliability requirements, a processor or video card being new shouldn't scare you off.
I will not judge your experience over the years, its what you prefer and like right.
Sometimes something go broke and your in kind of mood saying ill never buy this product ever and switch over.
You go to other camp and have np for many years and stick to what you know like and experience thats sound and good way of doing things nothing wrong with that.
That still dont mean the other camp keep failing. I for one started with nvidia back in old days then i switch dirung the ati 9700/9800PRO era but switch back to nvidia with 8800gt.
I had on both camps sometimes problems and manytimes good gaming time with both products.
I switch back to ati in 2009 just becouse of DX11/win7 release and ATI 5870 bought whole new system for that.
I stick with them sinds 2009 and had ZERO problems i got 5870 first then 6970 and latest 7970 and happy gamer in prices and performance.
If nvidia came with videocard thats good and also price friendly(this is what they are not OR ill switch again).
But AMD so far give me good cards and good drivers sinds 2009 and price is always right.
Sadly many claim ATI/AMD fail with Drivers which is not even close to truth its just not true there drivers are good and stable and ive np at all.
AMD R9 290x is cheap for highend card so ill doub i soon switch to nvidia unless 290x is terible card and i can't game normally as a happy camper.
This don't mean i hate nvidia or say there bad im just at moment in favor of AMD and they did not dissapoint me sinds 2009.
Have fun with you nvidia for years to come:)
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
Thats what I am doing. Pc is all over the place and for what? Pricing is out of this world and exactly what game would I need that card for that I won't be playing on ps4? High pc gaming will return, but right now the value is in that ps4. The games will just keep getting better and you won't have to keep up with the hardware.Selling my Titan this week. If you have one now is the time to move it. In a few months when the next gen Nvidia cards hit its value will plummet. I play video cards like the stock market. If you do it right you can always be in the newest card for less than $100 year. Essentially what you pay when you buy a new midrange card every few years and throw away your worthless old one.
6 Months ago I sold my pair of GTX 670 4gb for slightly more than what I paid($900). I then paid $850 for my Titan. If I sell it now I'll probably still get about that back(minus ebay/paypal). Now I'll snag one of the first aftermarket 290x cards and pocket at least $150 after paypal/ebay fees. In 4-5 months I'll sell the 290x for a small loss and buy the new Nvidia big dog again.