A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
Regardless of which of these 2 cards is better these are the 2 cards im waiting for the price to drop. I dont want to pay over $300 just to have them massively drop in price after the new lineup comes out.
Every Radeon card I have ever had was a piece of shit. I don't care what charts or graphs say I would never put another one of those in any system again.
A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
What, its too short?
These are 2 most relevant GPUs for gamers. Rest is also out there and its the same across the board due to dx12 features.
Doesn't prove anything really. No nvidia drivers at this time and they even stated the game is being developed more towards the console which has amd. Will see when the game comes out and nvidia puts out the game ready drivers.
It has dx12 features, thats as much PC as it gets. No driver will fix lack of dx12 hardware.
Its unfortunately NVidia who is holding back advancement as all "the way its ment to be played" titles are dx11. BUT they cant hold it down forever. Not across 2 generations of GPUs in any case.
A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
Seems to be more about the game and less about the card's.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
What, its too short?
These are 2 most relevant GPUs for gamers. Rest is also out there and its the same across the board due to dx12 features.
Not so much too short, as too limited, not even sure the 970 is even that important statistically. Seems too much like cherrypicking for the desired results. Also, with even the variations in those cards themselves, you could easily take the best of the 390's and compare it with the worst of the 970's, and vice versa. If you were going to do a 'better' demo to compare the two types of cards, you would have been better off starting with the best one of each type and then working down. The Youtube video was interesting, but inherently flawed nevertheless.
A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
What, its too short?
These are 2 most relevant GPUs for gamers. Rest is also out there and its the same across the board due to dx12 features.
Not so much too short, as too limited, not even sure the 970 is even that important statistically. Seems too much like cherrypicking for the desired results. Also, with even the variations in those cards themselves, you could easily take the best of the 390's and compare it with the worst of the 970's, and vice versa. If you were going to do a 'better' demo to compare the two types of cards, you would have been better off starting with the best one of each type and then working down. The Youtube video was interesting, but inherently flawed nevertheless.
Its 3 1/2 minutes of gameplay. If you think that many of internet gurus do much more than that....get real.
Now you get actualy footage with FPS but thats not good, its not edited, not cherry picked just raw footage rofl. Everyone can look at it and make their own conclusion.
In fact these guys do much better and deeper game perfomrance analysis that 99% of "reviews" out there that tend to cherry pick stuff and refuse to reply what they actually tested and how and when called out to test it properly go into berserk mode.
A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
What, its too short?
These are 2 most relevant GPUs for gamers. Rest is also out there and its the same across the board due to dx12 features.
Not so much too short, as too limited, not even sure the 970 is even that important statistically. Seems too much like cherrypicking for the desired results. Also, with even the variations in those cards themselves, you could easily take the best of the 390's and compare it with the worst of the 970's, and vice versa. If you were going to do a 'better' demo to compare the two types of cards, you would have been better off starting with the best one of each type and then working down. The Youtube video was interesting, but inherently flawed nevertheless.
Its 3 1/2 minutes of gameplay. If you think that many of internet gurus do much more than that....get real.
Now you get actualy footage with FPS but thats not good, its not edited, not cherry picked just raw footage rofl. Everyone can look at it and make their own conclusion.
Tbh, its hard not to see it as an example of cherrypicking, while the video streams were roughly similar, there were some substantial differences, and again, their choices in the individual cards may be somewhat, contentious. i would honestly be more likely to take them seriously, if; 1. They stated which exact cards were being used. 2. They used an official benchmarking tool. The problem with 'raw footage' is its hard, very hard, to duplicate things exactly enough that an accurate comparison can be made, like i said before, the video was interesting, but inherently flawed.
I never used an amd before, always nvidia cards until last December. After reviewing my options on these forums, the most logical choice based on my money was an amd card.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
A 3 1/2 minute video to compare frame rates in just one game among just two video cards? Really? Isn't this the sort of thing that bar charts were invented for? Or even tables of numbers.
What, its too short?
These are 2 most relevant GPUs for gamers. Rest is also out there and its the same across the board due to dx12 features.
Not so much too short, as too limited, not even sure the 970 is even that important statistically. Seems too much like cherrypicking for the desired results. Also, with even the variations in those cards themselves, you could easily take the best of the 390's and compare it with the worst of the 970's, and vice versa. If you were going to do a 'better' demo to compare the two types of cards, you would have been better off starting with the best one of each type and then working down. The Youtube video was interesting, but inherently flawed nevertheless.
Its 3 1/2 minutes of gameplay. If you think that many of internet gurus do much more than that....get real.
Now you get actualy footage with FPS but thats not good, its not edited, not cherry picked just raw footage rofl. Everyone can look at it and make their own conclusion.
Tbh, its hard not to see it as an example of cherrypicking, while the video streams were roughly similar, there were some substantial differences, and again, their choices in the individual cards may be somewhat, contentious. i would honestly be more likely to take them seriously, if; 1. They stated which exact cards were being used. 2. They used an official benchmarking tool. The problem with 'raw footage' is its hard, very hard, to duplicate things exactly enough that an accurate comparison can be made, like i said before, the video was interesting, but inherently flawed.
Raw footage of gameplay is only relevant. "Official benchmarks" can be as crappy as it gets as they test single situations that may not even be relevant ot rest of teh game.
These are not variable situations, most of single player games have very static scenes without much difference. Please point out to such huge discrepancies in the video that would make footage "inherently flawed". Of course there ARE quite a few that ARE flawed and that is easily spotted. So be my guest and back up your claims.
Even MMOs in controlled situations like raids/instanced PvP is more relevant, tough you need larger sample to be able to compare similar conditions.
I never used an amd before, always nvidia cards until last December. After reviewing my options on these forums, the most logical choice based on my money was an amd card.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
AMD cards have historically, been somewhat problematic for people, usually because of driver issues. Fortunately, afaik, that is no longer the case, but there remains a certain stigma because of it. However, since a GTX 960 generally costs about £180 and the R9 290 £300+ i would be very surprised if it wasn't a better card, would be kind of embarassing for AMD if it wasn't, would it not.
I never used an amd before, always nvidia cards until last December. After reviewing my options on these forums, the most logical choice based on my money was an amd card.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
AMD cards have historically, been somewhat problematic for people, usually because of driver issues. Fortunately, afaik, that is no longer the case, but there remains a certain stigma because of it. However, since a GTX 960 generally costs about £180 and the R9 290 £300+ i would be very surprised if it wasn't a better card, would be kind of embarassing for AMD if it wasn't, would it not.
I got it much cheaper than that due to christmas :P I think It was around £50 cheaper than a GTX 970. (And I still got people that told me to get an nvidia card despite that reason)
Here we use euro so that £180 GTX 960 would be much more than that, just to be clear.
I never used an amd before, always nvidia cards until last December. After reviewing my options on these forums, the most logical choice based on my money was an amd card.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
AMD cards have historically, been somewhat problematic for people, usually because of driver issues. Fortunately, afaik, that is no longer the case, but there remains a certain stigma because of it. However, since a GTX 960 generally costs about £180 and the R9 290 £300+ i would be very surprised if it wasn't a better card, would be kind of embarassing for AMD if it wasn't, would it not.
Historically people had problems with BOTH. Historically i had much more problems with NVidia shittly drivers (even now on GTX970) and needed to usualy keep 5-10 driver versions for different games. Historically theres not much difference between the 2. Both had their fair share of brainfart drivers. Its just mantra of dummies to repeat it as it is kinda popular thing to say when you run out of facts and arguments.
290 was only marginally more expencive at the righ time. And idiots STILL suggested NVidia at that point which is pure insanity (to be mild). 290 is GTX970, getting 960 for similar price...you really have to be retarded. Same as getting 970 for 30-50% more $$.
And just look how GPUs aged, the state of Rx 2xx cards opposed to anything NVidia below 9xx series. "Pitcairn is immortal" lol
Thats all facts.
And dx12 tests suggest NVidia pooched it again. I guess we can move from "MMO miracle patches" to "GPU miracle drivers" lol Even if Nvidia claims they "have been working for years on DX12 drivers along MS". Shouldnt they have good driver by now? lol. Or at least hardware support for next gen (which it seems to be just maxwell on smaller node so no async compute again, and agan they claim they knew all about DX12 for years)
They actively lied about their GPUs dx12 capabilities until Stardock called them out, they even threatened Strdock at one point, but its all out now. Software emulation.
I never used an amd before, always nvidia cards until last December. After reviewing my options on these forums, the most logical choice based on my money was an amd card.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
AMD cards have historically, been somewhat problematic for people, usually because of driver issues. Fortunately, afaik, that is no longer the case, but there remains a certain stigma because of it. However, since a GTX 960 generally costs about £180 and the R9 290 £300+ i would be very surprised if it wasn't a better card, would be kind of embarassing for AMD if it wasn't, would it not.
I got it much cheaper than that due to christmas :P I think It was around £50 cheaper than a GTX 970. (And I still got people that told me to get an nvidia card despite that reason)
Here we use euro so that £180 GTX 960 would be much more than that, just to be clear.
The important thing is that you got a bargain, and your happy with the results, you should always get the best you can afford imo, regardless of whichever brand it is. Personally i invested in a 980ti, and never been happier, never thought i'd be gaming at 4k and still get 60 fps
Isn't all YouTube video, even if it was originally recorded "raw", compressed - and therefore not actually representative of what the reviewer sees natively on their display?
I think the importance of this test has to do with the developers recommended settings. It was a GTX 970 and R9 390 despite the 390 being a tier higher. Maybe it was an AMD marketing strategy so comparisons will show a clear gap between the cards. This is a Gaming Evolved title.
I think the importance of this test has to do with the developers recommended settings. It was a GTX 970 and R9 390 despite the 390 being a tier higher. Maybe it was an AMD marketing strategy so comparisons will show a clear gap between the cards. This is a Gaming Evolved title.
How are they different tiers? It's the second bin chip from the second best GPU chip from the respective vendors. They're also similar in price.
Every Radeon card I have ever had was a piece of shit. I don't care what charts or graphs say I would never put another one of those in any system again.
Here's another person comparing 150$ AMD card to 500$ nVidia card. You are clearly doing that. Because as an owner of R9 290X ... i can tell you that I have no regrets. This card is absolute beast and has never malfunctioned, it or its driver. And don't tell me I'm being lucky. There are plenty of people in this forum with this card in particular. They'll say the same thing.
I never used an amd before, always nvidia cards until last December. After reviewing my options on these forums, the most logical choice based on my money was an amd card.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
AMD cards have historically, been somewhat problematic for people, usually because of driver issues. Fortunately, afaik, that is no longer the case, but there remains a certain stigma because of it. However, since a GTX 960 generally costs about £180 and the R9 290 £300+ i would be very surprised if it wasn't a better card, would be kind of embarassing for AMD if it wasn't, would it not.
Historically people had problems with BOTH. Historically i had much more problems with NVidia shittly drivers (even now on GTX970) and needed to usualy keep 5-10 driver versions for different games. Historically theres not much difference between the 2. Both had their fair share of brainfart drivers. Its just mantra of dummies to repeat it as it is kinda popular thing to say when you run out of facts and arguments.
290 was only marginally more expencive at the righ time. And idiots STILL suggested NVidia at that point which is pure insanity (to be mild). 290 is GTX970, getting 960 for similar price...you really have to be retarded. Same as getting 970 for 30-50% more $$.
And just look how GPUs aged, the state of Rx 2xx cards opposed to anything NVidia below 9xx series. "Pitcairn is immortal" lol
Thats all facts.
And dx12 tests suggest NVidia pooched it again. I guess we can move from "MMO miracle patches" to "GPU miracle drivers" lol Even if Nvidia claims they "have been working for years on DX12 drivers along MS". Shouldnt they have good driver by now? lol. Or at least hardware support for next gen (which it seems to be just maxwell on smaller node so no async compute again, and agan they claim they knew all about DX12 for years)
They actively lied about their GPUs dx12 capabilities until Stardock called them out, they even threatened Strdock at one point, but its all out now. Software emulation.
This is funny because I've only have two nvidia driver issues. One was with tomb raider and the other was when I made the switch to windows 10. My last AMD card was a 5870 and changed to a 570 and never looked back. I've only bought evga and have never had one of them have issues. No, over heating or driver issues except the two I spoke of. Now my XFX 5870 fried on me 3 times. The drivers never even bugged me. Its the fact that the card was a super heater. After I made the change from AMD to Intel and nvidia I never looked back. All around better performance.
If AMD really shows better performance with ZEN and gives us a good video card that doesn't give me the need to open windows in the middle of winter I'll check them out again.
Sometimes you just are unlucky and you get some bad hardware, i think that can happen whichever brand, whether AMD is more prone to this than Nvidia is, no clue, i can only go by my own experiences, which for AMD was the bad driver problems, sometimes they just didn't work in various system combinations, but this is literally years ago. As for Nvidia, haven't had any problems with them ever, which is why when i chose to buy a high end GPU, they were the natural choice, so far its been good, but thats not to say that it might not suddenly develop problems later, thats a risk whatever brand you choose.
Its not impossible that AMD might really have managed to pull a blinder here with regards to Dx12, its too early to say for sure though, and given that Dx12 might not be as important to gaming as Dx11 was, then we can only wait and see, too many things up in the air at the moment, and given how Dx12 is not cross platform, but limited to a very small sector of the market, one of which is the XB1, its relevance may be even less than one which does offer cross platform flexibility.
Interesting times ahead, yet again, kind of fun though, and if Vulkan does pull it off, everybody wins.
Heating is indeed an issue with some of the amd cards (Not all), that's why you should review what you are going to purchase and see if your system can handle it. Amd or Nvidia, you should always check if your system can handle it.
The sapphire versions of the amd cards have better cooling for instance. My R9 290 has 3 fans but it's very long. I had to remove one of the front slots where you insert hardrives/dvd players in my tower to fit it in.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
These are 2 most relevant GPUs for gamers. Rest is also out there and its the same across the board due to dx12 features.
Its unfortunately NVidia who is holding back advancement as all "the way its ment to be played" titles are dx11. BUT they cant hold it down forever. Not across 2 generations of GPUs in any case.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
Seems too much like cherrypicking for the desired results.
Also, with even the variations in those cards themselves, you could easily take the best of the 390's and compare it with the worst of the 970's, and vice versa.
If you were going to do a 'better' demo to compare the two types of cards, you would have been better off starting with the best one of each type and then working down.
The Youtube video was interesting, but inherently flawed nevertheless.
Now you get actualy footage with FPS but thats not good, its not edited, not cherry picked just raw footage rofl. Everyone can look at it and make their own conclusion.
In fact these guys do much better and deeper game perfomrance analysis that 99% of "reviews" out there that tend to cherry pick stuff and refuse to reply what they actually tested and how and when called out to test it properly go into berserk mode.
i would honestly be more likely to take them seriously, if;
1. They stated which exact cards were being used.
2. They used an official benchmarking tool.
The problem with 'raw footage' is its hard, very hard, to duplicate things exactly enough that an accurate comparison can be made, like i said before, the video was interesting, but inherently flawed.
I have had no problems so far and that's all it counts.
I could have bought a GTX 960 but I opted for an R9 290 which is A LOT better.
These are not variable situations, most of single player games have very static scenes without much difference. Please point out to such huge discrepancies in the video that would make footage "inherently flawed". Of course there ARE quite a few that ARE flawed and that is easily spotted. So be my guest and back up your claims.
Even MMOs in controlled situations like raids/instanced PvP is more relevant, tough you need larger sample to be able to compare similar conditions.
However, since a GTX 960 generally costs about £180 and the R9 290 £300+ i would be very surprised if it wasn't a better card, would be kind of embarassing for AMD if it wasn't, would it not.
Here we use euro so that £180 GTX 960 would be much more than that, just to be clear.
290 was only marginally more expencive at the righ time. And idiots STILL suggested NVidia at that point which is pure insanity (to be mild). 290 is GTX970, getting 960 for similar price...you really have to be retarded. Same as getting 970 for 30-50% more $$.
And just look how GPUs aged, the state of Rx 2xx cards opposed to anything NVidia below 9xx series. "Pitcairn is immortal" lol
Thats all facts.
And dx12 tests suggest NVidia pooched it again. I guess we can move from "MMO miracle patches" to "GPU miracle drivers" lol Even if Nvidia claims they "have been working for years on DX12 drivers along MS". Shouldnt they have good driver by now? lol. Or at least hardware support for next gen (which it seems to be just maxwell on smaller node so no async compute again, and agan they claim they knew all about DX12 for years)
They actively lied about their GPUs dx12 capabilities until Stardock called them out, they even threatened Strdock at one point, but its all out now. Software emulation.
Its not impossible that AMD might really have managed to pull a blinder here with regards to Dx12, its too early to say for sure though, and given that Dx12 might not be as important to gaming as Dx11 was, then we can only wait and see, too many things up in the air at the moment, and given how Dx12 is not cross platform, but limited to a very small sector of the market, one of which is the XB1, its relevance may be even less than one which does offer cross platform flexibility.
Interesting times ahead, yet again, kind of fun though, and if Vulkan does pull it off, everybody wins.
The sapphire versions of the amd cards have better cooling for instance. My R9 290 has 3 fans but it's very long. I had to remove one of the front slots where you insert hardrives/dvd players in my tower to fit it in.