Of course, your choice. I just don't see it as a no brainer. People didn't have to hang on to their 780/780 ti very long for Hawaii to beat it pretty bad. nVidia's O/C'ing has been touted as far back as the 680. In the end, it hasn't helped. And it's not Tahiti's or Hawaii's VRAM advantage that has allowed it to mature better. Bandwidth, is more likely having a bigger effect and Fury has that in spades.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying except for the no brainer part.
I can remember the exact same type of comment made about the 680. In the end though, the 7970 was the better purchase. Currently there is virtually no performance difference in neutral games. So, that's more or less a wash. There is good evidence from the last few generations that AMD will out perform nVidia's offerings in the future.
Good that you brought that up, remember back during the 780 vs R290/X time, when lots of members here touted the 780s ability to OC (Balla!) as the main factor in why the 780 was superior to the R290 and likewise for the 780Ti to the R290X. How it quickly changes and GCN leaves Kepler in the dust.
People who think 980Ti with its 6gb vram has more future proofing fail to understand that DX12 is made with Mantle as a foundation and has mostly Mantle-like features. GCN being the core that future APIs were designed for, as well as cross-platform developers cater to due to consoles... obviously GCN is the more future proof uarch.
In regards to vram, none of these GPUs are capable of running playable fluid settings where 4 vs 6GB vram matters. Even in dual-GPU configs, turning on 4x MSAA at 4K kills performance in newer titles (GTA V) while older titles don't stress vram (Tomb Raider, Metro etc).
So.......
Clearly we have seen a few games since Hawaii that have performed very very poor on kepler cards. But these statements are only true when you pick one of those games. The big picture, going by more than a couple console ports that favor GCN (hmmm).......you see that the situation is not exactly what you guys are projecting.
I am sure you can find a few games where Hawaii beats the 780ti "pretty bad". But overall, and over many titles, we see the whole story.
I am not trying to take away the great accomplishment AMD has had when it comes to GCN drivers. They have made some pretty significant gains over the years. But i will just post some modern reviews with many modern and popular games.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Gaming/30.html
with 20+ games, Hawaii isnt beating kepler badly. It isnt leaving kepler in the dust. Even the gk104, its keeping pace with Tahiti.
It is an inescapable fact that AMD has made some great improvements with GCN performance. They have gained a lot on kepler. But beating nvidia pretty bad........on a game per game basis, there are cases such as these. But the bigger picture, you probably need to tame it down a little bit.
When the 290x launched, it was slower than the 780ti. Today, its as fast or faster in most cases. This is great. We have games that favor GCN. There are several modern console ports that favor GCN over kepler. AMD said that winning both next gen consoles would give them an advantage, it makes sense that it would. Games built specifically for X86 consoles built on GCN graphics, it is not beyond reason to think this would be beneficial when these games get ported to PC.
The fact that there are games that do favor GCN over kepler, it is not so surprising.
Facebook
Twitter