computerbaseAshes of the Singularity Beta1 DirectX 12 Benchmarks

[desprado]

Edited.

 

[Silverforce11]

390/X running at 1050mhz is the stock clocks. There's various models, you can find them yourself.

I can't say for DF, but they should do OC v OC, stock v stock and not throw OC v stock, it's poor tech journalism.

 

[desprado]

390/X running at 1050mhz is the stock clocks. There's various models, you can find them yourself.

I can't say for DF, but they should do OC v OC, stock v stock and not throw OC v stock, it's poor tech journalism.

" Btw, Computerbase result even includes factory OC 970 and 980, Strix/Gaming cards, that boost above reference 970/980 clocks."

you clearly said reference and their is no R9 390 or R9 390X reference. It is no doubt impossible to argue with some double standard posters.

 

[AtenRa]

R9 390 stock is up to 1000MHz
R9 390X stock is up to 1050MHz

 

[desprado]

R9 390 stock is up to 1000MHz
R9 390X stock is up to 1050MHz

He meant reference so read his couple of last post. There is no R9 390 or 390X reference cards.

 

[Bacon1]

Sliverforce can you tell me one thing that where in the world i can buy reference R9 390 and R9 390X? You said that review site need to benchmark a reference gtx 970 and 980 with R9 390/X custom overclocked models right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMvFpiiuN98

Now you will say that Digital Foundry is also Nvidia payed?

Published on Jul 1, 2015

Sad you had to go that far back to find a video to fit your story

FYI Digital Foundry does some of the better testing, but they constantly do OC'd 970's against stock 390s. Thats the only way the 970 can compete, and the 390's can be OC'd 10-15% as well.

 

[AtenRa]

He meant reference so read his couple of last post. There is no R9 390 or 390X reference cards.

Im not going to search every OEM but Sapphire has stock cards

R9 390 up to 1010MHz
http://www.sapphiretech.com/catapage_pd.asp?cataid=68&lang=eng

R9 390X up to 1055MHz
http://www.sapphiretech.com/catapage_pd.asp?cataid=69&lang=eng

 

[desprado]

Published on Jul 1, 2015

Sad you had to go that far back to find a video to fit your story

FYI Digital Foundry does some of the better testing, but they constantly do OC'd 970's against stock 390s. Thats the only way the 970 can compete, and the 390's can be OC'd 10-15% as well.

"However, our chosen stress test - the street shoot-out when seizing your base of operations - sees a significant performance drop on AMD, where it only narrowly outperforms the GTX 970. It's an interesting example of how benchmarking specific games can see performance differentials between the two vendors change significantly according to context. Regardless, 1080p60 on ultra is off the table for both cards - we got closer by dropping down to high settings with medium shadow resolution. This improved in-game fluidity no end, but it required a meaty +200MHz core overclock along with +400MHz to the memory in order to get the GTX 970 to more consistently hit the target. Generally speaking, we don't recommend overclocking the R9 390 beyond the 1050-1070MHz territory seen in factory-overclocked cards - power consumption and heat generation rise enormously."


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-the-division-pc-tech-analysis


So Digital Foundry are lying because they are on Nvidia payroll right?

 

[desprado]

edited.

 

[Bacon1]

"However, our chosen stress test - the street shoot-out when seizing your base of operations - sees a significant performance drop on AMD, where it only narrowly outperforms the GTX 970. It's an interesting example of how benchmarking specific games can see performance differentials between the two vendors change significantly according to context. Regardless, 1080p60 on ultra is off the table for both cards - we got closer by dropping down to high settings with medium shadow resolution. This improved in-game fluidity no end, but it required a meaty +200MHz core overclock along with +400MHz to the memory in order to get the GTX 970 to more consistently hit the target. Generally speaking, we don't recommend overclocking the R9 390 beyond the 1050-1070MHz territory seen in factory-overclocked cards - power consumption and heat generation rise enormously."


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-the-division-pc-tech-analysis


So Digital Foundry are lying because they are on Nvidia payroll right?

Yep, they had to OC the 970 to compete with stock 390.

Plenty of people OC the 390 without issues. The worse way is to just throw max voltage at it as that completely limits you and makes power/heat skyrocket.

Also stop complaining about reference vs stock. Everyone knows thats what he was talking about. Reference Speeds.

 

[desprado]

Yep, they had to OC the 970 to compete with stock 390.

Plenty of people OC the 390 without issues. The worse way is to just throw max voltage at it as that completely limits you and makes power/heat skyrocket.

Also stop complaining about reference vs stock. Everyone knows thats what he was talking about. Reference Speeds.

I know what he meant. He was trying to say they need to benchmark a Reference GTX 980 vs custom R9 390X.

You are new. Try to read his past post, claims and hype of about Fury X then you will know what he exactly meant.

 

[AtenRa]

Do you know what is the meaning of reference cards?

Yes, but you were talking about the clocks not the PCB/Heatsink etc

There are no reference R9 390/X from AMD but there are cards with stock clocks. That is what we care here not if the PCB/Heatsink is from a reference design from AMD.

Are those two Sapphire cards I have linked above running at stocked clocks yes or not ??

 

[desprado]

Yes, but you were talking about the clocks not the PCB/Heatsink etc

There are no reference R9 390/X from AMD but there are cards with stock clocks. That is what we care here not if the PCB/Heatsink is from a reference design from AMD.

Are those two Sapphire cards I have linked above running at stocked clocks yes or not ??

He was talking about reference card end of story. If their is any R9 3xx series reference card then plz guide me.

 

[AtenRa]

He was talking about reference card end of story. If their is any R9 3xx series reference card then plz guide me.

Come on man, reference could actually mean stock clocks as well, just admit there are stock clocked R9 390/X and be done with it.

 

[Bacon1]

He was talking about reference card end of story. If their is any R9 3xx series reference card then plz guide me.

The only place he said reference vs reference was regarding clock speeds

I meant to say tech journalists should do reference cards vs reference cards like they used to do and like reputable sites still do. If they want to do OC vs OC, then do an article on that separately.

You are the one claiming there are reference 390 cards when quoting him in a post when he even said stock and not reference.

You also completely ignore any actual facts and evidence and instead of owning up to the Fury X being able to OC 15% and gain 10% perf tried to change the subject.

 

[desprado]

edited.

 

[desprado]

The only place he said reference vs reference was regarding clock speeds



You are the one claiming there are reference 390 cards when quoting him in a post when he even said stock and not reference.

You also completely ignore any actual facts and evidence and instead of owning up to the Fury X being able to OC 15% and gain 10% perf tried to change the subject.

I did not. You just need to read recent post.

 

[Bacon1]

I did not. You just need to read recent post.

Please show me where he said reference card and wasn't referring to clock speeds, but actual reference fans and parts.

 

[Bacon1]

Edited.

Now thats just priceless, you just removed your post showing where you were the one that brought up reference cards.

 

[desprado]

Please show me where he said reference card and wasn't referring to clock speeds, but actual reference fans and parts.

He is saying that GTX 980 Ti should be underclocked at 950hmz and underclock memory to 500hmz to make fair benchmark with fury X. He suggest all journal to this.
I will try to post his guide to all review site and next time they should follow this step.

 

[desprado]

nvm.

 

[Bacon1]

I do not want to go out of topic.

You constantly go off topic, you've also yet to provide any quote stating he was talking about anything other than reference clock speeds. Just own up to being wrong its ok.

Feel free to address Fury X being able to get 15% oc for 10% perf gains though, thats at least semi on topic.

 

[Silverforce11]

He is saying that GTX 980 Ti should be underclocked at 950hmz and underclock memory to 500hmz to make fair benchmark with fury X. He suggest all journal to this.
I will try to post his guide to all review site and next time they should follow this step.

You sir, clearly have an issue at understanding English because that's not what I said.

This is why there's standards in tech journalism, because one gen to another, OC ability varies and if you start to pit massively OC models vs stock, you lose credibility because the data you generate is biased. Hence, sites like Anandtech, TPU, Guru3d, Computerbase.de etc continue to be the standard that gamers respect. Because they are consistently fair.

Dial the clocks back a few years, the 7950 with it's 50% OC trashed the 680 OC for half the price. Yet it would be very unfair to pit OC AMD GPUs vs stock NV GPUs, so reputable sites did not do that.

What if in the next-gen, Polaris is an amazing overclocker like the 7800/7900 series, do you want review sites to throw OC AMD GPUs against stock NV GPUs?? Don't throw OC GPUs into a stock lineup, it's clearly biased. Do you not understand?

390/X running at 1050mhz is the stock clocks. There's various models, you can find them yourself.

I can't say for DF, but they should do OC v OC, stock v stock and not throw OC v stock, it's poor tech journalism.

Now, is this a character assassination because you are claiming I said those things, which is totally not true.

Again, there's gotta be rules you are breaking here right? Am i allowed to go around paraphrasing other members and making up total bullcrap and claiming its what they said?!

For the record, it's totally unfair to pit OC vs stock, because stuff like this:

Yeah that's a >40% performance gain from OC!

And this, from the cheap 7950 OC wrecking 7970 (which was on-par with the 680) massively.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...lack_edition_video_card_review/8#.Vt0xfvl96Uk

Good review sites should keep their testing to stock v stock, OC v OC. I hope you understand now why that approach is the standard for tech journalism.

 

[desprado]

You sir, clearly have an issue at understanding English because that's not what I said.





Now, is this a character assassination because you are claiming I said those things, which is totally not true.

Again, there's gotta be rules you are breaking here right? Am i allowed to go around paraphrasing other members and making up total bullcrap and claiming its what they said?!

I just posting your claims that is all. Some posters and AMD_roy wanted a fair benchmark and in AMD PR point of view that is a fair benchmark.

 

[airfathaaaaa]

What a cherry pick benchmark .

Even you know that 99% people who buy GTX 970 do not use it at 1440p or you do know that.

Here is the benchmark

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Division-Spiel-37399/Specials/Beta-Benchmark-Test-1184726/

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-Primal-Spiel-56751/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1187476/

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Division-Spiel-37399/Specials/Benchmarks-1186853/

Even AMD roy said that PChardware.de are very good benchmark site.
Why you are posting hardcop benchmark and you said they are Nvidia paid. You do not have any principles or what?

so why then you keep putting them on the same latter when it comes to 1080p and and when amd goes on a higher res you come and say "970 users dont play on those res" ?