gtx 980 or fury for 1440p ?

[tential]

390 is the gamers card atm.
4k needs 2 cards anyhow.

I only need 1 Fury X for my purposes for 4K. AMD Freesync technology panned out far better than I ever dreamed with the Wasabi Mango 65 inch Freesync monitor. I'm so excited it's going to kill me lol. Just need a swivel arm that will bring it to a reasonable location from my bed and I'll be set. My projector could use the break anyway.
Open Source Standards should be mandatory. But well, this took me away from a GTX 980Ti purchase so it worked out for them.

 

[you2]

I saw the xfx card for $290; i kind of prefer msi (as a brand) but more importantly the msi is an inch shoter and hte xfx would require that I drill a hole in the hard disk bay (i.e, it is too long).

I also looked up the nano; it is not clear what the price point will be or performance. THe leaked data suggest a little faster than the 390 but it will run a lot cooler. My guess is htat it will start at $400 but as other said maybe it will force the price down for the 390.

Also you2, I'd hope you'd take a look at this card:
R9 390:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150728
$290.

Or you can get this:
https://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=04G-P4-2978-RX

EVGA BStock GTX 970 FTW (Their FASTEST GTX 970 model of I'm not mistaken that's refurbished for $300).

These are the 2 choices I recommend right now if you are willing to get an R9 390 instead of a GTX 980/Fury.

 

[tential]

I saw the xfx card for $290; i kind of prefer msi (as a brand) but more importantly the msi is an inch shoter and hte xfx would require that I drill a hole in the hard disk bay (i.e, it is too long).

I also looked up the nano; it is not clear what the price point will be or performance. THe leaked data suggest a little faster than the 390 but it will run a lot cooler. My guess is htat it will start at $400 but as other said maybe it will force the price down for the 390.

You're guessing it starts at $400.

However, the chip in the Fury Nano is supposedly the SAME chip in the Fury X. The $650 card that sits at the top. Then, the cut down version of this chip is in the Fury.

So now the full chip, is in a cheaper card than the Fury? What's to stop people from buying the Fury Nano, swapping the cooler, and still being cheaper than the Fury with a fully enabled chip?

It looks like Fury Nano will be a premium high end product. I'd say it'll be in the price range of Fury, but with lower performance and a lot lower power consumption.

Either way, I don't think the Fury Nano is a product you should wait on, or a product that will change the pricing structure.

The price difference isn't big, get the MSI then if that's what works for you.

 

[RampantAndroid]

You're guessing it starts at $400.

However, the chip in the Fury Nano is supposedly the SAME chip in the Fury X. The $650 card that sits at the top. Then, the cut down version of this chip is in the Fury.

So now the full chip, is in a cheaper card than the Fury? What's to stop people from buying the Fury Nano, swapping the cooler, and still being cheaper than the Fury with a fully enabled chip?

It looks like Fury Nano will be a premium high end product. I'd say it'll be in the price range of Fury, but with lower performance and a lot lower power consumption.

Either way, I don't think the Fury Nano is a product you should wait on, or a product that will change the pricing structure.

The price difference isn't big, get the MSI then if that's what works for you.

My guess would be they'll limit it by giving it only a 6 pin PCIe power connector (75W from the board, 75W from the PSU directly) or something similar - an absolute limit on what the card can do. It's meant for HTPC stuff, right? Not gaming PCs (unless they're HTPCs for gaming.)

 

[bystander36]

My guess would be they'll limit it by giving it only a 6 pin PCIe power connector (75W from the board, 75W from the PSU directly) or something similar - an absolute limit on what the card can do. It's meant for HTPC stuff, right? Not gaming PCs (unless they're HTPCs for gaming.)

Other than gaming, HTPC or not, for what would you use a high end GPU? It's not a production type card, and movies don't need such a GPU. Neither would media stuff. I have to assume the cards are going to be used for gaming primarily.

 

[tential]

If it fits his needs I guess, get it. As long as he knows faster GPUs are coming next year and is prepared to deal with it that's ok.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Other than gaming, HTPC or not, for what would you use a high end GPU? It's not a production type card, and movies don't need such a GPU. Neither would media stuff. I have to assume the cards are going to be used for gaming primarily.

That's fair...but given how much power the Fury X uses (and the Fury) I don't see a non-cut down Fury X having any way to limit it beyond power/lower voltages & clocks.

At a guess, it'll be good for 1080p gaming, and the Fury will be more powerful gaming wise. Has anyone tried downclocking the Fury X to get an idea what the Fury Nano might be like?

 

[tential]

That's fair...but given how much power the Fury X uses (and the Fury) I don't see a non-cut down Fury X having any way to limit it beyond power/lower voltages & clocks.

At a guess, it'll be good for 1080p gaming, and the Fury will be more powerful gaming wise. Has anyone tried downclocking the Fury X to get an idea what the Fury Nano might be like?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-power-pump-efficiency,4215.html

Even though the power consumption decreases from 267W to 170W when the power limit is set to -50 percent, the resulting frame rates just aren’t in the playable range any more. Higher power limit settings do not show imported results, either. The minimum and average frames per second, as well as the power consumption, stay the same. Things actually look about the same at Full HD, but the power consumption is low enough in that scenario that there’s no point to changing the settings anyway

 

[tential]

I saw the xfx card for $290; i kind of prefer msi (as a brand) but more importantly the msi is an inch shoter and hte xfx would require that I drill a hole in the hard disk bay (i.e, it is too long).

I also looked up the nano; it is not clear what the price point will be or performance. THe leaked data suggest a little faster than the 390 but it will run a lot cooler. My guess is htat it will start at $400 but as other said maybe it will force the price down for the 390.

You can also use the VISA checkout deal
http://slickdeals.net/coupons/newegg/

So I'd buy now if I was you.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Things actually look about the same at Full HD, but the power consumption is low enough in that scenario that there’s no point to changing the settings anyway

That to me sounds like they could simply lower the power limit on the card and call it a HTPC card (less heat dissipation and VRMs needed as well, helping cut costs.)

I wonder where most of the cost on a Fury/X comes from. I couldn't find a BOM anywhere.

 

[beginner99]

Going by benchmarks and pricing alone the GTX980 is probably the better choice. Fury does not fare very well compared to NV at 1440p. It's strength are at 4k.

However if you look at recent history AMDs cards have matured much better than NVs. 2-3 year old AMD cards fare much better now than comparable NV cards. It's unknown if this is due to lack of driver optimization or the actually uArch of the GPUs (which for AMD has been the same in the last couple years).

So chances are in 1-2 years the Fury will look much, much better compared to GTX 980 than now and especially in directx12 games.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Going by benchmarks and pricing alone the GTX980 is probably the better choice. Fury does not fare very well compared to NV at 1440p. It's strength are at 4k.

However if you look at recent history AMDs cards have matured much better than NVs. 2-3 year old AMD cards fare much better now than comparable NV cards. It's unknown if this is due to lack of driver optimization or the actually uArch of the GPUs (which for AMD has been the same in the last couple years).

So chances are in 1-2 years the Fury will look much, much better compared to GTX 980 than now and especially in directx12 games.

Where do you the bolded from? We have no indication - other than a few preliminary tests - that show DX12 perf.

 

[3DVagabond]

Going by benchmarks and pricing alone the GTX980 is probably the better choice. Fury does not fare very well compared to NV at 1440p. It's strength are at 4k.

However if you look at recent history AMDs cards have matured much better than NVs. 2-3 year old AMD cards fare much better now than comparable NV cards. It's unknown if this is due to lack of driver optimization or the actually uArch of the GPUs (which for AMD has been the same in the last couple years).

So chances are in 1-2 years the Fury will look much, much better compared to GTX 980 than now and especially in directx12 games.

I'm not sure what benches you are going by, but in almost all of them Fury is faster than the 980. Sometimes by quite a lot.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I'm not sure what benches you are going by, but in almost all of them Fury is faster than the 980. Sometimes by quite a lot.

Sure...if you forget the fact that the 980 is cheaper, comes with a free game often (the Fury does not) and most reviews don't compare to a factory OC 980 let alone a custom OCed 980. The only review that does really is from TekSyndicate.

 

[3DVagabond]

Sure...if you forget the fact that the 980 is cheaper, comes with a free game often (the Fury does not) and most reviews don't compare to a factory OC 980 let alone a custom OCed 980. The only review that does really is from TekSyndicate.

Wow! You are really good at posting off of the topic. Please look at the post I replied to. The 980 simply doesn't beat the Fury in most benches.

If you want to talk about custom cards and O/C'ing (or maybe even unlocking shaders?) feel free to. But it has nothing to do with my post or the post I replied to.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Wow! You are really good at posting off of the topic. Please look at the post I replied to. The 980 simply doesn't beat the Fury in most benches.

If you want to talk about custom cards and O/C'ing (or maybe even unlocking shaders?) feel free to. But it has nothing to do with my post or the post I replied to.

He says that the 980 fares better below 4k. You say he's wrong, he needs to look at benchmarks. I say that most benchmarks are worthless since they compare a *stock* 980 to a non-stock Fury...and he DOES mention pricing, actually.

That's a logical progression. I'm done with you.

 

[3DVagabond]

He says that the 980 fares better below 4k. You say he's wrong, he needs to look at benchmarks. I say that most benchmarks are worthless since they compare a *stock* 980 to a non-stock Fury...and he DOES mention pricing, actually.

That's a logical progression. I'm done with you.

Thank you.

 

[raghu78]

Sure...if you forget the fact that the 980 is cheaper, comes with a free game often (the Fury does not) and most reviews don't compare to a factory OC 980 let alone a custom OCed 980. The only review that does really is from TekSyndicate.

Fury is generally faster than a custom 980 OC.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/...h/2/#diagramm-rating-2560-1440-hohe-qualitaet

The more important point is after seeing how Kepler performance in the latest games released in the last 9-12 months has been poor any user needs to be wary of Nvidia's shenanigans. There is no doubt that Nvidia is intentionally making Kepler fare bad by not optimizing for it so as to push Kepler owners to upgrade to Maxwell. On the contrary AMD GCN cards are beating their Kepler counterparts now. Since AMD is committed to GCN for atleast 2+ years the Fury is poised to open a larger gap against GTX 980 OC as time goes by. As more demanding games launch in future the massive bandwidth of Fury could be a major advantage.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Fury is generally faster than a custom 980 OC.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/...h/2/#diagramm-rating-2560-1440-hohe-qualitaet

The more important point is after seeing how Kepler performance in the latest games released in the last 9-12 months has been poor any user needs to be wary of Nvidia's shenanigans. There is no doubt that Nvidia is intentionally making Kepler fare bad by not optimizing for it so as to push Kepler owners to upgrade to Maxwell. On the contrary AMD GCN cards are beating their Kepler counterparts now. Since AMD is committed to GCN for atleast 2+ years the Fury is poised to open a larger gap against GTX 980 OC as time goes by. As more demanding games launch in future the massive bandwidth of Fury could be a major advantage.

Looking at that site, I didn't look at all games, but Assasin's Creed, COD:AW and such look like the 980 "OC" wins (which is about equal to a factory overclock - 1,311 MHz). Evolve has the Fury winning, Far Cry 4 is a 980 OC win (isn't FC4 generally a game that will favor AMD?) Games like Risen and DAI show the 980 matching a Fury X (there's others where it beats a Fury X). Not even counting the Witcher, Watch Dogs and such. Did I miss something?

I'm not sure I'd call that a custom OC (I'm getting that number from here.) Any of the Factory OC models should hit 1400MHz without touching the BIOS. Maybe (probably?) even 1500MHz, which will close the gap/pass the Fury in most cases.

As for time, I won't speculate. I did find this, though it looks like Firestrike only. I don't see a huge drop off.
http://www.bytemedev.com/the-gtx-780-ti-sli-end-of-life-driver-performance-analysis/#more-1742

 

[you2]

I thought we decided the 390 was a better buy than the gtx 980 or fury and is fast enough for 1440p. I will wait until the nano release since it is suppose to be this week or next to see where it fits in the picture.

 

[Headfoot]

I thought we decided the 390 was a better buy than the gtx 980 or fury and is fast enough for 1440p. I will wait until the nano release since it is suppose to be this week or next to see where it fits in the picture.

Yes. Choosing between Fury and 980 is choosing between what flavor of turd sandwich you want to eat.

 

[soccerballtux]

Looking at that site, I didn't look at all games, but Assasin's Creed, COD:AW and such look like the 980 "OC" wins (which is about equal to a factory overclock - 1,311 MHz). Evolve has the Fury winning, Far Cry 4 is a 980 OC win (isn't FC4 generally a game that will favor AMD?) Games like Risen and DAI show the 980 matching a Fury X (there's others where it beats a Fury X). Not even counting the Witcher, Watch Dogs and such. Did I miss something?

I'm not sure I'd call that a custom OC (I'm getting that number from here.) Any of the Factory OC models should hit 1400MHz without touching the BIOS. Maybe (probably?) even 1500MHz, which will close the gap/pass the Fury in most cases.

As for time, I won't speculate. I did find this, though it looks like Firestrike only. I don't see a huge drop off.
http://www.bytemedev.com/the-gtx-780-ti-sli-end-of-life-driver-performance-analysis/#more-1742

no, FC4 has Gameworks, and started as a title where Nvidia was in the lead due to the usual unfair and AMD-crippling optimizations. Like a random plank of wood having 1000x as many polygons as the others. Since Nvidia knew where it was [they placed it], they could just remove it.

between the advances in the GCN driver efficiency and handling Gameworks, they pulled ahead.

edit: sorry, that's something they did in Crysis 2

but anyways yeah that happened with Crysis 2, and then AMD pulled ahead.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yes. Choosing between Fury and 980 is choosing between what flavor of turd sandwich you want to eat.

I'd rather have the 290x than the 390, and I'd rather have the 390x than the 390.

Basically, the extra shaders.

 

[Headfoot]

The bottom line is that the 290/290x/390/970 and 980 ti make anything between them irrelevant because the performance difference is small compared to how much more it costs you to get it.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I consider the 970 a non-starter at 1440p. There's enough tests out there people have done (real world) saying that at 1440p, you CAN cross the 3.5GB boundary, and it sucks when you do.

They should honestly discontinue the 970 and drop the 980 price and be done with it. Doing so would gut any Fury sales (and 390x sales?)...and the very fact that we're arguing about 980 vs Fury means there's some semblance of competition.