[Hardwarecanucks] GTX 780 Ti vs R9 290X; The Rematch

[Silverforce11]

@Silverforce wow so this is what you just posted:
1. 980 performance with old drivers that show it tied with a 290x in one game, what are you even trying to prove here? I can use the same argument for using canucks' hitman numbers.
EDIT: Actually most of your cherry picked graphs show 980 tying 290x. What does that tell us about your agenda? Because it's well known 980 is indeed faster.

2. Kepler performance hasn't dropped, at all. GCN has gotten better since launch, like ALL cards should...

3. Just because you don't agree with canucks' numbers they are automatically NV PR? What kind of flawed logic is that?

1. Before you jump to accusations of other members on an agenda, you better back up your own argument with evidence or facts. Where's your data to show the results I link to are wrong? You go and try to find some reputable sites that show 780TI is faster than R290X in SoM, FC4, Hitman and make sure they are recent too, within the last few months. It's funny you accuse the AnandTech results as being cherry picked... Seriously you accuse ME of an agenda after that spew? What's YOUR agenda?

2. Fine, I don't care, GCN has gotten better, whatever. Not the point.

3. HWC comes out with an article in response to the criticism of Kepler lacking optimizations in newer games (big topic on the geforce forums not too long ago btw) and presents data which disagree with every other major review site, in key titles where its well known AMD performs really well in, they have the R290X with much worse results. Why? If that isn't NV PR, then either HWC is full of crap (making up results) or they indeed have an agenda (pro-NV).

 

[Silverforce11]

You just reposted the same cherry picked graphs and in your graphs the 780 ti, 980 and 290x are essentially tied with the results being within the margin of error. A 980 is obviously faster than both of those cards which means your graphs are worthless for comparison.

You don't like my cherry picked graphs from AT, TPU, Sweclockers, Techspot, Computerbase.de, Guru3d etc go find your own to back up your claim that I am wrong. GO ON, find some where it shows 780Ti is faster than R290X in those games, make sure they are recent!

 

[Pariah]

What a fake test. They don't even post the machine they are using or OS.

For all we know they might be testing on windows XP and some weird combination of hardware, plus if you read my thread about reviews, you'd know ALL reviews are inherently flawed! Anyone can come up with any numbers and technically it could be true, since they can test only a very specific part on a 30 second running in a straight line!

First page of the article:

"For comparison purposes I’ve added a GTX 980 for good measure and our standard benchmark runs and test setup are being used. One important note is that our R9 290X is custom cooled but stock clocked so it will have no problem avoiding the throttling that plagued reference designs. Drivers being used are NVIDA's 355.69 and AMD's 15.7.1."

Anything else you want to criticize about the article that you chose not to read and need quoted?

 

[Carfax83]

People are so cynical these days. When I look at Kepler, I don't see evidence of NVidia's apathy. I see evidence of their myopic engineering, and the consequences thereof.

Kepler's main problem is that it's weak in compute. Whereas AMD invested heavily in a compute focused architecture, NVidia did the exact opposite with Kepler.

The debut of the current gen consoles helped tip the scales dramatically in AMD's favor, as developers rapidly began using lots of compute shaders in their games to accelerate rendering and post processing and take advantage of the compute strength of the GCN based GPUs in the PS4 and Xbox One.

Thus began the decline of Kepler. For evidence of this, all you need to do is look at the GK104, which has even less compute capabilities than GK110.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

@Silverforce I don't need to paste graphs of evidence because on those same websites if you look at the majority of their benches they support my claim. You cherry picked because you chose specific games and specific tests that attempt prove your point showing that you do have an agenda. If you didn't you wouldn't slam any results that show otherwise.

Just for you: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1441?vs=1438

They are trading blows just like in the cunucks' review. Yes I know Anand's 290x is reference, it doesn't matter because 290x can't overclock as high.

 

[iiiankiii]

It's funny that people are posting graphs showing how 290x has now caught up as proof that Kepler is being neglected. Did you ever think that maybe AMD had more driver overhead at launch and that this driver overhead was reduced? What you guys are essentially saying is that since GCN has improved it's results (but still not ahead like some claim) that Kepler must be neglected...

You guys are grasping at straws and it's pathetic. What do you get out of spreading more FUD about Kepler? Some personal satisfaction? Maybe if you actually owned one of these cards you would realize that these claims are bogus.

While Kepler might not be neglected, it pretty evident it isn't competing as well against GCN in newer games as it did in the older games. That's the thing. The 780Ti used to beat the 290x by 5-10% when it was new. However, as more and more new games are release, the 780Ti is actually losing against the 290x.

Kepler's Uarch is showing its weakness. GCN continues to compete against Maxwell while Kepler continues to lose ground. That's what I'm seeing from in newer games. That doesn't mean the GTX 780Ti is jank. No, not at all. It's pretty competitive. However, it used to be the clear winner against the 290x.

 

[thesmokingman]

Author: SKYMTL


Why am I not surprised?

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

@iiiankiii this was my initial point. GCN has been gaining whereas some people believe nVIDIA has been nurfing or neglecting Kepler. Bottom line this isn't some big scandal that some portray it as. Kepler is still as you say competitive but it is indeed an older uarch which has already been tapped out before GCN.

 

[Jaydip]

You know whats funny when HWC praised fury X these guys said that HWC is very reputable(I am looking straight at you Raghu) but when it is showing kepler in not so unfavorable position bam!! shill site lol these guys are a joke.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Kepler's main problem is that it's weak in compute.

Which is amazing for anyone that remembers the fanfare around that original OG Titan. Has there ever been a worse value in the GPU industry than the OG Titan? I can't think of one.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

Which is amazing for anyone that remembers the fanfare around that original OG Titan. Has there ever been a worse value in the GPU industry than the OG Titan? I can't think of one.

8800 Ultra maybe?

 

[gamervivek]

Oh look it's skymtl, nvidia fanboy extraordinaire distributing his wisdom...

Unlike Dragon Age which is an AMD-centric title, Dying Light was a showcase for a few of NVIDIA’s GameWorks technologies. Here, the GTX 980 surges ahead of the R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti. While the GTX 780 Ti’s performance was more than adequate, its distance from a Maxwell-based card that it should be competing against has grown. However there is no indication of performance crippling or anything else on NVIDIA’s part.

Truth be told, I can’t put a reason to this one given the modest 2.8GB worth of framebuffer our settings require. It could be that the GTX 980’s core architecture is a bit more efficient at processing the draw calls in this game.

lel

His SoM bench,

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/GTX-780-TI-R9-290/GTX-780-TI-R9-290-37.jpg

vs.

Anandtech's

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9390/75458.png

and Techpowerup's,

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/som_2560_1440.gif

From a >10% advantage in favor of 290X over 780Ti, he's managed to finagle a ~5% improvement in favor of 780Ti. Truly outstanding!

 

[raghu78]

You know whats funny when HWC praised fury X these guys said that HWC is very reputable(I am looking straight at you Raghu) but when it is showing kepler in not so unfavorable position bam!! shill site lol these guys are a joke.

hwc is a nvidia pro site whether it writes favourable reviews on AMD hardware or not. SKYMTL openly accepts he is Nvidia biased. btw you can join the Nvidia cheerleading too.

 

[thesmokingman]

Known in this case being Poster Boy.

 

[Jaydip]

hwc is a nvidia pro site whether it writes favourable reviews on AMD hardware or not. SKYMTL openly accepts he is Nvidia biased. btw you can join the Nvidia cheerleading too.

The point is I don't need to because I already prefer NV but so many unbiased posters here................

 

[poofyhairguy]

8800 Ultra maybe?

Meh that card let some people have the ego boost that their machine could "run Crysis" back when that mattered. High-end GPU purchases are half epeen anyway, what makes the OG Titan so bad in within a year people who bought that card were left with the feeling that they were suckers.

I have to think something like the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra is the only competition.

 

[Hitman928]

Having published my own benches of my 980, 290, and 780 ti, cards I bought myself and wanted to perform well, I can tell you that while skymtl's benches are not wrong, his conclusion is.

Kepler didn't suddenly get worse in old games, which make up the bulk of his test suite. Kepler underperforms in new games, like witcher 3, far cry 4, and a few others. In averaging the entire suite, skymtl papers over the losses evident in his own benchmarks in new games.

My benchmarks can be found in the article discussed in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2440066

+1

 

[boozzer]

Having published my own benches of my 980, 290, and 780 ti, cards I bought myself and wanted to perform well, I can tell you that while skymtl's benches are not wrong, his conclusion is.

Kepler didn't suddenly get worse in old games, which make up the bulk of his test suite. Kepler underperforms in new games, like witcher 3, far cry 4, and a few others. In averaging the entire suite, skymtl papers over the losses evident in his own benchmarks in new games.

My benchmarks can be found in the article discussed in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2440066

so what you are saying is a 780 ti, a gpu costing 750$ at the time of release, is only good for old games released before maxwell? cause the 970/980 came out only a few months(<6months)after. D:

 

[n0x1ous]

a gpu costing 750$ at the time of release

$699 actually.

 

[boozzer]

$699 actually.

so my point still stands? good.

 

[railven]

$699 actually.

Not to mention he got the time frame wrong, too.

 

[SPBHM]

so what you are saying is a 780 ti, a gpu costing 750$ at the time of release, is only good for old games released before maxwell? cause the 970/980 came out only a few months(<6months)after. D:

I think it's 10 months, and the 780 ti was largely the same as Titan which is even older, and it was basically Kepler with no changes which is almost as old as the 7970!?

 

[DustinBrowder]

I prefer whatever is better and whatever company is better, more open, non cheating, non lying, non scamming and in the past 3-4 years AMD is the better company, while Nvidia have been caught stealing, cheating, defrauding, scamming and lying consumers. That is why they've had 3 big lawsuits in the past 4 years.

The most recent one over the fraud they committed with the GTX 970 "4"GB of memory, what a joke!

The new card from them with the $200 960 2bg turd and the last $160+ turd of the 950. What a joke! Overpriced turds for the low end.

Now if the GTX 960 was released at $150 and had a 4GB version at $170, I would have called it the best products in the past 3-4 years, certainly on the high as the GTX 460 was, that level of great! But no, the 950, 960 are overpriced low end turds, the GTX 970 is a scamming 3.5GB card and less bus and bandwidth, the GTX 980 was the FAKE "flagship" that sold for over $650 at start and then they released the real flagship the Titan X at a "measly" $1000. Yes, if you wanted 20% performance over the FAKE flagship you have to pay $1000, then they screwed those customers and released same performing 980ti for $650 the initial price of the FAKE flagship the 980 turd!

And the idiots all bought it loved it getting scammed to hell and back, loved it and ate it up as the next best thing since sliced bread!

 

[railven]

I prefer whatever is better and whatever company is better, more open, non cheating, non lying, non scamming and in the past 3-4 years AMD is the better company, while Nvidia have been caught stealing, cheating, defrauding, scamming and lying consumers. That is why they've had 3 big lawsuits in the past 4 years.

The most recent one over the fraud they committed with the GTX 970 "4"GB of memory, what a joke!

The new card from them with the $200 960 2bg turd and the last $160+ turd of the 950. What a joke! Overpriced turds for the low end.

Now if the GTX 960 was released at $150 and had a 4GB version at $170, I would have called it the best products in the past 3-4 years, certainly on the high as the GTX 460 was, that level of great! But no, the 950, 960 are overpriced low end turds, the GTX 970 is a scamming 3.5GB card and less bus and bandwidth, the GTX 980 was the FAKE "flagship" that sold for over $650 at start and then they released the real flagship the Titan X at a "measly" $1000. Yes, if you wanted 20% performance over the FAKE flagship you have to pay $1000, then they screwed those customers and released same performing 980ti for $650 the initial price of the FAKE flagship the 980 turd!

And the idiots all bought it loved it getting scammed to hell and back, loved it and ate it up as the next best thing since sliced bread!

Woof, and I was told I was bitter. For your sake, I hope the DX12 prophecies come true. Otherwise, I predict another soon to be console gamer among us.

 

[n0x1ous]

the GTX 980 was the FAKE "flagship" that sold for over $650

While I agree that it was never the real flagship maxwell (any enthusiast should know this based on the code name GM204) the launch price was actually $549. and nobody buying Titan X got screwed. they knew what they were paying for and that a similar performing cut down variant was around the corner.

You and facts are like oil and water.