I am not impressed with my Nvidia GTX 970

[jantjeuh]

Currently it looks like every Price/performance/resolution bracket is dominated by AMD.

Too bad anyone with a brain isn't buying a new video card right now, but is waiting for Polaris/Pascal instead.

 

[jpiniero]

Should you really be surprised? The 970 at stock has 2.1x the pixel fill rate of the PS4. That's simply not enough to raise the resolution 77% and expect solid 60 fps.

 

[tweakboy]

What CPU do you have ?

 

[pooptastic]

Should you really be surprised? The 970 at stock has 2.1x the pixel fill rate of the PS4. That's simply not enough to raise the resolution 77% and expect solid 60 fps.

Did not know that. I have been playing on the PS4 more often lately actually, now that you mention it.

 

[amenx]

Should you really be surprised? The 970 at stock has 2.1x the pixel fill rate of the PS4. That's simply not enough to raise the resolution 77% and expect solid 60 fps.

Just curious - if you insist/imply its the sole criteria of GPU performance at higher res - what do you think the pixel fill rate of a 290x or 390 is? Hint: a bit less than a 970.

 

[moonbogg]

Just curious - if you insist/imply its the sole criteria of GPU performance at higher res - what do you think the pixel fill rate of a 290x or 390 is? Hint: a bit less than a 970.

Fair enough, but the 970 only has 3.5gb of ram and suffers from EOL driver neglect. Those AMD cards have neither of those issues holding them back.

 

[crisium]

Pixel fillrate is not a relevant comparison to make across architectures (PS4 GCN vs 970 Maxwell) since they differ so greatly. That a Fury X actually compares more favourably to the 980 Ti the more pixels it is pushing, and it only has around 2/3 of the pixel fillrate of a 980 Ti, should tell you that.