• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Looking for Nano or Fury (Vanilla) owner for bench off vs 980

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
tviceman said:
I present you with the latest review with 15+ games, irrefutable proof on OC headroom and power consumption, and you still say no, just wait. AMD's mantra.
Click to expand...

Irrefutable? LOL. You quoted 7% overclocking headroom from a factory OC card that starts at 1100, not stock at 1050. That's 11.5%. ( 1170 - 1050 = -120 / 1050 = ~11.5% rounded). That's not even diving into how much does the combined memory/core OC actually net in real FPS for both cards since its not 1:1.

Definitely irrefutable.

This entire thing is just a product of some weird crusade to prove who knows what. There are lots of reviews of Fury vs 980 out there. Just google it. Professional reviewers numbers are definitely a lot more reliable than 2 random forum goers numbers with testing conducted in different environments, by different people, at different times, not even accounting for the numbers getting "nudged" in the right direction due to bias.
 
Last edited:
Headfoot said:
Irrefutable? LOL. You quoted 6% overclocking headroom from a factory OC card that starts at 1100, not stock at 1050. That's 11.5%. ( 1170 - 1050 = -120 / 1050 = ~11.5% rounded). That's not even diving into how much does the combined memory/core OC actually net in real FPS for both cards since its not 1:1.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what math you are doing or where you are coming up with your numbers. I am doing real world, in game performance based math based on the scores of a reference 390x and a max overclocked (both GPU and vram) MSI gaming 390x.

perf_oc.gif


STOCK 390x: 84.3 fps
open-air cooled, custom AIB max overclock on GPU and VRAM: 90.3 fps

90.3 - 84.3 = 6 fps increase with MAX OC vs reference 390x.

6/84.3 = 7%

390x max OC performance increase in game is 7%.

I rest my case on this particular matter. If you continue to argue it then you'll only make yourself look.... bad.
 
My offer is now dead, barring a Nano owner who wants to be extremely accommodating. It's been 6 days and I didn't get a single Fury or Fury Nano owner take me up on the offer. Wow. Too much fud being flung around with no one willing to settle up and provide actual real PROOF one way or another. Here is the PM I sent the lone Nano owner in this thread (who never replied to me):

You wanna do a bench off? Awesome if you do. I want to stress that we're not "competing" with each other; it's strictly for forum going information to help people make informed decisions about purchases and conversations.

I want to make this as fair as possible, so I think excluding settings that are obviously harmful to one brand of GPU or another (i.e. HBAO+, global ilumination, etc.) and I also think that one of our two video cards needs to hit a playable average fps in order to make the benchmark be worthwhile (since people do not like to play games at unplayable frame rates). It would be easiest if we stick to games that have built-in benchmarking programs. That said, I'm willing to buy 1-2 games that you may own and want to use if you are willing to do the same.

Before we try to figure out what games to use, do you agree to these rules?
Click to expand...
 
Why dont you just do some benchmarks and post them here, anyone else could just follow and perhaps even Nano owners. ???

You can start with the classics like 3D Mark and then some in-game benchmarks.
 
The amount of Nano/Fury owners to GTX 980 owners is extremely low OP. EXTREMELY. I don't know what you were expecting.
 
tential said:
The amount of Nano/Fury owners to GTX 980 owners is extremely low OP. EXTREMELY. I don't know what you were expecting.
Click to expand...

yeap up until recently Nano was at $650, perhaps more people will buy now that it can be found for as low as $450-470
 
tential said:
The amount of Nano/Fury owners to GTX 980 owners is extremely low OP. EXTREMELY. I don't know what you were expecting.
Click to expand...

I was expecting someone - at least ONE person, to take me up on it. Apparently I need to lower my expectations, so from now on I'll take whatever someone believes or states to be true without concrete proof to be fact.
 
tviceman said:
I was expecting someone - at least ONE person, to take me up on it. Apparently I need to lower my expectations, so from now on I'll take whatever someone believes or states to be true without concrete proof to be fact.
Click to expand...

How many regular posters are there? Not that many on here. How many people bought a Nano for $650? Not many. How many people here bought a $450 nano now? Not many either since Polaris and Pascal are coming up.

I mean what were you expecting for this particular GPU? More people have GTX 980Ti's than Fury, Fury X, and Nano combined.

The one poster above says he has a Nano and will do it. So really, that's all I would expect. At MOST one person for the Nano. Expecting members to have purchased a niche GPU at a terrible time to purchase GPUs doesn't really make sense.

It'd be like me being surprised that there are R9 290 owners... Obviously, it's an EXTREMELY popular GPU.
The Nano/Fiji specifically has lines of hate, from myself included, about why we dislike that GPU. So no, people won't really get a Nano/Fiji. I prefer to get R9 290 Crossfire, which is specifically why I opted out of Fiji.
 
Why all the talk about Hawaii not capable of overclocking, it's not exactly Fiji.

1450692089gP7yOsAJLZ_3_6.gif


1439342239o7sgb11Qsm_3_11.gif


Hawaii peaks at 1.2ghz, in the 290/X form and again in the 390/X form.

~19% OC over stock clocks with +vcore. OC on AMD has always relied on manual vcore adjustments.

Maxwell peaks at 1.5ghz. How much % OC depends on how high the boost clocks were. Reference cards already boost to 1.2ghz. Factory OC models boost to 1.4ghz+.
 
tviceman said:
I have no idea what math you are doing or where you are coming up with your numbers. I am doing real world, in game performance based math based on the scores of a reference 390x and a max overclocked (both GPU and vram) MSI gaming 390x.

STOCK 390x: 84.3 fps
open-air cooled, custom AIB max overclock on GPU and VRAM: 90.3 fps

90.3 - 84.3 = 6 fps increase with MAX OC vs reference 390x.

6/84.3 = 7%

390x max OC performance increase in game is 7%.

I rest my case on this particular matter. If you continue to argue it then you'll only make yourself look.... bad.
Click to expand...

He was saying that your % oc # was incorrect, in that the clock % was 11.5% from stock, and that came out to a 7% in game perf boost, and those numbers aren't 1:1 on either AMD or Nvidia hardware.

Also, this thread is pointless. With differences in CPU, Motherboards, RAM, HD, etc you'll never get a complete comparison. Not to mention there is no way to verify what hardware was being used.
 
Bacon1 said:
He was saying that your % oc # was incorrect, in that the clock % was 11.5% from stock, and that came out to a 7% in game perf boost, and those numbers aren't 1:1 on either AMD or Nvidia hardware.

Also, this thread is pointless. With differences in CPU, Motherboards, RAM, HD, etc you'll never get a complete comparison. Not to mention there is no way to verify what hardware was being used.
Click to expand...

OP could have purchased a Nano/Fury, did what he wanted, then returned it by now.
 
tviceman said:
I was expecting someone - at least ONE person, to take me up on it. Apparently I need to lower my expectations, so from now on I'll take whatever someone believes or states to be true without concrete proof to be fact.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look inside for the answer to why?
 
tviceman said:
I have no idea what math you are doing or where you are coming up with your numbers. I am doing real world, in game performance based math based on the scores of a reference 390x and a max overclocked (both GPU and vram) MSI gaming 390x.

perf_oc.gif


STOCK 390x: 84.3 fps
open-air cooled, custom AIB max overclock on GPU and VRAM: 90.3 fps

90.3 - 84.3 = 6 fps increase with MAX OC vs reference 390x.

6/84.3 = 7%

390x max OC performance increase in game is 7%.

I rest my case on this particular matter. If you continue to argue it then you'll only make yourself look.... bad.
Click to expand...


Dude. Did you even read the article you posted? Go and read the article you linked. The card you are comparing to "MSI Gaming 390x Gaming 8G" RUNS AT 1100 WHICH IS 50 OVER STOCK. YOU ARE COMPARING OVERCLOCKED TO MORE OVERCLOCKED, NOT OVERCLOCKED TO STOCK

8k1dRJb.png


headfoot said:
You quoted 6% overclocking headroom from a factory OC card that starts at 1100, not stock at 1050. That's 11.5%. ( 1170 - 1050 = -120 / 1050 = ~11.5% rounded
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about actual measured FPS differences due to overclock then say that. Headroom is amount you can clock above stock on a per clock domain basis (memory, core, etc.).

Don't change your story afterwards and act like you were saying that up front. I get it, most of the time people can get away with posting little inconsistencies like that. But most of the time those people are claiming to be "irrefutable"

You are definitively, irrefutably (see what I did there?), wrong about headroom.
 
Last edited:
Headfoot said:
Dude. Did you even read the article you posted? Go and read the article you linked. The card you are comparing to "MSI Gaming 390x Gaming 8G" RUNS AT 1100 WHICH IS 50 OVER STOCK. YOU ARE COMPARING OVERCLOCKED TO MORE OVERCLOCKED, NOT OVERCLOCKED TO STOCK
Click to expand...

Once again, no I'm not. I know what review I am looking at, and I know that the MSI Gaming 390x is OC'd out of the box, but you're reading comprehension fail level is reaching all new highs with each post. Study the graph I am linking. Notice there are 3, THREE, ROMAN NUMBERAL III R9 390X scores. The lowest score of 84.3 is a stock 390x at reference speeds and is the score which I used for 390x baseline performance. An out-of-the-box MSI Gaming 390x scores 85.9, a score which I completely ignored. The OC'd score is 90.3.

Do you see it now? I completely ignored the MSI gaming 390x out-of-the-box score, so your windows paint red circle jobs are for naught. I really don't know how I can explain it any better.

For help I'll link the graph right below so you don't have to scroll up and break your concentration. Maybe I should take a page out of your book and draw little red circles around the scores I am using to prove my argument.
perf_oc.gif
 
Last edited:
james1701 said:
You did get an offer, but never messaged me.
Click to expand...

I apologize I completely missed your post. I think maybe how you started it led me to kind of skip over it as it didn't sound like you had one of either cards or were interested. I'll PM you.
 
Last edited:
tviceman said:
You're reading comprehension fail level is reaching all new highs with each post. Study the graph I am linking. Notice there are 3, THREE, ROMAN NUMBERAL III R9 390X scores. The lowest score of 84.3 is a stock 390x at reference speeds and is the score which I used for 390x baseline performance. An out-of-the-box MSI Gaming 390x scores 85.9, a score which I completely ignored. The OC'd score is 90.3.

Do you see it now? I completely ignored the MSI gaming 390x out-of-the-box score, so your windows paint red circle jobs are for naught. I really don't know how I can explain it any better.

For help I'll link the graph right below so you don't have to scroll up and break your concentration.
[img ]http://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/images/perf_oc.gif[/img]
Click to expand...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38052317&postcount=60
 
Latest TPU benchmarks include Anno 2205.

At 1080p, GTX980 is 51% faster than R9 390X and ~19% faster than Fury X. 😀

That game alone skew the performance summary graphs. :sneaky:

anno2205_1920_1080.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top