Let me be clear. There are many folks around here who prefer AMD/AMD products who are perfectly rational and are absolute joys to have intelligent debates/discussions with. Same goes for NVIDIA, Intel, ASUS, ASRock, whatever.
But then you have those posters who consistently make very far out claims that don't jive with reality. For example, I have seen buyers of the GTX 960 mocked for not purchasing a Radeon R9-whatever in its place. These people have been called "sheep."
In fact, NVIDIA buyers in general on these forums seem to be treated as ignorant fools with more money than brains. It doesn't occur to the "GPU elite" who think AMD is the only sensible choice, who narrowly focus on raw perf/$ that there are perhaps other considerations that are important to buyers.
If you want good gaming performance in a system where a high wattage PSU is not realistically an option, something like the GTX 950 or GTX 960 makes a ton of sense, even if it's not the best perf/$ option from an upfront acquisition perspective.
Then let's talk about say, a GTX 980 Ti buyer. The 980 Ti, by-and-large, is objectively viewed as the superior ultra-high end GPU in terms of both raw performance in a wide swath of games as well as in power efficiency. It's also something of an "overclocker's dream."
Yet, what I am finding is that people are now trying to dissuade others from purchasing a high-end NVIDIA card because of the "DX12 boogeyman." The value prop? Forget all of the games you want to play today, the games of "the future" will all magically run better on AMD because...[Async Compute, GCN is the most advanced GPU architecture in the history of ever, AMD first to HBM, ...].
It's getting old.
Facebook
Twitter