[PcLab] Variety of 28nm GPU tests 2012-2015

[AtenRa]

http://pclab.pl/art60000.html

Still GTX 780 Ti is faster then R9 290X. I know some posters who made fury X claim god like will claim that Pclab is nvidia based which is wrong.

Take off the old games and concentrate on new releases, that is where the GTX780Ti started to lag behind and 290X caught up.


Assassin's Creed : Syndicate 1440p Very High

GTX78Ti = 34,2
R9 290X = 34,0

--------------

Battlefield 4 1440p Ultra

GTX78Ti = 47,1
R9 290X = 47,2

-------------------------

Fallout 4 1440p Ultra (commonwealth)

GTX78Ti = 37,4
R9 290X = 39,6

Fallout 4 1440p Ultra (Boston common)

GTX78Ti = 41,0
R9 290X = 46,3

Fallout 4 1440p Ultra (Exit From The Volt)

GTX78Ti = 49,0
R9 290X = 52,9

----------------------

Farcry 4 1440p Ultra

GTX78Ti = 47,7
R9 290X = 52,4

------------------------

GTAV 1440p Very High (West Vinewood)

GTX78Ti = 41,4
R9 290X = 39,2


GTAV 1440p Very High (Paleto Blvd)

GTX78Ti = 35,8
R9 290X = 36,6

---------------------

Witcher 3 1440p Ultra (Swamp)

GTX78Ti = 32,4
R9 290X = 28,2

Witcher 3 1440p Ultra (Forest)

GTX78Ti = 26,3
R9 290X = 27,4

Witcher 3 1440p Ultra (Wedding)

GTX78Ti = 30,5
R9 290X = 30,4

 

[desprado]

Take off the old games and concentrate on new releases, that is where the GTX780Ti started to lag behind and 290X caught up.


Assassin's Creed : Syndicate 1440p Very High

GTX78Ti = 34,2
R9 290X = 34,0

--------------

Battlefield 4 1440p Ultra

GTX78Ti = 47,1
R9 290X = 47,2

-------------------------

Fallout 4 1440p Ultra (commonwealth)

GTX78Ti = 37,4
R9 290X = 39,6

Fallout 4 1440p Ultra (Boston common)

GTX78Ti = 41,0
R9 290X = 46,3

Fallout 4 1440p Ultra (Exit From The Volt)

GTX78Ti = 49,0
R9 290X = 52,9

----------------------

Farcry 4 1440p Ultra

GTX78Ti = 47,7
R9 290X = 52,4

------------------------

GTAV 1440p Very High (West Vinewood)

GTX78Ti = 41,4
R9 290X = 39,2


GTAV 1440p Very High (Paleto Blvd)

GTX78Ti = 35,8
R9 290X = 36,6

---------------------

Witcher 3 1440p Ultra (Swamp)

GTX78Ti = 32,4
R9 290X = 28,2

Witcher 3 1440p Ultra (Forest)

GTX78Ti = 26,3
R9 290X = 27,4

Witcher 3 1440p Ultra (Wedding)

GTX78Ti = 30,5
R9 290X = 30,4

I mentioning about 1080p claims. You should have read my post before defending.

 

[AtenRa]

The OP doesnt say anything about 1080p, dont start with the excuses now. Even your own link provides evidence that GTX780Ti is lagging behind in new titles.

 

[desprado]

The OP doesnt say anything about 1080p, dont start with the excuses now. Even your own link provides evidence that GTX780Ti is lagging behind in new titles.

I told you to read my post on page one it is very plain and simple.

 

[littleg]

Overclockers like exotic cooling and high power tolerance. A regular user likes clicking a couple buttons and getting 5 terabartholomewshz of gigapower.

I think what overclockers like most of all is good overclocks, something Fury X fails miserably on.

 

[desprado]

I think what overclockers like most of all is good overclocks, something Fury X fails miserably on.

All most every person who buys flagship is card is a overclocker so their is no excuse for AMD and it is just some poster justify Fury X purchase to them self to not the other users.

 

[Piroko]

... constantly releasing new drivers for upcoming games is huge plus for them...

Is it? I disliked when AMD released new drivers almost every month and I skipped most of their updates back then. I don't want to update drivers every time I buy a newly released game either, I want stuff to just work.

The current state that we need driver updates for games to work properly is kinda hilarious in a bad way if you word it like that.

 

[AtenRa]

I think what overclockers like most of all is good overclocks, something Fury X fails miserably on.

Yeap, the truth is that Fury X is not an overclocker.

I dont know if taking NANO and installing a good heat-sink (from Fury perhaps) or WC could make it a better overclocker but again the OC headroom of the GTX980Ti is larger.

I have said it before, in my opinion AMD shouldnt even release the Fury X.

 

[SimianR]

Which card launched at $699 and was sold for this price up until Sept.2014 when it was outclassed by a $330 replacement. Then fell behind it's original $550 competitor in the long haul. That's NVIDIA Value®.

 

[tg2708]

Is it? I disliked when AMD released new drivers almost every month and I skipped most of their updates back then. I don't want to update drivers every time I buy a newly released game either, I want stuff to just work.

The current state that we need driver updates for games to work properly is kinda hilarious in a bad way if you word it like that.

Point taken but I don't think you can release one driver which will be optimized for all games. Newer games definitely needs to fine tuned for each architecture thus the need for a new driver. If I misinterpreted your post I apologize.

 

[Jaydip]

One of the problems with this comparison is 780 Ti is very good ocer so you can expect at least another 10% boost from this card, a valid comparison would be a max oc 780Ti vs a max oced 290X.

 

[Pariah]

Is it? I disliked when AMD released new drivers almost every month and I skipped most of their updates back then. I don't want to update drivers every time I buy a newly released game either, I want stuff to just work.

The current state that we need driver updates for games to work properly is kinda hilarious in a bad way if you word it like that.

From a former Nvidia driver developer:

"Nearly every game ships broken. We're talking major AAA titles from vendors who are everyday names in the industry. In some cases, we're talking about blatant violations of API rules - one D3D9 game never even called BeginFrame/EndFrame. Some are mistakes or oversights - one shipped bad shaders that heavily impacted performance on NV drivers. These things were day to day occurrences that went into a bug tracker. Then somebody would go in, find out what the game screwed up, and patch the driver to deal with it. There are lots of optional patches already in the driver that are simply toggled on or off as per-game settings, and then hacks that are more specific to games - up to and including total replacement of the shipping shaders with custom versions by the driver team. Ever wondered why nearly every major game release is accompanied by a matching driver release from AMD and/or NVIDIA? There you go."



Neither AMD or Nvidia have any control over game developers adhering to API rules, so release day drivers aren't going away. Given the current state of the industry, it is undeniably a positive that hardware vendors are constantly working on their drivers to bring the best experience to their users.

 

[kawi6rr]

All most every person who buys flagship is card is a overclocker so their is no excuse for AMD and it is just some poster justify Fury X purchase to them self to not the other users.

You got a link proving this? Reads like pure nonsense speculation to anybody who can read. My buddy just bought a Gigabyte 980 ti and he doesn't overclock.

 

[Azix]

All most every person who buys flagship is card is a overclocker so their is no excuse for AMD and it is just some poster justify Fury X purchase to them self to not the other users.

This needs to stop. The people who buy these cards are characterized more by means and willingness to spend. Complete PC noobs would still buy it. Nobody is going to go, oh i have a million dollars and need a GPU, but I don't plan to OC so I should just get a 960. It does not work like that. The majority probably do not overclock because most people are not tech savvy.

I think what overclockers like most of all is good overclocks, something Fury X fails miserably on.

is that true? Because that's like saying hackers/crackers like easy hacks over a challenge. Or engineers like building swings over something more challenging. but I guess it depends on what you call an overclocker. To me its not your average person just putting on an OC because.

Ultimately to call it deception you need to know what they meant. Its a subjective thing to say.

 

[Piroko]

Point taken but I don't think you can release one driver which will be optimized for all games. Newer games definitely needs to fine tuned for each architecture thus the need for a new driver. If I misinterpreted your post I apologize.

No you didn't. And yes, games currently need to be adapted to each architecture. But the concept behind DX was to remove the need for such adaptation. And the current situation, that game devs have to do it despite that abstraction, only shows that there's something fundamentally broken in the current implementation.

From a former Nvidia driver developer:

"Nearly every game ships broken. We're talking major AAA titles from vendors who are everyday names in the industry. In some cases, we're talking about blatant violations of API rules - one D3D9 game never even called BeginFrame/EndFrame. Some are mistakes or oversights - one shipped bad shaders that heavily impacted performance on NV drivers. These things were day to day occurrences that went into a bug tracker. Then somebody would go in, find out what the game screwed up, and patch the driver to deal with it. There are lots of optional patches already in the driver that are simply toggled on or off as per-game settings, and then hacks that are more specific to games - up to and including total replacement of the shipping shaders with custom versions by the driver team. Ever wondered why nearly every major game release is accompanied by a matching driver release from AMD and/or NVIDIA? There you go."

So instead of putting optimized and maintained shaders online for public use they prefer to replace the broken shaders with these versions without consent (worst case). I guess that explains the latest Fallout patch.
Actually, the longer I think over that quote you gave me... This isn't the early 2000s anymore, there are only a couple of larger engines left on the market.

Neither AMD or Nvidia have any control over game developers adhering to API rules, so release day drivers aren't going away. Given the current state of the industry, it is undeniably a positive that hardware vendors are constantly working on their drivers to bring the best experience to their users.

They certainly don't have control over game devs adhering to API rules, but they sure have control over an increasing amount of libraries those game devs use.
Make that a "could use", actually, if access to those libraries was unrestricted enough that game devs could count on investing their 10 to 30 million per game without any possible caveats then we would surely see an even broader and more thorough adoption.

 

[Silverforce11]

If you want 1080p, in newer games the R290X still takes a nice lead. It's in post #3 in this thread.

@desprado
You keep harping on about me saying I hoped Fury X would be very fast before its release, that's different to me saying definitively that it will be that fast. This is you in this thread saying its definitive that the 780Ti is faster than the R290X today. Which is blatantly WRONG. Almost any site that updates their benchmarks to recent titles will show this. So before you accuse others of making up fud, take a look at yourself. Why are you defending NV's gimpage of Kepler?

The titles linked in here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38033122&postcount=3

Is mostly GameWorks, NV sponsored games, where Kepler performs the worse. You defend that behavior, why?

Latest AAA, Tomb Raider, is this acceptable for Kepler owners according to you sir?

 

[desprado]

This needs to stop. The people who buy these cards are characterized more by means and willingness to spend. Complete PC noobs would still buy it. Nobody is going to go, oh i have a million dollars and need a GPU, but I don't plan to OC so I should just get a 960. It does not work like that. The majority probably do not overclock because most people are not tech savvy.



is that true? Because that's like saying hackers/crackers like easy hacks over a challenge. Or engineers like building swings over something more challenging. but I guess it depends on what you call an overclocker. To me its not your average person just putting on an OC because.

Ultimately to call it deception you need to know what they meant. Its a subjective thing to say.

I am talking about flagship not mid range cards. Whoever buy flagship demand good features which Fury X do not have compare to GTX 980 Ti.

 

[Zodiark1593]

It's quite probable that there are bottlenecks within the Kepler design that are preventing the rest of the card from stretching it's legs. My other thought is a game may lean toward one architecture over another depending on developer optimizations, even within the same brand.

 

[Osjur]

I am talking about flagship not mid range cards. Whoever buy flagship demand good features which Fury X do not have compare to GTX 980 Ti.

Define good features?

I bought Fury X because it can do PLP-Eyefinity, something which Nvidia is utterly incapable of doing no matter how much you beg. It would have been nice to have better OC but GCN has gone from 45% OC headroom aka 7970 = 925mhz -> 1325mhz to Fury X with less than 10% OC headroom = 1050mhz -> 1150mhz :/

Heck even my 290X could OC 25% but I don't even want to OC this Fury X as it does it so poorly. Still, my first Fury X only did 30mhz OC before hanging but it had pump fault.

Now, if GTX 980 Ti could support PLP-Surround, then I would have bought it in a heartbeat but I have to make do with Fury X instead :\

Ps. for those of you who don't know, PLP means Portrait-Landspace-Portrait monitor configuration, like this: http://imgur.com/3HEMp7a

 

[desprado]

Define good features?

I bought Fury X because it can do PLP-Eyefinity, something which Nvidia is utterly incapable of doing no matter how much you beg. It would have been nice to have better OC but GCN has gone from 45% OC headroom aka 7970 = 925mhz -> 1325mhz to Fury X with less than 10% OC headroom = 1050mhz -> 1150mhz :/

Heck even my 290X could OC 25% but I don't even want to OC this Fury X as it does it so poorly. Still, my first Fury X only did 30mhz OC before hanging but it had pump fault.

Now, if GTX 980 Ti could support PLP-Surround, then I would have bought it in a heartbeat but I have to make do with Fury X instead :\

Ps. for those of you who don't know, PLP means Portrait-Landspace-Portrait monitor configuration, like this: http://imgur.com/3HEMp7a

In terms of Features means more Vram, better overclocking, better performance per watt, Gameworks, physX, Day 1 game driver support, shadowplay which far better then any AMD solution.

 

[AtenRa]

In terms of Features means more Vram, better overclocking, better performance per watt, Gameworks, physX, Day 1 game driver support, shadowplay which far better then any AMD solution.

Sorry but better overclocking is not a feature. You will not see anywhere NVIDIA listing overclocking as a feature.

Fury X has other features that 980Ti doesnt have, like true audio for example, or better CrossFire or cheaper and more available Freesync monitors or PLP-eyefinity as Osjur mentioned etc etc.

 

[littleg]

Come on man, get real. It might not be an officially listed feature but being a good overclocker is certainly an attraction for the enthusiast crowd. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

I'd take more issue with him saying Gameworks is a feature. Wow, look, buy this card and we'll chop 20% off the performance for no real reason. That's not even getting into the vram argument which pits GDDR5 against HBM, two different technologies which need to be measured differently. One thing Fury X hasn't shown itself to be is vram constrained.

 

[hawtdawg]

Sorry but better overclocking is not a feature.

It most certainly is. Just because Nvidia doesn't list it on the spec sheet does not at all mean it's not a highly sought-after feature. It certainly played a role in my decision to purchase 980ti's over Fury X's. And it is most certainly a consideration for plenty of people buying high end parts.

 

[AtenRa]

Come on man, get real. It might not be an officially listed feature but being a good overclocker is certainly an attraction for the enthusiast crowd. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Saying Overclocking is a feature is not the same as taking overclocking potential in to consideration when buying hardware.

Ohh and he said "Better", that is definitely not a feature.

 

[desprado]

Saying Overclocking is a feature is not the same as taking overclocking potential in to consideration when buying hardware.

Ohh and he said "Better", that is definitely not a feature.

That is why you do not see guys like Kingpin, 8pack and etc recommending AMD to professional.