Surprised to see NV win in Civ:BE, since I was recently informed it's an AMD BE Game:
That's why it's always good to look at 10-20 reviews, as many as possible to get an overall idea. Some systems can have driver issues, some drivers have issues, some settings have issues. At Computerbase, Fury X CF beat 980TI SLI in CIV:BE at 12K gaming with still a respectable 66 fps:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/...diagramm-civilization-beyond-earth-11520-2160
Holy crap the results in that Techspot review.
So much power used to still lose, and in Civ by such a huge margin.
Way to cherry-pick 1 game and ignore the entire review and again cherry-picking stock power usage while ignoring the review.
Not that this thread has anything to do with it because my reference was specifically to the comment how 990M would be able to hit 60 fps at 4K. However, since you decided to derail the thread/main message, maybe next time you try to do that at least read the actual review.
From that review:
1. The average frame rate data saw the
Fury X cards come out 4% ahead of the GTX 980 Tis based on the 10 games that we tested at 4K.
2. If you are going to try to cherry-pick some games to go along with your power usage metrics, maybe be reasonable and discuss the situations where 980Ti SLI bombs too:
Where the
Fury X Crossfire setup won big was in Thief where it was 50% faster and Total War: Attila where it was 36% faster.
3. Now for the interesting part, typically we expect Nvidia to have the edge when looking at frame time (99th percentile) performance, but this wasn't the case here.
The R9 Fury X Crossfire cards were on average 22% faster when comparing the 99th percentile data.
In other words, your rant not only was biased since you failed to acknowledge that Fury X CF is actually faster than 980TI SLI but you suggested that 980Ti SLI is faster on average while using 150W less power.
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the main thread but thanks for derailing the main point.
Weird, I just assumed that Fury X CFX would win almost all the time vs. stock 980 TI's.
No. If you look at CF vs. SLI, both have scaling/frame times issues depending on the games. On
average though Fury X CF does beat 980TI SLI when comparing stock vs. stock performance and frame times. If you happen to play games that scale better on NV, then you could have 980Ti SLI winning 100% of the time. I am not sure how this is new.
However, a certain poster decided to cherry-pick the data to prove his power usage by not disclosing that while a stock 980Ti SLI uses less power, it actually loses on average. Sure, in overclocked states 980TI SLI is superior but then the power usage is nearly the same.
Anyway, I am curious to see what the 990M specs are if the rumors are that it's actually faster than 980 desktop version. Even if it's just 10% faster than the desktop 980, that's seriously impressive for a laptop part.
So the 990M is almost as fast as a 980ti? That's crazy.
I find that hard to believe unless the TDP is 160-180W. We all know that 980Ti reference card is severely held back in terms of its true potential just like HD7950/7970 cards were. While the reference 980TI boosts to about 1202mhz, in after-market form 1480-1525mhz is common. If comparing the speeds at which enthusiasts will actually run a 980Ti on the desktop, 990M will never come close to it. Sure in stock form it might be within 15-20% of the performance but how many enthusiasts buy a reference 980TI instead of an after-market 980Ti and then also run it completely stock?
The other thing is, it would be one thing if the 990M could offer 80-90% of the performance of a 980Ti in an awesome laptop like the MacBook Pro or the
4.3-4.5 lbs 15.6" laptop like the MSi Gaming Ghost, but it's only going to end up in desktop replacement products that weigh > 8.5 lbs, are almost 2" thick, have non-existent battery life and cost >
$2500 US.
It's been a long time since I graduated from university but I just can't see how buying a $2500 laptop this heavy with pathetic battery life is a good choice vs. building a desktop that sits in your dorm/rental apartment and having a super thin and light laptop with 8-12 hours of battery life for school. Besides, if someone went to college/university, they are paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to learn, not play videogames. I would personally never buy my kid a gaming laptop from the age of 18-22. Since I was 18 I've tried to figure out why these laptops exist and outside of consultants who travel 5 days a week out of the office, I still can't figure out how these "gaming laptops" are popular and gaining popularity?
Facebook
Twitter