Heyyo,
Each to there own
Oh and early access is tomorrow
(hopefully thats not under NDA.. )
Ah that's pretty cool mang! If you got it, by chance do you have benchmark comparisons on your rig between Dx11 and Dx12? I dunno if there is a thread for that on these forums I should really look lol. Like I said, I'm curious as to the results... mainly between the average gamer's builds and not so much the articles.
I used to be into singleplaye RTS games back in the day but I dunno, I'm so bad at them nowadays lol that whole APM thing and how crazy good some players are just wrecks my single-track-minded play style to bits and pieces. Company of Heroes multiplayer against other people for me? Ehh... I just get wrecked a lot haha. I'll stick to my FPS, RPG and World of Tanks I guess heh.
To be sincere i believe that R9 390X 8GB is best solution right now in terms performance per dollar...yes 980 ti is better but its double price....Here in Serbia i can buy 390x for 310 usd, meanwhile 980 ti is 700 dollars ahahhaa thats ridiculous to pay double for 10-15 fps advantage depends from game tittle...
That is absolutely true that the R9 390X > GTX 980 for price to performance. I doubt there's any place in the world stuff like the MSI Gaming Edition 390X is more expensive than the GTX 980 Gaming Edition. For that performance bracket? It is a waste of $100 or so to get the GTX 980. It's in a bad spot, much like before with the Titan Z versus the R9 295x2... then again, the Titan Z was built for gamers who like CAD... so it wasn't a true consumer dual GPU solution so maybe it's not that fair of a comparison... but damn, that is still quite the price gap either way.
if game is nvidia sposnored and gimped you have 15-20 fps more,in fair tittles 390x is much closer.. and we know that both cards are weak for 4K and you need at least 2 of them in CF/SLI to run current games at 60+fps...
NOT true. The only shitty part is most games with NVIDIA GameWorks were built poorly for PC as of late. Look at Far Cry 4... one of Ubisoft's recent games that doesn't suck performance-wise... at least not completely suck lol.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/07/far_cry_4_video_card_performance_review/5#.VikZ436rRaQ
Notice an AMD R9 290X scoring the same as an NVIDIA GTX 980. That's not nerfed performance at all. R9 290X = R9 390 for as close as possible comparison... I could go on and find a 390x benchmark for far cry 4... but also try to find benchmarks after January 2015 since earlier benchmarks were on broken performance versions of Far Cry 4. The first page of that article from HardOCP even goes over that... like I said before... Far Cry 4 wasn't hit nearly as bad for terrible release state as Watch_Dogs and AC Unity... but it was still messed up. It's still not perfect with flickering shadows and stuff but oh well, it's plenty playable at least.
Another prime example is The Witcher 3 after CD Projekt RED fixed it after many patches... it definitely was a mess at release... but not Witcher 1 (still my favorite in the series tbh) or 2... especially Witcher 2 which ran like crap and the combat was broken where the combat-roll was a joke lol.
NVidia Gimpidia flagship gpu-s was always overpriced and wasted investment especially gimped 6gb 980 ti,,,and there are already some games that eat vram even more for example Lords OF The Fallen eating 8 gb on 4k on titan x....so 6gb is not future proof and mark my words DX12 games and incoming UE4 games will be massive vram hogs ,thats business Pascal and arctic islands needs to be sell .....for 1080p and 2K r9 390x 8b is best solution right now......i dont buy nvidia gpu-s anymore they are liars and scammers and everybody knows that multiple fiascos. ..i was planned 970 but after 3.5 gb fiasco i had give up..AMD is way better and fair to customer
lol Lords of the Fallen? You mean Lords of the FAIL? Using a broken game as a benchmark doesn't really count... heck, Witcher 3 barely uses any VRAM and looks better. It's up to the game developer to make a game that doesn't suck and runs properly which is seriously lacking in 2015. The Witcher 3 (after quite a few patches that is.. mainly 1.07), GTA V, Mad Max and MGS V are the only true beacons of optimized performance that I can think of off the top of my head that both look amazing and run amazing.
Anywho? Right meow for price to performance GPUs for certain performance brackets? As it stands it goes...
GTX 950 beats R7 370
R9 380 beats GTX 960
R9 390 beats GTX 970
R9 390X really beats GTX 980
R9 Fury aircooled sits in its own bracket
GTX 980 Ti is equal to the R9 Fury X... so whichever at the time has a lower price is the one to buy.
Besides, I doubt by 2016 the AMD R9 Fury X with only 4GB of HBM will be obsolete. As for 4K UHD? DirectX 12 and Vulkan (if it ever gets released that is) has multi-adapter support which means shared VRAM between GPUs... so even if games start gobbling more than 4GB of VRAM in 4K UHD? People could easily just buy a second R9 Fury X and enjoy 8GB of total VRAM shared across the two GPUs... that is, as long as mutli-adapter takes off like many people are hoping it does... might only be certain game engines though.
Also, the GTX 970? Yes NVIDIA did mess that card up. They should have just called it a 3.5GB GPU. That partitioning thing was silly as heck. Some people claim it doesn't affect their performance when they get about 3.5GB, some do... so they should have just played it safe and called it a 3.5GB card from the get-go or not even bothered with that 500MB partition. It's still a good performance card.. but with the R9 390 in the same price bracket and it overclocks slightly better? It just makes sense at least for overclockers to get the R9 390.
I'm not pro-NVIDIA or pro-AMD... I just buy what is most cost effective for my needs when it comes to PC Gaming tbh.
Not yet anyways.. Early Access doesn't mean anything tbh. It has a bad connotation for no reason. $50 is still cheaper than a console game.. $100 is still cheaper if you add in all those damn DLC an expansion crap they do for most console games these days.
