Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Again you are focusing on only the bonus. The fact is, the 390 is cheaper and performs better across the board. Period. Ignore the ASync Compute part, that's only a bonus. The 390 is just the better all around choice, excluding any thoughts of DX12. More memory helps with higher resolutions and FPS has always been better at higher resolutions, now with the Crimson drivers it performs better at 1080p too.

    Look here:
    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,24.html
    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,25.html

    The 390 is a better card than the 970. So the 970 is a bad choice to begin with. You add in the -bonus- that it supports DX12 better through ASync Compute which is arguably the most important feature of DX12 and the 970 looks even worse. But even IGNORING DX12 ENTIRELY, the 390 is still a better choice.

    Also, you claim that by the time you'll use ASync Compute your GPU will be replaced. That may be true for you, but most people I know keep their GPUs anywhere from 3-6 years. Sure, I try to upgrade mine every 2-4, but if in 4 years my card is still going strong, why bother? Games using Async Compute are coming out this year, there will be more in the next 6 years. So for someone who can not wait for the next gen, it is certainly a consideration.

    Also, really, buying anything but a 950 as a holdover for the new cards is really a bad idea right now IMO. You put all the other things the 970 has working against it and yeah, it boils down to horrible.
    Well for starters I never said the 970 outperformed the 390, I simply stated that the 970 wasn't a "Horrible" buy I said it isn't Ideal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Edit to add:
    Also, for proof on AMD aging better, well, look at the crimson drivers. Those came out and seriously increased the performance of most of AMDs line-up. What has nVidia done that has increased the performance of their entire line-up? Nothing, they update your drivers all the damn time to do stuff for the latest greatest games which causes older games to run poorly to get you to upgrade. AMD has, in the past, consistently increased the performance of their older cards through drivers, years after. nVidia releases a few patches after a game comes out to make that game run better and then moves on to making the next game run better.
    You are speaking in overall terms like AMD has always had better aging cards, which is nonsense and your opinion like I said cite it so.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigvizz View Post
    Well for starters I never said the 970 outperformed the 390, I simply stated that the 970 wasn't a "Horrible" buy I said it isn't Ideal.

    You are speaking in overall terms like AMD has always had better aging cards, which is nonsense and your opinion like I said cite it so.
    I know you never said that, however, it makes the 970 worse. Then you add in the DX12 issues and the fact that it's a bad time to buy a GPU period and yes, it makes the 970 a horrible choice IMO.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    I know you never said that, however, it makes the 970 worse. Then you add in the DX12 issues and the fact that it's a bad time to buy a GPU period and yes, it makes the 970 a horrible choice IMO.
    Sorry, but when you use the word horrible and gtx970 in the same sentence it does make it sound like you're saying the gtx 970 is a horrible card.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigvizz View Post
    Sorry, but when you use the word horrible and gtx970 in the same sentence it does make it sound like you're saying the gtx 970 is a horrible card.
    I don't see where anything I said says that. the first thing I said, and what you apparently had issue with was:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    It's a horrible investment currently. For the price of a 970 you can get a 390 which performs better at all resolutions with the Crimson drivers and supports ASync Compute at the hardware level for better DX12 support. For those reasons alone the 970 is a horrible choice.

    In addition, the 970 sits at about $300. You could by a 950 for $100 right now then when the x60 drops sell your 950 and get a x60 and have spent right around the same amount total, but the x60 will likely be a better performer than the 970. A 950 is enough to play most games on at least medium to high settings, probably better. It's capable of maxing out WoW that's for sure. With a OC it can perform about as good as a stock 960, which I have and know it can max out most things I have thrown at it pretty easily.

    So how is the 970 not a bad investment?
    I still maintain those statements.

    Is it a horrible card? No, not at all. TBH, I kinda wish I had sprung for 970s instead of 960s when I built my PCs. However, today, it would be pretty stupid to buy one.

  5. #45
    The Lightbringer Artorius's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Natal, Brazil
    Posts
    3,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigvizz View Post
    You are speaking in overall terms like AMD has always had better aging cards, which is nonsense and your opinion like I said cite it so.
    @chazus, @tetrisGOAT or @Dukenukemx had the charts about the performance % through time, I don't have time to find it for you now but AMD cards indeed have historically aged better.
    Last edited by Artorius; 2016-03-24 at 03:30 AM.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Artorius View Post
    @chazus, @tetrisGOAT or @Dukenukemx had the charts about the performance % though time, I don't have time to find it for you now but AMD cards indeed have historically aged better.
    Thank you, I knew I had sen it somewhere, but could not remember and could not find it.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Artorius View Post
    @chazus, @tetrisGOAT or @Dukenukemx had the charts about the performance % through time, I don't have time to find it for you now but AMD cards indeed have historically aged better.
    I usually post performance normalisations comparing GTX 680 and HD7970 on launch and then GTX 680 and R9 280X at a later date, if that's what you mean?
    For instance, their relation upon GTX 680's release:



    And their relation upon the release of the R9 Fury:


    (GTX 680 release with ~8.79% more performance, but now, 280x which is essentially the same cards with minor tweaks (less tweaks than between GTX 680->770 for instance) has ~13.85% better performance)
    Last edited by BicycleMafioso; 2016-03-24 at 05:18 PM. Reason: Math is difficult
     

  8. #48
    The Lightbringer Artorius's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Natal, Brazil
    Posts
    3,781
    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    I usually post benchmarks comparing GTX 680 and HD7970 on launch and then GTX 680 and R9 280X at a later date, if that's what you mean?
    For instance, their relation upon GTX 680's release:
    http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/d...9bc6b602628da5


    And their relation upon the release of the R9 Fury:
    http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/d...bfa133bde8f5ad
    Yeah, this. Thanks =D

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •