Off Topic Thread V2.0

Gumbi

Fury X reviews out.

Pros
- power consumption almost on par with 980ti, long time coming from AMD
- great water coolong, keeps card around 50c while gaming
- price: slightly cheaper than 980ti

Cons
- beats 980ti rarely, nips at its heals mostly. On par in some cases. TL; DR almost, but not quite as fast. Overclocking is limited at the moment, but hopefully this will change soon.

Overall I think it's a win for AMD. But it's not something nVidia can't compete with.

BloodBath

Gumbi wrote: »

Fury X reviews out.

Pros
- power consumption almost on par with 980ti, long time coming from AMD
- great water coolong, keeps card around 50c while gaming
- price: slightly cheaper than 980ti

Cons
- beats 980ti rarely, nips at its heals mostly. On par in some cases. TL; DR almost, but not quite as fast. Overclocking is limited at the moment, but hopefully this will change soon.

Overall I think it's a win for AMD. But it's not something nVidia can't compete with.

Hopefully enough to start a price war.

Gumbi

BloodBath wrote: »

Hopefully enough to start a price war.

It's definitely competitive anyways. But certainly not a slam dunk. I am surprised at the power savings though!

Uses less than a 290X IIRC.

Cuddlesworth

Gumbi wrote: »

Fury X reviews out.

Pros
- power consumption almost on par with 980ti, long time coming from AMD
- great water coolong, keeps card around 50c while gaming
- price: slightly cheaper than 980ti

Cons
- beats 980ti rarely, nips at its heals mostly. On par in some cases. TL; DR almost, but not quite as fast. Overclocking is limited at the moment, but hopefully this will change soon.

Overall I think it's a win for AMD. But it's not something nVidia can't compete with.

I'm not sure its really a win. On a price performance ratio, the 980ti is the better option apparently. And this is their flagship card on the new platform with new technology that Nvidia doesn't have.

Which means they have failed at catch up and now they have 1 year of second fiddle before Pascal comes out, with all the technology improvements that AMD has released.

BloodBath

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'm not sure its really a win. On a price performance ratio, the 980ti is the better option apparently. And this is their flagship card on the new platform with new technology that Nvidia doesn't have.

Which means they have failed at catch up and now they have 1 year of second fiddle before Pascal comes out, with all the technology improvements that AMD has released.

AMD have a die shrink coming next year as well with 8GB HBM2.

Danger781

http://community.wbgames.com/t5/Support-for-PC/June-23-Update-on-PC-Performance-PLEASE-READ-FIRST/m-p/572903#U572903

Expected: 30fps (capped)

The Recommended Spec is intended to deliver an experience on par with the current generation of gaming platforms.

For an optimal experience, users with recommended spec hardware should not set their resolution higher than 1080p.

Warner Bros confirmed today that the FPS is capped to 30 for the PC port of Batman. They are intentionally limiting the PC port to make it on par with current gen consoles. WTF kind of logic is that.

BloodBath

They outsourced the PC port to a small console development team. What do you expect.

Gbear

Pretty disappointed with the FuryX.

The aren't going to be enough people willing to tolerate marginally worse price/performance, worse crossfire support, worse driver support, worse monitor sync tech, worse game compatibility, just because an abstract notion that competition is better for the market or because Nvidia are pushing towards anti-consumer cuntishnes.

I'd say this whole gen of AMD will sell poorly. Nearly all the cards seem redundant.

game4it70

No surprise that this turned up again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhVo7yPjQvE

Venom

Gbear wrote: »

Pretty disappointed with the FuryX.

The aren't going to be enough people willing to tolerate marginally worse price/performance, worse crossfire support, worse driver support, worse monitor sync tech, worse game compatibility, just because an abstract notion that competition is better for the market or because Nvidia are pushing towards anti-consumer cuntishnes.

I'd say this whole gen of AMD will sell poorly. Nearly all the cards seem redundant.

Pretty disappointed here as well tbh. I don't think it would of been as bad if AMD had of released these new cards as the 300 series instead of the Fury series. All the hype about the 300 series (which turned out to be just re-brands), the Fury being a Titan killer (which its not), the bogus in house performance numbers (WTF were they thinking :eek:) and then delivering a product that over all is not as good as the 980TI really shows AMD are miles behind in the PR department as well as software and hardware.

Gbear

Venom wrote: »

Pretty disappointed here as well tbh. I don't think it would of been as bad if AMD had of released these new cards as the 300 series instead of the Fury series. All the hype about the 300 series (which turned out to be just re-brands), the Fury being a Titan killer (which its not), the bogus in house performance numbers (WTF were they thinking :eek:) and then delivering a product that over all is not as good as the 980TI really shows AMD are miles behind in the PR department as well as software and hardware.

The only thing in it's favour for me is that it's the only product currently coupled with the kinds of FreeSync monitors I want.

You don't spend 700 quid on a graphics card to play at 1080p60fps.
It's probably not even worth it for 2560x1080 1440p60fps - 290x, 390x, 370 and all that are plenty good enough in most cases.

But beyond that you can save the bones of maybe 20-25% for virtually the same performance - that'd give a lot of extra people (probably myself included) the chance for god-like gaming performance.

FuryX/ Asus mg279q is a very compelling combo (albeit for the still rather steamy price tag of £1000/€1500).
For a 980ti/Acer Predator XB270HU it's more like £1400/€2000

It's a good product, clearly.
But I was really hoping it'd give AMD the chance to steal a march and bring them back into the game.

jayo26

It looks like AMD have made nvidias job of increasing market share a whole lot easier with the new cards. First look isn't great at all.
Can complain about nvidias tactics as much as we want but simple fact is AMD cant catch up never mind keep up.

Dair76

Gbear wrote: »

FuryX/ Asus mg279q is a very compelling combo (albeit for the still rather steamy price tag of £1000/€1500).
For a 980ti/Acer Predator XB270HU it's more like £1400/€2000

I'm not liking that the MG279Q doesn't support Freesync above 90Hz.

glynf

I think the fury x is a decent option for the money, considering you get an AIO cooler; just give it 12 months for the drivers to catch up.

Gbear

Dair76 wrote: »

I'm not liking that the MG279Q doesn't support Freesync above 90Hz.

Best you can get on IPS at the moment.

Might be worth waiting for a while - you'd imagine that as long as GSync is proprietary and requires a little module, it's going to be more expensive.

I already have a regular refresh-rate 1440p screen so getting a FuryX now would allow me to demolish pretty much anything at that res, while I wait for the holy grail of full Free-sync, 1440p+, 144hz and IPS to arrive.

Gbear

It's interesting seeing the gulf in prices on OCUK's shop.

Are those not final prices at the moment? Because there's £150 between different brands (but actually the same models) of FuryX's - they go from £510 all the way to £650.

Apparently they're the same price in the US, but if there was a £100 between 980ti and FuryX, it would massively swing things in AMD's favour again.

Headshot

You would want to read Overclockers XB270HU thread if considering getting one.

Lets just say I wouldnt go near one

Gbear

Headshot wrote: »

You would want to read Overclockers XB270HU thread if considering getting one.

Lets just say I wouldnt go near one

It's hard to know what to take from that really.

Most of the reviews have been pretty glowing on review sites.

Even my own monitor was one of those supposedly cheapo Korean ones and I'm not sure was I just lucky or are people just too picky about these things?

I might have a slight bit of backlight bleed around the edges but I don't see it unless I'm looking for it with a black screen test.

You probably don't hear much from people who's screens turned out fine. They're probably too busy having their minds blown.

Without seeing some stats comparing different screens, their failure rates, and being given a good idea of what the different levels of problems are, people's complaints on forums probably don't paint that accurate a picture.

Dair76

Gbear wrote: »

Best you can get on IPS at the moment.

Hmmm, I had been lead to believe it was a limitation of the chosen scaler rather than the panel itself. Must read more.

Headshot

You cant really put stock into reviewers tbh since they are given the best monitors to review. Also Overclockers dont allowed bad reviews which is really horrible to see.

Judging by forums there is alot to complain about, if everything was rosy you wouldnt have these complaints

Acer as a brand name is horrible iv found.

I just couldnt cope with having any sign of BLB. You pay so much for a monitor and you want it perfect.

Gbear

Headshot wrote: »

You cant really put stock into reviewers tbh since they are given the best monitors to review. Also Overclockers dont allowed bad reviews which is really horrible to see.

Judging by forums there is alot to complain about, if everything was rosy you wouldnt have these complaints

Acer as a brand name is horrible iv found.

I just couldnt cope with having any sign of BLB. You pay so much for a monitor and you want it perfect.

The names are so similar I got confused.

The positive reviews I saw were for the Asus ASOEHIUGSEHSEUIOGh or whatever the **** they're all called (christ, how hard are legible naming conventions?), which is a Freesync monitor, vs the Acer 2345jkOLJ5, which is a GSync model.
Although the Asus has a bunch of complaints on it's thread on OCUK as well.

Maybe these companies saw the glut of monitors coming from Korea and have pushed out over 60hz monitors before they were ready?

Gbear

Dair76 wrote: »

Hmmm, I had been lead to believe it was a limitation of the chosen scaler rather than the panel itself. Must read more.

It's all half-remembered gobbledy-gook to me to be honest.

I wouldn't take anything I present as facts seriously.:P

Dair76

Gbear wrote: »

It's all half-remembered gobbledy-gook to me to be honest.

I wouldn't take anything I present as facts seriously.:P

My kinda tech expert!

Headshot

Gbear your getting me confused lol

I was referring this https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-077-AC

wotzgoingon

Headshot wrote: »

Gbear your getting me confused lol

I was referring this https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-077-AC

And at that price you would expect it to be perfect.

BloodBath

Strange results alright. Had time to have a closer look at a few reviews. The Fury is most competitive with the 980ti at 4k which is surprising but maybe not when you look at the architecture design.

It falls behind at 2560x1440 and even more at 1080p. I was expecting the opposite. Nobody is buying a €700 graphics card for 1080p though are they?

I've been eyeballing that Asus mg279q as well hoping the fury would make the perfect partner for it but it doesn't look good.

I'd prefer to go to 3440x1440 IPS FreeSync though. There's still hope that a single Fury-X, Fury or Nano will drive one of these with 40-75fps in most games which with FreeSync would be bearable below 60fps.

The real question is how will the 2 architectures shape up against each other over the coming year with DX12, Vulkan and games designed around the new hardware + driver improvements.

I feel like just waiting for Pascal and AMD's new cards with 8GB of HBM now. My poor 7970 will have to soldier on at 1080p

Cuddlesworth

BloodBath wrote: »

The real question is how will the 2 architectures shape up against each other over the coming year with DX12, Vulkan and games designed around the new hardware + driver improvements.

In theory, AMD is in a much better position for DX12 because Mantle was for all purposes doing many of the same things and all reports have said their performance is good. But the problem with that is the tech usually comes well before the games.

vlad2009

So today I learned that HDMI, isn't capable of full 60fps on a resolution above 1920x1080p (mine being 2560x1080). I realise that I need to use a DVI-D to get the full power of my gpu. So I'm looking to get a replacement for the HDMI, but more questions arise as I research more. I read that DVI-D doesn't carry sound, my monitor being with inbuilt speakers I need something that can do video and audio. So I'm hoping someone here can help. Am I best of just getting a Display port to DVI-D cable as I read that DP can carry audio?

Danger781

vlad2009 wrote: »

So today I learned that HDMI, isn't capable of full 60fps on a resolution above 1920x1080p (mine being 2560x1080). I realise that I need to use a DVI-D to get the full power of my gpu. So I'm looking to get a replacement for the HDMI, but more questions arise as I research more. I read that DVI-D doesn't carry sound, my monitor being with inbuilt speakers I need something that can do video and audio. So I'm hoping someone here can help. Am I best of just getting a Display port to DVI-D cable as I read that DP can carry audio?

Does your gfx card / monitor not have DP?

BloodBath

vlad2009 wrote: »

So today I learned that HDMI, isn't capable of full 60fps on a resolution above 1920x1080p (mine being 2560x1080). I realise that I need to use a DVI-D to get the full power of my gpu. So I'm looking to get a replacement for the HDMI, but more questions arise as I research more. I read that DVI-D doesn't carry sound, my monitor being with inbuilt speakers I need something that can do video and audio. So I'm hoping someone here can help. Am I best of just getting a Display port to DVI-D cable as I read that DP can carry audio?

There are different versions of HDMI, the latest being capable of 4k/60fps.

Do yourself a favour though and forget about the monitors inbuilt speakers. They are always awful. Get some decent headphones or desktop speakers instead.