Slashdot Mirror
Dual GPU Battle: GTX 980 Ti SLI vs. Radeon R9 Fury X Crossfire
jjslash writes: High-end GPU parts from Nvidia and AMD are plenty fast, these days. While top-end cards from both can provide playable performance at 4K, many games dip down to and below 30fps. Folks looking to achieve smooth 4K gameplay will undoubtedly be eyeing dual GTX 980 Ti or Fury X cards to realize their PC gaming machine's full potential. TechSpot puts both cards to the test in SLI and Crossfire modes, at stock and overclocked speeds in over 10 games to see who gets the bragging rights. As it turns out, AMD has a tiny advantage in average frame rates. The two split wins on frame time, but AMD won by bigger margins. When the cards get overclocked, Nvidia is the clear winner, and power consumption favors Nvidia as well.
4k is cool and all, I get it. Still, why would I want my PC to render 4k at suboptimal frame rates, when I can play at full HD and have the display present me those 1080px in a way no native HD display could do? Really, I want one of those things just for the real estate and the freedom to place more better looking windows where I want and need them, but for gaming at native resolution, I just don't get it.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Remember?
All Abooooard.
Nvidia TNT2 for Windows desktop and software-rendered games, and a pair of 3Dfx Voodoo 2 SLI boards for 3Dfx games. Got me through many rounds of Quake and Quake 2. Now get off my lawn!
Can marketing majors everywhere please quit using this sentence?
Just say how many. Quit with the "Over X" bullshit. Every time I read that, I hear DUR IM PADDING NUMBERS BC IM STUPID.
I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.
"X is better than Y for the use cases I'm seeing" is a perfectly valid argument. Now, it's best to clarify as such, and not simply extrapolate out to every single possible use under the sun, a la "Well, Nvidia/AMD gets 3 more frames per second on $GAME, so therefore it's better for EVERYTHING." That's stupid - but something like my recent experience where I had major crash problems with AMD drivers on some of the games I like to play, and none with Nvidia (one desktop, the other laptop), I'm strongly inclined to go with Nvidia on my next major purchase, because I have a very visceral (if anecdotal) sense that one is going to work better for what I'm using it for than the other.
Now, you may not be using them for the same thing - but that in no way invalidates the specific point that it's better for what he's using it for.
I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.
What argument? Is there any argument in GGP's post beyond the premise "nVidia rocks, AMD sucks"? Not that I can see.
The same predictable douchey driver argument that rears it's ugly head in every single A/B article that's posted on /.
FTFY - As for red and green, it's not Christmas — and July was last month.
Is this not slightly unfair - at least until AMD or another provider create a similar product?
A future Fury X 'Golden Sample' product might prove to be an interesting and more equitable comparison. How does a 'vanilla' 980Ti compare?
This article is now useless. They tested with:
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
Nvidia GeForce 353.30
AMD Catalyst 15.7
Windows 10 received a new scheduler that gives a much needed boost. Win 10 Radeon 15.7.1 drivers gave AMD cards upwards of 20% performance improvements. Geforce cards were already doing well so their increase wasn't as high but there were improvements with newer Geforce drivers too.
In order to top out Witcher 3 at 1080p you'd need two Titans or two Fury cards with Windows 7/8. Hairworks just killed it for everyone. Now with Windows 10 you'll get a Radeon 280 or a GTX 970M (between gtx960 and gtx970) in order to max out Witcher 3 with hairworks.
The article is useless.
> Now, go back to your Skyrim or whatever other console clusterfuck you waste your life with.
Some of us don't live to work, we work to live...
If it isn't, then it's an invalid benchmark.
4k makes most sense when going to a 48 inch or more monitor. When looking at such sizes, I end up at 4K tvs instead of monitors. (like a samsung 48ue ju6400 for around 900 euro)
most 4k tvs do not have displayport, even though it technically is superior. AMD cards do not have a hdmi 2.0 output, and no convertor for displayport to hdmi exists that can do 4k @ 60Hz . Therefor AMD graphics card didn't even get considered as a choice for me. It probably also explains why nvidia is having a good year with sales of gtx970 and 980.
What about Intel's GPUs? Why isn't this a triple-GPU battle, GTX 980 Ti SLI vs. Radeon R9 Fury X Crossfire vs. Intel SUX 5000 or whatever their current model is?
The specific point seems to have been the expectation that AMD's drivers for a brand new part would fail on some unspecified games on some unspecified OS, because he remembers a time when he had driver problems with an AMD part or its drivers. This amounts to "I believe Team X will still suck in the future, so I will stick with Team Y even when the facts disagree with me".
It's not worth announcing, and it's not exactly the mark of a smart consumer, and yet there's always someone here to announce it.
It comes up with such regularity - every time AMD is mentioned in a headline on Slashdot - that one would think there was a cluster of bots programmed to comment on every AMD-related story with an ATI anecdote from 1998.
Personally, I haven't had a driver problem with any GPUs or drivers for seven or eight years. I must be doing something wrong.