-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
State of the GPU industry market summed up in one video
- Thread starter SneakyStephan
- Start date
Retromelon
Member
I would buy the fury if it just had a damn hdmi 2.0 port
There are issues with crossfire and SLI on both sides, and driver issues are no longer a plus for Nvidia as AMD's drivers are actually more stable lately than Nvidia's.
Your point is understandable if you've been having issues but the things you are complaining about do not apply to single GPU set ups like the example I used in my post. The 390 is a better buy than the 970 unless you want low power/heat/noise over the actual power of the card or the game pack-in pushes you over to Nvidia's side. Anyone that has done extensive testing of both cards would tell you the same thing.
TC McQueen
Member
No, it's a good card that's brand new and is priced pretty well for its performance.
if youre happy with it, you did fine. video cards are better than they have ever been. only the prices are worse.
iceblade997
Member
The video raises good points but he's asking for too much.
1080p isn't nearly as taxing as 4k is, and in the time that we've taken to get to 4k from 1080p, games have become, as usual, vastly more demanding and there's more to it than just resolution. "Can it run Crysis" hasn't been a thing for years, for example, and that's a game of roughly that era.
As was mentioned earlier, it's past time where you can expect 50+% increases easily. Or even big increases generation to generation. It's not just AMD and Nvidia who're running into this issue. Intel just released Skylake which gives the now usual 10-15% performance boost, but it's only now that people who bought 2600Ks or CPUs from that family (early 2011 CPUs) are being given a reason to upgrade and even then if you have a heavily overclocked one you should still be fine. Not just that but for the first time they're not switching to a smaller node every other CPU and they've for a while been focusing on power draw reductions, like Nvidia.
Does that make AMD's rebranding any better? No, it doesn't, but on the same token asking for 8800GTX style cards to appear with enormous performance increases isn't going to happen yet (if at all). If you want to play at 4K and 60FPS on 1 card with all the bells and whistles, you're going to have to wait.
[...]
And the Fury X isn't a direct rival to the Titan (X) either.
1080p isn't nearly as taxing as 4k is, and in the time that we've taken to get to 4k from 1080p, games have become, as usual, vastly more demanding and there's more to it than just resolution. "Can it run Crysis" hasn't been a thing for years, for example, and that's a game of roughly that era.
As was mentioned earlier, it's past time where you can expect 50+% increases easily. Or even big increases generation to generation. It's not just AMD and Nvidia who're running into this issue. Intel just released Skylake which gives the now usual 10-15% performance boost, but it's only now that people who bought 2600Ks or CPUs from that family (early 2011 CPUs) are being given a reason to upgrade and even then if you have a heavily overclocked one you should still be fine. Not just that but for the first time they're not switching to a smaller node every other CPU and they've for a while been focusing on power draw reductions, like Nvidia.
Does that make AMD's rebranding any better? No, it doesn't, but on the same token asking for 8800GTX style cards to appear with enormous performance increases isn't going to happen yet (if at all). If you want to play at 4K and 60FPS on 1 card with all the bells and whistles, you're going to have to wait.
[...]
And the Fury X isn't a direct rival to the Titan (X) either.
I don't buy it. My gf has a single 290 and she has weird ass problems from time to time as well. She had to literally go into her registry for fixes after searching the net for days all because lol amd. I see guys like you trying to jump on nvidia only because they have some crap going on with win 10 atm but people must have short memories or something. There is a reason why you hear more QQ about amd drivers than nvidia. Just because nvidia has a bit of egg on their face right now doesn't mean they are all of a sudden just as bad as amd.
You really want to claim sli is just as bad as crossfire? who wait longer for support? I'd trade my 290x's for 970's in a heart beat. Name me one random dumb ass game breaking bug that a lot of sli users have.
It's funny I'm coming off as such an amd hater here when I'm the one defending them non stop to my friends. I've gotten fed up in the last few weeks though. I spend more time fighting crossfire than I do enjoying games.
This video's original goal is not to summarize the entire GPU market in one video, but instead make a rant against the fury video cards and why they allow AMD to have higher price GPUs. Regardless, the rant seems incomplete when it doesn't go into the nature of fabrication process updates and how they've been running on the 28 nanometer process for years now. As much as that plays into the "no sympathy for the devil" sort of thing that this person believes in, it shows a lack of understanding about the situation.
I plan on making a video about how right now is the worst time to buy a video card in quite a long time but the whole Red Ash/Mighty Number 9 thing has pushed it back a good bit.
I plan on making a video about how right now is the worst time to buy a video card in quite a long time but the whole Red Ash/Mighty Number 9 thing has pushed it back a good bit.
imo its the best card to get per price/performance unless you're dead set on 4k gaming. there'll always be something better down the line, no sense in going down the rabbit hole
BlueSilver
Member
While I don't expect to build my PC anytime soon, I do have a 1GB GTX 460. How would that run things at 1440x900? I don't particularly care for the shiniest graphics, so I guess that helps.
Interesting video with some valid points.
Personally I will continue to buy the top end Nvidia card i.e. Titan. I usually buy two at launch and sell one a few months later. New Titan card is announced I sell the current one in the B/S/T thread and put that towards a new set. I like having a top end GPU and I have a bunch of monitor configurations/resolutions at my fingers to play around with.
It's fun and exciting. Probably dumb. But I don't care too much
Personally I will continue to buy the top end Nvidia card i.e. Titan. I usually buy two at launch and sell one a few months later. New Titan card is announced I sell the current one in the B/S/T thread and put that towards a new set. I like having a top end GPU and I have a bunch of monitor configurations/resolutions at my fingers to play around with.
It's fun and exciting. Probably dumb. But I don't care too much
The reason for this is actually confirmation bias. I've owned plenty of both cards and both have no shortage of issues, it's just trendy to shit on AMD.
I love how it also takes 40 seconds for my sound properties window to open because lol amd random driver problem that is magically fixed as soon as I disable the amd HDMI in device manager.
Yea confirmation bias. When I have 2 people in the same house that run into problems I have to look reality in the face.
Oh I also have the bug where you get the black screen at login on windows 10 when you have crossfire. It's so annoying, I have to wait an extra 30+ seconds to type in my password making my speedy pc not so speedy anymore.
Well that's not normal at all. I've never seen that happen on a myriad of driver versions. Somethings probably fucked up with your OS.
nope, if you google it you'll see I'm not the only one. It's a crossfire problem. I only found out how to bandaid it because I got so annoyed with it I looked it up. Didn't take me long to find out it was an LOL amd driver problem.
Icyflamez96
Member
That description.
I happen to have a crossfire system with two R9 290's. I have none of the issues you're describing. Not that it doesn't have issues, that's not the case I'm making.
I also have a comfy couch setup with a 970 which lately has been unstable as hell CTDs, display driver restarts, etc. Yet somehow the perception is nVidia can do no wrong and AMD are completely incompetent.
Yeah, I don't have any driver problems with my cards in crossfire like the ones you describe. The only problem I do run in is with older games that don't or aren't optimized for crossfire. Then you just disable crossfire via a profile in the CCC and they'll run smooth. I even overclocked both my GPU's.
Although, when I built my brother PC I bought him a 970 as I didn't want his living room to be a microwave. For me, I don't care.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
That black screen on login issue also happens on Nvidia, fyi.
Trust me dude, Nvidia also has a lot of "weird ass problems", but I'm willing to bet most people just shrug them off and would rather blame it on the game developer/windows, due to the perception that "Nvidia drivers are superior". Quite a few issues aren't even related to Windows 10.
Unity engine games have far more problems on Nvidia than AMD. Witcher 3 had a wealth of crash issues with various driver revisions. Company of Heroes 2 seems to have a 50% chance of crashing on my 980Ti on game start/end, yet it never crashed a single time on my 290X.
I just bought a new GPU last week and went with a 970. Just because I said the only reasons to go with a 970 over a 390 is power/noise/heat and game pack-ins doesn't mean those things are minor. The 390 just offers more power for the price, if you don't care about those other things it offers more power is all.
Problems with AMD drivers aside. I would say you have very unfortunate luck honestly, I owned an AMD gpu for 6 years without issue but I know how stuff like that can be sometimes, and I would have a similar perspective given the issues you have had.
Though I will admit I have had really annoying W10 issues with my new 970, far far far more than I had in 6 years on AMD. I still think the card is fantastic however.
VivaciousSoul
Member
ctl+f: hierarchy
What no results? Surely I'm not the only who uses this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
If I had an R9 290 and then AMD came out with the R9 390X if I wasn't privy to how this game works I would no doubt think that the R9 390X is better. Since I am privy to the game I would be skeptical. But this chart has taken all the guess work out. I just pull it out and see okay R9 290 and R9 390X on the exact same tier. It's basically the same card. End of deliberations.
They say that at least 3 tiers up is a good upgrade.
Because I have an R9 280 and my case is relatively small AMD doesn't currently have a card out that I would upgrade to. If I had to upgrade now a GTX 980 is probably the only thing that I'm looking at.
What no results? Surely I'm not the only who uses this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
If I had an R9 290 and then AMD came out with the R9 390X if I wasn't privy to how this game works I would no doubt think that the R9 390X is better. Since I am privy to the game I would be skeptical. But this chart has taken all the guess work out. I just pull it out and see okay R9 290 and R9 390X on the exact same tier. It's basically the same card. End of deliberations.
They say that at least 3 tiers up is a good upgrade.
Because I have an R9 280 and my case is relatively small AMD doesn't currently have a card out that I would upgrade to. If I had to upgrade now a GTX 980 is probably the only thing that I'm looking at.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Wait, I thought Smokey was a Saudi Prince?
This thread and especially the video in the OP is so fucking confusing to me. I don't know much about AMD cards, borderline clueless, but what does "basically the same card" really mean? I think people should be more careful with using "rebranding" and "the same", at least clarify the context and facts.
As I said, I have no clue, but after a quick search I found these differences:
290x vs 390x:
memory 8,192 MB vs 4,096 MB
memory clock speed 6,000 MHz vs 5,000 MHz
clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 1,000 MHz
memory clock speed 1,500 MHz vs 1,250 MHz
TDP 275W vs 300W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqsT1nzSkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYQT8udtuWM
So they are not really "rebranded", and they are not really "the same", not even the performance appear to be the exact same? AMD obviously did some redesign on the internal workings. However, they may have similar type performance in certain scenarios, especially if it's in context with an upgrade and you already have a similar type card.
Why didn't at least the author of the video clarify this?
The 390X is basically an overclocked 290X, which was also available in an 8GB version. You could buy a factory overclocked 290X with the same specs as the 390X and it would perform identically. They both use the same chipset, just with higher default speeds in the 390X.
Last Hearth
Member
Wow that's a great deal, I'm going to pick up a 970 to upgrade my 7950. $250 is a great price.
adamantypants
Member
Interesting, how did they manage higher clock speeds with a lower tdp on the exact same chipset? Magic ?
Manufacturing processes get refined enough that each die spits out better chips. With higher quality chips you get more efficient power usage. In general, the higher your ASIC % is, the better power efficiency your chips have, and as a result, better overclocking. They didn't re-do the architecture, they just refined the manufacturing process.
velociraptor
Junior Member
It's probably best if you stick to 720p.
Patrick S.
Banned
I had an R9 290 and I hated my time with it.
It was insanely loud and hot. Really, my better half couldn't sleep upstairs at night when I put in a nightly gaming session on my PC downstairs. I could only game with headphones because of how loud that thing was. How ridiculous is that? And then games like GTA 5 and Assetto Corsa ran like crap on it, with huge stuttering issues and widely fluctuating framerates.
I sold it and got a 970, the card the R9 290 was supposedly almost equal to, and it's a world of a difference; GTA and AC run much much better at higher settings, no stuttering, perfect. I don't have a single complaint about the 970, and I really doubt I'd buy another AMD card, unless I got a chance to test it myself and it were in another league as the R9.
It was insanely loud and hot. Really, my better half couldn't sleep upstairs at night when I put in a nightly gaming session on my PC downstairs. I could only game with headphones because of how loud that thing was. How ridiculous is that? And then games like GTA 5 and Assetto Corsa ran like crap on it, with huge stuttering issues and widely fluctuating framerates.
I sold it and got a 970, the card the R9 290 was supposedly almost equal to, and it's a world of a difference; GTA and AC run much much better at higher settings, no stuttering, perfect. I don't have a single complaint about the 970, and I really doubt I'd buy another AMD card, unless I got a chance to test it myself and it were in another league as the R9.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
You're results doesn't surprise me at all.
I tend to think that the only reason why folks buy AMD GPU's is because they think they will get nVidia performance cheaper.
Aftermarket coolers for the R9 200/300 series do wonders. You can get a nice and quiet 390X if you know which brand to go for. Sapphire has a very good reputation but this is just one example.
Patrick S.
Banned
I would say I got screwed by a few websites that had bullshit reviews that exaggerated the R9's performance and played down the unbelievable noise levels of reference design cards. I would never have bought that card if I had gotten to test it hands on.
Chezzymann
Member
I don't really consider building a gaming PC because to me spending 700 dollars on a build that'll last me 5 years is not as worthwhile of a decision as buying a $300 console that will last me 5 years (even if you're getting better graphics with the PC). Also I don't like the headache of always wondering how well your computer will run a game before you buy it (yes I know theres websites for that but if it tells you you can run it at minimum settings but not recommended its hard to tell exactly what that means, for example 20 FPS at low or 30 FPS at medium, etc) it also doesn't help that demos are becoming less and less common since that's the only way to really know for sure
Patrick S.
Banned
After I sold the 290, I got a supposedly refurbished Asus R9 290x with twin fans because I snatched it off eBay at a seemingly good price, but it was dead on arrival, so I sent it back and finally got the 970. A 290 plus Rajintek cooler and two fans costs more than a 970, and is not worth it imo.
A Sapphire R9 390 would have cost you about as much and they're very quiet, on top of having excellent cooling.
This post doesn't surprise me at all coming from you. I'm not sure why you are acting like Nvidia is the better choice in all situations. There a ton of factors that go into what card a person chooses. I recently bought a sapphire R9 280 and it has performed excellently within my sff case. Runs very quiet and cool too within the case (idles at 30c and have only seen hit 70C max).
I'm so glad I decided to do some extra research and took my cousins advice to consider an AMD card rather to blindly listen to a bunch of fanboys that pledge allegiance to a company. An R9 280 at $150 brand new W/ Dirt Rally included was a no brainer. I'll likely buy new card in a couple of years when VR is more established, but for now, this was a great buy.
Patrick S.
Banned
This happened a few months ago, when the 390 wasn't a thing. Besides, I really didn't want another AMD card
Yea i sound bitter but it wasn't always so bad. Which is why I could defend them to my friends. I didn't personally start seeing problems until I got a 1440p monitor and new ones popped up after windows 10. I even clean installed last night to try and see if it would help. Still problems sadly. I'm positive its the amd hdmi drivers causing me so many problems.
Unless you have a low end rig you really don't have to worry about a game running sub-console standards unless you've gone 2-4 years without upgrading
Don't let people obsessing over performance scare you off ... it's a good investment
I'm sorry you had a poor experience but you should of done more research before you bought those 290s. The reference 290 has a very inefficient cooling system with a high chance of throttling and the Asus 290 used a goddamn Nvidia heat sink at first before they revised the design. Any other (aftermarket) 290 would of been better than those two.
Here is some more info on the Asus cooler:
Overclock.net
Tom's Hardware
Chezzymann
Member
But the problem is upgrading every few years costs more money, which would make you spend even more than your original investment. So a $500 PC becomes $700. With consoles you don't have to worry about that until next gen comes around, which is like 5-6 years. And yeah I'm not willing to spend more than $500 on a PC so I'm gonna have a low end rig if I get one so it would still be a problem. I'd rather just go the cheaper route with consoles where i'll always know exactly how a game runs
Patrick S.
Banned
More research doesn't put money in my pocket so I can buy a card that costs 100 Euros more.
I did of course read more than one review. I saw benchmarks, read articles, etc. I expected a card that was maybe as loud as my fat PS3. I expected good performance. I got bad performance out of a card that was loud as a Jumbo jet and hot as the seventh chamber of hell.
I don't want to dismantle a graphics card, lose my warranty, spend another 80 Euros for a better cooler, and maybe screw up installing it and damage my card to boot. I had considered going that route though, because that reference Sapphire card was unbearable. But in the end it was just easier and more efficient to sell that shit and get a 970.
Besides, as I said I did buy a ASUS R9 290X DirectCU II OC, but it was faulty.
Last Hearth
Member
I thought the 970 was comparable to the R9 390. Not the 290?
SneakyStephan
Banned
Totally off topic but :
Have fun playing project cars on your r9 280
Have fun playing gta5 or any other cpu demanding game if you happen to have a midrange amd cpu or a dual core intel cpu.
Amd drivers having a much higher cpu overhead than nvidia is an unfortunate reality.
I experienced too many broken games during my 12 years of using nothing but AMD/ATI gpus.
I don't like Nvidia , I think they're a bunch of evil cunts.
I always bought amd since 2003 because they were the underdog and they proviced better price/performance than nvidia.
But there is no way I was going to buy another AMD gpu after the history/problems I had with my hd4870 and 6870.
That isn't to say nvidia is without problems, witcher 3 is a frameskipping piece of shit on my gtx970 , so if you are upgrading for that game DEFINITELY do not buy a gtx 970.
But throughout the past years (from about 2009 till now) me and a friend of mine always play the same games. Him on nvidia, me on AMD, and while I had serious issues in over a dozen games with my gpu he had issues in only a few.
It has become a running joke between us every time we buy a new game to play. He'll be like ''I wonder what'll be wrong with this one for you''
Amd have improved lately driver wise and feature wise (finally having some downsampling support for starters.., amd AA options have always been piss poor) but then project cars happened and the cpu overhead thing came to light and yeah... fool me thrice , shame on you, fool me four times, shame on me.
So far on my gtx970 I've tried about 20 of my steam games (half the fun of getting a new gpu is always replaying your old games with the dials up to 11 at insane framerates) and they've all worked flawlessly, including the ones that gave me issues on AMD.
(90 fps in project cars on max settings instead of 20 on low for starters)
Except for witcher ofcourse... fuck nvidia and fuck CDPR for letting that frameskipping problem persist for this long (google says it's a widespread problem with 970s).
970 = 390 = 290X
They are all the same tier of performance really. Due to higher stock clocks and faster memory the 390 is comparable to the 290X and the 390X is a small step above. The higher clocked memory is truly what makes it a refresh and not a straight rebrand. Even 8GB 290X will not reach as high memory clocks as 390 series.
The death throes of silicon as a substrate.
It's becoming exponentially harder to do die shrinks, meanwhile consumers expect a certain release cycle. Card companies are forced to make marginal upgrades on technology that is already somewhat mature. The real question is what happens in 2025-2030 when the exponentially diminishing performance upgrade of newer products is far outweighed, utility wise, by the price of buying a new product?
Hope you like ATX-XXL cases the size of minifridges with liquid nitrogen cooling.
NOTE: I literally have no clue what I'm talking about.
It's becoming exponentially harder to do die shrinks, meanwhile consumers expect a certain release cycle. Card companies are forced to make marginal upgrades on technology that is already somewhat mature. The real question is what happens in 2025-2030 when the exponentially diminishing performance upgrade of newer products is far outweighed, utility wise, by the price of buying a new product?
Hope you like ATX-XXL cases the size of minifridges with liquid nitrogen cooling.
NOTE: I literally have no clue what I'm talking about.
SneakyStephan
Banned
This post is a really good summary of how the prices got to where they are.
Amd did indeed start it with their retarded GCN prices.
Consumers ate it up anyway because they were DESPERATE to get away from the 300Watt hairdryers in their rigs on an old and stale 40nm
28nm gcn was twice as power efficient.
Nvidia probably said to themselves 'wow people are actually paying this much for this shit?' and launched gk104 as chromatic described.
Then it goes on as he describes until we've now come full circle with the fury.
Which is an inferior product that screams compromise with 4GB ram, poor overclocking AND seriously underperforms compared to gm200 maxwell )
All in all an amateurish copying of the nvidia titan branding (and meanwhile nvidia also got arrogant with their titan 2 : having not even made it a workstation card alternative, dropping all pretense they had before)
So now we are back at 300W gpus like in the gtx 580 era,only at twice the price, again on an old and stale (this time 28nm) process.
So what is going to happen when 16nm comes out (and power efficiency goes up significantly again, with people once again eager to ditch their 300W hairdryers for something a little bit more frugal.
Is AMD going to be first to market with it again?
Are they going to release another dissapointing midrange piece of shit with poor initial drivers (underperforming)?
Are they (or nvidia , whoever is first) going to use being first to market with 16nm as a means to hike prices once again?
Are gamers going to bend over and accept it again, thus creating a new standard of 700 euro midrange gpus?
How much will the market bear (well not the market, just a shrinking part of the market but at high margins). One thing is for sure, AMD and nvidia marketing departments will work tirelessly to find out.
Tune in around q2-q4 2016 to watch the conclusion of this tale.
If people turn out to be willing to be 500 dollars for the low end (and some modern gt420 equivalent entry level shite at the 150-250 dollar bracket) at 16nm next year then we can have another thread where you guys can tell me how you can't define what makes a card high end and how great that entry level shitcard is because it can still beat the consoles.