|
Factory Factory posted:MSI - good brand reputation, positive Goon experiences, reviews well I owned cards of many brands but my MSI 5770 Hawk is the only card that really pissed me off with the awful quality control. For all their talk of military class hardware(tm) the fan bracket rusted like hell after mere 1 year of use that I have to shave off the second hand selling price quite a bit.
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:I really do hope AMD gets their act together, at least with GPUs. Ever since I bought a Rage, I've stuck with ATI (minus the 260 before my current card) and I intend to keep it that way. If the 780 or 770 blow the 8970 or 8950 out of the water, I'll go Geforce. But given equal performance, I will always go Radeon. IMO that has less to do with their GPUs and more to do with their lackluster marketing. Since the 4870 debut AMD has always provided a better deal till 7xxx series yet somehow they are constantly outsold by Nvidia, and the success of the Kepler is another kick to AMD's rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Anandtech has their review of the Geforce GTX 660 up. While it slots in well in nVidia's lineup, it simply can't compete with AMD on value. The card GTX 660 delivers performance between the Radeon HD 7850 and 7870, but is priced above the 7870, which is insane. I guess nVidia is hoping people don't know about the bundled offerings of the Radeon cards? Even if you don't care at all and Ebay it for a fraction of the retail price you're still coming in $10 ahead of the slower GTX 660 (or $30 after rebate). Ever since the aggressive price cuts from AMD the 7850 has been the card to get price/performance wise and this changes nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:I can't think of any reason someone would buy a nvidia card right now. Their pricing is just wacky right now. Maybe a slight exception for the 670Ti if that really is your price range ($360-400), though the 7970 can be had for not much more. The worst offenders from Nvidia has been their ~$100 segment, their price/performance are terrible with GTS450, 550Ti and now the 650 to complete the unholy trinity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:AMD lifted the NDA on the GPU portion of the A10-5800K "Trinity" APU. Take the HD4000 numbers and multiply it by 1.5x because that will be at least where Haswell GT2 would stand, with CPU power and power management that AMD can only dream off. Suddenly things don't look so rosy anymore on the AMD side when you can see the 2nd last bastion of AMD crumbling: iGPU performance. The last bastion being price.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
syzygy86 posted:Sure Haswell will have better performance than the HD4000, but Haswell isn't due out until what, spring 2013? It's not really fair to compare a chip due out next month to what will be out in 6+ months. Trinity and Llano are overkill for strictly HTPC use, and the iGPU is laughably weak for gaming compared to a cheap 7750/7770. It does have a point in laptops, but AMD always have a very limited selection in this segment and it is very possible to find a much more capable SB/IB + discrete GPU laptop at around the same prices. http://www.dailytech.com/IDF+2012+Haswell+GT2GT3+Processors+Run+Skyrim/article27656.htm quote:The GT3 is running "Skyrim" at 1920x1080 resolution with High settings, while the HD 4000 GPU next door is running the same game at the same frame rate, but at Medium settings and a 1366x768 resolution. 2x the pixels + high over medium = more than 2x the performance over HD4000, way beyond Trinity territory. If I was Nvidia even I would be scared if Intel can keep pulling off 50%+ GPU performance every tick or tock. I don't see why it isn't valid to compare Trinity to Haswell. It took AMD 1.5 years to release Trinity after Llano for a minor iGPU increase, which means we are very likely to get stuck with Trinity level AMD performance for the next 1.5 years, too. Haswell will crush it like a bug till then. Palladium fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Sep 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Rosoboronexport posted:AMD/AMD partners reduce HD7850 price again, just as Nvidia is preparing to release GTX 650 Ti, which is half of the GTX680(though on GK106 GPU): 768 shader cores, 128-bit memory bus and 1 gb GDDR5. Here are leaked performance results from Korea, which show that 650 Ti is clearly slower than HD7850. Not sure how much the price difference will be (and will Nvidia lower GTX 660 price), but definitely AMD wants the customer to fork up a little more cash than 650 Ti costs and gain a lot of performance. http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-3d-ma/ So for $150 I get the 5850 class performance that I got for $150 1.5 years ago? That's progress from Nvidia! 
Palladium fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The GTX 650 Ti really should be positioned against the HD 7770, if nVidia isn't pricing the card appropriately that is a bit ridiculous. Let's not even consider a 7850 1GB can be had for $160 that wipes the floor with the 650 Ti, its just hilarious to see it barely edging out the GTX 460 that has been out for like what...2 years? The slightly faster 5850 has already celebrated its third birthday. Both of which can be bought for less than $150 a long time ago while they were still available. I can only conclude this card is Nvidia's idea of a sick joke. Palladium fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Anandtech's Geforce GTX 650 Ti review is out. Leaks were correct: If you don't buy the Radeon HD 7850 (preferably 2GB) instead you are an idiot. If nVidia cuts $20 though it becomes a reasonable step up from the Radeon HD 7770, especially when overclocked. Interestingly enough, all tested cards overclocked to precisely identical settings. http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-650-Ti-1GB-Review-GK106-Kepler-150 Well, the 650 Ti is a good 7770 competitor provided you want AND can get a free bundled copy of AC3 along with the card AND live with the so-so performance (a lot of ANDs there). although the clause of "check with AICs on participating bundles" strongly suggests the game won't be included in the baseline models, only the premium OC ones.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:So it's possible I could end up with a 7850? I could definitely live with that. Provided they actually give you a 7850. Anyway whatever happens do yourself and all of us a favor and don't settle for anything less than a 6950 or 7850 as a informed consumer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Might as well have called it "The Battlefield 3 Patch" from what I can tell. Minor-to-marginal improvements in some other games, big big big jump in BF3 performance. Which I guess is significant since they were advertising how well it ought to do with the engine BF3 is based on, not a good look for nVidia to eat their lunch on it. But "Never Settle" is some pretty silly marketing terminology and they've already got most of what they were going to get out of the drivers' overall performance, that's pretty clear from the aggregate benches. Battlefield 3 sees a big improvement, the rest are a few FPS up (or at least a few minimum FPS up) from 12.7, and that's it. Much have to do with the marketing prowess of NV but the "enthusiast" market filled with clueless fools also play a major role. There is one guy I knew who was even considering GTS450 to a 550 Ti when both were terrible buys IIRC since like forever and the other flat out refuses AMD GPUs because their drivers suck as if it is still year 2001. I can imagine the same poo poo Intel is going to face when people will still want a discrete laptop GPU when it is barely faster than the Haswell iGPU.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
chippy posted:I didn't realise Sniper Elite v2 was such a demanding game. Is it really nice looking? Even from that NV's chart there is no good reason why Skyrim or DA2 should run worse on a 680 than BF3 when both graphically are nowhere close to BF3. Speaking of which, I hope reviewers actually touch instead upon graphical quality of a game with respect to its GPU demand than merely just posting FPS numbers of a card in a game, because there is a worrying trend of slipping quality of graphics (with respect to Crysis 1 in particular) but yet the requirements are still rising.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 12:12
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:I don't doubt that there is room for improvement. I'm just saying, when was the last time visuals were the selling point of a game? They are going to have to do more to the next gen console line than stuff more HP under the hood. If the increased processing power doesn't translate to anything other than traditional gameplay with more spit and polish, I don't think the uptake is going to be all that swift. When I play games for the past few years I don't ask myself "could the graphics be better in this game? "but rather things like "Geez, how goddamn tedious SWTOR was", "does D3 has to run like poo poo on a 2500K + HD5850 despite how mediocre the visuals are?" or "why the gently caress are there so many stupid intro screens?" Palladium fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I don't think there's a wrong choice between buying the 7950 now or waiting for the 9000 series in 2-3 months. It's just a question of your preferences. Are you someone who will look at the 9000s in a few months and think "darn, I should have waited"? If not, there's no real downside to getting the 7950 now. You'll get a big upgrade that'll last you fine for a couple years. I saw a 7950 boost for $215 shipped and I snapped it right away. I really didn't need the extra power over my 5850 at all but deal is too good to pass up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
Fuzz1111 posted:Words The g-sync value proposition just doesn't make a lot of sense. Most people are much better off spending the g-sync "tax" on a New CPU setup or a new video card, and a higher FPS makes for a vastly better experience, vysnc issues or not, on every existing single monitor out there. The nerds who actually care about vsync intricacies are like a niche in a niche.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
If there is something that I want to ask AMD, it will be "Why do your cards has to be so goddamn long?" The 7950 is so much longer than the 660 Ti while in the same performance ballpark for example. I'm almost sure AMD lost quite a bit of sales because of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:I thought about that too, but a look at a naked card ( http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_7950_Vapor-X/images/cooler3_small.jpg) shows the memory/GPU part of the card to be relatively compact and the VRM area to be extensive. Plus, longer card = larger heatsink/more room for fans, Compare that with the GTX 760: http://www.vortez.net/articles_file/22179_zotac-gtx-760-review-naked.jpg It's kinda amazing how NV managed to squeeze the power circuitry so compactly between the bracket and the GPU when it actually uses MORE power at load than the much much longer 7950 Boost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:I'm looking at a laptop (Sager NP3977) on XoticPC and was looking for feedback on the various GPU upgrades and their value for money/performance. Whenever a gaming laptop question comes out, the first thing to ask is always "do you really need a gaming laptop?".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Cool, thanks for your advice! Negotiating this maze of GPUs is never ending. I haven't followed the mobile GPU market for a long time, but the rule of thumb is the mobile version has only about 50% of performance compared to the desktop version sharing the same model number, and https://www.notebookcheck.net is your friend.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:That looks... hot. My brand new laptop with a GT420M @ 35W can almost grill chicken at the exhaust vent in WoW...Now try a much more demanding game with those 2 at 100W each.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Here's what the cooling system looks like for multiple 100W MXM modules: So that's how many BBQ chickens per minute?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
El Kabong posted:290s are going for so cheap on ebay right now that they are in my budget, but a 4690k or so isn't. I've got some thinking and re-budgeting to do. If you can reach a Microcenter they have Pentium AEs with a mobo combo @ ~$100 as pretty nice stopgap solution.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:15% faster than a 760 at $250 will be a very good performance level for everyday gaming builds. Weird about the ram, but I don't want to start a vram balance thing again. I'm sure it will be more than fine. The speed is a little stranger honestly. $250 now makes my over 1 year old $210 7950B looks fantastically good in hindsight. It's like Sandy Bridge deja vu again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:That was an anomalously low price before bitcoin miners drove up the price like crazy. I saw those 7950 Boosts hanging around $200-ish, and then two weeks later they were $350. A buddy of mine managed to get a 7850 for $100, told me to get the same thing and it was very very gone the next week. Ignoring Bitcoins, the recurring problem with AMD and NV these days are that their new releases are so incremental in performance that it makes their already price-reduced previous gen looks good like ~$120 GTX 460 1GBs and ~$150 HD5850s compared to $200+ "next-gen" parts. Heck I even have my 3-year old GTX460 in a spare rig and I can't really tell any visual differences by dropping mostly redundant but demanding IQ settings to get equivalent playable frame rates compared to a 7950B at 1080p. Palladium fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:AMD should sue Qualcomm for allowing them to make the worst business decision of the century. Even the judge would give them an "aww, you dumb kids!" kind of look before dismissing it. You forgot not making the potential Nvidia merger a reality (JHH is a genius running a firm compared to the AMD jokers) and outright purchasing ATI at a massively inflated price and then replacing the ATI brand when it is more publicly recognized than AMD itself.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I agree completely with the notion of desiring higher TDP CPUs than Intel currently produces but there are reasons beyond simple desire to save power and focus on mobile as to why the performance gains have been so meager lately. I made a post about this in the Intel thread that I'll paste here to provide some explanation. Disclaimer: I am not a real expert and there are people on this forum who know more about this than I do but I think it could be helpful to some people in understanding why building a faster desktop CPU and a faster desktop GPU is a fundamentally different engineering problem. IMO, it really has less to do with technology than plain old business sense. Why bother pushing clocks and core counts up to overdeliver even more performance when a $60 SB Pentium 3-years ago already runs DOTA2 flawlessly much less Youtube or email. That already meets like 90% of users out there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Stop buying so many 970/980's you guys, you delayed the 960! Shiny new architecture for $330 that is as fast as a pricier 290X while drawing significantly less power is selling too well? You don't say.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:I hope that's true. I hear the last Max Payne game was crazy well optimized, which is a world away from what GTA4 was on the PC. I really hope that the recent AC:Unity performance fiasco opens the eyes of people with regards to optimization. It's one thing to tax a top-end PC to the limit and another issue altogether whether the resulting visuals are actually good enough over previous games to justify yet another increase in hardware demands. I really like Wolfenstein:TNO and but I sure as hell take issue that it's 2006-era looking graphics chokes on my HD7950 with obvious texturing artifacts just by rotating the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I'm not sure how you can talk about the card being good or not without talking about the price. The price is integral to the product as a whole. AMD could make an incredibly well engineered and efficient card but if it's priced too high that just makes it a poo poo product, period. For anyone who can fit a normal sized card the Nano is garbage, no matter how small and power efficient it is. The vast majority of ITX cases can already fit full length cards, so its $650 for a niche that doesn't really exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:I might finally go for mitx next time Im forced to upgrade my cpu and mobo. They are so cute Once you factor in the fact you still need to put in ATX PSU and storage drives, it won't be as cute as you think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Truga posted:http://wccftech.com/nvidia-recommends-geforce-gtx-980-ti-gtx-980-1080p-vr-gaming-highend-market-share-rises-apac-markets/ NV might be beating AMD heavily in dGPU marketshare, but even they are heavily bleeding shipments in absolute numbers. Q1 2015: "Overall GPU shipments dropped 13% in Q1’2015 from last quarter AMD slipped 17%, Nvidia fell 13.5%, and Intel saw a 12% slip" Q2 2015: "Nvidia’s desktop discrete shipments were down -12.03% from last quarter; and the company’s notebook discrete shipments decreased -21.6%. The company’s overall PC graphics shipment decreased -16.2% from last quarter." Sauce: http://jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:I'm waiting for RX480 reviews/benchmarks I saw a comparison vid of Witcher 3 from China where a RX480 at stock 1266MHz is dead even with a GTX 970 OCed @ 1410MHz. I'm pretty sure the latter is already stock 980 territory. The only downer for the RX 480 is the fan was spinning at 2700 rpm. My body is ready for AMD.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 08:40
|
|
then I'll just wait for the GTX1060.
|
Just placed my order on the last remaining Zotac GTX 1070 AMP Edition non-FE at slightly lower than the asking price of the Fool's Edition. Strictly speaking the RX480 perf/$ is fine but the idle/load power draw and noise was the deal breaker.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:It also entirely depends how neutered GP106 is, considering the 960 and 950 were tire fires after the 760 and 660 were good buys. I always considered the 960 as horrible value with a 2GB VRAM bottleneck, especially with 290/390s dipping into the mid $200 region. All NV needs to do win over the RX480: ~$250 GTX 1060 of GP106 1280SP + 192-bit bus + 6GB with stock cooling that isn't complete crap, then clock high enough to beat the 480 and perf/W will take care of the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Xae posted:1070/1080 were about as close to a Paper Launch as you can get with out crossing the line. There are probably a lot of defected GP104s lying around in NV inventory. Even if the 1060 was a massively harvested GP104 part with half of the entire chip disabled @ 2GHz it's still gonna be 970 level performance with much better perf/W than the 480.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Naffer posted:I would hope so. There's something really off. I wonder who tried downclocking to like 1100MHz with an accompanying downvolt , it's painfully obvious 1266MHz is way too high from the intended MHz/W sweet spot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
MrBond posted:So wait, is the general consensus that the RX480 is a stinker? On the surface it seems reasonable for the price. In strictly perf/price, it's great. The reference version power, cooling and noise is a stinker, if even you arent interested in OC. If you are, it's an unmitigated Class-AAA disaster. For people already with GTX 970 level or higher cards it's a snoozefest. For people still stuck with <=$200 cards they might as well wait for the GTX 1060 while also for AIB versions of the RX480. The big problem for AMD is they need a slam dunk product like the 4850/4870 to put pricing pressure on Pascal and they still don't have one; beating an almost 2 year GTX 970 simply isn't enough. Right now the window of opportunity with the RX480 is extremely limited and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that NV can easily make the 1060 be the all around better product and the market will more than willing to pay a premium barring supply issues. If that is even cheaper at like <=$200, nobody will be talking about AMD in a month. Palladium fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:I'd be somewhat worried about a consistent out-of-spec draw from the PCI-E slot. Just wait until a non-reference design comes out with custom cooling and 8-pin power. I would not buy reference unless the excessive power draw from the motherboard is shown to be an anomaly confined to a few samples or is otherwise resolved. The way I see it, its the usual AMD practice of choosing to play retarded games when there is NO NEED TO. Hey, we got a 160W GPU and we should put in a 2x6 pin or 1x8 pin connector and no one will bat an eyelid...but no, we got to stick a lone 6-pin in there to overhype our pre-launch TDP so we can needlessly shoot ourselves in the foot several times in the form of overdrawing PCIE bus power FUD when all is said and done. It's simply hilarious they screwed up a $240 GPU so badly that it makes people wanna jump on a $400 NV GPU. Palladium fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:The drama was always there to some extent but its really ramped up in the last few years. I don't mind a lil' bit of bullshitting but it seems to have gotten totally out of hand lately. So much bullshit to wade through now its hard to find anything interesting or useful. I think that has something to do the GPU market departing from the golden age of 2007-2012 where insane value for dollar can be had with <$200 GPUs. We are never going to see stuff like Nvidia demolishing itself out of its own $600 market like the the $250 8800GT did, or $80 AR GTS 250s and $100 GTX460s, or AMD's $200 4850 puts a $650 NV card to shame.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The way NVidia's $200 price point has been in the lurch for so long is frustrating. I'm on the verge of buying used simply because the reshuffle everyone expected with the 1070/1080 didn't happen; and now it looks like the competition from the other side isn't so strong that it will budge them either.  , you better pray hard then. Nvidia achieved 80% marketshare mainly by selling $200 960s (plain awful perf/price) and $330 970s (not so bad perf/price but still not as good as AMD) in the face of firesale AMD 290/390s. Unless AMD plans to replicate their "strategy" again by selling Vega at Polaris prices, and that's not going happen anytime soon. Not even Apple can achieve that kind of lopsided dominance of shipping AND earning much more than their competitor in their respective markets.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 03:11
|
|