GPU Value Comparisons

Gboss said:
That's quite a huge jump in performance, almost 50% gains!
Click to expand...

It's because of AMD's piss poor dx11 driver performance, that's why the difference is so large.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

In the graphics card market, AMD is more competitive - but still faces significant challenges from its implacable rival, Nvidia. Thanks to some well-judged price adjustments and the recent arrival of 300 series graphics hardware, the red team has worthy hardware to compete with most of Nvidia's product line, but what's become increasingly apparent over the last nine months is that AMD's DirectX 11 driver is sub-optimal, particularly relevant for those looking to build a budget PC - an area where AMD offers the best theoretical price/performance level in the market.

We first noticed the issue back in November 2014, when we tested Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. A Core i3 and i7 run the game in a very similar manner if you have an Nvidia card, but if you're using an AMD GPU, performance collapses whenever the system is drawing a more complex scene. Advanced Warfare isn't a one-off scenario either. Tune your system to favour frame-rate over visual effects and you'll run into a CPU bottleneck on AMD hardware much faster than you will with the Nvidia equivalent. Take a look at this shot of The Crew. The R9 280 is a great piece of hardware and phenomenal value at £130-£140, but pair it with a Core i3 instead of a more capable quad-core processor, and a third of its performance vanishes in draw-intensive areas. Meanwhile, once again, the Nvidia equivalent card holds up effectively.

To cut to the chase - most PC hardware reviews will tell you that the AMD graphics cards aimed at the budget gamer are more capable than the Nvidia equivalents, and in a benchmarking scenario where the GPU is paired with a high-end CPU, that is undoubtedly the case. However, in CPU-limited scenarios, AMD's hardware is let down heavily by the sub-optimal driver, meaning that in many modern games (but we should stress - not all), Nvidia's less capable parts actually hand in more consistent performance. It's for this reason that our budget PC build features an Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti, even though AMD offers a competing product often on sale for just a few pounds more - the R9 270X - which absolutely monsters it in terms of raw benchmarks.

So, what's going on? Well, before your graphics card renders any scene, the CPU needs to simulate the in-game world, then prepare the instructions for the GPU to draw the scene. The more complex the scene, the more 'draw calls' are prepared by the CPU. Frame-rate tanks on Call of Duty in more complex scenes - when there's more stuff to draw - then normal service resumes in less complex areas. It's the same with The Crew: frame-rates are fine outside of city scenes, but once you enter more complex environments, performance suffers. In short, Nvidia's driver is processing the same draw calls much more efficiently than its AMD equivalent, maintaining high frame-rates and leaving more CPU resources open to the actual game logic.
Click to expand...
 
ponder said:
It's because of AMD's piss poor dx11 driver performance, that's why the difference is so large.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger
Click to expand...
That and the fact that DX11 didn't handle multicore CPU'S that well.

Nvidia fixed the shortcomings of DX11 with great driver and middleman software (im looking at you gameworks )

If you compare, Mantle performance is a little below DX12. Makes me think AMD knew for a long time that DX11 just wasn't working with their hardware.

Just great to see Team Red winning for a change. Looks like the new API'S are filling in for where AMD drivers were falling short :D
 
Gboss said:
That and the fact that DX11 didn't handle multicore CPU'S that well.

Nvidia fixed the shortcomings of DX11 with great driver and middleman software (im looking at you gameworks )

If you compare, Mantle performance is a little below DX12. Makes me think AMD knew for a long time that DX11 just wasn't working with their hardware.

Just great to see Team Red winning for a change. Looks like the new API'S are filling in for where AMD drivers were falling short :D
Click to expand...

If one looks at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzLU4HWw2U a lowly i3/750ti beats a i3/280 & the i3 is not the biggest multicore cpu out there, the AMD cards work better with a beefier cpu.

I just wish amd would fix their drivers for dx11, owners of their cards will benefit greatly and it will give nvidia a proper kick in the panty as the amd hardware is superior in horsepower but you can't harness that without the proper drivers.

Yeah also happy for amd wrt dx12, wish I had a R9 390 now.
 
ponder said:
If one looks at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzLU4HWw2U a lowly i3/750ti beats a i3/280 & the i3 is not the biggest multicore cpu out there, the AMD cards work better with a beefier cpu.

I just wish amd would fix their drivers for dx11, owners of their cards will benefit greatly and it will give nvidia a proper kick in the panty.

Yeah also happy for amd wrt dx12, wish I had a R9 390 now.
Click to expand...
That video highlights the CPU issues. DX11 was known to place most of the compute load on a single core, something DX12 has fixed thankfully.
AMD's approach of many lower speed cores wasn't working under DX11. But this situation suited Intel high speed fewer cores approach.
So glad I listened to you Ponder, I was seriously gonna get a 970.

After all the am I had getting my AMD build running cool, I really didn't want another AMD headache.

Really pleased that I followed through with my initial plans of a complete AMD gaming solution.

Thanks again bra
 
Last edited:
Lol, MSAA bug!! Very excited with these results. Finally AMD showing some real competitiveness.
 
It seems that the new 400 series AMD GPU's might be coming out in Q3 of 2016, according to this article at least.
 
Good day,

I have a good question, hopefully some of you can answer.

Before you answer, I did already read most reviews on the cards, but I would like to have some clarification first.

I am comparing the GTX 980ti / EVGA version, with these two cards the AMD Fury X and AMD R9 390x. Don't worry about the money. I want to know from you guys/girls, which GPU will give me the future proof for gaming. Maybe some of you own one these cards and can me give some opinions.

Just for insight, I am upgrading from EVGA 760ti SC.
 
Also no card will "give you the future proof" wtf ever that means. The most powerful card will last the longest, but eventually everything gets replaced by new tech.
 
Henri18 said:
Good day,

I have a good question, hopefully some of you can answer.

Before you answer, I did already read most reviews on the cards, but I would like to have some clarification first.

I am comparing the GTX 980ti / EVGA version, with these two cards the AMD Fury X and AMD R9 390x. Don't worry about the money. I want to know from you guys/girls, which GPU will give me the future proof for gaming. Maybe some of you own one these cards and can me give some opinions.

Just for insight, I am upgrading from EVGA 760ti SC.
Click to expand...

Don't know how much reading and research you did if you lump the 980ti with things like the 9 390x :o

980ti hands down
 
I'd choose the Fury X, even though it has a water loop attached to it. It is now generally faster than the GTX 980 Ti at 4K resolutions, and continues to gain speed with driver improvements. DirectX 12 will see it push out much further because of its superior compute capabilities. If you're only ever going to be gaming at 2560 x 1440 or lower resolutions, then the GTX 980 Ti makes a bit more sense in the interim, but the Fury X will win out in the long run.
 
Hey all

Sorry to hop on the bandwagon here, but a question of interest.
I am looking for a replacement for my R9280x, which hasn't died, but am looking to swap to nVidia for personal reasons.

I have been eyeing out the GTX 970, which feels to be a decent replacement/upgrade. My query is whether these cards are still "worth it", with the looming release of the 1000 series cards, which I intend to upgrade to as well. My heart is telling me to take the leap, my head is saying I'm wasting money. It hurts a little more considering the Galax card I want to get is a little over R1000 more than the R5000 it was mid 2015 :(
 
PhreeMe said:
Hey all

Sorry to hop on the bandwagon here, but a question of interest.
I am looking for a replacement for my R9280x, which hasn't died, but am looking to swap to nVidia for personal reasons.

I have been eyeing out the GTX 970, which feels to be a decent replacement/upgrade. My query is whether these cards are still "worth it", with the looming release of the 1000 series cards, which I intend to upgrade to as well. My heart is telling me to take the leap, my head is saying I'm wasting money. It hurts a little more considering the Galax card I want to get is a little over R1000 more than the R5000 it was mid 2015 :(
Click to expand...
Maybe second hand? Otherwise I would wait. With second hand you also won't see the exchange rate difference
 
PhreeMe said:
Hey all

Sorry to hop on the bandwagon here, but a question of interest.
I am looking for a replacement for my R9280x, which hasn't died, but am looking to swap to nVidia for personal reasons.

I have been eyeing out the GTX 970, which feels to be a decent replacement/upgrade. My query is whether these cards are still "worth it", with the looming release of the 1000 series cards, which I intend to upgrade to as well. My heart is telling me to take the leap, my head is saying I'm wasting money. It hurts a little more considering the Galax card I want to get is a little over R1000 more than the R5000 it was mid 2015 :(
Click to expand...

Wait for the new cards.
 
PhreeMe said:
Hey all

Sorry to hop on the bandwagon here, but a question of interest.
I am looking for a replacement for my R9280x, which hasn't died, but am looking to swap to nVidia for personal reasons.

I have been eyeing out the GTX 970, which feels to be a decent replacement/upgrade. My query is whether these cards are still "worth it", with the looming release of the 1000 series cards, which I intend to upgrade to as well. My heart is telling me to take the leap, my head is saying I'm wasting money. It hurts a little more considering the Galax card I want to get is a little over R1000 more than the R5000 it was mid 2015 :(
Click to expand...

I really don't see the point of buying a 970 now if you are going to buy a 1000 series a few months down the line.
 
paul5186 said:
Maybe second hand? Otherwise I would wait. With second hand you also won't see the exchange rate difference
Click to expand...

CamiKaze said:
Wait for the new cards.
Click to expand...

ponder said:
I really don't see the point of buying a 970 now if you are going to buy a 1000 series a few months down the line.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys.
It's largely where my thinking has been steering me. My problem is every now and then, I get a bee in my bonnet and this has been on of those times.

Last question. If buying this card meant a delay in purchasing the 1000 series, would you do it then? Or is it still not worth it?
 
I think its pointless buying a card then replacing it in a few months.
The 1000 series will obviously have more updated features than what we have now.

I find it difficult to sell cards for the value you expect for it. Rather save up till then. Not like its of dire need that you get a GFX Card asap.
 
It's worth it, even the 600 series are still more than enough for new games.

But completely pointless if you're just going to upgrade again in a few months, why not just skip this one then?
 
CamiKaze said:
I think its pointless buying a card then replacing it in a few months.
The 1000 series will obviously have more updated features than what we have now.

I find it difficult to sell cards for the value you expect for it. Rather save up till then. Not like its of dire need that you get a GFX Card asap.
Click to expand...

TJ99 said:
It's worth it, even the 600 series are still more than enough for new games.

But completely pointless if you're just going to upgrade again in a few months, why not just skip this one then?
Click to expand...

I agree with both these points.
So the fuller story is that my intention is to do a full pc upgrade. While there has been a slight recovery in the Rand's strength, I'm happier to run with the outlook that it will weaken further, than have a tangible gain.

With that being said, my goal was to do as much of an 'upgrade' as I could now, while waiting for AMD and nVidia to release their new graphics cards later this year. That includes a graphics card which could see me through a potential case where the 1000 series cards are too "overpriced" to warrant a purchase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X