Power Consumption

File: novidiots has no drivers.png (38KB, 594x280px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 594x280px

It's quite simple really. The bulk of all sales occur within the first month or so. All they have to do is make AMD look bad for a month or two and they're golden. In this case, they pay several major media outlets to release benchmarks showing the Fury X gobbling up way more power than the 980 ti, Nvidia collects 90% of all sales from their product, then months later the truth comes out. Rinse and repeat for every major release. This time it's power usage, next time it will be day one drivers. In the end, AMD products always meet or exceed parity and are of a better value. Stupid people will never realize this. They follow what the media tells them and don't bother looking at trends.

>most power hungry 980ti gpu uses 6.7% more watts than Fury X

>980 ti beats fury x in Performance

Yea nothing seems out of the ordinary here desu senpai

>>51516421
This.

Really not seeing the deal here.

That 290x but.... cool.

If you care about power consumption you're a poorfag who cant afford a psu or a third worlder.

>>51516602
S A V A G E
A
V
A
G
E

>>51516234
>400 replies, 120 images

>>51516462
>>51516602
>>51516421

Proving OPs point

>>51516234
I mean, this isn't anything new.

File: 1366367124222.gif (2MB, 334x357px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 334x357px

>>51516360
>image

File: 1437721544276.jpg (501KB, 1056x1080px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1056x1080px

>>51516421
>>51516462
>>51516602
>>51516621

I mean honestly though, people will defend this in some way or another; OP is correct.

The 980ti runs hot as fuck and uses more power.
inb4
>muh 6 frames @ >100fps
>amd drivers
>poorfags

>>51516234
You're fucking retarded. Those are overclocked cards. You can't even OC a fury x

>>51517059
prove it.

>>51517094
Prove what you fuck wit?

>>51517253
exactly, thanks for confirming

>>51517297
All you AMD shills will never know how shit the cards are. Big rip off, shit fps, drivers suck.

>get junk amd laptop from friend that wanted to toss it
>came with vista, manufactured 2007
>install 7
>no drivers
>literally only 2 years old

>have ancient geforce 6200 card from 2004
>still supported to this day

>>51517253
>>51517310
>You can't even OC a fury x
apparently you can't even follow your own train of thought, no wonder you're a blind nvidiot.
cheers ;^)

>>51517354
blame the shitty laptop makers then go and install AMD's drivers from their website you idiot

>>51517421
>amd
>drivers

AMD literally dropped support for their Xpress chipset 2 years after lauch you fucking moron.

>>51517455
>AMD literally dropped support for their Xpress chipset
their what? what the fuck are you talking about?

>>51517455
>>51517478

Yeah...what are you talking about

>>51517494
>>51517478
oh i found it
literally over a decade old, nobody gives a shit about this.

File: 1447227870697.jpg (24KB, 428x280px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 428x280px

>>51517478
>>51517494
>amd kills off driver support so fast their own drones forget entire product lines exist

File: 75499.png (34KB, 650x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 650x400px

would you explain this?

>>51517532
>>51517455

10 year old cards

Hold grudges do we?

>>51517576
> links something paid for by nvidia

>>51517578
Defending no drivers are we?

>>51517576
>290x at 310w
Yeahokay.jpg

I've been on team red for a while now but I can tell this picture isn't correct just by that

>>51517598
>>51517578
Not even GPUs, it's fucking motherboard chipsets which get changed out every 2 years anyways.

Do you complain that Intel doesn't support their Z77 chipsets anymore?

File: Untitled.png (119KB, 1333x890px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1333x890px

>>51517421
Ok.

>>51516360
this desu senpai

>>51517576
>total system draw
>furmark

top kek nvidia throttles their cards when the driver detects Furmark running.

Try again

>>51516360
Hardly anyone buys cards based on tdp, as long as you live in a first world country. Blaming poor sales on reviews possibly inflating tdp numbers is a joke.

>>51518145
You must not have been around here or any other social media site when that very reason gets brought up in every single discussion around the time of the comparison's hitting the web. Social media holds tremendous sway over consumer opinion these days and these scumbags know all they need to do is infect popular opinion for the short period of time when sales are at their peak, in order to win.

>>51518145
claiming you draw half the power of your competitors these days is a good way to make yourself look like the best choice if all else is or seems equal.

Lying about those numbers is the easiest way to make it look like that too.

>>51518342
>>51518380
I guess I'll take it back. I have seen people on forums and reviews mention power consumption a bit too much with Maxwell. So much so that its a supposed major selling point. I'm sure its mostly a combination of shills and users parroting shills.

>>51516360
>this is what AMDrones actually believe

>>51518722
It's eerily similar with Android fags refusing to believe that Apple makes better smartphones than their dear Google.

>>51518775
>Apple makes better

stale b8

>ti Hybrid
>Consuming more power

I hope they didn't put that stupid piece of shit pump and rad fan power output on the PCB.

Just a reminder to those useless fuckwits that buy the pre-assembled water solution with a shit block and a shit rad, you're not impressing anyone worth impressing.

>>51518862
Poor fag detected.

File: 1445926669624.jpg (799KB, 1000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1000x2000px

>>51518886
Misclick, meant to reply to >>51518775

>>51516360
>that image
results are personalised, you fucking moron.

>>51519116
There's no google account from where this image was taken, you fucking moron.

>>51516234
can we have averages over a certain time pls?

>>51519391
Why?

Its a shitty troll thread.

>hurr power consumption results. Ill only post 2 amd cards and overclocked nvidias..

Meanwhile go look at the power draw of a fucking 390x...

>>51516234
>peak system watts
So what is the entire system configuration?

File: perfrel_2560_1440.png (52KB, 500x1050px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x1050px

>>51516234
Factory overclocked 980 TI consumes 20w more than a Fury X and is 20% faster.

So what?

Meanwhile the Fury X can't overclock at all and the fucking 290x despite being twice as slow draws the same power.

File: power_average.png (45KB, 500x850px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x850px

>>51519790
Also the most power hungry 980 TI is watercooled and has a built in pump, the reason for the higher power consumption.

File: perfwatt_2560_1440.png (44KB, 500x850px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x850px

>>51519816
Pref/Watt

>>51519816
>is watercooled
>the reason for the higher power consumption.
so what does that make the fury x

>>51517354
>>51517532
>>51517455
Install GNU plus Linux
Even 20 year old ATI cards are still supported in the latest distros

>>51519876
An inefficient expensive alternative with no drivers.

File: perf_oc.png (32KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x450px

>>51519893
>An inefficient expensive 50% slower alternative with no drivers

Oops fixed.

A Fury X might be able to compete with a stock 980 TI in a non-gameworks game, but once you take overclocking into account it's at least 40% faster.

>its another 'amd fags desperately try to justify their purchases' thread

oh boy

>>51519825
Fury isn't doing too bad on that chart.

File: Screenshot_20151125-061136.png (684KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1440x2560px

>>51519929
Now here comes the $650 question, why would anyone buy a Fury X when a cool running non-reference 980 TI be had for as little as $520 now?

It is undeniably objectively better and it cost $130 less.

File: perfrel_3840_2160-1.png (51KB, 500x1050px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x1050px

>>51519929
>shills gonna shill

You do know there are such things as driver updates, right?

File: Metro_02.png (56KB, 1299x1841px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1299x1841px

>>51520000
Nice digits, also crossfire scales much better than sli does.

>Best performance non-Titan X high end GPU uses slightly more than AMD's crown jewel.

oh boohoo lel

>>51520040
>still loses to a non reference 980 ti

Why did you conveniently ignore that?

A stock 980 TI shouldn't even be looked at because it begins boost reduction at 65c, decreasing the core clock and overall performance. Non-reference cards retailed for $10 more than reference cards on release date. There is literally no reason to compare it to the stock cards other than cherry picking.

Anybody buying a 980 TI today will be getting a non reference card because it's cheaper than reference models.

>>51520058
Oh please, crossfire never works while SLI has a near perfect functioning rate. Far cry 4 still doesn't have CFX support.

Nvidia has AMD beat when it comes to multi gpu simply because it WORKS. It's not even worth discussing.

>Overclocked, watercooled and most powerful (outside Titan X) card uses power.
gee

didnt think of that

>>51520103
This review summed it up perfectly.

READ IT AND WEEP


AMD CrossFire Issues

This is really the saddening part of the whole ordeal, how many issues we encountered with AMD CrossFire versus NVIDIA SLI. We had no issues at all with NVIDIA SLI in these six games, no stutter, everything worked and it was a smooth gaming experience. With AMD CrossFire we had issues in 3 out of 6 games played.

We strongly feel that ASUS STRIX Radeon R9 Fury DC3 CrossFire has the potential to offer better performance than GeForce GTX 980 SLI. The issue lies in software support for AMD CrossFire versus NVIDIA SLI. In one of the games we tested AMD CrossFire doesn't even work at all, in two others there was extreme stuttering and odd framerate behavior. This is half of our game suite that exhibited an issue with AMD CrossFire.

Therein lies the main issue, there is a distinct discrepancy between AMD CrossFire and NVIDIA SLI in today's games. It is an issue of software support, and efficient use of the hardware feature through software in games. AMD has more problems with this than NVIDIA does. NVIDIA is on the ball at each new game release releasing "Game Ready" GeForce drivers with SLI profiles, AMD, isn't.

Instead, AMD releases drivers in a random fashion typically many weeks or months apart, with WHQL certified drivers lingering even longer. In order to provide proper AMD CrossFire support in games drivers need to be released more frequently with AMD CrossFire support at game launch. It needs to work, and it needs to work smoothly.

File: WD_01.png (59KB, 1299x1841px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1299x1841px

>>51520103
>crossfire never works
Such a shill thing to say.

Just admit it, a single 980 ti can beat a fury x through overclocking.
But even a pair of overclocked 980 ti cards in sli will lose to the fury x in mose games.

>>51520133

This is the main point of contention between AMD CrossFire and NVIDIA SLI. When AMD CrossFire is working well ASUS STRIX Radeon R9 Fury DC3 CrossFire video cards have the performance to beat GeForce GTX 980 SLI, but that's the catch, it has to be working well, and that isn't always so.

We want AMD CrossFire to succeed. Having a year old game like Farcry 4 not even support CrossFire by now is just not acceptable from a hardware owners perspective. AMD must push out new drivers with AMD CrossFire support for new games as frequently as NVIDIA does, otherwise it is always going to play catch-up. Catch-up is not good for people dealing out over $1100 for a GPU gaming solution.

>>51520133
What were the six games? I am not surprised if they were GameWerks Nvidia sponsored gaymes.

Honestly game benchmarks are so STUPID.
Most new games are SHIT

Who litereally fuck cares

I play SNES with 60inch 4k bravia because honestly there's been only so many good games in past decade..

File: TWA_01.png (57KB, 1299x1841px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1299x1841px

>>51520133
That's outdated.
AMD releases monthly drivers now.

>>51520154
now do a test with overclocked Fury X and overclocked 980 Ti.

>>51519358
Anon-chan, no need for insults since you didn't post the entire page. Faggot-san was just asking a question in a very rude manner.

I would've bought Fury X if that trash had overclocked as well as 980 Ti.

File: Screenshot_20151125-063901.png (679KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1440x2560px

>>51520141
Even the review you posted disagrees with you.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1033-gtx-980-ti-sli-r9-fury-x-crossfire/page7.html

You're fucking rekt m8, stop embarrassing yourself.


>>51520152
How many AAA released this year weren't a gameworks title?

I'm genuinely curious.

Maybe one?

Why choose to have the odds stacked against you and pay $130 for an objectively inferior card.

>>51520133
>WHQL certified drivers
Microsoft is a piece of shit in this regard desu.

File: Witcher_01-1.png (59KB, 1299x1841px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1299x1841px

>>51520185
That is a test with both sli/cfx setups overclocked you cunt.

>>51520204
>unironically shilling for Gameworks
lol I got 980Ti and even I don't do that

File: Screenshot_20151125-064444.png (614KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1440x2560px

>>51520199
Yeah they lied about the overclocking capability.

>>51520216
why no single card OC comparison

File: Screenshot_2015-11-25-22-45-28.png (308KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1080x1920px

>>51520204
Lol

>>51520232
Can you post single card OC comparison

>>51520217
>telling the truth is shilling

I'm being fucking serious here, what major game released this year wasn't a gameworks title?

All I know is Battlefront.

And that shit cost $60.

With $120 worth of DLCs planned.

File: Witcher_02.png (56KB, 1299x1841px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1299x1841px

>>51520225
It's a review to compare fury x crossfire vs 980 ti sli.
It's not a 980 ti or fury x single card review.

>>51520152
You are just stuck in the nostalgia tinted past.

Plenty of great games have come out, grandpa.

>>51520238
Single card oc the 980 ti wins.
Fury x only beats stock 980 ti at 4k, matches it at 1440p, and loses at 1080p.
But multi gpu, the fury x will beat the 980 ti in most games.

>>51520266
crossfire doesn't work.

4gb isn't enough.

>>51520256
like what

I can only name GTA V and the Witcher 2.
and [spoiler]dota2[/spoiler]

>>51520266
Thanks, I knew I didn't have to regret by getting 980Ti because the overclocking capability on single card literally made the dela for me

>>51520288
Go to >>>/v/, go ask them.

Way too many to list, and personal taste plays a big part.

Why the fuck are you buying a 980ti, if you just play old shit.

>>51520303
I asked you since you said many great games have been released for PC recently.

>>51520329
You can find all the latest great games here

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/tag/nvidia-gameworks

>>51520288
Yeah, the fury x overclocks by maybe 75mhz?
But the 980 ti can overclock much better.

Also you can buy a regular fury and unlock it, I heard.

But the 980 ti is still the best single gpu card for 1080p.

>>51520329
I have no intention of looking up shit you might like.

You managed to stumble upon 4chan, I'll assume you can use a search engine.

>BTW never said recently, what an indefinite time frame...

>>51520341
What about for 1440p single best card

>>51520355
See >>51519790

What fucking site is the most honest one when reviewing tech.

Non-biased
one that isn't bought by AMD or Nvidia

>>51516234
I want to see the day AMD perfects CPU/GPU/APU and we finally get cute AMD powered laptops.

I am tried of being deceived.

I could not give any less of a shit about power consumption on a desktop computer. This is such a strange metric to use in a fight when we are talking pennies of difference over a year of at load use.

Power consumption is irrelevant.

-Guy who currently has a Intel/Nvidia rig, had a AMD/Nvidia rig 6 years ago and a AMD/ATi rig 10 years ago.

>>51521289
>power consumption is irrelevant

Why do people keep saying this? It's really fucking relevant.

I bought my 980 way back knowing it'll run just fine on my 650w psu and I can add another in sli later on down the line without any problems. If I went for amd I'd have to buy a new psu to crossfire the equivalent 390x. There are way too many tradeoffs when it comes to amd. It's generally not worth it for those 5 extra frames.

>>51521410
>650W PSU on a 980 SLI

Yeah, because your caps stay at 100% all the time, your CPU or GPU can't be overclocked, you have only a single HDD, etc.

Running your PSU at 80%+ load is not a very smart thing to do.
Nor is it efficient, PSUs run best at 50% load

>>51521643
This.

People don't even know why 144hz monitors are a thing. Its so you can play with vsync on at 144fps. So your gpu isnt running 80+% all the time trying to push 600fps. Vsync is there to spare your gpu and psu more so than to prevent tearing.

>>51521643
You're retarded. There is nothing wrong with running your PSU at 80%. Even when you use the brain-dead argument of PSUs are most efficient at 50% load, you're almost NEVER going to see maximum power consumption load outside of synthetic situations.

My computer hardware uses somewhere around 500VA in synthetic full load but in normal gaming and benchmarking situation the load is under 400VA. At idle it's barely over 100VA.

The only thing that isn't efficient is running your PSU over 100% or under 20%.

PSUs DO NOT care of their load until it surpasses its 100% load.

Most people go WAY overkill on PSUs.

File: 67955.png (38KB, 650x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x400px

AMD cant even compete with the 970.

>>51520490

uh, more like $100 more a year if you're using a mid range AMD GPU and gaming 20 hours a week

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_devil_radeon_r9_390x_review,8.html

Funny how power draw didn't matter when Nvidia cards required a nuclear reactor to power. They drop power draw slightly and suddenly its a big thing.

Remember: kepler is just as thirsty as GCN but this fact is ignored as marketing is trying to sell maxwell gpus.

>>51524053
>They drop power draw slightly and suddenly its a big thing.

it's a big deal because power draw was reduced by 20-30% while increasing performance by a similar factor, alongside really good overclockability. all without a node shrink.

>>51524102

Which they did by ripping out a load of hardware scheduling. Granted that isn't something that games worry about right now but the whole hoopla over async compute arose because users discovered Nvidia's cards were acting wonky.

GPGPU is on the rise and that is an area where you want your shit hardware based, not software.

>>51524166
>Which they did by ripping out a load of hardware scheduling.

async compute's been a feature of cuda since 2010, they couldn't 'rip it out' without violating their own spec.

File: 2558710.jpg (80KB, 657x344px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 657x344px

>>51524201

For cuda yes, but cuda and general shader workloads don't play nice. It is why Nvidia doesn't want devs doing lots of context switching as it kills performance - GCN however does not care.

>>51524229
What is context switching?

>>51524253

In simple terms-

Do workload A
Halt partway through compute
Do workload B
Finish B
Go back to A

>>51524253
He's just parroting forum posts.

>>51524229
>It is why Nvidia doesn't want devs doing lots of context switching as it kills performance

context switching would imply that the work can't be done asynchronously/concurrently in the first place.

Can AMD do any sort of GPU computing like in Blender or video rendering?

File: nvidia cannot into compute.jpg (83KB, 1026x839px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1026x839px

>>51524320

¯\(°_o)/¯

File: hmmm.png (11KB, 470x454px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 470x454px

http://wccftech.com/preemption-context-switching-allegedly-best-amd-pretty-good-intel-catastrophic-nvidia/

File: 31-OpenCL-ratGPU_w_600.png (67KB, 600x594px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x594px

>>51524320
Why would you subject yourself to AMD (opencl) when CUDA is infinitely faster?

>>51524388
My current video card is not able to run all my displays correctly and I get artifacts and stuttering which messes with my work flow.
Only have about $350 to upgrade.

>>51524416
Used 780 ti then, goes for $150 b-stock. Just avoid AMD unless you want headaches.

>worried about power consumption
>uses amd cpus instead of intel
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

>>51524441

This is ignoring a recent swathe of geforce drivers that have been unstable as fuck right?

>>51524441
Can a 780 Ti drive a 144Hz 1080p display and a 4k 60Hz one?

File: P1020269_0.jpg (54KB, 602x339px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 602x339px

>>51524441

You cant get a 780ti for 150. They're 280+ on a good day. Don't lie to people

>>51524489
No HDMI 2.0, so you'll need DisplayPort for both but yes.

>>51524485
He needs CUDA you illiterate. Opencl is literally cancer with bugs everywhere.

>>51524489
Considering it supports 4k 60hz surround yeah.

>>51524518
Not him but: they sold out recently but EVGA's B-stock had 780ti SC's for $200.

>>51524545
Nah I was talking about the kingpin models, they go for $159.

The regular ones goes for $119 IIRC.

I got the kp model a month ago with the check for change extention. Just keep refreshing the page.

>>51524578
>780ti kingpin for $159
Nigga where
I work for EVGA and we dont even get discounts like that

>>51524592
Tell me about EVGA 980 Ti how faulty is the watercooling innit

I need an upgrade really bad, should I join the power hungry AMD masterrace and get an Asus R9 380 for 208 european fundollars?

That is really the cheapest I can get it in germany, wish we had newegg here.

>>51524602
The hybrid?
We hear about dead fans more often than dead pumps.
They're about as reliable as any other Asetek water cooling clone, which is pretty reliable. If it works out of the box it'll probably work for the next couple of years, and they're covered by warranty anyways.

>>51524658
What happened to -AR cards? Are they ever coming back?

>>51524706
No.
In 2011 the warranty got changed, limited lifetime warranties are still honored (provided you meet all the requirements) but are no longer offered on new products.
If your -AR product got RMA'd however, and was replaced with a newer P/N (say, a GTX 970 from a GTX 680), that product will carry the -AR warranty however.