Fury X or 980Ti/1070

>980ti
>runs cooler

kek

>>55661300

get the 1070. it can actually overclock unlike the fury x.

>>55661381
>buying outdated tech

nice meme pajeet

get a 1070
it can actually run dx12 unlike the 900 series.

File: 75498.png (34KB, 650x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 650x400px

>>55661300
>Much stronger in DX11, overwhelmingly at that
At 1080p perhaps. As you bump up the resolution, the Fury X gets much closer.

>runs colder
Not unless you also have a water cooled 980 Ti/1070.

>need less electricity
A whopping 20W or so compared to the 980 Ti. That'll save you at least a couple of bucks a year on electricity. :^)

I'd take the Fury X over a 980 Ti any day. Futuremark have confirmed that Maxwell is utterly cucked as far as asynchronous compute is concerned, with Nvidia disabling it intentionally at a driver level. Add that to the fact that Maxwell won't be getting any more performance tweaks and the 980 Ti will be rendered a piece of shit six months from now, as the 780 Ti was before it.

I'd honestly go for the Fury X.

>>55661300

>Fury X: destroys everyone in Doom Vulkan Async compute

Typical uninformed AMD fag. Most of the performance increase does not come from async compute. It comes from the fact that AMD's OpenGL and DirectX drivers are shite with huge overheads.

Async compute only gives 10-15% performance increase. The rest comes from the low overhead API.

>>55661300
I'm thinking hard about the Fury-X but even the non X is nice.

>>55661300
I've been happy with my Fury X since day one.
Drivers are getting much, much better. All around it's a great card these days.

>>55663890
The reason for the increase doesn't matter, what does matter is that this card now butchers any other card in dx12, you can cry all you want about how shit the drivers are, but at the end what matters is performance.

>>55661300
Don't count on Vulkan. Seriously. You remember that API that was supposed to double performance and do all kinds of cool things? I can't even remember the name but it came out in like two games with minimal gains. The only thing I'm interested in as far as AMD tech goes atm is HDR for pc monitors. That looks cool.

File: 1419459288589.jpg (11KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x300px

I have no idea why AMDrones are "betting on Vulkan".
It's Mantle 2.0.
Enjoy your second round of disappointment.

File: death-grips-guillotine-o.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>55663296
Til you get over the 4gb vram limit and it's all downhill from there.

>>55666307
That's the one! Mantle, yeah, really was a massive letdown. Vulkan is supposed to be build partially on Mantle.

Why bet on Vulkan at all ?

I mean the xb1 supports (some if not all) of DX12.

Not to say it doesnt have its place, but as a developer for the xb1 you will be forced to make use of DX12, so why wouldnt you simply copy and paste what you could and use it on the PC as well.

Right now Vulkan for all its virtues just isnt nearly widespread as DX12.

We can argue all we want about the quality of these games, but you can see that DX12 adoption is taking off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_12_support

Meanwhile vulkan is limited to 4 games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Vulkan_support

>>55661300
Ship yo silly ass back to >>>/v/

File: async.png (104KB, 1792x826px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1792x826px

>>55663890
There are doom benchmark that don't use async compute, you know that right?

So we can easily compare two sets of Vulkan data point and compare between async and async off. You won't get a perfect picture, but you can get how much of a relative increase it has over competition. 980ti/1070.

Pics related. Comparing relative performance delta between no async and async.

>>55666247
>Nintendo supporting Vulkan
>Sony already using parts of Mantle
>Google supporting Vulkan
>EA supporting Vulkan
>Unreal supporting Vulkan
>Unity supporting Vulkan
>Valve supporting Vulkan
>id supporting Vulkan

By device volume, Vulkan will have majority platform share in two years. It will start by becoming the standard for mobile gaming and consoles, then will end up slowly winning against DX12. You really think we're going to be on DX11 and OpenGL for another 10 years? It's the best option for mobile and console in the years to come, and developers are aware of that.

>>55661300
I was choosing between the 980 and Fury non-X last year. I went for the Fury and clocked it to 1150Mhz. It's honestly my favorite GPU I've owned, very few problems, great performance (freesync is lovely but that's another topic) and very quiet too.

My only complaint with the Fury was the UEFI BIOS .rom it came with was busted so couldn't boot in a VM using OVMF. Flashing a new BIOS Sapphire put out fixed that though.

>>55661300
OP, which games do you want to play and how long will you keep your card? If you just want to play current DX11 titles and replace your card after about a year, get the 1070. If you want to play upcoming games on Vulcan/DX12 (the new Deus-Ex, Battlefield 1, Civ 6, Halo Wars 2, Source 2 games, ect, ect...) and keep your card for a few years absolutely get the Fury-X. While it's not as optimized for DX11 work like Maxwell/Pascal, it has more compute power and memory bandwidth for good performance in a wider variety of APIs.

>>55661418
bait

>>55661300
New fury x on amazon: 399$
New gtx 1070 on amazon: 409$
What do i get /g/?

>>55661300
yes its right to bet on vulkan. all high profile future games will have it as an option and older ones will be updated to have it as an option, such as dota and doom did.

vulkan is the future.

>>55661300
I got a used MSI 980ti gaming 6G for 350 euro.

1,5 years of warranty left on it, pretty sweet deal

nv vulkan driver isn't ready yet, when it is ayymd will be smashed just like always

>expecting anyone other than id to use vulkan

The API war is over. DX12 won, as we all knew.

File: xBgSksM.jpg (18KB, 340x260px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 340x260px

>>55668659

Not only does NV already support vulkan in their driver (fun fact: they had support before AMD) the claim that NV will smash AMD once it gets drivers is nearly a year old now (namely due to the evolution of star swarm -> AoTS).

>>55668659
Its ready for nvidia. But the shroud of confusion is created by nvidia and the GPU reviewers don't try to clarify the situation. They have vulkan driver. They have software async compute. However they disabled async compute on maxwell and before. They use software preemption on pascal's "async compute".

File: 2828467.jpg (55KB, 637x375px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 637x375px

>>55668659

>>55668531
If you plan on playing newer games like BF1 than get the fury x

If you want to waitfag for stock and only play old games at lower resolutions (1080p) get the 1070

>>55668949
Im waitfagging either way, amazon has none of either in stock.

>>55668949

>Fury x

Nah, the time to buy that card has passed. There have been a few killer deals on the regular fury recently and that has been worth it but the fury x? Its days are numbered.

>>55661300
Fury x was 200 DOLLARS YESTERDAY

get over the shitty memes. Do you really let memes dictate what you purchase? You can still get a fury for 100 less than ti.

>>55669253
Where? Wtf

>>55663296
How do I play 1440p with fury when it's 4gb

>>55663469
Fury Xs don't seem to go for as cheap as 980TIs do these days. If you're too jew to go 10 series then that's probably a big deal to you.

File: gold.jpg (2MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x5000px

come back to me when AMD can beat the 1080

>>55669354
Not even an ayymd shill but I highly doubt their Vega equivalent is going to fall short of the 1080 if it comes out 6 months after the 1080 is released.

>>55668949
wtf? why wouldn't you play game on 1440p with 1070?

>>55669829

To be prepared for the gimping.

>>55669354
2x RX480 4GB can beat it easily.

>>55669639
>doubting the ineptitude of AyyMD

>>55669963
>Crossfire rx480
not according to the benchmarks