So what happened? Did AMD just destroy Nvidia? When are the Vega

Well according to AMD fanboys
>ENGINEERING SAMPLE!
>NO VENTILATION!
>UNDERCLOCKED MEMORY!
>IMPROPER DRIVERS!
So I assume vega still has a year or two before it's ready to sell

>>58345414
Yep, and Nvidia is now going away from the Graphics Cards market and Hosting Game Streaming servers

>>58345683
It destroyed the 1080 on Doom though

>>58345975
lol ok

>>58345975
It matched the 1080 on doom
Also doom is one of, if not the most well running game of 2016, using it as a comparison, good or bad, is just dumb

File: 1461696948899.png (276KB, 586x634px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 586x634px

>>58346023
>game is well-written and optimized properly, so there is no point in using it as benchmark
i think it's the other way around, anon

>>58345414
go away thyme

>>58345683
Vega is coming out later 2017 wtf you talking about lol. I don't mind being corrected tho

File: 1483648346062.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>58345683
>Well according to AMD fanboys
No. It's according to The Tech report.

http://techreport.com/review/31224/the-curtain-comes-up-on-amd-vega-architecture/4

Also, the "infamous" frame drop that spurred these discussions only happens for a tiny fraction of a second, as you can see in the webm and the video below.

https://youtu.be/Ku5OMWYVKSs?t=23s

In other words, nothing to freak out over.

>>58348185
No, actually it isn't. It would be the other way around if the majority of games were well optimized and doom was just a slightly better one. The reality is nearly every single game is a complete piece of shit in terms of optimization so you might as well start running synthetic benchmarks as comparison

>>58349642
>let's test hardware on crappy code
>people buy hardware that does well in tests
>and so, hardware manufacturers stops making proper hardware and starts making hardware that runs shitty code better
>2030 cpu market, everyone still use dualcores, maybe quadcores

>>58349705
You can strawman all you want and it won't the fact that the absolute vast majority of games are optimized pieces of shit so if you're only willing to do a benchmark on a surprisingly well optimized one you might as well run synthetic benchmarks because they will give you the same type of result.

>>58349741
>strawman
?

look, either you decide to encourage crappy code or not, and i believe crappy code shouldn't be encouraged. i get your point, but saying that running benchmark on properly written games is "dumb" is well, dumb

>>58349779
Look you either decide to face reality or you don't and if you don't want to face reality that nearly every game is terribly coded YOU MIGHT AS WELL RUN SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS (please read the part in caps this time).
I understand what you're saying but gaming companies don't give a flying fuck about it. They will continue to release games that look bad in comparison with games from 2013 and run much worse. Running only a doom benchmark doesn't give the customer a real world scenario comparison unless he only wants to play doom

I think the real question here is when is is nvidia gonna drop its prices due to this so I can upgrade?