Want to jump ship to amd

[Silver_Pharaoh]

Does anyone really care about power consumption in the high end? Sure it's for the future and the nature and all that stuff but we are talking about a niche market. There is no point in the power efficiency of the card. As long as the cooler is strong enough it doesnt matter.

Woah woah woah. Hold on here.

Of course it matters, it all adds up overtime you know. Especially to folders and miners.
Unless you are Cryptomining there's no way Nvidia makes inferior hardware. I had a nice R9 280x OC'd quite high and? My GTX 780 is smoother is games and is more powerful than said 280x. Nvidia is tweaked more for games, AMD is IMO a good all-round GPU.

Going to AMD (from a preformace point) is a waste.
But if ya really want an AMD card, by all means go ahead. I did the same with my AMD rig. I knew the FX6300 was weaker than my 3570K I had but I wanted AMD anyway.


And also, plz don't bring up the stupid 3.5Gb RAM thing again, it's a dead horse. Unless you are pushing many monitors and high resolutions, 4Gb is a plenty right now. I also fail to see how Nvidia "screws over customers"..

 

[myndlessdayz]

900 series is NVidia's current Gen (i.e. Your 980) Aside from Pascal coming out this later this year which isn't out yet. Im confused on what generation of cards you are talking about. Unless you are talking about AMD's last gen cards.

Anyway, I consider my system pretty high end and power consumption is a pretty top priority considering I had SLI 980 TIs (just sold one as it was really unnecessary).I like not having to need more than a 750w psu while running an oc'd 6700k and SLI 980 TIs whereas I've read, minimum for A similar system with a Fury X (sorry I do feel the need to compare both sides current gem) needs a minimum 850w is a trade off I'd personally take.

 

[Tokae]

I think from what I read, is that he just wants to get some money for his 980x before the next gen debuts, and he wants to get an AMD card that will run Witcher 3 decently. Between the 980x and the AMD cards (going back to the 290x) the AMD cards are performing better with DX 12 currently. Not a big deal really.

 

[EarthDog]

the AMD cards are performing better with DX 12 currently

Here is a good, updated review from Anand on DX12 and Ashes of the Singularity... both DX11, DX12, and CPU comparisons are in this review (those AMD chips... )...this is of course only one title.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1081-dx11-vs-dx12-ashes/

 

[Nebulous]

Here is a good, updated review from Anand on DX12 and Ashes of the Singularity... both DX11, DX12, and CPU comparisons are in this review (those AMD chips... )...this is of course only one title.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1081-dx11-vs-dx12-ashes/

Good read, thx Joe

 

[Tokae]

The biggest thing to take away from the whole DX 12 issue is that yes, there are no games out yet really using it, and also that obviously all future cards from both camps will utilize it in the most efficient manner possible.

 

[deathman20]

Here is a good, updated review from Anand on DX12 and Ashes of the Singularity... both DX11, DX12, and CPU comparisons are in this review (those AMD chips... )...this is of course only one title.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1081-dx11-vs-dx12-ashes/

That is a good article. I just came up with rather drastically different results with my i5 & AMD GPU. Where DX11 did ok, and DX12 mopped the floor with DX11 twice over. Actually found that DX11 @ 1080p was just as good as DX12 @ 4k... got slightly better FPS, but looked much nicer in DX12.
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...ty-benchmark?p=7902387&viewfull=1#post7902387

Me personally I've liked AMD cards more than nVidia over the years. More so it was cheaper and got similar if not same performance after OCing it as the nVidia card it matched. Things have changed slightly since the newer cards have come up but I've always enjoyed AMD cards more than nVidia except my 4400Ti and 660 I had back in the day

 

[EarthDog]

No clue why you are seeing that results there. Heavily CPU bound still is my guess.

I have the game, I should test it...........

 

[DaveB]

Well, I've been going from AMD to Nvidia and back for years. Since 2012 I've owned the following at various times: Nvidia - GTX 660, GTX 760, GTX 960, GTX 980 and GTX 980TI; AMD HD 7750, HD 7770, HD 7950, HD 7970, R9 270, R9 280X, R9 290, R9 290X and R9 Fury. I've used mostly AMD cards because I was able to get them used fairly cheap on eBay, not because they are better. The higher-end AMD cards require more power and get very noisy under load, while the newer Maxwell-based Nvidia cards run cool and quiet. The reference design R9 290 would hit 95C under load and sounded like a vacuum cleaner, while the dual fan R9 290X was better it still got too loud under load. The Fury was better still, but was too long for my normal case so it had to go. So I replaced it with a smaller, more power efficient, quieter and better performing GTX 980TI.

Anyway, the OP's posts show an AMD fan bias and you can't argue with that since much of the reasoning is illogical and contrary to the facts. The facts are that AMD GPUs are fine and will get the job done, but are NOT currently superior to Nvidia in real world performance. AMD GPUs need to become more power efficient and the Fury line really needs 8GB of HBM to shine at 4K. Of course by then, Pascal will be out from Nvidia with HBM, and it will be "game on"! But, it is nice to have a real competition here on the GPU side, with good performing cards from AMD and Nvidia, as opposed to the CPU side, where Intel dominates AMD almost totally and FIN-FET Zen offering only parity.