Recommend me a new graphics card?

[Achandler]

I wrote a big reply, but realise it wasn't worth it when the thread had degenerated to "Internet facts" and what press who are sent freebies think. I settle the point by saying the standard of technology press nowadays has people like Rory Cellan-Jones in it, who has no idea about technology.

[ZeroHour]

I wrote a big reply, but realise it wasn't worth it when the thread had degenerated to "Internet facts" and what press who are sent freebies think. I settle the point by saying the standard of technology press nowadays has people like Rory Cellan-Jones in it, who has no idea about technology.

 

Thats not really a fair evaluation of the thread, I fully admit I was not aware of the current generation and although there are a lot who like Nvidia here I have seen similar love for AMD on other sites. If someone is wrong I would hope people here would respect the correction and not take it personally, likewise I would expect the reply to not have any personal remarks either (this is not specifically target at you, it seems to be occurring too much nowadays), ignore who is posting, just concentrate on the post and civil replies.

 

I mostly read Ars Technica for tech stuff as I think they are always fair but I was not in the market for the current generation cards so I have not read up but I watched this thread to see what everyone else thought.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ZeroHour

[localzuk]

I wrote a big reply, but realise it wasn't worth it when the thread had degenerated to "Internet facts" and what press who are sent freebies think. I settle the point by saying the standard of technology press nowadays has people like Rory Cellan-Jones in it, who has no idea about technology.

 

Rory Cellan-Jones is not really IT press. He's BBC fluff press. Kinda offensive to denigrate the views of other members here like that. You're basically just stomping your feet now. Rather than huffing, why not show us why we're wrong.

 

Why should I have chosen a Radeon 290X (which is the nearest card, performance-wise) instead of the GTX 970? They're priced nearly identically, but the 290X runs hotter and uses more power. The GTX gives about 5-10% higher performance in real world game testing (looking at FPS in various settings, like here Battlefield 4 & Bioshock Infinite - - Opinion - Trusted Reviews).

[ZeroHour]

Why should I have chosen a Radeon 290X (which is the nearest card, performance-wise) instead of the GTX 970? They're priced nearly identically, but the 290X runs hotter and uses more power. The GTX gives about 5-10% higher performance in real world game testing (looking at FPS in various settings, like here Battlefield 4 & Bioshock Infinite - - Opinion - Trusted Reviews).

 

Both based on that are good cards, really it would be down to preference and price, if the AMD is 20% cheaper its a possible but if everything is pretty equal then either way you wont go wrong with either but a free bit of extra performance is nice, I am sure if the cards were tipped in AMD's favour others would buy it then based on that.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ZeroHour

[3s-gtech]

That was true around the AMD 5000/6000 series and the nVidia 400/500 series that were their contemporaries (the Fermi chip), but nVidia's current Maxwell chip is an absolute stonker for power efficiency.

 

AMD's current problem is how long it's been since they last released an actual new chip, not just a refinement of existing & lots of rebrands; I think it was the 7000 series three years ago.

 

An interesting chart I saw this morning, showing how AMD's market share is tanking at the moment: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/nvidia-shows-signs-of-strain.43294/page-161#post-1828480

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30181[/ATTACH]

(click for bigger)

 

All true, except that AMD's last new 'chip' was GCN 1.2 (you're thinking of 1.0) which was around eight months ago (R9 285). That was a minor evolution - GCN 1.1 was a bigger step up, around 18 months ago (R9 290 and 290X). Not quite so far out of the running, though the Rx 300 series is well overdue now.

[sonofsanta]

All true, except that AMD's last new 'chip' was GCN 1.2 (you're thinking of 1.0) which was around eight months ago (R9 285). That was a minor evolution - GCN 1.1 was a bigger step up, around 18 months ago (R9 290 and 290X). Not quite so far out of the running, though the Rx 300 series is well overdue now.

 

True, but I was thinking in terms of a full refresh - the 600 series was all new from the mid-end up, the 900 series is all new from the mid end up (if you count the 750Ti, which is the same architecture). AMD have spent the last few generations introducing one new chip at the top and just shuffling everything else down and rebranding it. And even then, GCN1.2 is still only a refinement - Kepler and Maxwell were all new designs. There should really be a GCN 2.0 by now, except AMD don't have the R&D resources anymore. Hopefully the HBM stuff works out for them.

 

I love AMD. I'm British, I always love the underdog! But they have been left behind in CPUs, and they are in very real danger of the same happening in GPUs at the moment. As it is they've already fallen back onto their CPU strategy of "cut all the prices!" They can't be making much money on selling the big R9 chips at the prices nVidia are forcing them to sell at.

[rob101]

All true, except that AMD's last new 'chip' was GCN 1.2 (you're thinking of 1.0) which was around eight months ago (R9 285). That was a minor evolution - GCN 1.1 was a bigger step up, around 18 months ago (R9 290 and 290X). Not quite so far out of the running, though the Rx 300 series is well overdue now.

 

I think that is overdue because it wasn't a match for the 970 so are trying to release with an clear % performance increase over the Nvida offering, But Nvidia have the 980ti waiting in the wings to release once AMD release there new card to trump them again, AMD are behind now and it might be quite hard to get ahead again give how good the 970 and 980 are, still not enough of a jump for me yet as i have an Radeon 7970, it struggles sometimes pushing 1440p but when i spend the money it want to feel the speed increase, nothing worse than buying something and regretting it when it did not meet you expectation.

[3s-gtech]

All agreed. I hope that Rx 300 brings some fight into things, without being too hot and hungry. I still think that the R9 295X is a ridiculous bargain, even if it uses ALL OF THE POWER.

 

AMD upping their game should also push Nvidia harder too - better prices, the 980Ti and 960Ti, and hopefully some super efficient low end stuff ideal for HTPCs.

[synaesthesia]

Blimey, bit of bashing on here! Must admit, hunting for a new midrange card currently and I don't think I'll need to go much further than the 750Ti. I'm moving from an AMD 6870 and power efficiency & bang for buck doesn't appear quite there. Give or take on drivers, reliability etc otherwise! I have no loyalty to either, I'll just be buying what's best value at the time

[3s-gtech]

If you're looking at the 750Ti, take a look at the R9 270 (not fanboyism, just check some benchmarks). The AMD card is a beefier architecture, at exactly the same price point.

[synaesthesia]

Tested a 270 a while ago. I was impressed with its performance but less so with it's power consumption. The one I had was reference and it was bloody noisy, so would have to look for a more expensive model with decent cooler.

[localzuk]

Already ordered the GTX970.