Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [ZD]AMD Q3: Beats expectations, returns to profitability
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[ZD]AMD Q3: Beats expectations, returns to profitability - Page 9

post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pheonix777z View Post

Hmm not convinced, the only thing the 290X properly beats the 780 / Titan on is Heat and noise. The stock 780 / Titan are very conservatively clocked at stock so it appears that the higher clocked 290X beats them at stock. The tables turn however when you overclock the cards with the 780 and Titan handily beating the 290X @ 1080P and 1440P. Resolution people actually play on.


"Price/performance" was his main argument. Seriously, we are going to debate that? I know that the 290x has its negatives (heat and overclocking ability)..... but stil.
post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFPS View Post

I'm not bias at all. You do realize your trying to compare your two video cards to my one, and you still lost. Maybe thats why you thought I was using phyix. I was not. Not at all so wise up.
You say one minute your willing to look up the score and then you turn right around and say you'll ignore me if I reply. Damed if you do and damed if you don't, typical.

That speaks for itself doesn't it. I brought charts from reviews proving beyond the shadow of a doubt. What did you bring? NOTHING again, like always!


Your wrong by the way. Cards have launched and amd stock is stuck at 3.53 a share. Up +2.6%

I was going to ignore this, but then I decided I wanted to reply...Everyone knows of your bias on these forums, no use trying to say otherwise.

I was trying to say that two last generation cards were equal to a (then) current generation one and yes, you were using PhysX effected GPU scores. That took all of 5 minutes to find via Google. You also had plenty of people calling you out in that thread and refused to listen when I was comparing GPU score alone because of the whole Vantage+PhysX thing and the fact I don't need any benchmark to tell me a 3.6Ghz Phenom II x4 is slower than the 4Ghz+ i7s you were comparing it to. rolleyes.gif

I still even have the screenshot I took of my Vantage results...18138 for the GPU score, which was equal/slightly higher than a few of the stock results here with a weaker overall CPU. (It's fairly well known that AMD struggled with mutltiple GPUs, and I had a 3.6Ghz Phenom II x4 at that point)

And yes, I was wrong about the stock price going back up.
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

I was going to ignore this, but then I decided I wanted to reply...Everyone knows of your bias on these forums, no use trying to say otherwise.


And yes, I was wrong about the stock price going back up.

I'm not bias. I buy and uses what works. Yes you are wrong about a lot of things mainly my vantage score. Your was gpu score 18,139, mine was 38,724 for one gpu without the use of phyix. You brought this on your self! Will this drop the Vantge whining once and for all, how i cheated and used physix? I didn't and this proves it.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/2802513
Quote:
VANTAGE
Add to compare
VALID RESULT
SCORE
P34191 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480(1x) and Intel Core i7-920 Processor
Graphics Score 38724
CPU Score 25304
SHOW RESULT DETAILS

Edited by DrFPS - 10/27/13 at 1:44pm
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
post #84 of 88
What the hell is that 480 clocked at?! Because in that thread on eVGA, the fastest single GTX 480 gets 27921 on its graphics score...With its shaders at 2Ghz and watercooling.

Your results are way out of line with normal GTX 480s, and my GPU score is definitely comparable to GTX 480s in a thread with plenty of people posting the scores, what TH said a GTX 480 gets, etc.]

Not to mention, the score you were using in that thread even says "Physx Enabled" in the description. thumb.gif

I should bloody well know that my HD4890s were as fast as a GTX 480 considering I've ran my GTX 470 at speeds where it equals/beats a 480 (I ran it at 830Mhz) and the HD4890s were still about equal albeit with a little more stutter, they destroyed my 470 at stock speeds.
post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFPS View Post

I'm not bias. I buy and uses what works. Yes you are wrong about a lot of things mainly my vantage score. Your was gpu score 18,139, mine was 38,724 for one gpu without the use of phyix. You brought this on your self! Will this drop the Vantge whining once and for all, how i cheated and used physix? I didn't and this proves it.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/2802513
Gotta say I don't know much about Vantage but after looking at the results and where you placed, I am gonna call foul as well. Your score was among SLI 480s and near the top of them. Sorry but in any statistical analysis outliers are always disregarded and this is why. For any number of reasons and in this case for sure results that fall well outside of the general expected results only serve to skew and give a false likelihood for general expected outcomes. And I have to say you had to do something to achieve that score outside of the parameters others obviously followed.
post #86 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

What the hell is that 480 clocked at?! Because in that thread on eVGA, the fastest single GTX 480 gets 27921 on its graphics score...With its shaders at 2Ghz and watercooling.

Your results are way out of line with normal GTX 480s, and my GPU score is definitely comparable to GTX 480s in a thread with plenty of people posting the scores, what TH said a GTX 480 gets, etc.]

Not to mention, the score you were using in that thread even says "Physx Enabled" in the description. thumb.gif

No it did NOT!!! Show me the thread. You just dont get it, do you? Does it say "VALID RESULTS". Look at the date its the very same score you keep whining on. 12-18-2010 3 years ago. Gee. I broke a world record with that score for about 30 min LOl. I might add. Not the first the world record I broke. Its a fact.

Some people you just can't make happy no matter how much proof you bring. What have you brought? Nada, not one thing, other than your poor memory. Just stop OK? This my last post on the subject. At least you didn't call bias this time, so I did make some headway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Gotta say I don't know much about Vantage

No KIDDING? Nuff said right there. LOL cheers.gif
Edited by DrFPS - 10/27/13 at 10:03pm
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFPS View Post

No it did NOT!!! Show me the thread. You just dont get it, do you? Does it say "VALID RESULTS". Look at the date its the very same score you keep whining on. 12-18-2010 3 years ago. Gee. I broke a world record with that score for about 30 min LOl. I might add. Not the first the world record I broke. Its a fact.

Some people you just can't make happy no matter how much proof you bring. What have you brought? Nada, not one thing, other than your poor memory. Just stop OK? This my last post on the subject. At least you didn't call bias this time, so I did make some headway.

I did, above? I linked it, but here it is again. You're comparing the absolute best GTX 480 score you can find while I was sitting there saying my HD4890s could match a GTX 480 and only proving your bias.

What proof have I bought? Uh...Have you even looked at my posts or just skimmed them? I've given you Vantage results where the GTX 480 is scoring around or under the HD4890 CFX results, in that other thread there were results showing the HD4890s were faster than a GTX 295 which was around a stock GTX 480 and can find many other results backing up what I said. If I still even had the HD4890s I'd bench them against my GTX 470. (OCed to come as closely to a 480 as I could make it) You on the other hand, have linked a score that is by far an outlier from all other results and is higher than a stock GTX 590 and nearing a freaking Mars II in score, without admitting despite plenty of evidence to the contrary that HD4890 CFX can match a GTX 480 at stock/a low OC.

Yes, you are biased and anyone can clearly see that by what you're saying: That a GTX 480, OCed highly enough to get results typical from a GTX 590 (Which, may I remind you, is 2x underclocked GTX 580s) is enough to say that HD4890 CFX cannot beat any GTX 480, despite it having a higher 3DMark Vantage score and cards with similar/lesser performance being around the stock 480.
post #88 of 88
In no way is your petty discussion related to this topic. Plz take it somewhere else...
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-6200 @ 4.5 (250x18) 1.44v 2500 NB/HT Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0 Gigabyte R9 280 windforce (1100/1450) Mushkin Blackline + Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Kingston SSDnow v300 Corsair Force GS 240 Swiftech Storm 2 /// MC655 pump /// Fesser 240 Windows Professional 64bit 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
32inch Seiki 5ms 1080p Silverstone 650 corsair obsidian 650D Asus Xonar 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-6200 @ 4.5 (250x18) 1.44v 2500 NB/HT Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0 Gigabyte R9 280 windforce (1100/1450) Mushkin Blackline + Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Kingston SSDnow v300 Corsair Force GS 240 Swiftech Storm 2 /// MC655 pump /// Fesser 240 Windows Professional 64bit 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
32inch Seiki 5ms 1080p Silverstone 650 corsair obsidian 650D Asus Xonar 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [ZD]AMD Q3: Beats expectations, returns to profitability