Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [HOCP] AMD Gains 4.8% Market Share In Q2 2016
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[HOCP] AMD Gains 4.8% Market Share In Q2 2016 - Page 7

post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slomo4shO View Post

Why would anyone call WQXGA+ 1800P?

Microsoft calls it PixelSense, Apple calls it Retna, Lenovo calls it Quad HD+, etc...

Calling WQXGA+ displays 1800P just makes one sound incompetent in their capacity to correct their typos rolleyes.gif
No one knows what any of those marketing terms mean, nor what those confusing standard names refer to. 1800p is actual information.
post #62 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

He didn't proceeded to link a 4K chart, just a cherry picked 1080p chart, so you're wrong.
Wrong where exactly?



That's a fury X faster than a Titan X.
Just because you don't use it it doesn't mean it isn't used.
There's no friendly fire, just facts and arguments, which is what I'm interested on.
TIL that 72% is faster than 72% lachen.gif

You're just arguing for the sake of,like i said,would you link me a monitor that uses a 3200 x 1800 panel? rolleyes.gif
Then you'd have also learned that $650>$1000.
If I'm spending ~$1100 on something that is going to be bested by a card not forming part of an existing company's new product portfolio but rather a card that up until a few weeks ago was slower, I'd really think of who's driving the market.

4GB vs 12GB

Again the same beating the dead horse. I'll give you the same puzzle that I gave the last person who brought up this argument: Show me a game where the FuryX is slower than either the TitanX or the 980ti due to limited Vram capacity ? Awaiting your response

Since you are waiting for my response, I assume you want me to keep beating the dead horse.

And since you wanted me to show one game where Fury X is limited by VRAM, well here you go.

7387_49_2-way-radeon-r9-fury-vs-geforce-gtx-titan-11-520-2160.png

7387_44_2-way-radeon-r9-fury-vs-geforce-gtx-titan-11-520-2160.png

I hope you like that minimum FPS.

Btw, they didn't even enable AA.

For those of you about to say 4GB is enough for 1440p, you can goto the 1060 3GB thread and say 3GB is enough for 1080p.
Edited by TheLAWNOOB - 8/20/16 at 9:07pm
Power Bac G5
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel i7 6950X EVGA GTX 1080 Ti GSkill 32GB 4133Mhz Samsung 960 Pro 1TB 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H110i ASUS PG278Q 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Bac G5
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel i7 6950X EVGA GTX 1080 Ti GSkill 32GB 4133Mhz Samsung 960 Pro 1TB 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H110i ASUS PG278Q 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

He didn't proceeded to link a 4K chart, just a cherry picked 1080p chart, so you're wrong.
Wrong where exactly?



That's a fury X faster than a Titan X.
Just because you don't use it it doesn't mean it isn't used.
There's no friendly fire, just facts and arguments, which is what I'm interested on.
TIL that 72% is faster than 72% lachen.gif

You're just arguing for the sake of,like i said,would you link me a monitor that uses a 3200 x 1800 panel? rolleyes.gif
Then you'd have also learned that $650>$1000.
If I'm spending ~$1100 on something that is going to be bested by a card not forming part of an existing company's new product portfolio but rather a card that up until a few weeks ago was slower, I'd really think of who's driving the market.

4GB vs 12GB

Again the same beating the dead horse. I'll give you the same puzzle that I gave the last person who brought up this argument: Show me a game where the FuryX is slower than either the TitanX or the 980ti due to limited Vram capacity ? Awaiting your response

Since you are waiting for my response, I assume you want me to keep beating the dead horse.

And since you wanted me to show one game where Fury X is limited by VRAM, well here you go.

7387_49_2-way-radeon-r9-fury-vs-geforce-gtx-titan-11-520-2160.png

7387_44_2-way-radeon-r9-fury-vs-geforce-gtx-titan-11-520-2160.png

I hope you like that minimum FPS.

Btw, they didn't even enable AA.

For those of you about to say 4GB is enough for 1440p, you can goto the 1060 3GB thread and say 3GB is enough for 1080p.
Quote:
As can be seen Nvidia does a much better job here at providing a smoother experience. If you want to keep your minimum FPS above 40 FPS then you really have to roll with Nvidia. However you have to bear in mind that some of these tests were stuttery on AMD because we sometimes ran with AA high and used so much VRAM that AMD could no longer handle it. If we plot VRAM from both manufacturers then we can see that both systems generally use similar amounts of VRAM up until AMD runs out of memory: vram Interestingly though the more AMD GPUs that were used the lower VRAM usage of each Fury. In other words, by adding more Fury cards the end user might be able to run higher settings before running out of VRAM. Nvidia on the other hand is the opposite. More Titans used more memory.
Either of those reviews are not being done with best methodology to show card's VRAM consumption.

http://www.xtremerigs.net/2015/07/20/review-titan-x-vs-fury-x-in-a-triple-cfx-sli-showdown/16/
Also, interesting that you're comparing TitanX to the FuryX. Never knew the 980ti was incapable of that
Edited by huzzug - 8/20/16 at 10:17pm
post #64 of 96
Mmmm gotta love a thread where everybody is posturing for companies that don't give half a butt about them as if their avid defense will mean something rolleyes.gif

Fury cards are getting interestingly close to top end maxwell cards as time goes by, the 980ti continues to fight with the 1070 for best value as deals show up and disappear, the 1080 continues to top benches, the 1080p vs 2k vs 4k cherry picking continues to confuse everybody, the sky remains blue, and the earth keeps turning. Give it a rest.

AMD market share is probably just up because of pre-mature Zen hype and the general popularity of their cards among folks who like their PCs but aren't enthusiast enough to make a consistent showing on forums like this one. All this bickering is silly.
KeyEntity
(24 items)
 
 
Work Box
(16 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6700k Gigabyte GA-Z170MX Gaming 5 EVGA GTX 1080 SC ACX3.0 16GB PNY Anarchy DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB M.2 SSD  Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB LG Compact External DVDRW Drive 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair H100i V2 Noctua NF-F12 x2 Noctua NF-S12A FLX x3 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP Omen QHD 32" Leopold FC660m(MX Blues w/ Skull Squadron DSA) Corsair RM650 Corsair Obsidian 350D 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum Xtrac Ripper XXL Bose Companion 20 JDS Labs The Element 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Sennheiser HD650 Blue Snowball iCE NZXT Hue+ Logitech C920 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core m3-6Y30 Apple OEM HD Graphics 515 8GB LPDDR3 1866Mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB M.2 SSD MacOS X 10.12 Sierra 12" 2304x1440 IPS Display 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E3-1220v5 Dell OEM AMD FirePro W2100 16GB DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
500GB Dell OEM in RAID 1 500GB Dell OEM in RAID 1 Slimline DVD-RW Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell 21" LCD Dell 21" LCD Noppoo Lolita Spyder(Kailh Blacks w/ o-rings) 240W Dell OEM 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Dell OEM Razer Orochi Schiit Fulla Sony MDR-1A 
  hide details  
Reply
KeyEntity
(24 items)
 
 
Work Box
(16 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6700k Gigabyte GA-Z170MX Gaming 5 EVGA GTX 1080 SC ACX3.0 16GB PNY Anarchy DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB M.2 SSD  Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB LG Compact External DVDRW Drive 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair H100i V2 Noctua NF-F12 x2 Noctua NF-S12A FLX x3 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP Omen QHD 32" Leopold FC660m(MX Blues w/ Skull Squadron DSA) Corsair RM650 Corsair Obsidian 350D 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum Xtrac Ripper XXL Bose Companion 20 JDS Labs The Element 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Sennheiser HD650 Blue Snowball iCE NZXT Hue+ Logitech C920 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core m3-6Y30 Apple OEM HD Graphics 515 8GB LPDDR3 1866Mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB M.2 SSD MacOS X 10.12 Sierra 12" 2304x1440 IPS Display 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E3-1220v5 Dell OEM AMD FirePro W2100 16GB DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
500GB Dell OEM in RAID 1 500GB Dell OEM in RAID 1 Slimline DVD-RW Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell 21" LCD Dell 21" LCD Noppoo Lolita Spyder(Kailh Blacks w/ o-rings) 240W Dell OEM 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Dell OEM Razer Orochi Schiit Fulla Sony MDR-1A 
  hide details  
Reply
post #65 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Reading comprehension fail much eh. Read the thread again and see what I was replying to. But good that you have to pick a year old benchmark to prove your point thumb.gif
It seems to me the only one who fails at reading comprehension is you,since not only you failed to understand once but twice. You were replying to a post of mine and your reply had absolutely nothing to do at all with mine,hence the non sequitur,hence you also being an apologist.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/Titan_X_Pascal/24.html

There you have,stock GTX 1070 is comparable to an AIB GTX 980 Ti,faster than both Titan X and Fury X. But you just keep splitting hairs and being an apologist.

And i don't even need to post anything to prove that the 980 Ti was a better deal than both the Titan X and the Fury X. That's a fact.

It's time to abandon thread like your other buddy. redface.gif

BTW: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti XtremeGaming 6GB by W1zzard, on Mar 31st, 2016

Just lol,literally just lol at you.
Edited by GoLDii3 - 8/21/16 at 4:49am
post #66 of 96
Ummm....That don't mean what you think it means. You're the one apologizing the pricing for TitanX when the other poster said about FuryX being faster than the Titan to which I just replied, $1100 couldn't keep the novelty of the card longer than one year. Again, can't help it if you can't help yourself tongue.gif
Also, not sure I'd place much trust with W1zzard after the 480 reviews that was borked by him. If he does it now, which was caught by general public, he could have borked it earlier either by mistake or something else. Besides, he just had one job with excel
Edited by huzzug - 8/21/16 at 5:03am
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Ummm....That don't mean what you think it means. You're the one apologizing the pricing for TitanX when the other poster said about FuryX being faster than the Titan to which I just replied, $1100 couldn't keep the novelty of the card longer than one year. Again, can't help it if you can't help yourself tongue.gif
Also, not sure I'd place much trust with W1zzard after the 480 reviews that was borked by him. If he does it now, which was caught by general public, he could have borked it earlier either by mistake or something else. Besides, he just had one job with excel
All i said is that there was the 690 USD GTX 980 Ti XtremeGaming wich was fasther than both.

How did that transform into me defending the price of the Titan X,is unknown. Especially when i just wrote that the 980 Ti was a better deal than both Titan X and the Fury X. But nice try.

Also is your argument just base off misinformation like when you said that W1zzard's article was 1 year old? The Fury X is not faster than the Titan X.

Now W1zzard is wrong,after he published god knows how many reviews. Man those apologists.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidia-Geforce-Grafikkarte-255598/Specials/GTX-1070-Benchmarks-Test-Preis-1196360/2/

http://www.techspot.com/review/1190-gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1080-g1-gaming/page2.html


You don't know when to give up do you? rolleyes.gif
Edited by GoLDii3 - 8/21/16 at 5:21am
post #68 of 96
Alright, I'll give up. My point was with his about a FuryX being able to beat a TitanXM despite being much expensive which itself should bring in the novelty of have a faster card like the OG Titans. But I guess the one's paying for it aren't paying for performance either.
So we cool!!!
post #69 of 96
Good that it does. If it didn't, it'd be stuttering and lagging all along.
post #70 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLAWNOOB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

He didn't proceeded to link a 4K chart, just a cherry picked 1080p chart, so you're wrong.
Wrong where exactly?



That's a fury X faster than a Titan X.
Just because you don't use it it doesn't mean it isn't used.
There's no friendly fire, just facts and arguments, which is what I'm interested on.
TIL that 72% is faster than 72% lachen.gif

You're just arguing for the sake of,like i said,would you link me a monitor that uses a 3200 x 1800 panel? rolleyes.gif
Then you'd have also learned that $650>$1000.
If I'm spending ~$1100 on something that is going to be bested by a card not forming part of an existing company's new product portfolio but rather a card that up until a few weeks ago was slower, I'd really think of who's driving the market.

4GB vs 12GB

Again the same beating the dead horse. I'll give you the same puzzle that I gave the last person who brought up this argument: Show me a game where the FuryX is slower than either the TitanX or the 980ti due to limited Vram capacity ? Awaiting your response

Since you are waiting for my response, I assume you want me to keep beating the dead horse.

And since you wanted me to show one game where Fury X is limited by VRAM, well here you go.

7387_49_2-way-radeon-r9-fury-vs-geforce-gtx-titan-11-520-2160.png

7387_44_2-way-radeon-r9-fury-vs-geforce-gtx-titan-11-520-2160.png

I hope you like that minimum FPS.

Btw, they didn't even enable AA.

For those of you about to say 4GB is enough for 1440p, you can goto the 1060 3GB thread and say 3GB is enough for 1080p.
Quote:
As can be seen Nvidia does a much better job here at providing a smoother experience. If you want to keep your minimum FPS above 40 FPS then you really have to roll with Nvidia. However you have to bear in mind that some of these tests were stuttery on AMD because we sometimes ran with AA high and used so much VRAM that AMD could no longer handle it. If we plot VRAM from both manufacturers then we can see that both systems generally use similar amounts of VRAM up until AMD runs out of memory: vram Interestingly though the more AMD GPUs that were used the lower VRAM usage of each Fury. In other words, by adding more Fury cards the end user might be able to run higher settings before running out of VRAM. Nvidia on the other hand is the opposite. More Titans used more memory.
Either of those reviews are not being done with best methodology to show card's VRAM consumption.

http://www.xtremerigs.net/2015/07/20/review-titan-x-vs-fury-x-in-a-triple-cfx-sli-showdown/16/
Also, interesting that you're comparing TitanX to the FuryX. Never knew the 980ti was incapable of that

What is there to argue? You wanted to see one game where FuryX is slower than Titan X because of VRAM, and I showed it to you.

I'm not even saying it's a better deal. I replied because you wanted me to beat the dead horse, and now you are unhappy because I did?
Power Bac G5
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel i7 6950X EVGA GTX 1080 Ti GSkill 32GB 4133Mhz Samsung 960 Pro 1TB 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H110i ASUS PG278Q 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Bac G5
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel i7 6950X EVGA GTX 1080 Ti GSkill 32GB 4133Mhz Samsung 960 Pro 1TB 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H110i ASUS PG278Q 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [HOCP] AMD Gains 4.8% Market Share In Q2 2016