AMD vs Nvidia

[Daniel Johnson]

Just wondering if AMD makes cards that can compete with 4, Superclocked Titan Xs in Quad-SLI for a gaming-only build with triple 4K monitors?

 

[HCSn]

Just wondering if AMD makes cards that can compete with 4, Superclocked Titan Xs in Quad-SLI for a gaming-only build with triple 4K monitors?

Short answer: not yet. we will see how the "Fury" series performs, though.

The 295X2 is good for high-res gaming, but is pretty old and consumes a metric crapload of power, let alone trying to run 2 of them.

 

[babernet_1]

The just announced Fury X's should spank the Titan X's it seems. The Fury's have a full 4,000 cores compared to 3,000 or so for Nvidea. Time will tell though, we need to see the reviews.

With quad SLI or CF, the drivers will be a major consideration. Nvidea is the leader there.

 

[HCSn]

The just announced Fury X's should spank the Titan X's it seems. The Fury's have a full 4,000 cores compared to 3,000 or so for Nvidea. Time will tell though, we need to see the reviews.

With quad SLI or CF, the drivers will be a major consideration. Nvidea is the leader there.

AMD is still using GCN, though, and Maxwell is much more efficient overall. It may well "spank" the Titan X but I wouldn't bet on it just yet. Quad SLI or CF tends to have very poor support, especially in games, so it's kind of just a bragging rights thing at that point anyways...

 

[KoopaCreeper]

The just announced Fury X's should spank the Titan X's it seems. The Fury's have a full 4,000 cores compared to 3,000 or so for Nvidea. Time will tell though, we need to see the reviews.

With quad SLI or CF, the drivers will be a major consideration. Nvidea is the leader there.

AMD is still using GCN, though, and Maxwell is much more efficient overall. It may well "spank" the Titan X but I wouldn't bet on it just yet. Quad SLI or CF tends to have very poor support, especially in games, so it's kind of just a bragging rights thing at that point anyways...

The thing is, you can't judge GCN in general against Maxwell, because AMD's GCN is multiple architectural refreshes. The GCN in my R9 280X/HD 7970 isn't nearly as efficient as newer GCN cards.

True about Quad SLI/CF though. It's just for bragging. Terrible support, unless using GPU compute.

 

[HCSn]

The just announced Fury X's should spank the Titan X's it seems. The Fury's have a full 4,000 cores compared to 3,000 or so for Nvidea. Time will tell though, we need to see the reviews.

With quad SLI or CF, the drivers will be a major consideration. Nvidea is the leader there.

AMD is still using GCN, though, and Maxwell is much more efficient overall. It may well "spank" the Titan X but I wouldn't bet on it just yet. Quad SLI or CF tends to have very poor support, especially in games, so it's kind of just a bragging rights thing at that point anyways...

The thing is, you can't judge GCN in general against Maxwell, because AMD's GCN is multiple architectural refreshes. The GCN in my R9 280X/HD 7970 isn't nearly as efficient as newer GCN cards.

True about Quad SLI/CF though. It's just for bragging. Terrible support, unless using GPU compute.

It's multiple architecture refreshes that haven't been anywhere near a jump like from Kepler to Maxwell. So I am kind of speculating, but I still think Maxwell will be far superior to the latest GCN.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

Ok cool guys, and what's better: 2 Titan Zs in quad SLI versus 4 Superclocked Titan Xs quad sli for triple 4K?

 

[HCSn]

Ok cool guys, and what's better: 2 Titan Zs in quad SLI versus 4 Superclocked Titan Xs quad sli for triple 4K?

The Titan X's are probably better, but you still won't get good performance in triple 4k. The performance increase of tri-SLI and quad-SLI vs SLI is very low.