>If you go back 5 years to Hawaii, AMD...
>If you go back 5 years to Hawaii, AMD had the performance lead. The 290X was the reason that Nvidia released the 780 Ti as a mostly intact Titan Black. Unfortunately the reference card was so awful (it tended to sit at 90 Celsius stock) that it got a reputation for being hot and loud.
>Fast forward a year to the 300 series, which consisted almost entirely of rebrands because AMD cancelled their contract with GlobalFoundries, saying that instead they would be jumping straight to 14nm. It was largely still competitive with Maxwell though, at least in terms of performance. The Fury/Fury X was a mess though. The Fury barely performed better than the 390X but had half the vram, and the Fury X didn't have an air-cooled version so its use cases were limited. It performed competitively with the 980 Ti... sometimes. It was severely hampered by its 4GB vram in later years at the resolutions it was designed for, so it didn't age all that well. AMD's marketing was atrocious during this period, too. They were lauding the 290X over the 970 over a completely overblown vram dispute, then they compounded this by putting 8GB on Hawaii, all the time bigging up how important more vram is and then immediately... put 4GB on Fiji. After months of telling everyone how shit 4GB was, can you be surprised when the Fury X doesn't sell? They then make a series of bs statements about how you don't need much vram if you have lots of bandwidth.
Published on 17 Nov 2018 at 06:21AM