read

I haven't tried this new AMD driver yet, but I did switch from about 15 years of nothing but Nvidia to AMD in the last year. I now own an AMD Fury X card. Its very very nice!It's very quiet, runs cool, works flawlessly, and visually looks sharp. The 120mm fan spins up to about 1050-1100 RPM which is still quiet under full gaming load and the temp is in the mid 60*c in a case which doesn't have much ventalation. (Cosmos 1010) Much cooler than a 980TI would run because the heat is pumped out of the case since the radiator is mounted to the back of the case. My case is sitting on the floor and between the Fury X rad and the Corsair GTX110i GTX --- my machine is nearly silent under load ---- but still packs in a LOT of performance.I read HardOCPs review of Rise of the Tomb Raider which Kyle linked earlier in this thread. If you read the review it'll come across as Nvidia 980ti is the clear winner in the paragraph based text, but if you look at the FPS charts it looks to me like the AMD Fury X is the clear winner.....Stranger still???The game is marketed heavily by Nvidia - its bundled with Nvidia cards, the splash screeen says Nvidia, the main menu says built in cooperation with Nvidia -- it's promoted heavily to be Nvidia optimized. Yet the game appears to run better with AMD Fury X both in single card and dual card based on the benchmarks in the review.Furthermore, I'm running the game with a i7 4770k at 4.5ghz with every single setting maxed out and getting what I consider extremely smooth fps at 2560x1600 on my Fury x - with no stuttering or hitching. I dont know why the reviewer was having to turn settings down at 2560x1440 since I have no trouble at max settings at 1600p.The fact that AMD just released a performance update is commendable because the game already ran so good on the Fury X - even without the recent update.I've not followed [H] reviews much recently but don't think they historically were obviously biased, but darned if something doesn't seem a bit off with that particular review of Rise of the Tomb Raider. In fairness to this discussion It doesa bit biased as compared to the objective data published.Signed, a long time nearly exclusive Nvidia advocate --- who is now very much surprised to be appreciating a Fury X card. Its quiet, fast, cool, and I haven't encountered any weird/unique driver problems. AMD exclusively supports hardware PLP 20"30"20" monitor configuration and that's why I initially jumped to red team since that is my desktop monitor setup. Frankly, I didn't expect as good an experience as I'm having.I know some will say this is rubbish, but I also feel like the old addage of a bit better picture quality seems to hold true as well. The image of the AMD card on my home theater projector through HDMI appears to have better black levels than I could ever manage with the Nvidia cards regardless of the settings I tried to manipulate based on recommendations from different threads I found. I used full 0-255 HDMI spec on both, but the AMD is inkier blacks IMO - without being overly crushed... (my opinions anyway) My previous cards have been Nvida exclusively since 3dfx and my old Viper S2000. My last few cards have been 460, 560ti, 670 - I then switched to AMD to get PLP support and started with an AMD 285 and now a Fury XReference: