New
#10
I think that one of the big reasons that AMD cards underperform is that if you plug one into most AMD based motherboards, they don't use PCIe 3.0, but use PCIe 2.0.
I got a nasty surprise when benchmarking my new R9 280. It only uses PCIe 2.0, reducing the bandwidth available to the card, and it severely underperformed. Some research proved that for most non-APU AMD chips (including the FX series), the PCIe bus controller doesn't support PCIe 3.0 on the motherboard. (FM1+ socketed motherboards do, for the most part, and my statements don't apply to them).
I don't know how this would apply on an Intel based motherboard, but I would expect it to perform at PCIe 3.0 bandwidth. My card is capable of it, it's my mobo that is holding me back.
I'm very suspicious of comparisons between Nvidia and AMD for that reason. I feel that if the AMD card is tested on an AMD board, then the resulting comparison is invalid. It's an apples to oranges kind of thing. A comparison of the boards tested on Intel hardware would be much more meaningful.
Another reason to buy Intel.
Did somebody say 4K gaming? I've been thinking about upgrading my video card
Well, i have one thing to say, AMD is made for those who go cheap. NVidia/Intel are the ones who bring quality.
Just look at how many people has their AMD graphics cards targeted in the BSOD section.
YES i just got my amd sabertooth build done. and my dissapered off the shelves because it was too awesome 8gig sapphire 290x [ with lights on the ram thank you ] vapor x is very exciteing. and it does do battle. with the graphics turned all the way up and the view dist at 75% Arma 3 is donig 35 to 43 fps. And it has buttons on it.