NVIDIA Corp. (NASDAQ: NVDA) released its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings report after the markets closed Wednesday. The company had $0.52 in earnings per share (EPS) on $1.40 billion in revenue compared to Thomson Reuters consensus estimates that call for $0.32 in EPS on $1.31 billion in revenue. The same period from the previous year had $0.35 in EPS on $1.25 billion in revenue.
Read more: NVIDIA Stuns Investors With Record Earnings - NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) - 24/7 Wall St.http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2016/02/17/nvidia-stuns-investors-with-record-earnings/#ixzz40U0HGttj
Is Nvidia still salty about losing the consoles, though?
NVIDIA Corp. (NASDAQ: NVDA) released its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings report after the markets closed Wednesday. The company had $0.52 in earnings per share (EPS) on $1.40 billion in revenue compared to Thomson Reuters consensus estimates that call for $0.32 in EPS on $1.31 billion in revenue. The same period from the previous year had $0.35 in EPS on $1.25 billion in revenue.
Read more: NVIDIA Stuns Investors With Record Earnings - NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) - 24/7 Wall St.http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2016/02/17/nvidia-stuns-investors-with-record-earnings/#ixzz40U0HGttj
Is Nvidia still salty about losing the consoles, though?
Why don't people buy AMD? They got great cards at affordable prices. I don't get why they are so frowned upon. Hell, a re-seller I know doesn't carry AMD cards because according to him, they flat out don't sell.
I'll tell you why. Every generation, AMD cards get hyped to the moon and back about their theoretical performance. The reality is that every generation of AMD cards gets hampered by their shitty drivers. It happens every single time.
There is simply no consistent performance with their GPUs. Don't get me started with xfire. On the other hand, nvidia usually always delivers a great, smooth gaming experience. I have never had microstutter issues with a sli setup. Whereas xfire has always been a pain in the dick.
Lol I'm sure AMD's driver issues vanished in 2012...
They did not but things got a lot better. They are not any worse than NVIDIA nowadays and for the most part, CrossFireX stuttering issues are a thing of the past and multi-gpu scaling tends to favor AMD. They also don't release drivers that cripple their older cards.
Nvidia has better marketing, game deals etc. People still remember the old AMD drivers even tho they dont hold much value now. And well the 9xx nvidia cards trump AMD ones in performance, performance per wat, heat levels, OC.
For AMD to truly bounce back they need to create something better than NVIDIA
@Juub1990: Because Nvidia has strangled the market. They pay developers to add extra features many of which that run like shit on AMD cards. Outside of Tombraider I can't think of the last time a developer built technology to run on AMD cards.
@howmakewood: Isn't AMD's new Fury line of cards better then what Nvidia offers?
Only if you don't account for the GTX 980Ti's massive overclocking advantage. My 980Ti has a 30% overclock (25% from factory), the Fury X just cannot compete with that and AMD has no answer. Maybe their next line will be better.
Lol I'm sure AMD's driver issues vanished in 2012...
They did not but things got a lot better. They are not any worse than NVIDIA nowadays and for the most part, CrossFireX stuttering issues are a thing of the past and multi-gpu scaling tends to favor AMD. They also don't release drivers that cripple their older cards.
Well, that's just the thing with a bad reputation. It does not go away. For a long long time. AMD is slowly reaping the consequences of their mistakes from a decade ago.
That being said, nVidia may quickly find themselves in a similar boat some time from now, if they do not pull their shit together soon on the driver-side.
@howmakewood: Isn't AMD's new Fury line of cards better then what Nvidia offers?
Nope their slightly slower and have less memory which affects performance when games want to allocate all of 4gb or more and cant. The HBM endsup having todump data and has to get more data from the system ram and or harddrive causing framepacing issues. At stock 980ti is slightly faster, has 2gb more vram buffer and has great overclocking headroom where the Fury has little to none.
Factory overclocked 980ti are on average 17-20% faster than FuryX. And if you add someone overclocking it further its around 30-35% faster.
@howmakewood: Isn't AMD's new Fury line of cards better then what Nvidia offers?
If you flip everything in favor of AMD then yes Fury X can actually beat 980ti in pure performance, otherwise no and I 4gb hbm vram doesn't sound too future proof as it stands if you wish to play on higher than 1080p
Nope their slightly slower and have less memory which affects performance when games want to allocate all of 4gb or more and cant. The HBM endsup having todump data and has to get more data from the system ram and or harddrive causing framepacing issues. At stock 980ti is slightly faster, has 2gb more vram buffer and has great overclocking headroom where the Fury has little to none.
Factory overclocked 980ti are on average 17-20% faster than FuryX. And if you add someone overclocking it further its around 30-35% faster.
I'd be curious to see benchmarks where the 980 Ti beats a Fury X by 30-35%.
Two separate gaming systems competing one another have no competition ?
Your statement contradicts itself.
That's not what i meant. Ps4's competition is the Bone, which fails at doing anything noticeable. Nvidia's competition is AMD, which also fails miserably. These two *bone/amd* fail in their departments
Nope their slightly slower and have less memory which affects performance when games want to allocate all of 4gb or more and cant. The HBM endsup having todump data and has to get more data from the system ram and or harddrive causing framepacing issues. At stock 980ti is slightly faster, has 2gb more vram buffer and has great overclocking headroom where the Fury has little to none.
Factory overclocked 980ti are on average 17-20% faster than FuryX. And if you add someone overclocking it further its around 30-35% faster.
I'd be curious to see benchmarks where the 980 Ti beats a Fury X by 30-35%.
That's not what i meant. Ps4's competition is the Bone, which fails at doing anything noticeable. Nvidia's competition is AMD, which also fails miserably. These two *bone/amd* fail in their departments
Yeah it's easy to gain ground on your biggest competitor when they failed so hard at the start of this gen.
Xbone with the DRM and its closing of 1st and second party at the end of last gen resulting in a lack of games.
And I was holding out until AMD could provide me with a decent follow up to the HD4870 which I had for the longest time and loved... but then the GTX970 came around and it's pretty much the best card I've ever owned.
But if AMD provides me with a better price/performance again I'd switch in a heartbeat.
Competition is good... but perhaps there is too little ? Like for Bone > all people could really choose was PS4 (Wii U wasn't really a viable option). And when it comes to graphics cards there are only 2 players really...
@04dcarraher: If developers took advantage of it wouldn't HBM ram be far superior?
you cant do that since its dedicated memory for the gpu. Its not like the consoles where your fighting bandwidth and space between cpu and gpu between the same memory pool. since the HBM on Fury is only 4gb it can only hold 4gb of data at any given time. And given that 1st gen HBM bandwidth is more than enough for Fury, its processing speed between the gpu and memory has no bottleneck. The gpu cant get any faster, all you can do is remove current API limits between cpu and gpu but fury has to deal with its 4gb buffer.
Why don't people buy AMD? They got great cards at affordable prices. I don't get why they are so frowned upon. Hell, a re-seller I know doesn't carry AMD cards because according to him, they flat out don't sell.
Am an AMD fanboy, i dont even look at NVIDIA. Been happily buying amazing Asus AMD's for 10+ years now.
Also AMD stands for American Micro Devices, Murika!
Nope their slightly slower and have less memory which affects performance when games want to allocate all of 4gb or more and cant. The HBM endsup having todump data and has to get more data from the system ram and or harddrive causing framepacing issues. At stock 980ti is slightly faster, has 2gb more vram buffer and has great overclocking headroom where the Fury has little to none.
Factory overclocked 980ti are on average 17-20% faster than FuryX. And if you add someone overclocking it further its around 30-35% faster.
I'd be curious to see benchmarks where the 980 Ti beats a Fury X by 30-35%.
@howmakewood: Isn't AMD's new Fury line of cards better then what Nvidia offers?
he regular R9 Fury would destroy the GTX 980. Now, looking over to the R9 Fury X, it draws the stock 980 Ti at 1440P and comes ahead of the 980 Ti at 4K as the benchmarks below point out:
If you look at Crossfire scaling, AMD's dual GPU is better than nVidia SLI technology as they use a tech called XDMA. It allows it to even beat the Titan X SLI as shown below:
You could get a over clocked 980 Ti but something like a Waterforce 980 Ti cost's $720. Wheres you could get a Fury X for as little as $570 with a Battlefront coupon.
@howmakewood: Isn't AMD's new Fury line of cards better then what Nvidia offers?
Nope their slightly slower and have less memory which affects performance when games want to allocate all of 4gb or more and cant. The HBM endsup having todump data and has to get more data from the system ram and or harddrive causing framepacing issues.
There hasn't been any framepacing issues with new drivers even those games wanting more than 4GB. If there was it has been fixed as with Shadow of Mordor which had stuttering issues maxed out at 4K but it was later fixed by driver updates. As Anandtech stated they have allocated 2 engineers with doing memory management via drivers and so far they have been doing a good job as there haven't been any frame pacing issues. There was an extensive discussion about this over at overclockers UK with Fury X owners club and no one had any issues.
I personally have tested many, many games using 4K VSR and haven't turned up anything with regards to framepacing issues gaming at 4K. And that's with older drivers!
Just because a game uses more than 4GB doesn't mean it's using all those memory at the same time. For example, Rise of the Tomb Raider uses 6GB - 7 GB maxed out but still the Fury X ties the 980 Ti at 1440P and even comes ahead of Titan X at 4K.
I think the whole deal with HBM is that you don't need as much ram because it's faster, it can swap in and out things fast.
However, it'll probably be better if people programmed specifically for it.
And to be honest I have no idea why video cards need so much ram, people talk about high resolution, but even 4k is only 4x the resolution of 1080p, we are only talking about 4x the frame buffer required 1080p is what 8MB at most 10 frames buffer for post processing so less than 512MB of video ram at 4k, I don't know where this you need 8 gig of vram comes from, it seems video game makers are getting lazy.
There hasn't been any framepacing issues with new drivers even those games wanting more than 4GB. If there was it has been fixed as with Shadow of Mordor which had stuttering issues maxed out at 4K but it was later fixed by driver updates. As Anandtech stated they have allocated 2 engineers with doing memory management via drivers and so far they have been doing a good job as there haven't been any frame pacing issues. There was an extensive discussion about this over at overclockers UK with Fury X owners club and no one had any issues.
I personally have tested many, many games using 4K VSR and haven't turned up anything with regards to framepacing issues gaming at 4K. And that's with older drivers!
Just because a game uses more than 4GB doesn't mean it's using all those memory at the same time. For example, Rise of the Tomb Raider uses 6GB - 7 GB maxed out but still the Fury X ties the 980 Ti at 1440P and even comes ahead of Titan X at 4K.
Wrong framepacing is still a problem when you max or exceed 4gb..... so much denial about that fact , using Rise of tomb as an example is moot since they limited buffer to stay below 4gb for Fury.... it maxes out at 3950-3970mb, while every other card with 4gb sees more vram usage. However because of that there is still hitching when you use ultra textures on cards with 4gb or less.
Also you really need to look at more than one source, because your bias is blinding you.... at 4k 980ti beats fury x most of the time, at 1440 980ti gets much better framerates almost all the time, even with techpowerup's 1440p results...
Why don't people buy AMD? They got great cards at affordable prices. I don't get why they are so frowned upon. Hell, a re-seller I know doesn't carry AMD cards because according to him, they flat out don't sell.
I have owned 5 Nvidia cards and 4 AMD cards over the past 15 ish years (two different machines). All of my Nvidia cards either burned out or straight up died on me with the exception of 1. I still have all my AMD cards working fine. I also tended to find more driver issues with NV even though this is contrary to popular opinion.
I would also like to point out that this is more evidence of the death of PC gaming....we all knew moving away from the consoles would kill NV as that's where the money is at.....errr
There hasn't been any framepacing issues with new drivers even those games wanting more than 4GB. If there was it has been fixed as with Shadow of Mordor which had stuttering issues maxed out at 4K but it was later fixed by driver updates. As Anandtech stated they have allocated 2 engineers with doing memory management via drivers and so far they have been doing a good job as there haven't been any frame pacing issues. There was an extensive discussion about this over at overclockers UK with Fury X owners club and no one had any issues.
I personally have tested many, many games using 4K VSR and haven't turned up anything with regards to framepacing issues gaming at 4K. And that's with older drivers!
Just because a game uses more than 4GB doesn't mean it's using all those memory at the same time. For example, Rise of the Tomb Raider uses 6GB - 7 GB maxed out but still the Fury X ties the 980 Ti at 1440P and even comes ahead of Titan X at 4K.
Wrong framepacing is still a problem when you max or exceed 4gb..... so much denial about that fact , using Rise of tomb as an example is moot since they limited buffer to stay below 4gb for Fury.... it maxes out at 3950-3970mb, while every other card with 4gb sees more vram usage. However because of that there is still hitching when you use ultra textures on cards with 4gb or less.
Also you really need to look at more than one source, because your bias is blinding you.... at 4k 980ti beats fury x most of the time, at 1440 980ti gets much better framerates almost all the time, even with techpowerup's 1440p results...
I used the average compilation of games and not a single game. As the TechpowerUP shows that it shows that it's slightly ahead of the 980 Ti at 4K and matches at 1440P. Rise of the Tomb Raider doesn't have hitching as all the reviewers indicated including GPUGuru as well as anyone else who owns a Fury X. The only person that is making this bogus claim is you. As a matter of fact things actually got better with minimum and average framerates getting better than a 980 Ti with the new 16.1.1 Hot Fix drivers for Tomb Raider as HardOCP pointed out as they used the newer drivers.
Rise of the Tomb Raider performance isn't limited by your VRAM but rather the horsepower of the GPU itself. As HardOCP pointed out maxing out the game:
"We really wanted to push our luck, so here is maximum game settings at 4K on a single-GPU. This setting basically bottlenecks every video card, even the TITAN X cannot cope, not due to VRAM capacity limitations but just performance." So, there goes your delusional argument out the door. This is not a surprise as people who have Fury X on forums who played RoTR getting better frame rates with 0 framepacing issues with newer drivers on the Fury X owners club threads.
As for your other benchmarks you are comparing an overclocked 980 Ti vs Fury X. Gee...who would have thought an overclocked 980 Ti would have come out ahead a base clocked Fury X.**cough**cough**.
And where are all these other games where you see hitching? The only one was Shadow of Mordor which was fixed. No one at the Fury X owners club with latest drivers are not having frame pacing issues with any games using latest drivers.
Not all those 980ti's are overclocked..... again multiple sources show that fury x does not do better than 980ti with ROTR. Hell even Plain Jane GTX 980 is kicking the heels of the FuryX.....
Also you really need to read and stop looking through those red tinted glasses, with the game as you enter bigger open areas you see some hitches in the midst of transition animations from one area to another, and graphics quality with available vram effects the hitching when your progressing. Using max settings with 4gb cards it is more prominent.....
Also your ignoring the key point as long at the games use less than 4gb the Fury handles games perfectly fine, its when the games that are actively wanting all 4gb or more is when fury sees its issues. Even with Crimson drivers..... With ROTR its uses 3950-3970mb on fury while other 4gb cards use 4000+mb. Whether the limit being from devs and or drivers it still shows fury's Achilles heel.
Even if you used average performance between vanilla vs vanilla cards FuryX is less than 3% faster and slower than 980ti at 4k and 1440p,. And if you look at every single non reference 980ti your looking at more than 15% average lead over Furyx.
not all those 980ti's are overclocked..... again multiple sources show that fury x does not do better than 980ti with ROTR. Hell even Plain Jane GTX 980 is kicking the heels of the FuryX.....
Also you really need to read and stop looking through those red tinted glasses, with the game as you enter bigger open areas you see some hitches in the midst of transition animations from one area to another, and graphics quality with available vram effects the hitching when your progressing. Using max settings with 4gb cards it is more prominent.....
Also your ignoring the key point as long at the games use less than 4gb the Fury handles games perfectly fine, its when the games that want all 4gb or more is when fury sees its issues. Even with Crimson drivers.....
Even if you used average performance between vanilla vs vanilla cards FuryX is less than 5% faster than 980ti. At 1440 980ti beats Fury x. And if you look at every single non reference 980ti your looking at more than 15% average lead over Furyx.
You are so delusional. I just destroyed your argument as HardOCP used latest drivers which show better minimum frame rates than a 980 Ti and they even stated that VRAM wasn't a limiting factor. And where are all those other sites that use the latest Hot Fix 16.1.1. drivers that show any difference? No other reviewer and ACTUAL Fury X owners experienced framepacing issues with the latest drivers. I am talking to a guy who didn't even post benchmarks with the latest drivers **Cough** **cough** or follow Fury X owners club threads which if you did would know that they pretty much confirm what the reviewers have stated especially HardOCP. Maybe at 1440P it may come out less on average but it certainly beats it at 4K which is pretty much consistent.
And I am still waiting on all your other games that you say is hitching? And no using drivers from months ago doesn't count.
As for non-referenced 980 Ti's coming out ahead. It should be coming out ahead as non-referenced 980 Ti's are selling for ~$80 - $150 MORE than a $570 R9 Fury X. That's one of the primary reason I got a Fury X as it saved me $50+ more than the cheapest stock 980 Ti. I got an easy $50 with more or so equivalent performance as a stock 980 Ti.
Wrong again your ignoring the fact that FURY never reaches same vram usage as other 4gb cards with the game..... Hence the reason why Fury is able to perform well without seeing the usual frametiming issues when games actively want to use all 4gb+. Even with latest Crimson drivers 16.1.1 Furyx can not beat 980ti with later drivers Hardop is using 361.75 while bottom benches I posted are using 361.82..... Drivers fixes and performance works both ways, your faith in Crimson drivers fixing Fury's Achilles heel is way overblown.
Im not going through that whole argument again showing that AMD even stated that they cant totally fix the issue with games wanting to use all 4gb or more with Fury, all they can do is soften the blow.
Wrong again your ignoring the fact that FURY never reaches same vram usage as other 4gb cards with the game..... Hence the reason why Fury is able to perform well without seeing the usual frametiming issues when games actively want to use all 4gb+. Even with latest Crimson drivers 16.1.1 Furyx can not beat 980ti with later drivers Hardop is using 361.75 while bottom benches I posted are using 361.82..... Drivers fixes and performance works both ways, your faith in Crimson drivers fixing Fury's Achilles heel is way overblown.
Im not going through that whole argument again showing that AMD even stated that they cant totally fix the issue with games wanting to use all 4gb or more with Fury, all they can do is soften the blow.
Whether they were using the latest nVidia drivers or not. You were stating that it stutters and has framepacing issues which was not the case. And your other benches was using an overclocked 980 Ti not a stock 980 Ti.
As I stated AMD stated that they are doing VRAM management via drivers. That wasn't the argument. They have fixed issues with regards to stuttering like in games Shadow of Mordor which I have been stating all along. That still doesn't explain all these games you claim have stuttering issues with the latest drivers? Where are they? You are making up stuff and can't back them up. I am making the point that AMD did a good job in managing their 4GB HBM as it's not a factor in stuttering or having frame pacing issues.
Again it has hitching issues are on all systems with gpus with 4gb when using ultra settings in certain areas. and again not all benchs posted are using overclocked 980ti's.....
they cant fix the underlying issue of the games allocating 4gb+, your shadow of mordor example is based on youtube videos and no real benchmark, and even after Crimson driver new games are seeing the same issue.....including ROTR
Log in to comment