2
-2

[–] PsyOp 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

It's amazing what these companies can build at the nanoscale. Unfortunately, most games aren't optimized to take advantage of these hi-end architectures. I have a $5,500. computer and I'm getting around 20-25 fps, on medium settings, in my Xcom 2 game...that fucking game is 4 years old! I sent an email to Nvidia telling them that I wouldn't be buying their hi-end cards anymore because of the shoddy state of video games these days. My rig does great with GIMP and Blender, and just about everything else, but video games? Forgetaboutit!

0
2

[–] RndM_FggT 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

inb4 you connected your hdmi cable to your mainboard instead of your gpu.

0
0

[–] therealkrispy ago 

It's impossible to directly compare the two, as price and performance don't line up between any of their opposing SKUs, and so it makes more sense to look at individual parts, as the architectures alone don't even tell the whole story. They're not on the same lithography, they're not using the same VRAM, and much of the die size on Turing is consumed by tensor and RT cores. On top of that, Vega isn't dead yet, and is likely to be iterated on for years to come.

1
3

[–] areejs [S] 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

If you read the piece it's not a comparison. It highlights the differences between the two architectures and explains how they achieve the same goal

0
2

[–] therealkrispy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's entirely fair, but the article and its contents do not make it a good title.

1
1

[–] fightknightHERO 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

what's the point to it all?

Vidya is so fucking pozzed that we'll never see any advancements due to Shitskin Affirmative Action quotas