3440x1440 benchmarked on AMD Radeon R9 Fury X, R9 295X2 and more

These are not 4K benches. The resolution is about 30%+ less taxing than 4K.
Good to see 980 Ti beating the living crap out of Fury X. With a little overclock the supremacy of 295X2 would also be challenged and trumped.

NVM. Article is so old.
 
Wow...yeah the article is old compared to now as of April 2016.

There should be some sites that track performance with whql drivers every six to nine months and maybe compare to last driver tested.

There used to be sites that used to do that...what happened?
 
The time is a aproaching for 4k to be more mainstream ... Now is not the time..The market slowly moves toward 2560x resolution adoption in mainstream.The components for 4k are very expensive...You have the monitor is expensive, you have the cpu , the 2 vga's that costs 500$ minimum...All this comes in package with CFX / SLI frustrations ...
 
badsykes said:
The time is a aproaching for 4k to be more mainstream ... Now is not the time..The market slowly moves toward 2560x resolution adoption in mainstream.The components for 4k are very expensive...You have the monitor is expensive, you have the cpu , the 2 vga's that costs 500$ minimum...All this comes in package with CFX / SLI frustrations ...
Click to expand...

I wait for single cards, 4k, 3440 etc..or even eyefinity which I want to run I do it on single cards. Not a fan of multi cards and as far its a worse experience.

Vega 10 then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top