He did not give you a good source for his claims. There are other benchmarks and the driver situation changed after that. http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-fury-x-perf

He did not give you a good source for his claims. There are other benchmarks and the driver situation changed after that. http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-fury-x-performance-ahead-nvidia-980-ti-latest-drivers/ http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-fury-x-performance-ahead-nvidia-9... writes about the driver, http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/6/#diagramm-metro-last-light-redux-2560-1440 http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test... saw the Fury X in a different game selection a lot closer to the 980 Ti already after the launch. Still, the 980 Ti was ahead. Regardless, the more interesting card price/performance wise was the Fury without the X (with the current prices that is debatable). To answer your question: AMD is seen as having the potential to beat Nvidia cards later on, with driver improvements and DirectX 12. Also, there is something to be said to favoring the smaller player in the market. Especially now, with the prices being adjusted to the performance difference. It is not like choosing the slower card will lead to games being unplayable – never on normal resolutions, with reduced settings otherwise.