Welp, now we know that the 1060 is undoubtedly the superior card for the market it's being sold to. Check mate amd. Spread this, btw.
I was thinking of changing to the RX480 is that uncle works at Nintendo poster turned out to be true. But it seems on my i5 2500k the GTX1060 will be better with Vulkan.
When I updgrade my CPU in a few years I will be buying a new GPU anyway.
No one buying a RX480 or GTX1060 bought a top of the line i7.
Archive of last thread.
I have a friend with an old PC with a 3GB GTX 580, I wanted to ask him to sell me the whole thing since nobody's using it.
How's that gpu?
How much were you paid for this user
Work harder for your shekels.
And thanks to Neo-Holla Forums this thread will reach 300+ replies too.
Wouldn't pay more the $100 for the full system if it have a reasonable cpu.
When is the RX490 due or should I just buy a GTX1070 or 1080?
GTX1070 no point in waiting for AMD especially if you don't own an i5.
Did I hear wallpaper thread?
Wallpaper thread!
...
...
Butthurt AMDfag detected.
get out
Well make a Wallpaper thread yourself, here we are discussing new GPU's. Just cause AMD shit the bed doesn't mean you need to derail it.
You're trying consolewars 2.0. GPU and other part threads belong to >>>Holla Forums. Dumping JJBA after this.
Holla Forums is dead they left after Jim banned a lot of VPN ip's.
GPU related to vidya and the playability of vidya so belong on Holla Forums
Reaching for straws, since there's still people active on Holla Forums.
Very little now most moved on. GPU's are still Holla Forums related.
No one is saying you can only talk about the new Xbox One S and the performance improvements on Holla Forums are they.
Discussing VIDYA performance of GPU's belongs on Holla Forums
A console isn't a GPU. Also,
that's still >>>Holla Forums related.
End yourself.
Anyway I:m getting a GTX770 from a friend. What am I in for?
Xbox one S is has GPU performance upgrade. Should it only be discussed on Holla Forums?
The 2gb Vram is very limiting in modern AAA games but you can good performance with tweaking settings.
you first
Console discussions go here. GPU discussions go in >>>Holla Forums. Not hard to grasp at all.
Nobody's bitching about consoles here you fucking faggot. This isn't Reddit.
Nobody gives a fat flying fuck if our discussion isn't to the specifications of your autistic desires. End your life.
>Console discussions go here. GPU discussions go in >>>Holla Forums. Not hard to grasp at all.
Console have GPU's discussing how those GPU's and PC GPU's perform in games belongs on Holla Forums
Nigger, was I addressing you for consoles? No?
where are the computer games, then?
grasping desparately for straws
GPU performance in computer games is directly related to said games. We will not head over to your shitty Stallmeme circlejerk just because you are too retarded to make the connection.
I:m coming from an HD5450 and most AAA games are shit so I guess it's all cool.
You will good to go so. Enjoy it.
guru3d.com
Seems like aftermarket cards are a bust, shit overclocking and worse then the gtx1060. What a blunder AMD.
Mfw I've been waiting to buy a graphics card since 2014
I'm buying a 1070.
uh what
I didn't buy one back then, kept waiting, should have just bought a GTX970.
...
AMD is always a mistake. They have shit drivers and poor industry support. A lot of video/photography tools are only hardware accelerated on nvidia (CUDA-only as AMD until recently did not assist OpenCL devs), are only fast/stable on nvidia (e.g. DaVinci Resolve, Blender), and AMD has a habit of accidentally reverting fixes in their drivers like the years it took them to solve flicker on 120hz displays due to power issues. They always seem to fuck up power management. I'm hoping they shame nvidia into making decent vulkan drivers but there's no way I'd buy one of their cards again.
Well, no, you shouldn't have, but I will say this
It's never a good time to buy a GPU, so just buy a GPU when you feel your performance is slipping.
Personally speaking, I can't support nvidia's business practices, and am buying AMD pretty much because it's the only alternative besides integrated graphics.
It was after the 3.5 so people said the 970 would be poor, but it was still better then the r390. Should have just bought which is why I am buying a GTX1070 now rather then waiting for a r490 like the AMD shills are telling me to do.
...
At the price it released on, it better be better than the fucking 390. However performance alone isn't what most people look at when they buy a gpu.
...
Still seems like overall the 970 was the best buy
So i should buy the RX 480 because of my I7 4790k?
Seems like the GTX1060 bets it still in all games other then nuDoom even with the i7.
gGet whichever is cheaper, in europe the gtx1060 is the cheaper of the two.
it wasn't; the card will expire around the same time as the 390, maybe sooner if nvidia keeps up their practice of gimping older cards so that people will cave and buy newer cards.
pretty sure the only place where amd is cheap is in north america, could be wrong on that one though.
Depends on what you value.
the benchmarks are out there, and in terms of strict performance, the 1060 wins out on dx11, which is what most games will be using, and will be what I'm assuming you're looking at instead of just vulkan
So the question is, is the performance gain over the rx 480 worth the extra 80 dollars? To answer that question, you look at what it is you want to do with your PC
If you're aiming for 1080p 60fps then you're going to get about the same mileage out of both of them, and I would go with the cheaper option.
Or you could see if you can simply buy another one of your current GPU and run it in crossfire/sli.
In my country the 480 nitro is 50€ cheaper than the 1060 asus mini one.
Also
This varies extremely from game to game plus if you're on a budget build you might have to upgrade your PSU as well.
The 480 seems to be the better purchase imo, since games are going to be running on DX12 and Vulkan in the future, and AMDs drivers get better over time.
Here the gtx1060 is the same price as the RX480 but their is stock of custom cooler GTX1060's.
Gtx1060 did better in Dx12 thiugh, look at the tomb raider and ashes benches.
Waiting to see how they do in Deus ex as it's a AMDworks game.
I've been waiting since 2012, still using an HD 6870. If you want to buy a card, honestly, now's the time.
Especially now that custom cards are out, avoid reference cards if at all possible.
The 900 series is already listed on their legacy page. Think about how long those cards have been in the market compared to AMD's.
AMD's offerings had to compete with the 700 series and then the 900 series, and they're still relevant today.
Video cards that use less energy tend to last longer?
I want to buy a card that will last me forever, I am doing fine with just my onboard card right now, but I really want to be able to play on 60 fps again
Tomb Raiders directx 12 is garbage and the 1060 beats 480 on ashes of the singularity by like 2-3 FPS, right now anyway.
Why give a shit?
It's a shit game, but it's got Vulkan, so it's something we might look forward to if we actually get good games for once.
I have a [email protected]/* */, will I get bottlenecked if I buy a RX480 ?
Depends how CPU-intensive your vidya is gonna be, otherwise nah.
AMD GPU's bottleneck on DX11 due to shit drivers on older cpu's. Try to find someone who did a comparison of the 1060 vs 480 with your cpu as yours is an 8 core so might be OK.
Just don't get the new Titan X. It's got the same thermal solution that was considered inadequate for the 1080 but with a much higher TDP. Tom's hasn't tested that yet and the other review sites are shilling faggots and won't.
Anyone buying the Titan X, will be water cooling it anyway. Titan X is that card no one should buy unless they have more money then needed.
This. I can't imagine the level of faggotry necessary to assemble a PC that costs as much as a car, but keep the stock cooler.
I got a 1070 SC. Dragons Dogma with mods out the ass looks pretty sexy at 1440p. Also had fun with Batman's Phys-X cape in Arkham Origins at 4K until the game broke and left me endlessly falling in a void. Pity, I was starting to have fun with that overpriced expansion pack.
Is 144hz and Gsync just a meme, or does it legit make the experience feel less like shit? I'm debating using the Step Up to a 1080 because I'm an irrational faggot who hates frame drops/judder, but I assume that card would be overkill otherwise.
So… why don't the colors on this chart correspond to the graphs below?
it's meant to show shading, not color.
This
GTX1060 ordered, due on Tuesday.
Good choice, it's by far the better card.
Fuck off shills, nobody gives a fuck about your purchase insecurities
What AMD clearly messed up the 4XX series.
Probably the same fags that bitch and moan when lazy devs dont even bother with optimization. PC hardware now is pure overkill, if any game needed 1/5 of the power of these $500 gpus, consoles would explode just trying to load them up.
ebin troll XD
or legit dumb as fuck
yeah you totally weren't late to the imageboard-party
it's always the same fags pointing fingers to distract from themselves
The GTX 780 was the 290X competitor in it's day, and the GTX 780 Ti slightly beat it.
Now the 290X is trading blows with the GTX 980 and GTX 1060 when it was released years ago in 2013.
If you buy GPUs annually, don't play many new games - Nvidia GPUs are the far better option.
If you don't upgrade annually or bi-annually, Nvidia GPUs degrade in performance massively and AMD GPUs go above and behind their original competitors in the market.
290x and a gtx780 with an i5 from that era still perform the same withe gtx780 winning.
290x only beats it with a new i7 skylake. Only buy AMD if you buy new top of the line i7's each year.
If you want a great experience rather than an acceptable one, nvidia's the only option as AMD is a value-only company, now. They have nothing that can even remotely compete at the high end.
I've got an i7 6700k, a GTX 1080, and a 144hz 1440p gsync monitor, and nudood looks and feels fucking amazing with everything maxed and it running in the 100-120fps range. If I had gone AMD I'd need to make sacrifices.
inb4 a AMDshill says you shou'd have waited for a 490x.
The 490x should be a great card and if you can wait for an upgrade I would.
...
Well, if you can afford wasting 1300 bucks, the Pro-duo gives somewhere between 1-15 FPS more than any 1080 on 4k resolution with everything maxed out.
For 1300 bucks you can get a Titan X which beats the pro-duo hand down.
Is that not a dual gpu card?
Why spend the extra dosh?
why do you feel compelled to keep reposting this?
Not even with autism or shill glasses could i find a reason why you would make this same thread every day
The thread is a week old, not made today.
...
Yeah they are quite good.
reeeee
AMD are shit just go nVidia.
In the unlikely event that the thread isn't all shills, about a week ago, I said I'd run an old Nvidia card and an old AMD card against one another side by side.
The Nvidia card is the GTX 670 Superclocked+ 4GB Edition, whilst the AMD card is the Powercolor HD 7870 Myst Edition. Based on Techpowerup graphs on release, the GTX 670 Superclocked+ was between 15-25% faster than the HD 7870 Myst (which is somewhere in-between the HD 7870 and HD 7950).
I also did my tests on my i7 2600K, then disabled HyperThreading to emulate i5 2500K performance to see if AMD's single threaded command list drivers would significantly bottleneck the GPU on lower end PCs. The CPU was clocked to 4.8 GHz to be fair, but it's within the range possible with conventional air cooling. It would be equivalent to perhaps a 4670/4690K at 4.0 GHz. So a modern i5 basically.
I haven't finished testing, but I tested Rise of the Tomb Raider with DX 12 on High Preset, GTA V on High Present, Crysis 3 on High Present and Doom Vulkan on Ultra Preset. All of this was done on the latest drivers for both GPUs.
I was surprised to find that when emulating the i5 2500K, the GTX 670 FTW+ was only able to pull ahead by around 10%. This means that despite AMD's drivers being potentially bottlenecked with lower end CPUs, it was still able to claw back 10% worth of performance on Nvidia's GPU over time. This was seen consistently with ROTTR, GTA V and Crysis 3. The only exception was with Doom Vulkan, where the HD 7870 Myst completely shat itself. I don't believe the 2GB VRAM is enough for High/Ultra settings DOOMED.
I may retest Doom Vulkan on the GTX 670 on Medium Settings to eke out a proper comparison result, and I still want to test the HD 7870 Myst with my i7 2600K's full 8 threads. But AMD definitely does have longevity on their side, as the GTX 670 Superclocked+ released for $400 USD, whilst the HD 7870 Myst released for $270 USD.
The other thing I want to note is that the GTX 670 is still enough to drive ~60 fps gaming provided you're willing to play with the settings. ROTTR was the worst performed of the lot, yet still averaged in the high 40s for the GTX 670 on the High Preset.
Again, I've not finished my testing yet. Once I do, I'll post some pretty looking graphs and easy to digest data. But in the meantime, take pic related as proof I actually own the GPUs I'm talking about.
...
...
So the GTX670 when from a 15% lead to a 10% lead, AMD fans are saying it should have overtaken the 670.
Is there a bigger gain with HT? Do you know anyone with a skylake i7 you could bring the cards to?
...
Nah, it's just offtopic.
It went from a 20% lead to 10%, which is significant. But the HD 7870 Myst is never going to beat the GTX 670. Performance gap is too big. Reason being, they're not in the same performance class. AMD fans would be delusional if that's what they're expecting, because it will NEVER EVER happen. To use more modern cards, you're not ever going to see the RX 480 match it with a 980Ti or 1070 outside of extreme examples.
What does happen though, is that AMD consistently gained performance on Nvidia, even on an i5. Whether the i7 tests further bridge the gap or not is something I'll find out in coming days. If it gains even another 5% that would be amazing. It would be equivalent to the R9 290x consistently matching the GTX 980. An impossible thing to fathom when the 980 came out. I suspect it'll confirm all the suspicions currently going around. That AMDs cards are bottlenecked on i5s, but they also gain on Nvidia cards over time regardless. But we'll see how it goes.
Thank for this waiting for the full results.
I don't even get how this shit started to go south so quickly, you can't sage at all anymore without a retard doing a forced bump calling your post a "downvote"
Cause we are Americans and sage is an insult used by redditors.
using sage offensively has been a thing since before reddit existed, you dunce.
...
frankly if you're wasting this money on pc gaming in the first place you are a fucking idiot.
true. thats why i game on android with emulators and i have a laptop for toaster teir games
It's why I do 90% of my gaming on consoles and handhelds, and either old PC games or emulators on my desktop and laptop.
Consolefags everyone, how can you code on a shitty laptop screen you need a real PC.
Lol. PC gamers are as dumb as they come. Probably doesn't even have basic low level hardware knowledge. Probably can't even solder.
17 inch 1600x900 screen. plus i can output hdmi to a monitor if i really need to.
I still use 1680x1050 displays. 16:10 is a wonderful aspect ratio for programmers. I wish 16:10 was still a thing, I guess I'll have to go to 16:9 eventually.
those trips
16:9 isnt that bad, i like it. but honestly i dont really care about resolution or games looking good, just that it works.
a 16:10 environment is more conducive for my work. An economically feasible upgrade would be to 1920x1080 which is barely an improvement, so there's little value in it. Perhaps an intermediate display would better suit me.
I really should get around to updating it soon. With any luck, I should be able to wait until all the aftermarket RX480s get released so I can make more of an informed decision.
what new games are you upgrading for
Could an aftermarket 980ti conceivably fit inside an mATX case? I'm seeing them around the $300 mark on Craigslist in my area and all the benchmarks I've seen say that they still beat out the 1060 at that same price.
...
...
...
you are the fake, user.
True enough for pure graphicswhoring I enjoy like textures and postproc shaders, but a lot of it enhances the game itself. Like higher resolution increasing precision and the ability to see distant objects, or higher FPS increasing ability to discern motion and cutting latency.
Dues ex, Witcher 3
Just to clarify, I tested with an i7 2600K clocked at 4.8 GHz, a decently high OC yet still attainable with conventional air cooling provided you have a bit of luck. To emulate the i5 2500K performance, I simply disabled HT. The overclock stayed, as I figure if you have a K edition processor, you are going to overclock it.
The results more or less speak for themselves, but I'll lay it out.
On release, the GTX 670 SC+ performed ~20% better than the HD 7870 Myst. The Myst is a cutdown HD 7950, but even in AMD branded games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the GTX 670 SC+ is still around 15% faster. They are in different performance brackets and the launch price reflected that too (270 USD vs 400 USD). So I hope no one is delusional to think that the HD 7870 will beat the GTX 670 outright.
Rise of the Tomb Raider with DX 12, and on the High Preset.
GTA V with DX 11, and on the High Preset.
Crysis 3 with DX 11, and on the High Preset.
All at 1080p.
Emulated i5 2500K results:
Based on the average FPS, the GTX 670 is ~10% faster than the HD 7870 Myst.
i7 2600K results:
Based on the average FPS, the GTX 670 is ~13% faster than the HD 7870 Myst. Compared to release, AMD has gained 5-10% on Nvidia depending on the game.
So why did the GTX 670 perform so much better with the i7 test and the HD 7870 perform better in the i5 test?
It's fairly simple. AMD's problems lay with single threaded command list drivers. This means that to mitigate the problem, a CPU with decent IPC is needed. In essence, overclocking the CPU was able to remove any significant bottlenecks for the AMD card. To add, part of the point of DX 12 is to reduce the CPU overhead, removing potential for the CPU to be a bottleneck. This is why the AMD card did not lose ground in ROTTR when moving up to the i7 test, because the GPU was already the main bottleneck for the game.
Now, with Crysis 3 and GTA V, the reason that they saw improvements with the i7 2600K on the GTX 670 is because they are CPU intensive games. To add, it was tested on High Settings. Meaning that both games are more CPU bound than if they were tested at Ultra Settings. Both are games that still boast performance improvements when moving above 4 threads. Once the thread count was increased, the GPUs became the primary bottlenecks, and the GTX 670 benefitted more from that. The HD 7870 gained frames too, but the difference was marginal compared to the GTX 670's noticeable bump.
So, what's the conclusion?
With that done, I do have an aside. I promised DOOMED and didn't deliver. DOOMED's VRAM requirements for Ultra Settings were too high for the HD7870 and I couldn't be fucked re-testing with the GTX 670 at a lower setting, so there's no Vulkan test included. It would've heavily favoured AMD though. Which brings me to my next point.
Async is not going to be the silver bullet that some people think it is but if it obtains widespread adoption, it will solve many of AMD's problems with drivers, overhead and inefficient GPU design. As DX 12 and Vulkan gain popularity and implementation, the long tail performance boosts that AMD cards currently enjoy will run out. This is because these APIs pushes the burden of optimisation from the GPU manufacturer to the developer. So provided proper implementation, GPUs will be able to reach proper utilisation more often. Simply put, significant driver optimisations won't be necessary unless compatibility or developer incompetence is an issue. This has been a constant thorn in AMD's side, as their cards often have tremendous theoretical power (see: Mining v Gaming performance), yet their drivers have been historically too poor to utilise all that. So basically, they co-wrote an entire framework that will change gaming forever, just so they could give their sweatshop driver team a break. Pretty funny when you think about it.
Finally, either card is still bretty gud for 1080p ~60 fps gaming with a combination of medium to high settings. If you're not a graphics whore or don't need to play brand new games with all the eye candy, older cards still have a decent amount of juice in them. A card like the R9 290(x) would represent tremendous value if bought on the second hand market today if you're willing to deal with it's high power consumption/heat output.
So sonce the GTX1060 is already 5% better at leastband the same price, you would better getting the GTX1060 as they have stock of the custom cooler models and better power and heat performance.
I would get whatever is cheaper, AMD made a mistake in pricing the RX 470 and RX 480 too high and creating two SKUs of each. With the benefit of hindsight, you'd make the RX 480 8GB only and the RX 470 4GB only. The RX 480 would retail for $225, with AIBs going up to $250. While the RX 470 would retail for $175 with AIBs going up to $200.
I'm not that impressed with either card, though. Here in Kangarooland, you could buy an R9 Fury/Nano for the price of some 1060s or RX 480s.
I've been planning to get an RX 480 for a while now. I was going to go with the nitro version but I'm worried about the heat. In all versions, actually.
Does 80c temp over long term shorten the lifespan of a card?
It shouldn't. IIRC, the RX 480 automatically sets a temperature target and adjusts fanspeed to meet that target. The default temperature target was 80c, so a lot of the cards will gravitate to that range. You could hypothetically set the target to 60c and the card will run as close to that as possible hopefully without losing performance. But I'd imagine the fans will be locked at 100% when gaming and sound like a jet engine.
Most manufacturers err on the side of caution when setting temperature goals. In tests I've read, which I can't be bothered to source just now, chipsets have been left runnign at 10-15 degrees C above the recommended limit with not adverse effects. So long as You don't get a cascade scenario where the tempereature just keeps increasing, it should be fine.
The only thing higher temp can really do is cause the fans to get overworked, shortening their lifespan, reducing the cooling effect and starting a loop where the temperatures get really out of hand.
If you want to see how little a card actually degrades when kept well, Linus Tech Tips don't judge did a video where they tested a well-used gtx 480 against another unused one, and found little to no degredation in performace.
OP the shill had almost this exact same phrasing on a previous thread a week or two ago.
Nvidia kike.
It's a continuation of that thread, like gg does it has the same OP as the first one, there is even an archive posted of the first thread.
Now don't you feel stupid.
Please kill yourself
I'm used to 70c range so if I can set that myself them I'll be happy as a clown.
Very informative, thanks. And no I won't judge you for LTT. He makes some good stuff occasionally.
I don't mind sound at all. in fact I'd prefer it to be really loud if it means remaining cool. I wear headphones when gaming so I don't hear a damn thing outside of them anyway.
If I have headphones off it's for non-gaming or just casual music listening which means the GPU won't be under load.
As for playing with friends (that I never do) the sound of us chatting and laughing is usually louder than any fans anyway.
I hear the fans on my headphone but they are open back.
The 8 core runs the same as the 6 core in 90% of games.
bump14
nec12
I think I will get the GTX1060 and then go back to high end when DX12 is settled.
It will be two yaers till there is any good DX12 games.
Summers end is near, right?
NuDoom is the game AMD shill push cause it performs better on AMD cards if you own a i7.
Showing a GTX1060 is the better overall card for the game is just showing the the GTX1060 is the card to buy.
So no mans sky is shit but opengl, which card plays it better
is vulkan trustworthy? any cases of gpus frying?
i mean its made by AMD after all
HAHA nVidiots AMD BTFO your shit.
Adding a £200 pound water cooler to the card doubling the price up to GTX1070 price, can just beat a GTX1060 in some benchmarks not all.
Jesus AMD sucks ass. Even water cooled cannot reach a 1500mhz OC.