In order to match an overclocked GTX 1060 in Firestreak Extreme you are going to need to overclock a RX 480 to around 1430Mhz based on a quick check of scores and what this guys graph says.
Also that means more power draw and heat above what a GTX 1060 draws.
Apart from the DX12/Vulkan shenanigans I don't see much advantage in going the RX 480 route. Also nearly all of the Non-Ref cards for the RX 480 are delayed until August 5th.
hmm a graphics card thread that's not saying bad things? are you trolling me
I'm just trying to make a choice based on several factors. The GTX 1060 clearly wins on it's performance to cost ratio alone. That is if you do not factor in additional costs like Gsync if you go this route. That plus the whole DX12/Vulkan thing has me sitting on the fence. They both have their relative merits and downsides. I really don't believe there is a winner or loser here. There are too many factors involved and unknowns. Clearly the GTX 1060 has an immediate win over the RX 480. But it will be interesting to see how this pans out over the following months. I still cannot decide which way to jump as a stop gap GPU.
get the 1060, don't get the 480 if you're concerned about heating and power issues, gsync doesn't matter either
tfw don't care about 480/1060 wars because getting a 1080 anyway. Now if only ayyyymd had strong high end offerings so it wasn't overpriced as shit.
Spotted the redditard shill again. Why do they make it so easy?
How is it shilling to say you aren't even bothering with mid tier parts?
There is of course the other factor of which partner to go with and pricing variations based off of that. I would probably have gone with MSI but there is a big gap in the cost from say some low end Palit/Gigglebyte to MSI pricing wise. A Nitro+ OC is £249 from OCUK and the MSI GTX 1060 is £299 for the higher clocked card. It's all so fucking confusing right now. I wanted an easy GPU selection choice. This sucks.
don't get the shitty blower card
Well that's a given.
t. someone who never used gsync or freesync and still uses vsync
go fuck yourself pal once you try adaptive sync you never go back to vsync
is this thing really going to cost $400?
nvidia's gpu prices seem inflated as fuck right now
hello amd shill
Well considering you will not initially be able to purchase it in burgerland it's a mute point. But I reckon it will be in accordance with other RRP's so probably looking at around the $275 mark. Might not be that great a deal though if you can get a GTX 1060 for less.
Unbelievable. Don't you know it's your job to support AMD? It's like you WANT an Nvidia monopoly. I hope you enjoy paying for a $5000 mid range gpu once that happens.
>Pajeet's wife's son
DX11 performance is only going to get better over time unlike the 1060.
We have seen it with the 7970, 290x, 370x, and Fury.
The 480 is power efficient enough to fit in a 450w PSU, any more than that doesn't seem worth it.
You also have two APIs that it is better in.
The only reason to get a 1060 is of you have a weak Dual Core CPU. Other than that it makes no sense compared to a 480 as it is still the performance value king, cheaper, and more potential for future games.
And this is without third party boards.
>right now
They always were. I've had experiences with both camps , and the stereotypes are true on both sides : nvidia makes overpriced hardware and amd makes unstable hardware.
Its rather funny to think that the people on here who spend countless hours arguing about linux vs windows vs mac are extremely similar to those who argue about nvidia vs amd.
One would think Sup Forums should have a massive boner towards the amd camp.
>DX11 performance is only going to get better over time unlike the 1060
People want day 1 performance. It won't matter if amd pulls ahead of Nvidia on AAA Title: 2016 or some other old shit by 10% a year from now.
the AAA title wont matter a year from now , but your card is still going to be improving to keep up with new gen. my last amd card ran a little slow out of the box compared to the nvidia option from that year but it lasted 5 years before performance started decreasing to a point where I would reach < 60 fps average in most games. I recently upgraded and expect to last another 5 years.
Meanwhile , 970 users are already coughing up another 600$ to buy the new drivers.
What a bunch of vague bullshit
> (You)
>>DX11 performance is only going to get better over time unlike the 1060
>People want day 1 performance. It won't matter if amd pulls ahead of Nvidia on AAA Title: 2016 or some other old shit by 10% a year from now.
I agree with your point, however you are not losing out by going the 480 route. They are close enough in DX11 performance to not change your experience.
Down the road or in an Async game, it is a much larger difference.
Not even close. 1060 gets 980 ti performance once overclocked, pulling well ahead of the slower-than-390x 480.
ok shill
Sadly I am a cheap fuck, I don't believe in replacing a piece of equipment until it gets to unbearable limits so longevity and warranty are a factor to me.
Some suggest getting another mid range gpu in two years or so but I couldn't stomach that thought.
Part of me wants to go batshit crazy and spend £360 on a 1070 and enjoy 100+ frame rates, but then would I feel it was a wast when a year to two years later it's matched b £200- £270 cards again?
just go AMD dude...cheaper and will improve over time, lasting you quite a while.
>more power NOW then switch out for the newest gpu?
NVIDIA
>Cheaper alternative that won't be as energy efficient or cool, but will improve over time, performing well for much more?
RX480
simple as that, not even getting into the Vulkan and dx12 shit
Oh it will. 4K is gonna be possible next year on a single GPU so 1080 at 100 fps avg is going to be a peice of piss for mid range cards. HBM2. Vega/Volta will be all the rage by then.
>Cheaper alternative that won't be as energy efficient
This is part of my worry running a 520W PSU. I was thinking of grabbing the MSI 480M8BBA6, but the minimum recommended is 500W, so I'm worried I'll be pushing it close or something.
On the other hand, my experiences with AMD cards have always been alright sans Linux usage.
My 7950 is just starting to show its age and I want to upgrade to something, but I'm not sure what.
AMD shills doesn't realize the "improving over time" meme is them subconsciously admitting amd drivers are dogshit
>nvidia drivers gimping cards is much better than improving drivers
>MSI
meant xfx
also not the guy you were originally responding to
True Sup Forumsentoomen buy AMD
Even if Nvidia were to gimp drivers it would still be more robust and stable than any amd driver
here is the choice
stock 480 4gb for 200$ best price performance ratio
stock 480 8gb for 240$, slightly worse then a 1060 in dx11 better dx12 and vulcan outside of one gameworks crippled game
1060 which is preformance king per $ today, but a year later likely will go to the 480, the 1060 is not that massively ahead that amd wont catch it with better drivers, and the move to lower level apis is real.
this nitro + card which matches if not exceeded the 1060 for 260-280$ and will still get further boosts due to drivers
OR
wait 2 months, the 480 will likely fall back to 200$ for 8gb (amd has no 4gb card, they only made 8gb and locked 4 away so there is headroom to spare on price) likely putting this nitro into a 220$ range.
personally waiting on a never settle bundle to really consider the card, would love the hardware decode though.
iirc the Wattman program lets you lower the voltage on the RX480 (which for some reason upped its performance while reducing power consumption) and it also has some power savings settings and a "compatibility mode" that was just added to fix the power draw problems
It's just my input desu, I have a RX480 (not gonna hide it) and I'm perfectly happy with it (600w PSU so I cant say much about yours)
each frame displays when your card is ready not your card feeds the monitor on a set schedule... that makes games feel so fucking good.
the 1060 is to close to the 480 to be worth buying. Less than a few months before the 480 overtakes it.
yea, thats true, but an aggregate of performance across many reviewers put it at 5-7% better then stock 480... that's the kind of performance gap where i would say fuck it, ill get more further down the road and get the 480 over the 1060.
Why a few months?
rip
where'd that desu come from
Well, to be fair, as well, XFX recommends using a 550W PSU (one of their own brand, of course, because they want more of your money), so I'm thinking I'll be fine enough. I'm just always worried about having enough, I guess.
According to PSU estimators, it's only at 325W or so, so I should probably be fine with my Neo Eco 520.
>two months
nope it does now
also see
If I choose the 480 I am looking into getting a Freesync monitor too. The thing is. I currently have a HP IPS 1920x1200 monitor with 60 Hz refresh rate. Now I am looking at either getting a 1080 144Hz display (are there any IPS at that res?) or a QHD. They are all 16:9 but that's just how it is. My main concern would be can I game at 1080 on a QHD display without it looking like shit? I can't afford a 1070 to drive it at QHD res.
The Doom graph is well dicey. But then again Doom has no benchmark of it's own so it can vary wildly in average fps depending on scenes etc.
That's good bro, best of luck and enjoy whatever card(s) you get
dx11 improvements over life time
dx12 games will be released in mass later this year
vulcan games if they come out.
a few months away from every AAA game launching with dx12 (also an 11 component)
I'd find dx12 comparisons better than vulkan as it'll be more of a standard, not to say the point doesn't hold water.
This DX 12 coming in makes it a pain the arse to decide.
people bench it by clearing out the first area of the game and repeating the path they walked, somewhat unreliable true, but far from bad.
vulcan is likely going to take over from dx12, as so many gamers refuse to upgrade to win10, but vulcan got finalized fairly recently, opposed to 12 which had games in development for much longer.
I meant that, most likely, anything the 1060 "beats" the 480 at right now will quickly perform better on the 480 since the two cards are so close together performance wise. AMD is known to provide huge optimizations for their cards. Today the 480 is 100% tomorrow it's 110% ect.
I read a nice test in which an Eizo Freesync and an ASUS Gsync screen were compared.
The Eizo was 1200 the ASUS at 900 bucks.
Result was that the Asus outperformed the Eizo, despite being cheaper.
So now I really wanna know why fucks are still bringing this Gsync price bullshit up if equal Freesync screens cost similar prices or even more.
Or does lately without me knowing any cheap shit screen for 100-150bucks perform freesync, since those are the screens most people have.
>dx12 games will be released in mass later this year
I still doubt it.
Most devs got to be lazy shits thanks to publisher demands.
Eizo is waaaaay overpriced aimed at publishing house pro's. Not a good comparison really.
>Most devs got to be lazy shits thanks to publisher demands.
The game engines that those devs are licensing for their projects support it (and vulkan).
It's just a matter of twiddling engine config files and testing a few new use cases. Very little effort on the devs part since it's all handled by the engine.
Isn't it also to do with new console gpus using polaris? Pardon my being full of shit if wrong.
Indeed it makes porting a lot simpler.
Moot. It is a moot point.
I do not use that traitors name here anymore so the point is mute.
Upcoming games will utilize DX12 or Vulkan, if you buy the 1060 when the 480 is available for the same price, you're either a cuck or a fanboy
the 1060 fails in all except tomb raider for dx12 / vulkan cards. not only that, but all nvidia cards suffer in dx12 / vulkan.
unless its coded for exactly nvidia implantation, if you will, of async, it fails hard. and even then, amd still receives a higher boost than nvidia. look at time spy. amd still received higher gains than all nvidia cards. the 1080 still took the creme of the crop thanks to its brute force, but can't help but wonder if the card would of performed better in dx11 rather than dx12.
ultimately it comes down if you care about dx12 or not. for i, i do. i keep my shit for awhile before i upgrade. a 480 will age better. last five years have really shown how well amd's cards age thanks to its unified gcn architecture. with dx12 and vulkan being the future, and developers really excited about both, the 480 is a better buy imo. we already have quite a surprising amount of adoption already.
oh for tomb raider, this is a good article:
extremetech.com
even though nvidia still stayed at top, dx12 gave a near a zero boost to nvidia cards. amd cards on the other hand saw 25%+ boosts in performance. the game is an extraordinary nvidia sponsored game works game btw.
want to add that no, there isn't a "amd async implantation." amd's "implantation" is exactly what the specs for dx12 and vulkan define for async.
nvidia simply doesn't have hardware scheduling support. maxwell can't do compute + graphics at the same time.
pascal can't handle to many ques for compute + graphics before becoming bogged down. so ques have to be kept low. add to many and pascal will endure a negative impact.
while amd's full hardware support shines even more when it gets feed more ques.
nvidia dungoofed. they build great hardware designed around dx11, while amd built for dx12.
Still a lot of the biggest AAA games are using it.Doesn't matter what we think about it the biggest publishers in gaming are switching to it,which means that sooner or latter all games are going to utilize some from of it.
This sounds like I post I read when Sony was pushing 3D
POO IN THE GPU