R9 480

>have 4GB VRAM
>it's not enough for the shitty games I play + mods
>probably have to go for 8GB VRAM (Jesus Christ)

Is the R9 480 my best option? It's the cheapest modern 8GB card I can find.

Other urls found in this thread:

forums.geforce.com/default/topic/941579/geforce-1000-series/gtx-1080-high-dpc-latency-and-stuttering/
forums.geforce.com/default/topic/939358/geforce-1000-series/gtx-1080-flickering-issue/
overclock.net/t/1605618/ongoing-pascal-latency-problems-hotfix-doesnt-work-for-everyone
overclock.net/t/1606224/various-futuremarks-time-spy-directx-12-benchmark-compromised-less-compute-parallelism-than-doom-aots-also
youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>r9 480
>r9

Why not just get a 6GB card like the GTX 1060 Founder's Edition. Or a refurbished GTX 980 Ti.

Surely would want to play that game the way it's meant to be played, not suffering through bad drivers and 1000 watts of extra heat from an AMD video card solution!

Because what I need is VRAM, and 8GB > 6GB.

980 Ti is old. Knowing nvidia 1060 will be old soon too

because fuck off panjeet no one wants a 1060

go for the 480

>It's the cheapest modern 8GB card I can find.
Well looks like you already know the answer, you literally have no choice but the RX480 or the GTX 1070/1080.

Get the one you can afford.

...

...

...

...

...

...

GTX 1070
GTX 1060

Don't buy AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

...

...

...

$300+ ameridollars for an x60 Nvidia variant ever

...

My budget is $400, should I wait for Vega, wait for MSRP, 1070s, or buy 8GB 480 and another one to crossfire later?

Get the 8GB 480. If you're doing anything above 1080p or messing with mods at all whatsoever, always get at least 6GB of VRAM minimum.

in dx12 nvidia and amd have equal driver overhead which is very low. and before anyone brings up pic related i'm just going to do a tldr.

>tldr
all you need is a 2500k or higher. technically a 3ghz nehalem. haswell or above is absolute sweetness. you do not need the latest and greatest i7.

>tldr #2
all pic shows is the processor bottlenecking the 480. this is NOT a driver overhead issue as explained above. with async enabled, the 480 processes a lot of data and the potato processor x4 955 from 2009 with core 2 quad level of performance cannot keep up with the 480's async.

>tldr #3
nvidia does not have async enabled in doom - vulkan. all it benefits from is less driver overhead compared to opengl. this is why the increase from opengl to vulkan with both the 955 and 750 is the same 12fps. if you looked, with the 955 the increase on the 480 too is 10fps. similar to the 1060. with the 750 the 480 jumps to a 18fps increase, higher than the 1060's, because it enters a level of cpu performance that's able to start keeping up with the 480's async performance.

>tldr #4
i don't understand why they went from a 09/10 processor all the way up to essentially 2015/16 processor. little more than half a decade of improvements. but honestly, by seeing the leap from the awful 955 (core 2 quad level) to 750 (2.6ghz first gen nehalem), a 2500k should be more than enough. and if its the k, there is zero reason why it should not be overclocked to a minimum of 4.2ghz with a 212 evo slapped to it.

>tldr #5
all you need is a 2500k or higher. technically a 3ghz nehalem. haswell or above is absolute sweetness. you do not need the latest and greatest i7.

>tldr #6
don't complain if you have a haswell i5 or higher

>tldr #7
you don't need the latest and greatest i7. all you need is a 2500k or higher. even in dx11.

you should take the money, ask a girl out, get laid and STOP PLAYING VIDEOGAMES YOU FUCKING MANCHILD

Try some unbiased benchmarks with industry standard technologies like hair works enabled shill.

2500K is starting to show its age. I would not go out of my way to get a Sandy Bridge right now, but if I already had one, I could wait another generation.

i would wait for vega unless you absolutely need a new card now.

pascal has to many problems with drivers.

forums.geforce.com/default/topic/941579/geforce-1000-series/gtx-1080-high-dpc-latency-and-stuttering/
forums.geforce.com/default/topic/939358/geforce-1000-series/gtx-1080-flickering-issue/
overclock.net/t/1605618/ongoing-pascal-latency-problems-hotfix-doesnt-work-for-everyone

funny hotfix driver didn't even fix the latency issue and it was released to fix it. flickering is extremely annoying.

been near three months now and still no fix for either.

then the fact amd does better in dx12 overall.

When will NoVideo finally update their Vulkan libraries so they can crush AMD in Doom as well?

well of course. its for people already on it and not sure.

that benchmark for doom is atrocious because they went from potato level 2009 processors to 2016 modern processors and didn't bother to toss one in from 2013. it does nothing but confuse a lot of people and gives ammo to shills like to go around and spew deceptions.

it has nothing to due with nvidia failing with their drivers and providing older vulkan drivers. it has everything to do like i stated, nvidia disabled async in doom vulkan.

overclock.net/t/1606224/various-futuremarks-time-spy-directx-12-benchmark-compromised-less-compute-parallelism-than-doom-aots-also

we can easily guess the level of performance they would gain with pascal in doom vulkan with async on by looking at the time spy demos. since time spy uses low amount of async to not overload pascal's preemption context switching, we know at best pascal cards can gain anywhere from 3% to 5% increase in performance with it on.

doom does use async heavily so pascal might not get any boost or possible regression. but if they can somehow do it, then most likely a 4% average boost over its non async results. it would still put it below the 480.

Thing about Sandy Bridge and Skylake is that you're not only benchmarking the CPUs, you're benchmarking the difference in memory. DDR4 can be really beneficial when it comes to productivity. Combine the CPU+memory performance and it's noticeable at the very least.

ddr4 on average provides a minor boost, around 5%. overall no one complains about being stuck on a ivy or haswell because both are plenty enough. a ivy 3770k overclocked to 4.5ghz comes awfully close to matching a stock 6700k with boost off and benches a little higher than a stock 4770k.

if you have a 2500k, 2600k, 3570k, 3770, or haswell you're fine.

We should try to keep gpu discussion in /gcg/

>panjeet

I've heard Punjeet, Pajet and now Panjeet. How can you fuck something up like that which you've read and not heard? This isn't Chinese whispers.

People upgrade GPUs for 20% in performance so 5% in addition to the performance gains seen in CPUs can be quite a bit. Could be the difference between 5-10 frames.

Not saying iSeries 2XXX users should upgrade just yet but they would see a noticeable difference. Especially in lower-end gaming performance.

>keep your technology discussion contained to a thread on the technology board

no one is denying a boost. no need to imply that at all. i went from my 3570k to a 6700k and noticed a nice overall boost in everything. but i did so because i finally saved enough.

yes, people do, but most people also keep their stuff for long periods of times. my buddy slapped a 980 ti to his 3770k and has no desire to ever upgrade his cpu yet. my other friend just finally built a new computer to replace his i7 920 and nvidia 480 house fire edition he built back in 2010.

i do agree sandy bridge users should start planning an upgrade in the next year or so. zen should be an enticing upgrade path for them, but as it stands right now, a 2500k is plenty for most people still. especially those rocking 2600k/2700k's still.

no reason not to spring for more VRAM. The shaders not being able to keep up with the memory interface (bandwidth, amount available) isn't a bad thing at all. It's actually ideal.

Otherwise you end up with the R9 Nano or GTX 960, both held back by their total vram and bandwidth respectively.

Good post user. Would turn into pasta if I wasn't on my phone.

i went from a 2500k to a 6600k and barely noticed a difference at all outside of benchmarks. I think it's because i still use a mechanical hdd...

an ssd is an upgrade that even benefits potatoes. contrary to shills like that like to spew nonsense, ssd's are not a meme.

decreased load times, faster read and write speeds, less latency and overall increased snappiness is noticeable in everything.

470
480
Fury X (If and only if you can find it at $350 or less)
1070
1080

Any other choice is fucking retarded.

VRAM limit is solely why I'd pick a 480 over a 1060. Consoles today are using 4-5 for games. Back when we were still on PS3/360 2GB was only barely adequate for hi res just before the PS4 came out. If 6GB is scraping just past the high end of console use then 8 is the only option if you're gonna keep the card for more than 18 months.

Im not saying that we shouldnt discuss gpus,Im just saying that we should try to keep it in one thread,no reason to clutter up the catalog with 10 gpu threads when we can discuss it in one.

well we can even already see the 8gb being slightly worth it over the 4gb version at 1080p with the few benchmarks that put the 4gb 480 up against the 8gb 480.

like shows.

its nothing major at the moment, 4 fps. its similar to others such as witcher 3. nothing an overclock can't compensate for. but later on? that extra vram can help.

plus later on if you pick up a 1440p freesync monitor and that extra vram would help a ton. and yes, people do slap higher res screens on $200 cards as insane as it sounds.

>have gtx 770
>don't bitch like a fanboy on prom night
>????
>profit

go fuck yourself, man.

Get a 480GB, I only got a 240 and regretted it. I love my SSD

It's funny because right now only a handful of games actually use more than 4 and we've been on this gen for 3 years. Any games in the next year or so are likely to be around the same as well.

The 4k iterations of consoles will push that limit up significantly but the fact of the matter is that the install base is still on the old consoles. We won't magically get change if the users are allowed to stay behind. Devs will take the easy way out 10 out of 10 times. And then there's also the problem that 4k requires additional equipment to take advantage of bringing the cost of adoption of new consoles up.

You guys are going to lose your shit when HBM2 comes around and we get big vram size reset to 4GB on mid range, 6 high end and 8 on the ultra high end.

I'm really interested to see how my 3.8 GHz X5650 will handle this.

I wish they had tested some more CPUs to isolate the variables of IPC, clock speed, and hyperthreading. Plus, they didn't attempt to address number of cores. Should have tested an i7 870, 970, and 6800k, as well as an i5 6600k to be more comprehensive.

Who even uses i5 750s anymore? The only people I ever see with CPUs that old are on X58, not P55. Most of the older i5s still in use are at least Sandy Bridge.

>Why not just get a 6GB card like the GTX 1060 Founder's Edition.

It costs 50% more and has less memory.

>with async enabled, the 480 processes a lot of data and the potato processor x4 955 from 2009 with core 2 quad level of performance cannot keep up with the 480's async.

Or in other words, with DX12 you have more cpu resource utilization. All those extra cores are used better.

stfu panjeer

Get a 1070 and call it a day

>don't need the latest and greatest i7. all you need is a 2500k or higher.
Nice try, but you do need a much better cpu than the 2500k to avoid stuttering and frame drops.
Watch this from 7:40
youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4

It's also overall faster in most applications.

But it already is.
Based panjeer poster

you don't need that much vram sperg

What is futureproofing poorfag

>he hasn't used high-res texture mods

Oh pajeet, pay attention to the i5 4460 here, a reduction in performance when going from an i7 only on the AMD card,
also why would anyone go through all this trouble when the 1060 is better in every scenario and only costs 10$ more

>futureproofing

one of my favorite memes

>he uses 1080p
Games started utilizing 4GB+ 2 years ago at 1440p and now it's going to hit 1080p users next.

I guarantee every single one of these 480 4GB buyers will regret it if they keep it beyond a year and a half.

PowerColor Radeon RX 480 is this a good card? its the only 480 out there atm.

Don't buy reference.

Why am I keking so hard at this

>You guys are going to lose your shit when HBM2 comes around and we get big vram size reset to 4GB on mid range, 6 high end and 8 on the ultra high end.

HBM is never gonna be used outside enthusiast tier products, and disabling more than 1 stack will degrade bandwidth to sub-gddr5x levels, which means hbm2 will only be shipped as 12gb at the minimum.

is it that bad user? my buddie really wants a 480 atm so should i just get him it or tell him to get a 470 with a better brand?

Fellow 5650 owner and it should roughly be at the level of a 6700k at 4 ghz, provided the workload is capable of being spread to all six cores.

I just want the reference level custom 470s to come out already. I don't give a shit if you are overclocking and riced out. That upcharge is hardly worth it. Probably $20 for 5fps

>he buys legacy hardware

It depends on how much you wish to spend and when you want to buy. RX 480 is a mid tier, inexpensive card and is the cheapest way to get bang for the buck power and 8gb of ram. Nvidia 1070 and 1080 cards are also 8gb, but are higher tier performance for a much higher price. Ram isn't everything performance wise and some say to get the NV 1060 6gb but it trades blows with the RX 480 in that price and performance field. However I think the latter is a better card for a number of reasons.

So yeah, depends on what price tier. Regardless, including if you get a 480 you want a non reference design cooler version because they have better pcb and vrm as well as cooling.

>no one wants a 1060

Nigga what? Literally everyone I know who wants to upgrade is getting a 1060. They don't even know the 480 exists. I'm not going to be the one that tells them either. More nvidia sales = good.

>what is memory compression

>wasting money on a whore
>2016
it's literally more efficient to burn your money for heat

wait for the AIB cards to be back in stock, the reference 480 is terrible just like literally every other reference design

>5 Games started utilizing 4GB+ 2 years ago at 1440p and now it's going to hit 1080p users next.

Fixed

Anything that's good atm beside a 480, he wants to pull the trigger already on a gpu

470 is probably just as decent as a 480 if all you're doing is 1080p

Any decent brands? One best 470 to get atm

You're wrong. Pic related is the best version.

sapphire

What resolution are you playing at? If @1080 then the 480 8gb or the 1060 6gb will be fine. But if you're playing at 1440 you'll want to get a 1070.

I think you mean BurgerBucks™

I want one...

>Not Megumin
I want her to explode my PCIe slot

>my anecdote is better than yours

I'm quite impressed by the 470 and 460.
I wasn't expecting it but perf/watt is much better than the 480 which was basically on par with maxwell.
It gives me hope for vega

>MFW AIB cards are a myth

It'll be out by mid july they said, the end of july they said, mid august they said

Fuckin A

AMD cards do too much cpu overhead on DX11 while Nvidia don't, there is something about a instruction from DX11 that AMD didn't applyed to the card due to GCN architecture.

Where is the open source driver?

it's not cpu overhead m8

I don't want to make a new thread, but I don't want to hijack this thread either.

I have one question or need input from others about this, I have 2 R9 270X 2GBs cards running (not in crossfire) Ive been thinking of upgrading to new cards 2 R9 390X 8GBs they put out slightly better frames in 1080p from what I've seen around (don't care for 4k, not yet anyway) or should I get 2 RX 480X cards?

Anyone with RX 480X cards? how are you liking them? what did you upgrade from?

[spoiler]I have an AMD build[/spoiler]

CF/SLI is going the way of the dodo.

480 is shit, get a 1060

Not yet. It'll stick around for a few gens more or just continue being cut and exclusive to high end stuff like it is right now.

Nvidia is only taking it as a way to keep their price gouging in check and that will continue unless AMD does something. That's why it was cut from the 1060. Don't want to give people better performance than their top card cheaper. Makes no fucking sense for them so fuck you.

Destiny's edge alone runs on 5 gigs of vram you literal cocksucker.

>no dx12
>no vulkan
>more expensive
>future gimp
>housefire due to no watercooling

ok

Depends...
R480 is a long term investment for the casual Sup Forumsentooman

a GTX may be better for older games that you seem to play.

>no dx12

1060 has dx12

>no vulkan

1060 has vulkan and is even faster than the 480 at it

>more expensive
$10 more expensive for 12% faster performance

>future gimp
AMD cards get much worse over time, while Nvidia cards get better.

>housefire due to no watercooling
Uhh 480 doesn't have watercooling either and gets much hotter.

Fury X has only 4GB of VRAM you know.

>AMD cards get much worse over time, while Nvidia cards get better.

that is the complete opposite of true.

AMD cards get noticeably better as time goes on.

And? It's still a small percentage of games that need more than 4GB of vram. And even if you do find more, a lot of them are either just going out of their way with the settings to reach >4GB or 1440p/4k which these shitty cards can barely handle right now. Unless you're on the high end 1080/Titan X, having less than 4GB of vram shouldn't be as much of an issue as not having the fucking horsepower to drive 1440p/2160p. Hell, I'd worry more about bandwidth but there's nothing you can do about that one.

You're literally a gen or two ahead of worrying about vram in the mid-range.

I'm almost certain Nvidia went with >4GB in the 1060 because they didn't want to get shit like they did with the 960/970. And honestly, it all comes back to AMD overcompensating the shit hardware in the 3XX with lots of VRAM which lead to 4XX doing the same shit, The equivalent of moar coars.