I have a radeon hd6950. is it worth it to upgrade to a 1070?

i have a radeon hd6950. is it worth it to upgrade to a 1070?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6SYNayNQi6s
pcgamesn.com/amd/rx-480-vs-gtx-1060-vulkan
gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-5
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

what games do you play?

I'm on a 7950 and that's my plan if the 490 turns out shit.

more info
>want to play graphic intensive games like witcher 3
>goal is to be moving on to 1440p 144hz
>most liekly single monitor.
>not totally strapped for cash but dont want to get too crazy (no 1080 unless really good deal)

pls respond ;_;

>>goal is to be moving on to 1440p 144hz
1070 won't do that at max for most games, unless you turn settings down

for maxed out, you'd probably need a 1080ti

but a 1070 is probably 3-4x faster than your 6950, maybe more

>1070 won't do that at max for most games, unless you turn settings down
it will do it well at 60hz though right?

any Nvidia card is a huge upgrade from AMPoo

even a gt 250

Just google the benchmarks for those games.

At least it wont fry your PCIe slot even as a fucking low end card

running a 7950 here, i can play every game at max settings at 1440p, however THEY USUALLY DO NOT run them at 60fps, i get around 20-60 depending of how bad optimized is the game

>144Hz
Honestly what the fuck would you need that refresh rate for. 75 is good enough

Go away fanboy(s)

Multiplayer games

i'd say it's definitely worth the upgrade, but you won't peg 144+ fps at max settings, but with a g-sync monitor it should still be nice as fuck

if it's something like csgo or dota then a 1070 will be totally fine

You probably wouldn't get much of a competitive advantage with the law of diminishing returns. 75 or anything under a 100 is good enough.

whilst we're on this topic, anyone has a good idea of cpu/mobo+gpu for overwatch 144+fps stable low settings?

Yes. It's a great card. I used to have a 290x, but it died, so i bought a 1070. No regrets. Probably the smartest buy you can make right now. 1080 is overpriced, 480 is cheaper, but not as powerful, TITAN XP is a joke, and 1080ti is probably going to cost around 900$.
Also fastsync.

second 6950 will be more beneficial, even if you need a need psu it'll still be cheaper

ps4 works good

i disagree

noty

at 1080p it's more than enough.
at meme res and ultra meme fps obviously he needs le meme cards to go with it.
but who's dumb enough to waste this much money for gaymen, especially when the price of bracket GPUs are twice what they were when he bought the 6950...

only decent option.
the market is currently overpriced out the ass and performs no better than 6950.
literally will get the exact same performance for spending 250-300 (the price of a new 6950)

AMD will not release the ''490''. The rx480 was the biggest Poolaris chip.

>even a gt 250
The 8800GTX!

I don't give a shit, 490/vega/whatever, if it's not out by black friday and good it's 1070 avenue for me.

This I'm waiting too just to know my options.
>what is Vega

Rajeet my son, now is time to buy new GPU
Here are your options
>Beautiful and clean Nvidia GTX 1080/1070
>Shitting in the street with AMD

>1440p 144hz
You need a titan XP for that or 4k

just get a 480, maxes out 1080p 60hz and does well at 1440p

490 is a dual 480 card

You seem pretty confident over something that's just a rumor.

They need something to hold over until vega to say they can compete on performance with a 1080(in like the 5 games it works in), will probably just be a limited run card from Power Color or something

will also be marketed for one GPU per Eye VR stuff

>dual card
it's trash

just get a good single gpu card

>will also be marketed for one GPU per Eye VR stuff
nvidia blows this out of the water with simultaneous multi-projection, if vega doesn't have it then amd is truly pathetic, amd should've thought about this stuff because it's crucial for vr, curved displays and triple monitor setups

It'll make miners happy, and for a few production applications it gives you 16gbs of VRAM for maybe $500, probably $600 on launch

The 1060 delivers all the 1080p action you need and sips power compared to doing a janky crossfired 6950 build.

If you're buying a 1070 or better and only have a 1080p display, and don't plan on buying a new monitor for another 2-3 years, you're a fucking idiot.

>nvidia blows this out of the water with simultaneous multi-projection
you forgot single pass rendering as well

that's all well and good, but that's only a few performance increases, if they can get devs to utilize affinity multi-GPU, they'll have 100% GPU performance per eye, and with the 470/80 being so cheap it's a great VR solution

Besides, it's only a matter of time before AMD announces FOSS alternatives

>1060
Ew man, the 480 is a far better choice for the long run, in addition to saving like $100 minimum on a free-sync display vs g-sync display

It's faster, but it has huge latency problems.

If you were fine using a 6950 for so long, then a 470 would be a cheap upgrade with 2-3x the power - I'm also sitting on a 6950 and that's the upgrade I'm going to do.

>1070
>latency problems
haven't heard of this before, links/explanation?

Hey user i have a HD 6950

i went to the RX 470 it gave me a good 100% boost in performance

but the 1070 is like 40-60 faster than the RX 480

latency issues with the new 10xx seriees

big thread on ocn about it.

im sorry im a retard but what does latency mean when talking about gpus

>1070 won't do that at max for most games, unless you turn settings down
desu if you're going for 144fps you probably don't care about half of the graphics settings, they just get in the way.

>i went to the RX 470 it gave me a good 100% boost in performance
don't listen to these faggots.
the truth is out there
470 is just a rebranded 370 which is a rebranded 7850 which is a rebranded 6950
but costs twice as much.

would literally get twice your performance for 1/4th the cost if you bought a second 6950 though...

i dont give a shit about DOF and chromatic shit. do those drag down frame rate?

Not really.
AA, Texture size, and Mesh Quality are the real big taxers on GPU workload.

it's the delay between what goes on in the game and what you see on the screen

top kek
the 480 and 1060 will be outdated by the time dx12 and such becomes prevalent/standard.
By that time AMpoors will be cucked by another great nvidia card.
So, 1060 is by far the better choice.

>I don't know why but turning off the threaded driver optimization got rid of most of my microstuttering in CSGO?
>threaded driver optimization
when will this multithreading meme die, you can just multithread everything and expect everything to improve

>470 is just a rebranded 370 which is a rebranded 7850 which is a rebranded 6950
>but costs twice as much.
>14nm process is a rebrand
how retarded are you user?

>dual card setup doubles performance

until the 480's performance is improved in drivers and it ends up faster even in DX11

LMAO
>muh drivers

youtube.com/watch?v=6SYNayNQi6s

huh...?
every single test shows that 1060 is faster in 100% of dx11 games
480 is only faster in a select few (dx12)
are AMpoors retarded?

Ya, 1060 is 10-20% faster in DX11, 480 is 10-20% faster in DX12/Vulkan

AMD generally eventually fully unlocks the performance of their cards over time, while nvidia cards run near 100% from the get go, AMD takes time to get going, while still being relatively competitive in the mean time, so over time it ends up being a better investment, especially with DX12/Vulkan coming down the pipe

do you want good perf now or in a couple of years when it's time to upgrade your low-mid range card anyway?

this. im buying a fucking graphics card not a stock.

The 470/480 already does 1080p 60fps ultra in most cases, and it'll only get faster in time and outpace the 1060

I went from an HD 6950 to a gtx 980, difference is night and day. I play 1440p 60hz

is the difference from 1080 to 1440 really that big? ive heard the difference between 60 and 144hz is a lot better. i might go with 1080 at 144hz but idk . is there a place where you can see 144hz monitors in person?

If i only want 144hz for dota but am fine with 60 in all other games can i just get a 1440p 144hz monitor? like it doesn't look worse on the other games if you cant reach 144hz right? sry if this is a sttupid questoin

underrated post

help

Yes you can.

...

If you can't hit 144, you'll drop down to needing to hit 72 fps. If you can't reach 72, you'll be stuck at 31 hz effectively if you don't want some hot screen tearing action.

is it that bad? that sounds horrible.

1080p is a shitty res, never liked it. I had 1920x1200 at work and 1920x1080 at home and I felt inferior.

Now that I have 2560x1440 I feel like a real man.

Next step is 144hz for me

It just means that if you're playing games at 30-71 frames per second, you might as well have just gotten a regular 60 hz monitor.

Or you turn Vsync off.

get a 144 Hz g-sync monitor and if you're at around 60 fps it will still even look better than a 60 hz monitor

>nvidia
>no async
>no dx12
>no vulkan
>certified gimpworks soon
Very good for older games but prepare to turn some settings down for future games if you plan to keep it long

nice meme

What are you trying to imply with this image?
Too much work is a lazy thing to say, game companies should be trying to get more people to be able to play their games.
Fucking jews.

they're saying it's a meme, it's a 5-10% gain at best, and you're probably misinterpreting the part about too much async work, they're saying that you can't put too much of an async workload to the gpu because it's a meme

5-10% plus whatever Vulkan and dx12 offer will add up and allow AMD cards to really be powerhouses, in a perfect world.

5-10% can add up, it's not a meme, it's really innovative.

because too much async work will have negative effects eg. maxwell cards. Meanwhile, amd gcn cards will run it comfortably

>in a perfect world
sure like aots which is a shitty meme game that no one plays

too much async work is bad for all cards idiot, it's the same deal as cpu multithreading, it can speed up certain code to an extent but if you overdo it it's just worse

Stop doing this shit! Have some valid proof or stfu.

cute!

Why? The 1070 or better are more future proof.

3440x1440 is a big difference yeah

That's what I'm doing. I bought a gsync 1440p 144hz monitor and I love it. The 1440p is sexy, the 144hz is very very nice to have for games that can work with it (League, Dota, TF2, whatever other shooters that may need some settings lowered), while the rest are evened out by Gsync.

4k is still too hard/expensive to run, 1080p isn't near as good as 1440p. Sticking to the 1440p 144hz gsync is a pretty safe option. Slap on a 1070 and you're good to go

ok nice. i was leaning pretty heavily but this post pretty much confirms it. thanks user ! :D

>Texture size
That's VRAM and memory department, having minimum or maximum textures won't affect his FPS with a 1070 anyway

>the 480 is a far better choice for the long run
why do I keep hearing this even though the DX12 advantage is non existant?

Doom vulkan is the best example we have currently for what a low level api can do

pcgamesn.com/amd/rx-480-vs-gtx-1060-vulkan

110 avg fps vs 73 for the 1060

so one game should be the reason you buy a mid range GPU, even when the competitor it's better in every single possible way including actual availability? I'm an AMD user myself and I still think the 480 was the product of a rushjob and should be avoided. People should either get a 470 or go green side anyway

The 1060 is only 10-20% faster in DX11 on average, and both card as easily capable of 1080p high+ settings

Are you nuts? 10-20% is a BIG advantage. Also the 1060 is cooler and more efficient, while being a much better overclocker. Considering you can buy both at the same price only a madman would prefer a 480 at this point

1080p vulkan:
>rx 480 28 min fps
>gtx 1060 42 min fps

I have a 470 and I don't hit below 60 at 1080p. I call bullshit.

That 10-20% doesn't matter when both cards are being used on a 1080p 60hz display, both cards can saturate the display on a high level

it's like 80fps vs 90 fps in most cases

gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-5

maybe it's fine but IF there is microstuttering going on then something like fraps isn't going to detect it since it takes the average fps, it doesn't measure individual frametimes

When will we stop seeing threads about "is it worth to..."? You are hard pressed to ask something more subjective and personal.