>it's an Nvidia skimps on VRAM episode
They really never stop, do they? All those 600 and 700 series cards with 2GB weren't remotely future proof. The 970, which pretended 3.5GB was enough. And now the GTX 1060* 3GB, which is not only a 1050 Ti, but it also has too little VRAM.
Nvidia love to skimp on GPU memory, forcing you to buy a new card in a year.
The 1060 6GB should have been the 1060ti, and the 3GB should have just been the 1060.
Its a completely gimped card, not just the gram retard.
It should be 1050ti
Gram is vram*
I was one of those tards that bought the 960, I need to replace it already. Can't afford the 6GB 1060, should I go rx 480 4GB? Never used AMD before so I really don't know what to expect. I can't tell which memes are true.
No you idiot. Its called marketing. You think they are going to just give you a future proof card like that. No, thats what the 1080 is for. The 1070 is for now. Take the 960 for instance. Its literally a 980 cut in half. Why did they do that especially for things like the bus when it wouldnt have hurt them at all to increase it. Because then the 960 is a real competitor and encroaches on the 970 and 980 cards.
480 4GB is in fact a meme because you can't buy it anywhere.
If you wait for it to actually be available and actually get one for $200-$220 it's the best perf/$ of this generation
It's not worth it to go with a new 4GB 480, you're better off getting a 4GB 470.
I said that exact thing in my post.
The 480 is absolutely going to be more future proof. There's a lot of memeing about AMD buyers being poorfags. But the fact is, Nvidia rips you off all the time. The 960 was gimped and the 1060 is overpriced for what it offers.
>tfw even my 960 has 4gb of VRAM
I can't fathom why they went backwards
But it's literally in stock at my local PC store right now. $399au for the MSI gaming X and $369 for the Sapphire Nitro (which I don't think I want because everyone says the cooler sucks)
Why isn't it worth it? The 4GB 480 performs like 95% as well as the 8GB version for about 20% less money? Seems like it's a pretty strong, good value 1080p card. I want this gpu to my last 1080p card before I go to 4K in probably 2-3 years time.
Yeah, the only thing I'm specifically concerned about is game support and general performance. However, I don't buy games when they're new so out of the gate drivers aren't important to me, I always wait at least a good 3 months or so minimum for prices to drop.
>implying your 960 can even take advantage of 4GB with it's 128 bottleneck
Nvidia is skilled in the arts of ripping you off, gimping your card, filling games with proprietary bullshit, and lying.
AMD is skilled in the arts of disappointment, shitty drivers, and overheating.
Not even remotely correct
AMD is currently hot with great drivers but crypto miners own all the cards
Nvidia "just works" till they decided to add another feature then you have to upgrade
Someone explain this...
>outperforms the 480 and as good if not the same as the 6gb 1060
>ITS GIMPED, YOU GUIZ
>all these big boys with their big boy GPUs
still on a 660 here
>mfw seeing all those benchmarks of games I don't want to play
crypto currencies.
ask /biz/.
don't believe anything /biz/ says.
My bad only read half. I'll bump since a lot of noob builders see the 1060 outperforms 480 on dx11 but buy this gimped version since it has the name and its cheaper.
>midrange gpu
>future proof
Why are you so retarded?
Not the fact it's amd, the fact that the 4gb is 20$ more than the 8gb...
>the same performance as the 1060 6GB
>actually has like 15% less processing cores
Yea, sure buddy, you sure know what you're talking about
>buying a "future proof" 4GB card in 2016
Then buy something else you twatbag
I don't intend on playing absolutely every game at ultra, as long as I can run things at high or equivalent I'm satisfied.
Welcome to the life of someone who doesn't buy ultra high end parts.
7600 GT = replace after buying.
9600 GT = replace after buying.
GTX 460 = replace after buying.
It's the same thing every time. If you buy weak ass parts like mid range card and you think you're future proofing because you get more VRAM, you're getting hoodwinked.
I have a GTX 980 and it's already showing its age. Believe me, it's not the fucking VRAM. Here's the kicker. The 480/1060 isn't a whole lot better than 980. Now imagine if you bought that and my 980 is already showing its age.
Oops, looks like you bought a product you have to replace right after buying it again. Fuck midrange cards and fuck retards who meme that you can "future proof" mid-range trash.
In b4 this only applies to nvidia. AMD mid range might be marginally less crap, but it's still crap.
Then get an 8GB AMD and upgrade in 5 years
As I said I don't feel the need to arbitrarily play games at absolute max settings, it's just diminished returns that don't justify the performance overhead imho. As long as I can play most games at around high or so (Assuming most games have low, medium, high, very high) at a pretty consistent 60 at 1080p then that's all I'm after. If the 480 4GB would be capable of this then, sweet. If not, then fuck it I probably just won't upgrade and go without.
My 560ti gave me performance that I was happy with a lot longer than the 960, it took about 3 years for me to want to replace that card.
>Implying he can find one in stock
m.youtube.com
Only encounters problems when it runs out of vram
out of stock means people are buying them cause they are better than nvidia product
Got an R9 390 on a WQHD monitor. No reason to upgrade. Maxes out most games and there is not a game out there I can't play on high settings or better.
Basically the only reason higher end cards sell is benchmark fetishism and e-penis enlargement.
Of course the 480 is capable of playing games if you reduce your graphics settings. So is the 1060 3GB and a 970, and a 960 and a R9 290 and a R9 280X, etc.
Hell you can play some games like GTAV on a GTX 480 from 2010 at 60 FPS.
>people
you mean buttcoin miners
Yeah but it's about how much you have to reduce the settings.
Generally when you have to really go down into the medium level, which I do with some games on the 960 to get 60fps, I'm not satisfied with the visual quality. Hence the want for a 480.
And yes, all those other cards you mention I've considered. The 1060 3GB has less vram than I'd be comfortable with, the 970 is still a good 20% more expensive where I live than the 480 4GB, I could find one used but I like having warranty. The R9 cards look like pretty good value however I have a 600w psu that is over 5 years old now so I don't know what it can put out anymore, and I just appreciate more power efficiency in general so I find the 480 more appealing than previous gen amd cards.
Well that varies game by game. You can have pretty high settings in GTAV even on a GTX 480.
I mostly have to turn off MSAA on GTX 980 to get good frame rates. In some games like The Witcher III I have to work harder to get 60. But that's not gonna last for long I imagine, I'm sure they'll figure out how to give their games even more demanding effects once DX12 titles start popping out.
>"Blah blah that card is too weak to use the extra VRAM!!!"
>Meanwhile, textures have literally no impact on performance
Why are there so many people on Sup Forums who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. People are constantly talking about how "weak" GPUs can't use much VRAM or their bus is too narrow. And yet there are tons of videos of these cards performing the same as low VRAM models, just with better textures.
>3gb
>20+16
Oh yes I agree it absolutely varies game by game. I agree on GTA V, because that was the one game where I was actually fully satisfied with the 960's performance. It ran high settings with a few things on very high (like shadows, to my surprise) like an absolute champ. Great optimisation on that game. Witcher 3 I was able to play at high settings locked at a reasonable consistent 45fps which was acceptable as I played that with a controller.
And yeah I've often avoided MSAA in games to get more performance when I've needed it. I know heaps of people hate FXAA but I've used it often to save performance. Yeah, it looks a wee bit blurry compared to better AA methods but it's better than none for me.
I bought a GTX 760. I'm only replacing it because it's started to die and it's out of warranty, but I otherwise could have just used it indefinitely. I play at 1080p without MSAA,so all of the new games that I've wanted to play work with it.
I'm gonna buy a 1060, and it will probably be the same story.
oh hey another 980 (non-ti) owner, have you overclocked yours? if so how far did you go?
>Tfw got the fury nitro for 310 on amazon
Best deal of my life desu
Because ultra high res textures aren't that important to the overall aesthetic unless you're a texture peeper where every pore must be visible while you inspect your screenshots at 800% magnification.
I mean if you know you're gonna use 8GB of VRAM, then by all means buy a card with 8GB of VRAM, but for gaming and good looking games it's barely relevant. Even with 2GB VRAM you can have good textures. Just not absurd res textures.
What do those Skyrim modders use, 8K textures? Come on.
I can't overclock it, I'm on a tight thermal budget. The MSI GTX 980 which is slightly overclocked from factory is already pushing it hard.
What games have textures that are large enough to use 2GB of VRAM? I've never been close to that. I think the most VRAM usage I've ever had, at 1080p without MSAA was 1GB in GTA V. The only things I've had put me over 2GB have been MSAA and resolution.
What texture setting did you play GTA V with? Because very high in that game definitely requires more than 2GB for optimal performance.
I played with max. Never exceeded 2GB of VRAM, as far as I'm aware, though the menu warns you that it will.
What card? I played gta v with the 960 and high settings filled my vram right up. When I tried very high textures it was noticeable less smooth and couldn't maintain 60 properly.
760. I get a fairly consistent 70ish FPS, so I'd guess MSAA, SSAO or resolution is eating up your ram.
Not him, but looking at my own screenshot with most things maxed without MSAA at 1920x1200, I use about 2.4GB of VRAM in GTAV. Bringing that below 2 would be super easy.
>What do those Skyrim modders use, 8K textures?
To play on their 1080p monitors.
I never understood the 3GB/6GB shit. Why not 4GB/8GB?
I was using FXAA and playing at 1080p, I can't remember if I was using SSAO. I think what is saying is accurate.
>tfw got a 8GB Nitro+ RX470 for a much lower price than a 480
Not going to replace this until it dies.
Also, The Witcher 3 can get by with even less.
Graphics settings still too high for the card. I think that's maxed with no AA and hairworks on low.
Bus width.
192bit bus has 6 memory controllers in 3 pairs. That means you have 6 memory channels. You can't fit 4GB on 6 channels, it doesn't divide evenly. You'd have to do some fucked up partitioning like... 4x 4Gbit and 2x 8Gbit GDDR5. Nvidia has done that before and boy did everyone grill them for it.
I wish Nvidia made a 4GB GTX 950. I know it "can't use all that" but it could use more than 2GB. I honestly just need 30fps at 1680x1050.
I hope the 4GB 1050 is decent.
That's weird. Maybe it's SSAO or I'm just remembering wrong.
Coincidence?
How much longer will the rx 480/470 be out of stock because of Buttcoin miners? This is silly. I know a miner who got 60 cards and he's just a scrub with like 10 little mining racks in an apartment spare bedroom.
Asshole wouldn't even sell me one.
That's irrelevant. They can design the card to use 4/8GB which would make is seem much more attractive.
Nvidia are always cheap with the memory bus. They can't really change the memory allotment once they choose the bus width. That would mean some memory modules are accessed faster than others, which ends up with a >3.5GB situation again.
They'd have to widen the bus, which equals more power usage.
Or they'd have to narrow the bus, which equals less throughput. Pick your poison.
Either way in my opinion what you're gaining from that extra 1GB/2GB of memory is largely irrelevant and not worth the tradeoff either way.
>buying a card with less than 8gb
why even bother with this shitty topic, OP?
Oh yeah, and just to add to that. In both cases production cost significantly increases.
The 4gb model is a scalper reselling. The msi gaming x 4gb is 199$ if you buy it from Newegg, not through Newegg.
>Not being able to buy a new card every 6 months
>Being this poor
AMD fags really are bottom of the barrel welfare leaches.
youtube.com
RX480 DOOM 5K
Dude, what fucking game uses even ONE fucking gig of VRAM. Sam Andreas only uses like 200 MB at most.
here's you (You) and now go back to your sketching board and think of some better bait
Seriously, if you play any game made past 2008, you're fucking retarded. Yeah, I still use my original xbox, so what?
> It actually manages to hit 30fps for a while at 5120x2880
Holy shit
I got a GTX 680 4GB when it first came out and am still not feeling pressured to upgrade yet.
While benchmarks show clear fps boosts with newer cards what I am getting is fine for 1080p and even run Elder Scrolls Online at 2x DSR, 45 to 70 fps high settings.
Glad I didn't settle for the 2GB version and wouldn't touch the newer 2 or 3GB cards.
why do you feel the need to be so contrarian and retro to seem interesting? there is nothing wrong with enjoying something that others like. having opinions that are popular isn't an issue. for instance: I play games from [current year] because I like pretty visuals and don't like looking at models that I can see the polygons of. others share this opinion. say what you want about the story of san andreas, but chances are that of all of the games from 2008-2016, there are probably some that have more interesting and immersive experiences.
Dude, fuck off, all new games are shite
I gladly pay Nvidia tax because Nvidia GPUs actually work on Linux.
I found a 1060 with 6GB, what is your excuse?
Thank their absolute domination in the HPC market.
Yeah DOOM Vulkan is really the 480's flagship game. It's amazing how well it runs it.
>In reality using 3.6GB of VRAM playing GTAV with no issues.
2 GB or 3 GB just won't cut it anymore, unfortunately. It's not even a matter of not maxxing out the game or anything, there are already games that require more than 2 GB on NORMAL textures (I think Hitman is one of them). Tomorrow even low textures won't be enough. AMD was smart to make the 460 4 GB, even though the card itself isn't great.
Well done ignoring the idiots who always spout "xD that card will never need 4GB!!"
Get the RX470 Nitro 8GB when it comes in stock again. If it pops up on Jet you can use the code Triple15 to drop 30 bucks off the price. The Sapphire RX470 8G has 8000Mhz VRAM as opposed to the usual ~6700Mhz
Is the 1070 shit also? I was considering picking one up, but then I saw the price tag. Absurd for that range of card. I've been on the wait train for 4, almost 5 years now. AMD is taking forever as usual even though I want their cards more, and Nvidia always seems to have some fucking kikery at work in hardware and price.
Just can't fucking win. I want to replace my 460 SE already.
just get a used 980ti. performance of a 1070 for less money.
I'm not in america so that isn't really an option, and I'm avoiding the sapphire nitros as their cooler looks to be underwhelming.
>buying used cards for (((less))) money
>6gb instead of 8gb
>same performance
980 ti cuckold detected. There's literally no reason to buy a 980 ti over a 1070.
>(((nvidia)))
wew lad
Would the R9 Fury be a good option over an RX480 right now for a pleb playing at 1080p for the foreseeable future? It's on sale right now for just a little more than these overpriced 480s
Especially considering nvidia's habit of intentionally gimping their previous series cards in order to try to get people to upgrade even when they don't need to
The 980tis are currently on clearance at my local stores 150-200 AusBucks cheaper than 1070
So I would argue $150 to $200 is a pretty decent reason.
Also 980Tis used sell for nothing on OCAU
I second this, but I really dont know about the rx 470/480, should I do a cf or single 1070?
I tried to wait for a 480 Nitro and said fuck that shit. Got a Fury Nitro for $350 and this fucking morning they're on Newegg for $300. Reeeee!
Also the Fury Nitro is in stock right now.
I can't decide between the RX480 and Nitro Fury @ $300. How soon 4GB of VRAM is an issue at 1080p is my worry.
>durr hurr the Nitro Fury in stock
I mean the Nitro+ RX480 is in stock right now.
Shit, I went for a fucking $490 gaymen monitor when I jumped up to the Fury. Don't get the Fury just to do 1080p, I think that'd be dumb. Not sure if it would last longer than 480. Really it's only a year or more older but the power draw, heat, etc. It runs DOOM very well, around 90-100 on Ultra, though. So it would be good if you're doing 144Hz 1080p
Ausfag here, in desperate need of a new gpu. My old as fuck 560ti is near dead and I basically haven't played any games this gen because of it (and another life shit). Trying to decide between:
rx 480 for $419au
pccasegear.com
or
gtx 1060 for $435au
scorptec.com.au
Playing at 1080p, don't want to upgrade for another 3 years or so. Never used AMD but I'm tempted since they allegedly age better? Also between the two choices the XFX is a nicer physical card with better warranty for less money. But, the 1060 is the faster card right now, and a friend of mine has that same galax cooler on a 960 and says it's good. Both are fast enough for my needs but I just don't know if the 480 will overtake the 1060 with time.
Will be running with i5 4690 (non k) and 16GB 1600 Kingston HyperX.
You sound like the kind of person who only upgrades every few years. The RX 480 will last you longer and will probably perform better than the 1060 as it gets driver updates.
Really though it's up to you, unless you want to squeeze every frame can out of your cards both are viable.
Yes, I am that type of person though I am unusually overdue with upgrading this current card, I do think every 3 years or so is pretty optimal for me. I don't give a shit about overclocking what-so-ever, they will be running stock.
I want to look at some cold hard benchmarks that demonstrate AMD cards aging better than nvidia cards of the same age, are there any good resources for that?
I just saw this today, makes me so glad I bought the Newegg version yesterday.
Who the fuck mines bitcoin with a GPU at this point? There are vastly more powerful hardware out there.
Look at this image. Note the position of the 770 and the 280x. The 770 is essentially a 680 rebrand and the 280x a 7970GHz, two cards that were fucking neck and neck on launch. With all the driver updates both cards have received over the years the 280x destroys the 770 by over 8%.
There's another image floating around comparing more AMD/Nvidia cards that better illustrates how well AMD drivers age.