Literally perfection for 1080p

Literally perfection for 1080p.

You can't prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=B1d9bxbd8HI
international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-foliage-visibility-interactive-comparison-1-ultra-vs-high.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>caring about 1080p
>no CUDA
into the trash it goes

>no proper OGL 4.5 support
trash.jpg

>4GB

I'm building a new pc,what would be better:a gtx 1060 3gb or a rx 470?

TITAN X or you are a pajeet

Or you can just go with a GTX1050ti and enjoy less power draw, less overheating and similar performance for less money! Now you will even have money for games!
Thank me later ;-)

GTX1070

if you're buying something like a 1060 or 480 you're buying performance that was available two years ago, the GTX970 was available for $250 for 1 year after release which is what those two cards the 1060/480 go for right now.


The 1070 has performance similar to the 980Ti for $200 less than what the 980Ti used to cost even at the lower price including sales.

>GTX1050ti

I'd rather buy a 3gb 1060 than that piece of trash

>I would rather gobble dicks than actually eating real food
Hmm

Mainstream cards needs to have a ton of features that's available on high end cards. Those include social features such as Shadowplay so the average dudebro and underage can share their epic frags on their networking sites and also include features for the frugal but serious prosumers - the folks looking to work on Adobe suites and general CAD/3D modeling with CUDA.

AMD fails at doing both of those things and the only thing it can really do is core gaming, which fails at also with poor and delayed driver support.

Sucking off multiple guys at once is my fantasy though.

>tfw poorfag here, bought a GTX 950
>It has the power saving bug
>No returns because I got it on sale

I'm closer every day.

Not OP, but building a new system to do some gaming after many many years I have some games that I need to play.

I have 1 problem with Nvidia, which is called G-Sync.

Why do those monitors cost atleast 150 bucks more than a monitor that supports Freesync?

Nvidia would rather use their own proprietary scaler sync method over Displayport's standard adaptive sync, which was never an AMD technology to begin with, AMD just refers to it as Freesync in their drivers, since each vendor is responsible for making it work with their cards. There's more money for Nvidia if they just make their own that requires their own special hardware in the monitors to pull off

Will it run the witcher3 on ultra 60fps solid?
Nope didnt think so.
Thats a gpu for the fat dribblng kids who still live at home with mum, theyre a bag of shit

Which makes it quite bothersome desu.

If I buy a G-Sync monitor, I am gonna be stuck with Nvidia.

If I buy one that supports Freesync, I will be forever bound to AMD.

Why isn't there a monitor which supports both?

You "accidently" forgot to point out the fact gsync is in each monitor so if you have multiple each one can work on its own to do its stuff.
Freesync wont. Also freesync is nowhere near as good as gsync.

amd vce works pretty good i dont know why you think amd has nothing that serves the same purpose as shadowplay

>CUDA

because nvidia is jew

>fat dribblng kids who still live at home with mum, theyre a bag of shit
Wow, are kids in school picking on you this hard?

Why not the Rx 480?

Nope. Unlike the majority im actually quite old so Im not posting on my phone from school.
You want to discuss how shit your AMD card is?

adobe uses cude bacause ayyymd poojeets never bothered making shit for opencl easy

You make very sad impression about yourself then. Why are you so mad? There must be a reason you're so assblasted, this is a consumer product why are you even insulting anybody? Are they forcing you to buy anything?

Who says im mad? Im literally saying the 470 is shit.
The 480 is actually (for its price) a nice budget card,
"assblasted" ? by whom? .

It's even good for 1440p

for people not looking to spend above 200 bucks the rx 470 4gb is actually a really good buy as its way better than the other nvidia cards at that 170~ price range
i personally wouldnt want a 4gb card in 2016 but many people dont care

Best OEM for RX 480?

>you should pay 150$ instead of 180$ for 2/3 the performance.

no its not. Unless you like console fps rates

>Who says im mad
>fat dribblng kids who still live at home with mum, theyre a bag of shit

Those are good framerates. With some settings turned of that would be +10-15 fps. And for the older games would be perfect because modern are all shit.

>theyre a bag of shit.
I was referring to the gpu
The kids part. Yes I stand by that as they are annoying cunts.
Sorry Im not posting a picture of some bloke in a garish shirt in some attempt of humour

Would a RX 470 be a viable upgrade from my old GTX 770?

Sapphire Nitro / xfx gtr for performance, msi or xfx for cooling (xfx needs good airflow) can't comment on the Asus strix other than I know it has the beefier vrm configuration out of all the rx 480s, and even taking their shitty coolers for amd, with the monster heatsink it has one would assume it runs relatively cool.

You should learn how to tweak settings instead of just running the highest possible preset. Witcher 3 visual quality scaling from low - and ultra is pretty shit.

Hard to say.

RX470 becuase it's fucking cheap.
2x GTX 1060 because DX12 multigpu is a thing an 2x 1060 beats a single 1080 whilst costing almost $200 less...

If they don't suit, wait for Vega10 (Q1 2017) release, new hardware and pricedrops on older things.

>ultra

Nice meme.

There's absolutely no vantages in Ultra settings as of 2016 AAA games. They are all resource hog shit that barely impacts the quality in the end. You are much better served by setting everything on High.

I run on 1080sli on 1440p 144hz so I kind of have an idea how to have my settings.
I run at rather more fps than those.

Because there's barely any difference in performance between those cards, you'd be paying extra $50 for 10fps more.

Of course its a meme, It would be as your pc cant run on those so it has to be all a lie.
I mean why do they even bother putting that setting in all the games user? what a silly waste of time

Nigga, just look for any Digital Foundry Low/Medium/High/Ultra comparisons in the past 6 months and show me once that there's a glaring difference between High and Ultra.

Hell, some games like the new Deus Ex and Dark Souls 3 look exactly the same in Medium and Ultra.

Rx460 outperforms the gtx 770 in bf1 1080p ultra on dx11. The 470 is twice as powerful than the 460. Just a single example though.

You have a 1200+$ sli setup and are commenting on how bad gpus that cost less than 1/4 of that are. Nice. Considering you don't need to tweak anything if the game supports sli I'm inclined to say you don't.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=B1d9bxbd8HI

>Recording you gameplay,cause you vocabulary fails to execute people's emotions

>I run at rather more fps than those.

Really now?

>1070
>Similar to 980ti

Suuure

>Rx460 outperforms the gtx 770 in bf1 1080p ultra on dx11. The 470 is twice as powerful than the 460. Just a single example though.

Very nice

Why do people never mention screen resolution and hz? If it's 1080p 60hz panel, then something like GTX 1060 6gb will suffice.

it's everyone's fantasy, user.

barely any dx12 games have multi-gpu support though, has to be coded in by the devs and the amount of people playing with multi-gpu setups is small so they usually don't bother. plus iirc Nvidia jew'd the 1060 so it can't SLI

>Its Nvidia so its just better!
kek
this is how a company gets away with charging twice as much for the same tech

>Im so fat I look at computers and see food

Actually it might have been on dx12. It's in the gamers nexus 1050ti review. But gamers nexus bf1 review takes place before a performance update for the game and literally copy pasted their old bench results onto the 1050ti review. Also, guru3d has significantly better performance across the board in their bf1 bench given a 4.4ghz 5960x vs gamernexus' 3.8ghz 5960x. All I can say about that is maybe average the two because this is a running theme where GN's benches seem lower than reality. While G3D's may be a little more liberal.

Yes. That was why the user was talking about Dx12's mgpu capabilities. But you're right, the only one I know of right now is ashes that supports that feature.

>1080p

Normally I would join in the anti AMD shitposting here but he's right.

WoW has a bunch of meme settings that appear to do nothing but substantially reduce your frame rate. AAA shit puts such features front and center for some reason.

>nigga
I stopped reading right there.

>Can't refute him
>Better come with some bullshit excuse

I'll repost it with something more to your liking:


Dear user, just look for any Digital Foundry Low/Medium/High/Ultra comparisons in the past 6 months and show me once that there's a glaring difference between High and Ultra.

Hell, some games like the new Deus Ex and Dark Souls 3 look exactly the same in Medium and Ultra.

So you are saying amd have the better cards?
Do all the results charts on the internet mean nothing? theyre made up?
If AMD had a card better than the 1080 i would buy it.
Its not very easy buying the best stuff when theres only two brands to buy from so you saying that is a bit fucking dumb

Why am I only looking at digital foundry?
You said AAA games.
Bullshit excuse? are you black? do you want to be? or are you just pretending by using words they say.

international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-foliage-visibility-interactive-comparison-1-ultra-vs-high.html

Massive difference

WRONG. Radeonsi got 4.5 with the latest release. Also vulkan with radv.

That's far from massive, but at what cost can you run W3 smoothly with everything set at Ultra, though? I hardly think anything less than a 1070 can pull stable 60fps, with Hairworks on at 1080p.

It's better actually

>Hairworks

Literally who cares? It looks like shit and cripples performance.

Cost was never brought into the question.
Yes I can run it at a decent framerate with everything on and set to the highest setting.
It has cost me money yes, Im not rich, I work hard for a living and this is my main hobby so I cant see a problem in what Ive spent

>Cost was never brought into the question.

So you come to a mid tier GPU thread and say that cost was never bought into the question?

Is for

Since when is a 470 mid tier?
I came into this thread to disagree as I do not believe is as OP said "literally perfection for 1080" .. its not.

not him, but 470 is pretty much a definition of mid tier

460 - lower end
470/1050 - mid end
480/1060 - mid-high end
1070 - high end
1080 - enthusiast

Bollocks it is.

470 lowend
(even a 970 is better.)
480/980 mid
980ti mid-high

Sorry the 1060 and 480 are classed at the mid not the higher mid.

I hope you're trolling, because the alternative is that you're retarded.

i'm in the same boat as you, fampai. my 770 is starting to show it's age, but i think i am going to hold off on upgrade until hbm or gddr5x is the industry standard.

It's slower than my 970

Haha fucking AMD cucks

You people with the lowball gpu's trying believe they are actually in the mid bracket.

Which is slower than my 290X.

Checkmate nVideist

Why you need photoshop for 1080p?

Which is the sickest jet engine and heater in the world

Check mate

GET REKT GREENS

So is the xfx the best OEM for rx470? I heard bad things about XFX in the past. I'm upgrading from a hd7770 and I just need to know which OEM is the best for this card.

>460 and 360 are practically the same
Why is the 460 so awful? What was the point?

You are wrong. 4gb will be useless in the next year or so.

AMDGPU Pro has ogl 4.5 right?

>AMD

>470 lowend
>Guaranteed 60fps at 1080p
>lowend

>980ti mid-high
>980
>mid

Only if you play Triple A games made by devs who can't code for their lives, like Ubisoft or Eidos.

yeah for the next 4 months lmao

...

>EVGA housefires
>3GB VRAM
>best anything

Stop trying to kid yourself that you made a good purchasing decision, user, and start thinking about planning escape routes for when that thing goes up in flames.

If it was a serious problem don't you think they would have issued a recall?

Lmao 3GB, 1 fan

I would go with the dual fan option. The single fan isn't enough for most setups.

>implying they would admit their mistake to that extent

Oh user, they just expect you to take the thermal pads and suck that dick.

>3gb

breh

>EVGA housefires
only on 1080s :^)
also EVGA, Zotac, MSI, whatever, pick a different partner it's all the same shit
>3GB VRAM
plenty for 1080p now and the foreseeable future at texture settings you'd reasonably expect out of a $200 card
They barely break 80 degrees under full load, dual fan would probably give you 78 instead of 80 literally who cares

>plenty for 1080p now and the foreseeable future at texture settings you'd reasonably expect out of a $200 card
lmao i play 1080 (gtx970) and 3,5gb is on the very limit, 3gb is not enough. most games maxed take 3-3.2gb like GTA V (even on 2x AA)

>only on 1080s :^)

Pretty sure the 1070s are also housefires

I'm not poor

and to add, one fan is a fucking jet engine dude, thats the problem, not the temps

This, just pay a bit more for a 6gb, don't cuck yourself.