Hello, Sup Forums

Hello, Sup Forums.

Vega is shaping up to be a unsatisfactory GPU, and I don't want to wait only to get disappointed.
Should I just buy an MSI GTX 1080?

Other urls found in this thread:

gizmodo.com/249368/blu-ray-spec-change-may-cause-problems-for-old-players
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>GTX 1080
Yes.
>MSI
No.

LOLNO

Vega won't ship until May/June, it's 1 year behind the GTX 1080

Just wait for the GTX 1080 Ti

1. Don't ever take what Currytech says seriously.
2. Pic related.

What's wrong with MSI? And what is the best brand to deliver silent and good performance?

Amd has confirmed 1H 2017 release and they have a reputation of coming out in the last month of their stated release Windows.

>Vega is shaping up to be a unsatisfactory GPU
How so?
Because of the development platform that was over 20% faster than a 1080?

Still, if you need a GPU now, and want more performance than an RX 480 can offer, go for Nvidia. Vega is still several months away.

>MSI
Go for one of the EVGA FTW models, best air cooler in the current lineup.

That's June, pajeet. Motherfuckers can't even read a fucking calendar.

There is nothing wrong with msi nowadays.

Vega is looking to be a competitor to the 1070, not the 1080.
It'll be a 'not quite as good as the 1080' card, so if you get the 1080 now you'll be set.

Because it's just 10% faster than a 1080. If Nvidia releases the 1080Ti, AMD won't manage to compete, because - again - it's just 10% faster than a 1080.

Just wait for Volta

Wait for Navi

>the guy said Vega won't ship until May/June
>learn to read it's June!

He's amd pajeet. Don't mind him.

>implying

And that's not even the full Pascal refresh or Volta. AMD is so shit. GPUs keep getting pricier.

Fury X is already a 1070 competitor. Vega will be between a 1080 and 1080ti at launch, and then improve from there.

> 10% faster than a 1080
So the only thing that matters is price. I'd love to get pre-flagship Vega for $350 and overclock it to match 590X. We'll see anyway, don't want to throw money away for GTX 1080. 600 € is too much, they aren't jewing me with that price tag.

>AMD is so shit
>GPUs keep getting pricer
Checks RX480 price
LOLK

>a 390 on discount
Really?

480 4gig for 190 at new egg.

No it isn't. Fury x consistently loses to the 980ti at nearly everything except 4k where it can match it within ~2-3 frames, but when we're talking about 20-30fps, 2-3fps is still 10%+ which corresponds with the general lead it holds.
And the 1070 is universally faster than the 980ti, although sometimes only by like 1%, and generally little more than 5%.

t. A happy owner of an r9 fury nitro who's sick of this "durr it's as good as a 1070" meme.

Ebin marketing thread, Pajeet.

Will AMD ever release something that shadows Nvidia? Will AMD ever free us from the feeling of our anuses getting ravaged by Nvidias foul, anti-consumerism play?

I just want a good GPU that lasts me for years, Sup Forums. Why is life so difficult?

>Nvidias foul, anti-consumerism play
Nvidia is shit but better than Intel, at least Nvidia's new cards are improving more than 10% per generation.

Fury X is like 50% weaker than the 1070 in practice while costing more.

Asus is the only option for the 10xx gen really. MSI is shit and evga has missing thermal pads so your gpu self-destructs in weeks.

In 1080. In 1440 and 4k it's nearly even.

>EVGA FTW models
Aren't they missing thermal pads?

I had a Msi nf4 midrange board for socket 939 form 2004, gave it away to a friend a few years ago , still running.

I currently have a gtx 1060 6gb, no problems.

Have multiple friends with msi mobos from 1366 era still running.

Have generally heard more bullshit from Evga in the past decade desu senpai.

Vega is shaping to be a chip that won't be as efficient as Nvidia counterpart.

I am not gonna buy a card that demands so much power.

It's most probably gonna be another Fury, sadly.

What about their new icx cooler where they did apply pads?

asus is shit

>70 fps doom 4k
>compete with the 1070
>half a year early sample
Nvidiots going full damage control

Considering 4k is just a fad there's no point.

Lol. 4k is now a reality, thanks to Vega.

there is considerable room for improvement. it was stupid of AMD to show Vega in its current state.

still an unknown as far as we're concerned. except for the fact that we know it's 4K-capable, which is neat I guess.

>fad
what? those displays are already cheaper than early 1080p stuff was. it's just progress.

This. People seem to forget how painfully slow adoption of 1080p was.

>years of tv's advertising "1080 capable!" With 720p native resolution and only support for 1080 interlaced bs
>years of dvd's advertised as "full hd1080 resolution!" With massive letterbox widescreen mode on your wodescreen television, stretching the picture like crazy and cutting the effective playback size to half the screen
>years of shitty screen scaling, normal was a box surrounded by blank space, stretch made everything look fucked up, zoom cut off 1/3 of the upper and lower image, panoramic was a dumb fucking vomit inducing nightmare
>bluray was retardedly expensive and the cheapest bluray player at launch was the $599 PS3
>HDMI cables were like $50 for a 4ft cable
>half of satellite channels are still in sub 1080p

Also does anyone else never remember 720p being reffered to as "high definition" before 1080p became a thing? I swear it retroactively became "entry level HD" as a way to keep DVD's cheap and make "1080p FULL HD" look more desirable.

>$599 PS3
I'll never forget.

Remember when Sony rewarded their early adopters who spent upwards of $1k+ on a first generation blu ray player by introducing a new revision that rendered their current disks they spent upwards of $100+ apiece on and their overpriced failure-prone players obsolete like a year after launch? (Sorry in advance for the website linked)

gizmodo.com/249368/blu-ray-spec-change-may-cause-problems-for-old-players

Remember when they bragged about the HDMI port on the PS3 but were too cheap to include a cable?

Remember how they bragged about the Cell processor in the PS3 being more powerful than a supercomputer but it was such a pain in the ass to program for early PS3 ports looked like dog shit and in general were buggier and uglier than on the "petty" xbox 360?

Remember how they braggdd about the massive storage space of blu ray, but the lowe read speed of the drives and pathetic write speed of the HDD meant you had to install almost every game. And they always requires a massive patch and update that took over an hour each to install before it could spend upwards of 2 hours installing a game.

Remember how they required you to provide a bunch of personal information just to connect to their PSN service, information it had to verify (I shit you not I couldn't create an account for years because it didn't believe my address in the midwestern united states was real.) and then their servers got hacked not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions?

Remember how shitty those R2/L2 buttons were if you wanted to watch a movie on your shiny new paperweight?

Remember when Sony released a midcycle refresh console that bragged about 4k gaming but couldn't play their new 4k blu ray movies while a cheaper, weaker slim version of a competitor's console could?

I 'member

Seriously how are these fucking idiots still in business?

>Anus
You better be trolling.

so what people are just going to go back to 1080 and 720 because they are the norm?

2560x1440 is the best option today.
1920x1080 is still very viable, don't get me wrong, but if you want extra resolution in the gaming and TV space, the only true option is 1440.
>Perfect scaling with 720p content
>144hz monitors widely available
>144 fits perfectly into the 24fps multiple, allowing perfect TV use
>120 capable if 144 capable, meaning anything recorded at 60 or 30 is also fine
>144fps @ 1440p is more demanding than 4k@60, meaning room to grow into, but not as necessary to have beast equipment

Right now it looks like vega will be 10-20% faster then a 1080 and AMD has said it will cost less then a 1080 so let's say it's $500ish is that a failure.... since most people don't game at 4k and even if the 1080ti blows the Titan xp out of the water but cost $900+ what's the point of that extra power?

1080 + 20% is good enough for 1440p 100-120 fps

What if Pascal refresh/Volta comes out?

dude, its not just WCtech that is saying that.

if you look at how long it took polaris to be released after it was shown, its the exact same timeframe. unless its delayed like polaris was then its july/aug.

if its may/june then that is a very on time release.

The best option today is to wait for DP 1.3/1.4 UHD displays.

Perfect scaling for both 720 and 1080 conent, plus high Hz too. The fps dividing stuff will be there too, but it barely matters with the increasing percentage of displays having one flavor or another of variable sync.

odds are it wont 1080ti is just going to be a refresh and at best 7% better then a titan x, you probably wont see volta till next year and then 1180 or whatever.... and even then what do you want 4k 120 fps?

nvidia can do that if they had competition but AMD seems to be happy in the low to mid range so they will be happy to see you a 1080ti then next year volta comes out and sell you that too gettting $2000 out of their fans

> (You)
>odds are it wont 1080ti is just going to be a refresh and at best 7% better then a titan x, you probably wont see volta till next year and then 1180 or whatever.... and even then what do you want 4k 120 fps?
>nvidia can do that if they had competition but AMD seems to be happy in the low to mid range so they will be happy to see you a 1080ti then next year volta comes out and sell you that too gettting $2000 out of their fans

Consumers are fucked then.