Once the dust settles, Polaris architecture was a mistake?

Once the dust settles, Polaris architecture was a mistake?

Nah.

All mid range GPUs are a mistake
Poor fags buy them cuz
>muh price to performance
Then in 1-2 years they need another card because their budget shit isn't good enough anymore.
They don't end up saving any money in the long run.
Ask the 280x,770, or 970 owners how well their gimped cards are holding up.

>Inb4 my (x gpu) can max anything with 60fps
Dropping settings to low-med isn't maxing out a game.

Everyting was overhyped

>inb4 shill

I understand power draw is a huge indicator of temps and efficiency, but does anyone actually give a shit? We all overcompensate on our PSUs anyway, most of us could throw a 300W card in no problem. I'm not defending AMD, they should get their shit together and make competitive cards on this aspect but ultimately does anyone personally care?

google translate?

>All mid range GPUs are a mistake
Nah, nah, nah. The 970 3.5 and the 1070 are best sellers

>1080ti draw for less performance

That's mean the arch is shit

>The 970 3.5 and the 1070 are best sellers
Best selling doesn't = good
People are retarded and make poor decisions.

However, the 1070 isn't a gimped rebrand with cucked Vram.
Unlike the 770 and 970, it has a decent amount of memory and performance

4GB GTX 680 here. Can't Max out most modern games but my computer runs remarkably well for something that's 5 years old.

No idea why anyone thought it was a good idea to buy cards with lower vram...

4GB of VRAM is totally fine, what are you talking about?

>more power
>more energy/heat to dissipate

Not really these days
Fuck even gta 5 from two years ago maxes out Vram EZPZ

My 390 is doing just fine thanks

Yeah GTA5 and like nothing else.

I mean the people who bought the 2GB gtx 68/770 and bitch about gimping.

Once the English broken, Pajeet am fired?

Well 2GB is half the VRAM of 4GB so they're not really comparable when talking about whether 4GB is enough. I have a Fury X and other than GTA5 and Shadow of Morder with the super autism graphic packs I haven't seen the VRAM come close to max. You should get 8GB nowadays because it's becoming the standard and it's futureproof, but if you have 4GB of VRAM the VRAM capacity isn't what's bottlenecking you 99.99% of the time

My 680 is still good though. I'll upgrade when it can't maintain 60fps medium settings. It's handling high settings just fine for now though...

Wasting money for ultra graphics every second year has always seemed silly to me.

My 4GB 380 still doing everything I need it to flawlessly. Decent power consumption, low heat, quiet fans, goo enough 1080 performance to still hit 60fps on everything. Maybe if I upgrade my monitor to a 4k I'll try to track another one down super cheap.

You fell for the bait and then some.

the creator of this graph should hang himself.

how am i supposed to know which one is better when "Doom: 6%"??

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

>but does anyone actually give a shit?
consumer whores that bite on marketing do

the only relevant metric for gaming GPU is performance per dollar.

MD
ROTR
DOOM
new order
mordor
arkham knight
things I can't remember at this point

8gb vram is relevant for couple years
but keep complaining about shit optimization instead of your shit pc

Your birth was a mistake.

>Poor fags buy them cuz

Wrong, I had two pic related sli'd with I think it was a 8600 as a dedicated physx card. Gave superior performance to the equally priced top of the line Nvidia card at the time.

all of these only use 6MB when only at 4k and 1440p

did you do any research at all before telling user that his vram sucks?

*6mb
6GB

>only use 6MB
>only

you know how RAM behaves? you do not want it at 90% mark.

The lol I had when all the cucks paid twice as much for a single 8800GTX that I paid for a single 8800GT and had parallel performance, but one-upped them all by SLI-ing.

And then burned because they all ra at 90ÂșC all the time.

Mine did. Still, best video carde I've ever had, shit was amazing.

It's less than a 390 and performs better. So what's the problem?

The performance they offered for the price before the mining shit made them not a mistake.
The mistake was not having a card with at least 48 CUs and slightly lower clocks to be more power efficient, more overclockable from stock, and that could have better driven future games in 1440p.

Polaris is plenty power efficient when it's under like 1250MHz. Look at mobile RX580s. They're like 80W TDP or something and like 75% the performance of the 200+ watt ones.

>So what's the problem?
It uses more than a 1080 Ti

It was also less than 1/3rd the cost.