I built my own PC (mainly for gaming) two years ago. My GPU is the Radeon R9 390. With the newest games I can only reach the 60fps. If those frames get more, it gets to its limit. However, I also want to get a new monitor with higher FPS and therefore I need a new GPU, right?
How is pic related? Radeon RX Vega. Is it significally better than the R9 390?
I believe every other parts are fine so far. i5-4460 CPU, 16GB RAM, etc.
Other urls found in this thread:
If you have the money buy a rx vega 64 liquid cooled or a 1080ti
>Radeon RX Vega
Shit
>i5-4460
Bottleneck
I bought a 1070 recently and I find it's perfect for my needs, playing at 1440p. I picked it over the Vega because of better temperatures and therefore less fan noise. I also snagged a good deal on it with a $100 rebate so that helped. It's very quiet, when playing Destiny 2 and pressuring it, the gpu fan is still not really audible, running at something like 30-35% fan speed and about 84 degrees. I'm very pleased with it.
Vega is good, just be aware of them running hot, using a lot of power, and being potentially noisy.
Dude if you really want to upgrade you need to get rid of that i5. Its in no shape to perform with a greater gpu.
I would advise against buying Vega right now.
>vega 64 liquid cooled
Don't do this, that thing is a piece of shit that will destroy your PSU and melt your internals. Vega 56 is the only Vega worth buying. Otherwise get a 1080ti.
>Don't do this, that thing is a piece of shit that will destroy your PSU and melt your internals.
It's a GPU.
Watercooled GPU.
This
You only buy fine wine after its maturity.
No, it's actually worse with Vega.
They launched the cards with uarch features disabled.
test
1080 is a perfect high end card and has better thermals than Vega at the expense of dx12.x and slightly lower perf in dx12 games.
Hi Jensen.
Do you think anyone is retarded enough to buy nVidia card near the end of it's product cycle?
>3.2-3.4 Ghz Haswell i5
Not fine. Vega is about 70% faster than an R9 390, but with that CPU you are not going to see those fps increases.
stick with your 390 and don't fall for the high fps meme.
You gotta change that CPU 1st, your r9 is probably being bottlenecked. Then decide if you want a new GPU
Hello king pajeet. Do you still shill your abortion vega after being kicked out of amd?
They're still trying to tame this beast they created.
youtu.be
Niggers on a 4 month sabbatical. Stop spreading fake news
>kicked out of amd
I don't remember AMD announcing any layoffs.
>Release a massive GPU in raw computing
>Proceed to develop the worst drivers ever known to man
>Get beaten in most task by a GPU that should be 40% slower based on raw specs
Classic AMD
There's more to GPU than shader math.
high fps delivery is hellish on cpu your i5-4460 is not up to the job and you should consider i7-7700 and best i7 8700 as soon as they are in shoops
than if you have the money you should pair it with 1080ti or 1080 at least
What this guy said. But buy ryzen. They're only gonna get cheaper come holiday time
I bought grx 1080 month a go and i do not regret
its another 6 months at least till 2000 series with will prabably not even be volta but pascal refresh
Vega is shit, don't touch it. Wait for GTX 1070 Ti at the end of the month. Price of GTX 1070 should drop which would go great with a 1080p@144Hz monitor.
The 8700 will be nearly impossible to get for a couple of months, then you might as well wait for ryzen 2
for high refresh gaming intels are objectively better, just look on the benchmarks.
Ryzen is good and i think r5 1600 is best value cpu there is even comparing to coffelake, but not for a high refresh gaming for that intel is undisputed king.
I7 7700, i7 8700 or i5 8600 (thanks to 6 cores) is what you need for high refresh gaming.
well he can always settle for i7 7700 accepting that if only he waitedTM a little bit longer he could get 12 threaded i7 or 16 threaded ryzen 2
But we dont know how much amd will improve clocks on ryzen 2. If ryzen is to be viable for high refresh gaming clocks have to go up by sagnificant margine. With intel we know everything and i7 8700 is monster with a paper lounch.
so far
60fps gamin at any resolution -> ryzen
above 60fps -> intel
I agree but I don't think 20fps greater performance over 120fps is necessary nor worth it. But if OP like to throw around money that's up to him. I'm a penny pincher so I wouldn't personally go for i7s because I'm not a supernerd. No offence
The 8700 really isn't much difference than the 7700. It just makes higher temps more power consumption and a 2% difference at most. The cores don't work out to well with their ancient architecture.
You have to admit it was rushed just to save what market share they have left
what model? don't you regret you didn't get Ti ?
>The 8700 really isn't much difference than the 7700
Just for games? Sure, it's not, but it is very different for anything heavily multithreaded, will most definitely help with live encoding video streams of CPU-demanding games and if you can get one there's essentially no reason to buy a 7700K instead.
Quite a bit better, but usually overpriced
If you can find one for a good price go for it, if not you should take a look at the GTX1080 and 1080ti or just lower the settings and stick with your 390
My 290 is doing just fine for 1440p gaymen
But if you want those sweet cores and multi-threads ryzen does perfectly fine and for cheaper. The 8700 is basically "please don't buy ryzen, we can do it too"
Sorry I'm biased cause Intel really barely competes and I think its good that ryzen is making them sweat. We'll get fair prices and more innovation if we just buy the better product (ryzen).
Ryzen does perfectly fine while sacrificing gaming performance, this one does almost identically to 8C Ryzen in multithreaded applications and much better in single threaded. There's no reason to buy 8C Ryzen unless it's cheaper and you're absolutely going for MT-only, if you're going to spend a lot of time playing games one of these is the obvious choice.
gigabyte windforce x3
i pick it because it was the cheapest of the bunch and at the beginning i planned to get 1070 anyway, but with price difference being only 50 euro i said screw it and got 1080. 1080ti is nice but thats way to much money for me to spend on gpu 1080 was already streeching it.
>Ryzen almost identically to 8C Ryzen in multithreaded applications
You know that's not truth(accurate)
I only play games. The i7 is only for absolute madmen that jerk off to 10% differences that have absolutely know viable performance impact nor does it better the gaming experience at all.
Stop being superficial.
Bf1 with 1080ti
i7 7700k 140 fps
i7 8700k 160 fps
r8 1800x 120 fps
if you care about 144hz than choice is obvious intel and yes you will notice the difference and no its more than 10%
but you need top of the line gpu
and fast refresh monitor
most people do not bather so for them ryzen is ok
That's what I'm saying you end up having to throw on +1200 for all that added shit its literally twice the price. And it doesn't really effect game experience at all. You'll probably forget you've got 144hz after a week or 2