ivryk

Congratz on your new 1080, hope you enjoy it. Maybe ( a big maybe ) hot air is building up around the card? try using another exhaust fan up top. Personally, 79c is a bit too hot but it wont drastically change your gaming experience.

Isn't Async compute pretty much like hyper-threading?, in which each queue can submit commands without waiting for other task to complete.

As people already pointed out 4gb is still 4gb, faster yes but still.

Yeah, I guess thats true, thanks for the input dude.
Yeah, same here, been using 1080p for the past year, just recently tried 144hz for the first time and the difference was huge. People seem to praise 1440p as the sweetspot, I guess it gotta be good.
I know I know, but those 2 extra cores thou!, yeah monitor seems like the best option.

Over the top clickbait title, because why not.
 
Source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/27/intel-corporation-reports-strong-earnings-results.aspx
 
Direct results: https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/Q2/Earnings-Release-Q2-2017.pdf
 
Here's the top line information:
Revenue: $14.8b Profit Margin: 61.6% Net Income (Revenue - Taxes - Expenses): $2.8b  
AMD's numbers:
Revenue: $1.2b Profit Margin: 33% Net Income: -$16m  
"The company says that the operating profit growth was due to "improving 14nm costs" (manufacturing yield improvements), a "richer product mix" (selling more of its higher-end parts), and "lower spending" (cuts in operating expenses)."
 
Basically Intel is crushing it pretty much everywhere: laptops, datacenter, modems (iPhone), flash memory (NAND was very profitable due to the shortage, XPoint is dragging those numbers down a bit because it's new technology).  Intel could go on a 1 year vacation doing absolutely nothing and have more money in the bank than AMD generates in total revenue.

Either 2050~2067 ( was jumping back and forth ) on the clock and 500 on the memory. Which seems pretty standard ( give or take some) for most of pascal-based gpus. That gimp thou.

Thats some serious gimp on the 1080 that they used, I just got 34k (33,963 ) on mine.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/12258645

Thats some serious gimp on the 1080 that they used, I just got 34k (33,963 ) on mine.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/12258645

AMD will be shooting themselves in the foot if Vega aint competitive with Nvidia's current high end offering and might as well not even release it. This comes down to taste thou, cuz if he cant live without  adaptive refresh, after being used to it and  wants it once again, he will have to buy a G-sync monitor. instead of just getting a low tier card to hold him at night and then buying Vega and still using his current monitor's freesync, thats me tho but I do respect your suggestion and  OP if you're going the 1080/ti route, go Evga/Asus ( lean more towards evga )

If this is just a "while vega comes out build" then buy a Freesync monitor and a RX 480 to hold you down at night till Vega comes out. ( better ssd dude )

Alright, thanks, will do.

My apologies!, done did it.

I thought same at first, however the Amazon review said "Prime z270a", saw the same for few Msi pro carbon's, i guess there was a bad batch.

Awesome, thanks!, ill go with the Aorus Gaming k5.

The 1080 is about 12%~29% more powerful than the 1070  ( depending on the game, resolution, cpu used, factory overclocks and others). It is NOT worth it, your 1070 should be able to hold you at night until Volta/Vega releases, i am adamant that you will feel mad if you pull the trigger on the 1080 and then Volta/Vega stomps it for way cheaper which is usually the case with new architectural launches.
 
Just wait.

You failed to see the point, what he means is that if at stock 1239ish MHz, the 980 is already beating the 390x in some games, imagine 1470+ MHz, which is 10~15 fps+ and yes the 390x also is able to overclock but it doesn't have as much headroom.

Ultimately the decision is yours but the thing is, a ssd is more of a luxury item, I'll never recommend them if you are on a tight budget. It all comes down to whats more important to you, 20~30+ more fps that are able to give you a wider range of graphical options to choose from ( aiming for 60 fps ) or faster boot and loading times?, keeping in mind that you can get a ssd later.

Thing is, btw i am not bashing the 960 but if you buy the 960 and the ssd, you WILL be locked to the 960 and i doubt you will wanna buy another gpu in months to come. If you buy a 970 or 390 you will have a much better card by quite a huge margin and you will be able to get the ssd later, specially since ssds are coming down in prices.
 
or
 
If you down playing the waiting game,get a 750 ti or 950, something small that could hold you out till the new releases, save the cash and then make your purchase.

Thing is, any game that does not require more than 2gb vram wont utilize the 690 to its fullest power, specially newer games.
 
But back to the OP, the 970 is newer, handles tessellation better and you wont have to worry about SLI issues. I am surprised this thread hasn't turned into 390 vs 970.
 

Thing is, any game that does not require more than 2gb vram wont utilize the 690 to its fullest power, specially newer games.
 
But back to the OP, the 970 is newer, handles tessellation better and you wont have to worry about SLI issues. I am surprised this thread hasn't turned into 390 vs 970.
 

Note: TL;DR pros/cons list is below this text.
 
I see these kinds of threads all the time, and there's a lot of misconception about them. So I wanna tackle it.  
 
First, let's talk about the R9 390. Gaming, for the most part, it's on par with a 970 or above it, especially in VRAM-based scenarios (Assassin's Creed Unity, Grand Theft Auto V) or compute-based scenarios (TressFX, Sony Vegas, coin mining). That being said, it comes with a price, and that's with its heat dissipation. You must have a decent case in order to compensate for most 390s and its heat dissipation levels, as most 390s can get pretty toasty in smaller cases. In short, the 390 benefits in VRAM-based and compute-based scenarios, but it dissipates more heat and most 390s are significantly longer, wider, and thicker than most 970s. It also suffers from how AMD drivers are. They are kind of heavy on the CPU, and poorly threaded. It's not bad, especially if you have an i7. But it's still something to take into consideration, especially if you are using a Core i3, where it gets the messiest.  
 
Now, let's get onto the GTX 970. In gaming-based scenarios, the card benefits heavily in tessellation-based scenarios (The Witcher 3, Batman Arkham Knight) and CPU-bound scenarios (Grand Theft Auto V, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive), to the point where the 970 can almost slaughter the 390 in some cases. This is due to the nature of Maxwell and Nvidia drivers in general. Nvidia drivers are slightly heavier than AMD drivers, but are nicely multithreaded, making them a great fit for an i3 or an FX-8320. Most 970s are smaller in almost every aspect than most 390s. However, there are not a whole lot of good 970s that aren't from EVGA, MSI, or Zotac. The most notable of these is the Asus Turbo 970, infamously known for being very mediocre in the cooling department. The GTX 970 is best used with CPU-bound applications, places where it will be cramped, or CUDA. Most 970s are moderately sized to large, and almost none of them are as big as most 390s are. Most 970s are also much better overclockers than 390s are.  
  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
TL;DR pros/cons list below  
 
R9 390
Pros:  
* significantly better compute performance than a 970, to the point where it can give a 980 Ti a run for its money  
* more VRAM which is very useful for 2160p gaming, especially if you decide to Crossfire them  
* works best with a Sandy Bridge or above i7 or a Sandy Bridge or above hyperthreaded Xeon  
* slaughters the 970 in OpenCL tasks  
* achievable OCs benefit the card far greater than the equivalent clockspeed on a 970  
* Arguably better multi-monitor support
Cons:  
* It uses more power, and that's a fact. It's not significant, but it can add up, especially if you live in a country with bad prices on electricity.  
* Almost all of them are significantly longer, and thicker, than most 970s. This is especially noticeable with the MSI GAMING 4G 970 and 8G 390s, and the Sapphire Nitro R9 390 vs. most of EVGA's 970s.  
* It dissipates more heat, however, the better cards like the Sapphire Nitro R9 390 or the XFX Core Edition R9 390 are still nicely cooled even in tighter spots.  
* AMD's drivers are more reliant on a single core and makes the 390 a bad choice for an i3.  
 
GTX 970
Pros:  
* CUDA cores. Need I say more?  
* Better threaded drivers, making it more suitable with an i3 or an FX chip.  
* Better suited in CPU-bound games or tessellation-bound games  
* Shadowplay might be a card seller for you (personally isn't for me, but "personally" is "me" and not "you")  
* Most 970s are smaller than most 390s  
* better on power consumption, even if heavily overclocked.  
Cons:  
* better threaded drivers are kind of rendered null on an i7  
* It fucking sucks at compute tasks. Like, I'm not even kidding. The R9 390 will beat it in those scenarios.  
* We all know that Nvidia lied about the card's specs, so if ethics matter, then there's that.  
* Poor performer in OpenCL tasks
 
Any questions? Comment here.

So many people have been bringing this argument up, but evidence has been mostly correllation. There aren't many R9-390 vs GTX 970 with multiple CPU's to pass around in order to emperically prove this point.
I've been asking hardware.info for this test, but their initial testing ruled out no big differences. Mainly due to the fact they weren't testing with different CPU's rather checking CPU load. However, on a 8C/16T CPU that can be very deceptive.
 
Apparently PCLAB.pl recently did a test which shows just exactly what is meant when people say AMD driver overhead (CPU).
 
Full test here; http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html
 
The pages of interest are;
GTX 960 vs 380X; https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-20.html&usg=ALkJrhg06hJlLQLpavuzqv7fVoF1pYaluw
GTX 970 vs 390; https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html&usg=ALkJrhiCiWM_xct_ojMuSXiHwHgD0l1DMQ
GTX 980TI vs Fury X: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-22.html&usg=ALkJrhiWkWMCsnphhFbjlt_6l88wTqwzkw
 
Test is in polish, i've added google-translated links. I don't want to steal traffic away from them by copying all of their results. So visit those pages for reference. 
 
This places into new light the current recommendations of in particular the 380 over the 960 (though bearing in mind, they're testing 380X vs 960 here), and the 390 over the 970. It also highlights that the more powerfull the GPU is, the more CPU is an issue. 980TI vs. Fury X results are pretty telling.
 
Some examples;
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/c3w_1920vh.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/f4b_1920u.png
 
These results indicate the issue with the way GPU tests are done. Usually tested with very fast CPU's (4,7ghz 6700K's, 4,6ghz 5960X's) to eliminate CPU bottlenecking. Which is ofcourse the correct way to do it. But it can remove some of the nuance. Yes, on a fast CPU the 380X is no doubt faster than the GTX 960. I've always said AMD's hardware is faster. But usually when recommending those cards, OP has something like an i3 or an i5 locked. And in those scenario's you can see the GTX 960 just edge out.
 
Except for extremely GPU bound locations;
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/w3f_1920u.png
 
Same goes for the GTX 970 vs. the 390. Though it's much less in favor of the 390 in the CPU-bound games like GTA, Fallout 4 etc.
 
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/f4b_1920u.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/c3w_1920vh.png
 
Anyway, thought it was an interesting test. Check it out. And take this into consideration when entering another topic labelled "Which GTX 960" and answering it with "R9-380". Please check which scenario, and which CPU OP has.
If it's some FX-6300 or i3...don't.
 

With a 390 you will be trading blows with your friend's 970, and if one of your friends have a really high overclock (1550mhz+ ) , it will beat your R9 390 at 1080p.
 
Suggestions/buying new:
 
- R9 Fury/Nano
 
- 980

980 ti, the 980 and Fury are sorta on par at 1080p.

I'll legit be scare for the pc gaming industry if newer titles dont start becoming more and more demanding, implementing new tecnologies and challenging our beloved rigs. I hate the feeling of being held back by the consoles graphics-wise, so in some sort of weird/twisted way the fact that ROTR was not downgraded and is not a cake walk to run, makes me feel good.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that probably people are so angry at the game because we were expecting a "DX12 omg boosted 160+ fps game" since we've been bashed over and over again a across the years that Dx12 will be the savior, the new best thing and now that we got it, we still getting DX11 performance titles with Dx12 eye candy.