Still worth buying a GTX 980?

[afyeung]

But it does not. HBM allows for insane amounts of data to be swapped out in an instant whereas GDDR5 over a 256-bit bus results in much slower and smaller chunks being quickly interchangeable hence why at 4K you see 0 stutters with a Fury X whereas a 980 sees quite a bit.

The cool thing about the 390x is that it's memory bandwidth is only 50gb/s less than the Fury X when overclocked. 

[afyeung]

Exactly, and you can get a 980 cheaper. Plus the 980 comes with better features in my opinion.

 

But I'd go 390x

390x is a nice card. Not as good as the 980 in some games, but with my OC'ed 390x I usually try to meet or beat stock 980 performance.

[App4that]

390x is a nice card. Not as good as the 980 in some games, but with my OC'ed 390x I usually try to meet or beat stock 980 performance.

Yep, and both the 390x and 980 can be purchased for 400us brand new. Which places them under the Fury but with comparable performance at 1080p. Why I can't advise buying a Fury.

[stealth80]

Just because the transistors are smaller doesn't mean more performance unless they add more transistors per die. Even more transistors doesn't mean more performance, the 780ti has 2 billion more transistors than the 980, and the 980 crushes the 780ti. The 6700k is based on the 14nm process while my 5820k is based on 22nm, the 6700k is significantly less powerful than the 5820k. That's why I'm basing my speculation on previous performance increase numbers. I also doubt AMD's new GPUs will be successful unless games start using Asynchronous shaders which is the ONLY advantage AMD has for games. And a total of 0 games currently out use Asynchronous shaders unfortunately.

 

You are comparing two different things there with the CPUs. Single to 8 threaded app the 6700K destroys the 5820K, its only when you use vid edting etc that uses more cores that allows the 5820k to pull away. That isn't really a correct comparison, it should be 4790k - 6700k, and we know the 6700K wins everytime

[WhiteSkyMage]

I had to return my GTX 970 as it was faulty and now have no GPU.

 

I am thinking about shelling out for a 980 instead, as I had fallout 4 running at 60-75fps on ultra and feel the next gen of PC games will simply not allow me to crank the graphics with a 970 at 1080p

 

Problem is the 980 is 4GB of RAM as well.

 

I am currently without a GPU and just running off my 4670k integrated graphics but I would like to get back to gaming soon..

 

Any ideas

 

Monitor is 1080p BenQ 144Hz

 

I don't know what games you are playing, but If I were you, id either wait or get a GTX950 or some low cost AMD GPU. You must be looking for the Pascal GPU or a next gen AMD GPU, whatever it will be called, but we don't know when they will be releasing them yet, perhaps in the 2nd half of the year. 

There is a good chance that a GTX970 equivalent in Pascal would cost as much as a 960. A GTX 980Ti equivalent will cost as much as a GTX 980 which has dropped down to $499... And then you will have something in between for $360-$400 range. Then the high end HBM GPUs would be in the $600-1000 range. It's just a prediction but you need to look towards the highest end single GPU you can afford from Pascal. Id say spend little now so you can have for more later.

 

A friend of mine is moving to PC gaming so he's looking to get a PC with 970 and a Shield, but I told him, that if he really wants to go on the high end gaming with VR, he should wait for the next gen HBM GPUs.

 

To be honest your GTX 970 did not have a full 4GB as it was advertised, it had a 3.5GB normal GDDR5 and 512MB which is slower, though much faster than your system RAM. GTX 980 has the full 4GB, but it's not really good with price/performance ratio.   

[afyeung]

You are comparing two different things there with the CPUs. Single to 8 threaded app the 6700K destroys the 5820K, its only when you use vid edting etc that uses more cores that allows the 5820k to pull away. That isn't really a correct comparison, it should be 4790k - 6700k, and we know the 6700K wins everytime

I'll cinebench single threaded later, the 6700k is faster than the 5820k per clock, but it doesn't "destroy it". Or people who had the 4790k, like yourself, would have upgraded to the 6700k by now. You have an excellent build by the way, very nicely matched aesthetics. Cheers!

[MilkJugg24]

The 390 and 390X makes the 980 always not worth it. You might as well either get a fury or shell out the few extra for a 980Ti.

[stealth80]

I'll cinebench single threaded later, the 6700k is faster than the 5820k per clock, but it doesn't "destroy it". Or people who had the 4790k, like yourself, would have upgraded to the 6700k by now. You have an excellent build by the way, very nicely matched aesthetics. Cheers!

 

Hey thanks. Ok destroy is a strong term, but the 6700k is doing more per cycle and boosts to 4.2ghz vs the 3.6ghz of the 5820k. Don't get me wrong, if I had my time again I would have gone X99, not just for the CPU, but because it's a superior platform.

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-6700k-i5-6600k-skylake-cpu-review/8/

​

[afyeung]

Hey thanks. Ok destroy is a strong term, but the 6700k is doing more per cycle and boosts to 4.2ghz vs the 3.6ghz of the 5820k. Don't get me wrong, if I had my time again I would have gone X99, not just for the CPU, but because it's a superior platform.

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-6700k-i5-6600k-skylake-cpu-review/8/

​

You're right that the 6700k is significantly stronger per core. But honestly, the games I play, the 5820k at 4.5ghz will be very close to the 6700k, near margin of error. And other than that, for actual work applications like video editing and parallel processing, the 5820k wins hands down. 

[App4that]

The 390 and 390X makes the 980 always not worth it. You might as well either get a fury or shell out the few extra for a 980Ti.

The Fury is worthless at the price they ask for it.