Should I get a Fury X or a 980 Ti for 1080p gaming

[App4that]

I love how people that don't own a 980ti and a 1080p monitor, comment like they do.

 

No, scratch that. I don't like it.

 

The 980ti is a great graphics card to pair with a 1080p monitor. You can max everything out worry free. Or use DSR to run your games at 1440 but displayed at 1080p so that you don't have to use an aggressive AA. I run ROTTR in 1440 and stay above 50fps. Even at maxed settings other than the AA. 

[DavidGuba]

2 hours ago, App4that said:

I love how people that don't own a 980ti and a 1080p monitor, comment like they do.

 

No, scratch that. I don't like it.

 

The 980ti is a great graphics card to pair with a 1080p monitor. You can max everything out worry free. Or use DSR to run your games at 1440 but displayed at 1080p so that you don't have to use an aggressive AA. I run ROTTR in 1440 and stay above 50fps. Even at maxed settings other than the AA. 

Awesome but I think the problem is that my cpu is the bottle neck of the system, as some people told me. I really don't understand why, as I thought 4.7ghz was good, but I'm obviously missing some kind of point. After all Im not good with cpus and still dont understand why intel cpus are way more expensive.

[Sakkura]

6 hours ago, App4that said:

I love how people that don't own a 980ti and a 1080p monitor, comment like they do.

 

No, scratch that. I don't like it.

 

The 980ti is a great graphics card to pair with a 1080p monitor. You can max everything out worry free. Or use DSR to run your games at 1440 but displayed at 1080p so that you don't have to use an aggressive AA. I run ROTTR in 1440 and stay above 50fps. Even at maxed settings other than the AA. 

DSR is in itself an aggressive AA. 

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, DavidGuba said:

Awesome but I think the problem is that my cpu is the bottle neck of the system, as some people told me. I really don't understand why, as I thought 4.7ghz was good, but I'm obviously missing some kind of point. After all Im not good with cpus and still dont understand why intel cpus are way more expensive.

Intel CPUs get a lot more work done per clock cycle than current AMD CPUs. 4.7 GHz would be great on an Intel CPU. This performance advantage is the reason for the higher price. 

[Coaxialgamer]

1) upgrade your cpu to intel or wait for zen. 

2)both of those cards are overkill for 1080p, also i would recommend keeping the 390x and getting pascal/polaris. 

 

If you really cannot wait,  then get the 980ti.

[l_zheng101]

On February 9, 2016 at 3:42 AM, MTMaster said:

Well I would recommend a 980 ti for the more vram. 4gb should be enough, but 6gb would be better.

 

and an amd CPU and nvidia card should work fine. I'm not sure about SLI for that particular CPU though. You can look it up

the 390x has 8gb of vram 

[App4that]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

DSR is in itself an aggressive AA. 

So you've run a game in 1440p and 1080p while trying different settings? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Jahramika]

On 2/9/2016 at 3:38 AM, DavidGuba said:

Hi guys! Really need some input here. I have a 390x that I mainly use for 1080p gaming. I do not overclock (as I am scared to do so) and am looking to get a new card as the 390x just doesn't cut it. Along with my gpu, I have a fx 9590 cpu and 16gb of ram (you never know).

 

Now I'm looking to upgrade and can't decide between the GTX 980 Ti or the Fury X. One thing I noticed is that the Fury X has only 4gb of Vram and the 980 Ti has 6gb, my current gpu has 8gb. Would 4gb or 6gb even be enough? When I play rainbow six siege in the settings I have set everything to max and it says it is using more than 4gb so would the Fury X even comply? 

 

Anyways which card should I get and which brand should I buy it from (links would be appreciated)? And if I get a nvidia card, would it go good with my amd cpu? 

They both work on various games better than each. Get what you think is best. FUry X with 4 g of HBM does everything at 4K I play so does the 980Ti. Memory is not the issues. That is with a skylak of 9590.

[Charix]

2 hours ago, l_zheng101 said:

the 390x has 8gb of vram 

yes but according to a few reviews the 980 ti performs better than the 390x and fury x.

 

 

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, App4that said:

So you've run a game in 1440p and 1080p while trying different settings? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

DSR is simply a particular implementation of SSAA. It doesn't increase the actual display resolution, which is impossible. SSAA is the least efficient AA solution, so it should only be used as a last resort or for very old games.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

DSR is simply a particular implementation of SSAA. It doesn't increase the actual display resolution, which is impossible. SSAA is the least efficient AA solution, so it should only be used as a last resort or for very old games.

No, DSR like VSR render the game in a higher resolution, then display the high resolution image on your 1080p monitor. And the performance hit is about the same, but the image quality is much better when you render it in 1440. Only game I own where you still need powerful AA is Fallout. But that games a mess.

[Sakkura]

Just now, App4that said:

No, DSR like VSR render the game in a higher resolution, then display the high resolution image on your 1080p monitor. And the performance hit is about the same, but the image quality is much better when you render it in 1440. Only game I own where you still need powerful AA is Fallout. But that games a mess.

DSR and VSR render at a high resolution, then downsample to the final display resolution. SSAA renders at a high resolution, then downsamples. It's the same thing. DSR and VSR are just particular implementations of SSAA.

[SteveGrabowski0]

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

DSR is simply a particular implementation of SSAA. It doesn't increase the actual display resolution, which is impossible. SSAA is the least efficient AA solution, so it should only be used as a last resort or for very old games.

I hate that it's the only AA available for the Metro games.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

DSR and VSR render at a high resolution, then downsample to the final display resolution. SSAA renders at a high resolution, then downsamples. It's the same thing. DSR and VSR are just particular implementations of SSAA.

No. no they are not. I've used them all and spend hours testing. SSAA does nothing to compensate for running a large 1080p monitor, while both DSR and VSR do. I have used DSR and VSR on my desktop. Still do.

[DavidGuba]

14 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Intel CPUs get a lot more work done per clock cycle than current AMD CPUs. 4.7 GHz would be great on an Intel CPU. This performance advantage is the reason for the higher price. 

thanks for clearing that up for me

[Sakkura]

16 hours ago, App4that said:

No. no they are not. I've used them all and spend hours testing. SSAA does nothing to compensate for running a large 1080p monitor, while both DSR and VSR do. I have used DSR and VSR on my desktop. Still do.

Yes they freaking are. You cannot run a higher display resolution than the monitor is capable of, that's physically impossible. As Anandtech explains:

 

Quote

Digging a bit deeper, the image quality advantage of downsampling/DSR is that it’s fundamentally a form of Super Sample Anti-Aliasing (SSAA). By rendering an image at a higher resolution and then scaling it down, DSR is essentially sampling each pixel multiple times, improving the resulting image quality by removing geometry, texture, and shader aliasing. And like true SSAA, DSR is going to be very expensive from a rendering standpoint – you’re potentially increasing your frame resolution by 4x – but if you have the performance to spare then DSR will be worth it, and this is the basis of NVIDIA’s inclusion of DSR as a first-class feature.

 

Meanwhile from an image quality standpoint DSR should be a decent but not spectacular form of SSAA. Because it’s simply rendering an image at a larger size, DSR functionally uses an ordered pixel grid. For anti-aliasing purposes ordered grids are suboptimal due to the fact that near-vertical and near-horizontal geometry doesn’t get covered well, which is why true AA techniques will use rotated grids or sparse grids. None the less while DSR’s resulting sample pattern isn’t perfect it is going to be much better than the alternative of forgoing anti-aliasing entirely.

 

DSR to that end can be considered a sort of last-resort method of SSAA. For games that support proper RG/SG SSAA, those anti-aliasing methods will produce superior results. However as a number of games do not support native anti-aliasing of any kind due to the use of deferred renderers, DSR provides a way to anti-alias these games that is compatible with their rendering methods.

 

[Thony]

12 posts later and he still hasnt replied to any of the questions. 

 

Unless OP has 144Hz monitor, upfrading from 390x is usless.

[ybriK]

If he's financially stable, why not get a 980 Ti. Nothing really stopping him.

 

 

[App4that]

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Yes they freaking are. You cannot run a higher display resolution than the monitor is capable of, that's physically impossible. As Anandtech explains:

 

 

Did I say that? No I didn't. I said it's not SSAA. Does it improve the image quality at the cost of fps, yes. That doesn't make it the same thing. Running higher resolutions increases the feeling of depth, it also dramatically effects texture quality. Rather than going of what other people say, fucking try it. Run Fallout back to back. Look at the textures. 

[Sakkura]

25 minutes ago, App4that said:

Did I say that? No I didn't. I said it's not SSAA. Does it improve the image quality at the cost of fps, yes. That doesn't make it the same thing. Running higher resolutions increases the feeling of depth, it also dramatically effects texture quality. Rather than going of what other people say, fucking try it. Run Fallout back to back. Look at the textures. 

You said it's not SSAA, and I showed you that you were wrong. It is simply a particular implementation of SSAA.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

You said it's not SSAA, and I showed you that you were wrong. It is simply a particular implementation of SSAA.

No you didn't. "Essentially" is not the same thing. DSR and SSAA share a goal, so do a similar job. But how they do it is different. 

 

And this is stupid anyway. I know you're just being argumentative but please stick to the topic of you want to argue.

 

Using DSR allows a better image quality than can be obtained without using it. That is not arguable no matter what you choose to call it. To run an image at 1440 or above you need a stronger graphics card. So using a 1080p monitor doesn't remove the need for a stronger graphics card if you want to use DSR/VSR to obtain the best quality image possible. 

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

No you didn't. "Essentially" is not the same thing. DSR and SSAA share a goal, so do a similar job. But how they do it is different.

No, as Anandtech explains they do it the same fundamental way - render at a higher resolution, then downsample to the final resolution.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

No, as Anandtech explains they do it the same fundamental way - render at a higher resolution, then downsample to the final resolution.

OK, semantics then. 

 

can we please get back on topic or do you want to cuddle?

[DavidGuba]

8 hours ago, Thony said:

12 posts later and he still hasnt replied to any of the questions. 

 

Unless OP has 144Hz monitor, upfrading from 390x is usless.

Yes i did? and i already said i have a 1080p 60hz monitor

[Thony]

48 minutes ago, DavidGuba said:

Yes i did? and i already said i have a 1080p 60hz monitor

I see now. Then dont upgrade. No benefit. Wasted money.

Intel has lower TDP on their CPUs and they perform better in single core tests. They are more expensive because they just are better overall. For gaming the best way is to go with i5 atm or i7-4790 (not K) if u want a good performance for okay price.

AMD and Intel have different architectures and different manufacturing process. What matters are real life benchmarks in games and software. All u need to know is that FX8000 series is good for editing videos and okay for gaming and FX9000 series is just overclocked 8000 series CPUs to the limit....

Imo u made a very bad choice when u went for FX9000  

What u can do is go on youtube and other forums to compare your CPU + R9 390x ingame FPS vs other people's FPS on sAME system to see if they all get same results.

Then go see results for i5-4690K + R9 390x. If i5 gets more than 20FPS in most games then your CPU is bottlenecking.