Can't decide on gpu for 1440p upgrades

[Prokart2000]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

A lot of games are no problem to run at 1440 at all. The killers are console ports. There you make the choice to spend more money on the card, or sacrifice some settings. The good news is more console ports have ridiculous settings. Settings that do nothing to the look or feel of the game, but kill fps. Find those and profit.

 

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

IMHO ULTRA settings is so overrated...99% of the time when i drop the settings from ULTRA to HIGH i CAN NOT tell the difference...HONESTLY...i can't...even if i try...the only thing i see is the 30FPS drop. Visuals = the same.

I can only agree, on my tn 1080p on bf4 i cant tell any difference from medium to ultra, i will like the massive resolution step up aswell so i wont notice the settigns as much anyways

[App4that]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

IMHO ULTRA settings is so overrated...99% of the time when i drop the settings from ULTRA to HIGH i CAN NOT tell the difference...HONESTLY...i can't...even if i try...the only thing i see is the 30FPS drop. Visuals = the same.

Drives me absolutely bonkers. "lets review this hardware running Doom but use ultra settings because the thing you do the most in Doom is stare at walls" Really?!?!?!? Try it, pick a review of any card running Doom and you will be staring at a wall... Bloody hell. If I was pretty I'd start my own channel, called Sanity.

[Prokart2000]

18 hours ago, App4that said:

Drives me absolutely bonkers. "lets review this hardware running Doom but use ultra settings because the thing you do the most in Doom is stare at walls" Really?!?!?!? Try it, pick a review of any card running Doom and you will be staring at a wall... Bloody hell. If I was pretty I'd start my own channel, called Sanity.

Just realised a bonus, in the uk the 1060 fe (the green goes with my build plans) is only £275 while the strix, msi x and other asus cards are more than that

[i_build_nanosuits]

33 minutes ago, Prokart2000 said:

Just realised a bonus, in the uk the 1060 fe (the green goes with my build plans) is only £275 while the strix, msi x and other asus cards are more than that

if you like the FE cards then why not...i wouldnt recommend it for the 1070/1080 since this IMHO is a bit much GPU for a blower fan to cool, it's alright but it's borderline...maybe the 1070...but for the GTX 1060 the reviews are there and the temps and noise level are well under control the GTX 1060 being a small and very efficient GPU. You can overclock it a fair bit and remain decently quiet under the nvidia cooling solution.

[Prokart2000]

33 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if you like the FE cards then why not...i wouldnt recommend it for the 1070/1080 since this IMHO is a bit much GPU for a blower fan to cool, it's alright but it's borderline...maybe the 1070...but for the GTX 1060 the reviews are there and the temps and noise level are well under control the GTX 1060 being a small and very efficient GPU. You can overclock it a fair bit and remain decently quiet under the nvidia cooling solution.

Here is my planned upgrades: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/Lh3whq 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, Prokart2000 said:

Here is my planned upgrades: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/Lh3whq 

the case though...i get that it's pretty...but it's also pretty bad...it's a closed box with no airflow.

[Morgan MLGman]

20 hours ago, Prokart2000 said:

Thanks, i just want it to last though as this will be my first 1440p experience and i dont upgrade whenever something new comes out (at xmas it is the 4tth year with my current rig and when i plan to upgrade)

R9 Fury is the fastest of all you mentioned, it beats RX 480, GTX 1060 and GTX 980, ESPECIALLY at 1440p, for which even an R9 390X is faster than a 980 with 4GB of GDDR5.

 

Though you might want to consider a 980Ti/GTX 1070 for more performance.

 

R9 Fury does not get hot and will not make your PC a toaster. These are myths.

Sapphire's R9 Fury Nitro draws 40W more than Gigabyte's 980 Windforce 3x, its temps are around 68-70 degrees under full load and actually is more silent than a GTX 980 Windforce from Gigabyte.

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

R9 Fury does not get hot and will not make your PC a toaster. These are myths.

according to many reviewers it's a stuttering pile of crap though..

and it's only 4GB which is really not ideal for 1440p...i have quite a few games that push it to more than 4GB already.

[Prokart2000]

This video seems to have them on par with an oc 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Prokart2000 said:

This video seems to have them on par with an oc 

 

even if it would be 10% slower (it's not)...it has more memory, much better drivers and softwares and it's not AMD.

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

according to many reviewers it's a stuttering pile of crap though..

If a Fury would stutter, so would a GTX 980 which is not only also limited to 4GB of VRAM, but also doesn't have HBM, which we all know helps when more VRAM is needed when compared to GDDR5.

 

I just looked at a review comparing those two cards (980 Windforce 3x from Gigabyte and R9 Fury Nitro from Sapphire), the temps are identical, power draw is 40W higher on the Fury and it's significantly more silent with fans turning off when idling.

 

Not to mention that out of 10 games they tested, at 1440p resolution, there was NO game that the GTX 980 would beat the Fury.

 

(full review: http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_sapphire_r9_380_r9_390_r9_fury_nitro_radeony_lepszego_sortu)

It's in Polish though.

 

[Prokart2000]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

according to many reviewers it's a stuttering pile of crap though..

and it's only 4GB which is really not ideal for 1440p...i have quite a few games that push it to more than 4GB already.

What confuses me with the rx480 vs 1060 debate is that the 1060 wont do aswell in the long run as vulkan and dx12 is apparently suited the 480 better but surely the 1060 is fine in dx12 games too?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

If a Fury would stutter, so would a GTX 980 which is not only also limited to 4GB of VRAM, but also doesn't have HBM, which we all know helps when more VRAM is needed when compared to GDDR5.

 

I just looked at a review comparing those two cards (980 Windforce 3x from Gigabyte and R9 Fury Nitro from Sapphire), the temps are identical, power draw is 40W higher on the Fury and it's significantly more silent with fans turning off when idling.

 

Not to mention that out of 10 games they tested, at 1440p resolution, there was NO game that the GTX 980 would beat the Fury.

 

 

it's only 4GB which is really not ideal for 1440p...i have quite a few games that push it to more than 4GB already.

the GTX 1060 is 6GB and is faster than the Fury in many if not most games.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, Prokart2000 said:

What confuses me with the rx480 vs 1060 debate is that the 1060 wont do aswell in the long run as vulkan and dx12 is apparently suited the 480 better but surely the 1060 is fine in dx12 games too?

GTX 1060 despite apparently supporting ASync, still loses framerates when transitioning from DX11 to DX12. It's a faster card than RX 480, though it's longevity is arguably worse, considering AMD's history with improving drivers over time quite a bit, not abandoning older architectures as fast as Nvidia driver-wise, supporting DX12/Vulkan better than 1060, and having 8GB of VRAM vs 6GB that the 1060 has.

 

I'd personally get the R9 Fury, as it's the highest-end card and is probably made of the higher-quality components than the rest of the cards. It's also most powerful.

 

GTX 980 is not worth it at all imo, the GTX 1060 is what I'd consider from the green side, as it's a pretty damn good card. Or a used 980Ti if it fits the budget.

 

[Prokart2000]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

GTX 1060 despite apparently supporting ASync, still loses framerates when transitioning from DX11 to DX12.

This is what has me undecided as i dont want it to come next year and the 1060 is failing in dx12 titles

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Prokart2000 said:

What confuses me with the rx480 vs 1060 debate is that the 1060 wont do aswell in the long run as vulkan and dx12 is apparently suited the 480 better but surely the 1060 is fine in dx12 games too?

that's bullshit...it's just that the few DX12 games that have come out so far are games that heavily favor AMD's GPU architecture (hitman, ashes of the singulashitty...) there will be A LOT more DX12 games in the future that will favor nvidia...with gameworks features and nvidia optimisation as it's always the case nvidia is a monster and they have billions to sponsor game developers and stuff...and pascal does support pre-emption which is a form of async compute...and as far as vulcan is concerned...,doom ran like COMPLETE CRAP on openGL AMD that's why they see such a boost in that game but that only make them on par with nvidia which was already performing admirably under OpenGL and is doing now even better with vulcan.

There is NO benefit from goind AMD what so ever...it's all bullshit made up based on 2 or 3 AMD optimised games...but there will be A LOT more nvidia games in the future that's a given...both DX11 and DX12.

[Prokart2000]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

that's bullshit...it's just that the few DX12 games that have come out so far are games that heavily favor AMD's GPU architecture (hitman, ashes of the singulashitty...) there will be A LOT more DX12 games in the future that will favor nvidia...with gameworks features and nvidia optimisation as it's always the case nvidia is a monster and they have billions to sponsor game developers and stuff...and pascal does support pre-emption which is a form of async compute...and as far as vulcan is concerned...,doom ran like COMPLETE CRAP on openGL AMD that's why they see such a boost in that game but that only make them on par with nvidia which was already performing admirably under OpenGL and is doing now even better with vulcan.

There is NO benefit from goind AMD what so ever...it's all bullshit made up based on 2 or 3 AMD optimised games...but there will be A LOT more nvidia games in the future that's a given...both DX11 and DX12.

Thanks for clarification, does this build look good?  http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/9RqHBP  i may get a cheaper mobo which is just black

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, Prokart2000 said:

This is what has me undecided as i dont want it to come next year and the 1060 is failing in dx12 titles

Re-read my post as I edited it with more detailed info.

 

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

that's bullshit...it's just that the few DX12 games that have come out so far are games that heavily favor AMD's GPU architecture (hitman, ashes of the singulashitty...) there will be A LOT more DX12 games in the future that will favor nvidia...with gameworks features and nvidia optimisation as it's always the case nvidia is a monster and they have billions to sponsor game developers and stuff...and pascal does support pre-emption which is a for of async compute...and as far as vulcan is concerned...,doom ran like COMPLETE CRAP on openGL AMD that's why they see such a boost in that game but that only make them on par with nvidia which was already performing admirably under OpenGL and is doing now even better with vulcan.

There is NO benefit from goind AMD what so ever...it's all bullshit made up based on 2 or 3 AMD optimised games...but there will be A LOT more nvidia games in the future that's a given...both DX11 and DX12.

Nah, this is not objective advice. This is AMD bash and glorifying Nvidia. Both sides have their pros and cons, and it's not like Nvidia is the best and that "there is NO benefit from going AMD whatsoever". He should pick the best GPU for his money, not the manufacturer.

[HKZeroFive]

9 minutes ago, Prokart2000 said:

What confuses me with the rx480 vs 1060 debate is that the 1060 wont do aswell in the long run as vulkan and dx12 is apparently suited the 480 better but surely the 1060 is fine in dx12 games too?

The GTX 1060 is still a decent performer at DirectX 12, though the RX 480 has a slight edge over for the majority of games. I don't know where he's pulling this stuff out about more DX12 and Vulkan games being NVIDIA sponsored in the future and thinking it's a good thing.

 

That said, GTX 1060 is the better buy over the RX 480 if the prices are similar. I don't refute that. R9 Fury is a different story, the GTX 1060 definitely does not beat that.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, HKZeroFive said:

I don't know where he's pulling this stuff out about more games being NVIDIA sponsored.

That is actually true, more games are Nvidia-partnered than AMD-partnered. What's curious is that Nvidia cards are usually only better in those Nvidia-optimized, while those that didn't partner with anyone are usually better with AMD (from what I noticed at least, might be wrong here)

[HKZeroFive]

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That is actually true, more games are Nvidia-partnered than AMD-partnered. What's curious is that Nvidia cards are usually only better in those Nvidia-optimized, while those that didn't partner with anyone are usually better with AMD (from what I noticed at least, might be wrong here)

For DirectX 12 games at least, I've seen more AMD-sponsored games than NVIDIA's. Might change in the future though but that's speculation.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, HKZeroFive said:

For DirectX 12 games at least, I've seen more AMD-sponsored games than NVIDIA's. Might change in the future though.

Yup, I was talking games in general, DX12 based games are a different story, as AMD helped with DX12 development.

[i_build_nanosuits]

12 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Nah, this is not objective advice. This is AMD bash and glorifying Nvidia. Both sides have their pros and cons, and it's not like Nvidia is the best and that "there is NO benefit from going AMD whatsoever". He should pick the best GPU for his money, not the manufacturer.

i disagree...async compute help AMD because the GPU architecture they have is susceptible to have a lot of ''bubbles'' in the pipeline most reviewers mentionned that already all that does is bring them on par with nvidia and actually just make them where they ''should'' have been from the get go.

 

And YES there will be many nvidia sponsored/optimised DX12 titles coming in the future that's a given, nvidia has always pushed hard to help the gaming industry move forward they provide tools for developpers to implement in the games and they will keep doing so in the future...if you think the bulk of the DX12 games will be sponsored/optimized for AMD hardware then you're very delusional.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

For DirectX 12 games at least, I've seen more AMD-sponsored games than NVIDIA's. Might change in the future though but that's speculation.

that's exactly what i meant to say...it WILL change that's a given AMD is broke as fuck...nvidia has money to trow at game developpers and they've been doing so for over 10 years now and they will keep doing it.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

10 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

even if it would be 10% slower (it's not)...it has more memory, much better drivers and softwares and it's not AMD.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, gotta control yourself there. Your inner fanboy is showing 

 

8 minutes ago, Prokart2000 said:

This is what has me undecided as i dont want it to come next year and the 1060 is failing in dx12 titles

 

The GTX 1060 won't fail in DX12 games. But it may not get as big of a boost as compared to the Rx 480 as what we've currently seen. 

The notion of "nvidia for games now, AMD for future games" is still pretty relevant. 

But not getting as big of a boost does not mean the 1060 will some how magically perform worse.