Can't decide on gpu for 1440p upgrades

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

ok so we are not allowed to joke anymore? calm down for god sakes

brother you,re taking all this way too seriously...this is the beer league here at LTT it's full of teens that are broke and know nothing...at least that,s how i see this forum...if you'd know my background you would know why i allow myself to act like this around here from time to time

just relax...it's all good brother

 

My brother, don't you know a joke when you see one? 

 

Your background isn't interesting. Nor how you view this forum either. 

[TheSuspect]

Rather a 1060. Multi gpu setups can have hiccups here and there.

[KillDog]

Well, I know everybody watched the 1060 vs RX 480 reviews and said "RIP AMD".

You should know one thing, the reference RX 480 IS SHIT. That's why wait for custom RX 480's, because the reference design thermal throttles without proper cooling.

The custom 480's ARE GONNA OC BETTER AND WILL BE EQUAL/GREATER THAN A 980. The only reason the 1060 is winning is because the playing field is uneven.

Well, you should also blame AMD, they create excellent cards, but don't know how to maximize the utilization of those cards.

NVidia do some shady tricks to make the OC better on their cards, like going backwards in IPC. So, you'll oc to 2, 2.1 GHZ and you'll say, "wow, best overclocker on the market", when actually, even if you OC NVidia cards to their limit, you'll just get a 5-10% boost in performance, whereas, even if you OC AMD cards by say, 20%, they actually give you a 20% boost. Scaling on NVidia is bad.

 

Not an NVidia hater, since they too make exceptionally awesome cards as well, but, it's just that, because of AMD's own stupidness,(not knowing how to optimize their hardware properly at first) NVidia didn't have to much work on improving their card's architecture, since AMD was already losing. Even Raja Koduri admitted that in a vid I saw on youtube. I just wish AMD worked harder, so NVidia could work harder.

[App4that]

42 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

Seeing how mad the nvidia fan club has been about overclocking but the 980 Ti couldn't clock better than my 280x. 

 

 

 

A Fury X aircooled would've have been a more convenient option for some. Nice joke though. 

I'm not joking. The Fury X is an awesome card, not sure other than spoilers and fake scoops that much could have been done with it in the AIB. Literally the only thing wrong with it is its memory. Which is why I find it funny everyone is wanting HBM2.

[Xerora]

On 7/27/2016 at 9:16 AM, KillDog said:

Well, I know everybody watched the 1060 vs RX 480 reviews and said "RIP AMD".

You should know one thing, the reference RX 480 IS SHIT. That's why wait for custom RX 480's, because the reference design thermal throttles without proper cooling.

The custom 480's ARE GONNA OC BETTER AND WILL BE EQUAL/GREATER THAN A 980. The only reason the 1060 is winning is because the playing field is uneven.

Well, you should also blame AMD, they create excellent cards, but don't know how to maximize the utilization of those cards.

NVidia do some shady tricks to make the OC better on their cards, like going backwards in IPC. So, you'll oc to 2, 2.1 GHZ and you'll say, "wow, best overclocker on the market", when actually, even if you OC NVidia cards to their limit, you'll just get a 5-10% boost in performance, whereas, even if you OC AMD cards by say, 20%, they actually give you a 20% boost. Scaling on NVidia is bad.

 

Not an NVidia hater, since they too make exceptionally awesome cards as well, but, it's just that, because of AMD's own stupidness,(not knowing how to optimize their hardware properly at first) NVidia didn't have to much work on improving their card's architecture, since AMD was already losing. Even Raja Koduri admitted that in a vid I saw on youtube. I just wish AMD worked harder, so NVidia could work harder.

It's already been stated by reviewers that the Rx 480 has very little to no headroom for overclocking because AMD already pushed the boost clock to the max the card can handle. The only thing you're getting with custom Rx 480 cards is an aftermarket cooler.

[Remixt]

On 7/25/2016 at 4:01 AM, Prokart2000 said:

Hi guys

I am going to take the step to 1440p at christmas but i cant decide on the gpu

There is the obvious 1060 and rx480 which both perform good 

But there is the r9 fury(on sale for £300) which can crossfire and has hbm but has a high power draw and will make my pc a toaster.

The 980 is another option as it supports sli but only has 4gb of gddr5 so will this be limiting at 1440?

Many thanks

Pro

If you want decent gaming at 1440p you should get a 1070 or 980Ti imo. If you can't afford one now then save up if at all possible. 

[Xerora]

4 minutes ago, Remixt said:

If you want decent gaming at 1440p you should get a 1070 or 980Ti imo. If you can't afford one now then save up if at all possible. 

If you look around enough you could probably find two 980Ti's for less then a 1080 and outperform the 1080 in benchmarks. Nvidia stated that the stock 980's in SLI are weaker then the 1080, but they didn't say anything about the 980Ti's in SLI which leads me to believe those are still very relevant in SLI configurations.

[Remixt]

Just now, Xerora said:

If you look around enough you could probably find two 980Ti's for less then a 1080 and outperform the 1080 in benchmarks. Nvidia stated that the stock 980's in SLI are weaker then the 1080, but they didn't say anything about the 980Ti's in SLI which leads me to believe those are still very relevant in SLI configurations.

Yeah my set up is dual 980Ti's and I get well over 100 fps in all my games at 1440p

[Xerora]

2 minutes ago, Remixt said:

Yeah my set up is dual 980Ti's and I get well over 100 fps in all my games at 1440p

You're probably still good for another architecture release.

[othertomperson]

On 27/07/2016 at 2:29 PM, App4that said:

I'm not joking. The Fury X is an awesome card, not sure other than spoilers and fake scoops that much could have been done with it in the AIB. Literally the only thing wrong with it is its memory. Which is why I find it funny everyone is wanting HBM2.

I'm not too bothered about memory tbh. If the full Fury X were available with a decent air cooler I would almost certainly have two already and would not have Pascal right now. I looked at the Nano, but it just throttles too much and is nerfed in terms of power and clock speed. I am still unconvinced that more than 4GB is at all necessary for anything right now.

 

If this were still 2014 I would be suggesting a 970, 980, 1060 or RX 480 for 1440p (pretending all of those existed at the time). It's not still 2014. I suggest 1070, 1080, 980 Ti, Titan X (the Maxwell one) or a Fury X for 1440p.

[App4that]

1 hour ago, othertomperson said:

I'm not too bothered about memory tbh. If the full Fury X were available with a decent air cooler I would almost certainly have two already and would not have Pascal right now. I looked at the Nano, but it just throttles too much and is nerfed in terms of power and clock speed. I am still unconvinced that more than 4GB is at all necessary for anything right now.

 

If this were still 2014 I would be suggesting a 970, 980, 1060 or RX 480 for 1440p (pretending all of those existed at the time). It's not still 2014. I suggest 1070, 1080, 980 Ti, Titan X (the Maxwell one) or a Fury X for 1440p.

The 4g hold it back pretty bad. Even Doom doesn't let the Furies use some of the ultra settings because of it. And in crossfire that stutter bad.

[othertomperson]

1 hour ago, App4that said:

The 4g hold it back pretty bad. Even Doom doesn't let the Furies use some of the ultra settings because of it. And in crossfire that stutter bad.

This is why "Fury" was a bad name. Whenever people have more than one of them I always read it as "furries". >_<

 

Anyway. Ahem. The only case I have seen that evidenced was in a pre-patch Rise of the Tomb Raider. At the time the only GPU that didn't have the same problem was the (Maxwell) Titan X because its memory leak was so bad that it ran like shit on any card that had less than 12GB.

 

In my experience of using GTX 970s, whenever a game was said to have needed more than 4GB vram, all that meant was that people with 390s and 980 Tis had seen their usage go above 4GB. I don't think I encountered a time in which the 970 didn't have the memory bandwidth to simply replace the unneeded data stored in vram dynamically, rather than just needed all of it. And this is the 970 we're talking about. If the 970's final 0.5GB had enough bandwidth to deal with this, I find it very hard to believe that HBM wouldn't, even with the 970's much superior compression.

 

And Crossfire... eh I've heard that said a lot about Crossfire in general, it doesn't seem to be at all related to the Fury's vram.