R9 470 to be only 5% slower than the 970

[vanished]

Sounds good.  Filling a gap I suppose.  I'd want 480 power or more for an upgrade but there's a place for this for sure.

[vanished]

36 minutes ago, TheAmazingCookieFromSquare said:

Yes tech news...

 

A mod will move it at some point lel

There is going to be the RX 490 later on in the year

I think this might be the first post ever to be moved in to tech news

[bcredeur97]

17 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

I have a feeling that people with older GPUs are suddenly going to see games completely unplayable when they spent $500 4 years ago while a $150 GPU will play 1440p reasonably... kinda weird to think that this generation of GPUs has just skyrocketed in capability but I think it's going to encourage companies to make "Crysis syndrome" games that are horribly un-optimized. Just a guess though.

You're telling me. Look at my sig.

 

It was once an awesome setup, but these days it's quite lacking.

[vanished]

24 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

I have a feeling that people with older GPUs are suddenly going to see games completely unplayable when they spent $500 4 years ago while a $150 GPU will play 1440p reasonably... kinda weird to think that this generation of GPUs has just skyrocketed in capability but I think it's going to encourage companies to make "Crysis syndrome" games that are horribly un-optimized. Just a guess though.

*cough* ubisoft *cough*

 

"We don't really care about efficiency on PC since if it doesn't run well, you can just buy a bigger GPU"

[Ze_Mako]

Now I'm more curious about the RX 460. I could easily toss one of those in my guest PC and not have to do any upgrades other than the CPU since the monitor it uses is only 1440x900  

 

Currently it has a GTX 670 paired with a 955 BE

[killcomic]

And this is why I never found value in buying expensive GPUs.

I got an R9 280 that I bought for peanuts, overclocked it within an inch of its life and now I'm getting going to get the RX 480 which will give me a damn nice jump in performance for very little money again.

Had I bought the GTX 980 or 980ti, I would be kicking myself for having spent that money.

 

Lower class proletarian computing!

[killcomic]

11 minutes ago, Ze_Mako said:

Now I'm more curious about the RX 460. I could easily toss one of those in my guest PC and not have to do any upgrades other than the CPU since the monitor it uses is only 1440x900  

 

Currently it has a GTX 670 paired with a 955 BE

Yeah, it would probably fly at that resolution. Get yourself the RX 470 and you'll be maxing out pretty much everything with 60 FPS.

[WereCat]

17 minutes ago, killcomic said:

And this is why I never found value in buying expensive GPUs.

I got an R9 280 that I bought for peanuts, overclocked it within an inch of its life and now I'm getting going to get the RX 480 which will give me a damn nice jump in performance for very little money again.

Had I bought the GTX 980 or 980ti, I would be kicking myself for having spent that money.

 

Lower class proletarian computing!

When I remember how much GPUs costed when I was building my PC...

7970 €520

GTX 680 €500

GTX 770 €380 (got this one)

 

Now GTX 970 €300

R9 390 €330

 

RX 480 €230

RX 470 €180

 

GPUs are getting more and more powerful and cheaper too.

I hope that I will be able to sell my 770 for at least €100.

[Delicieuxz]

The RX 470 is barely a touch more performing than an R9 280X OC, which is what I have. My card can run most things on a mix of high/medium settings at 1920x1200, so I wouldn't recommend a 470 to anyone that wants to play max settings at 1080p in AAA games.

 

Quote

I have a feeling that people with older GPUs are suddenly going to see games completely unplayable when they spent $500 4 years ago while a $150 GPU will play 1440p reasonably... kinda weird to think that this generation of GPUs has just skyrocketed in capability but I think it's going to encourage companies to make "Crysis syndrome" games that are horribly un-optimized. Just a guess though.

A graphics card lasting 4 years while still playing games on high settings is a phenomenon that didn't exist prior to the Xbox 360 and PS3 releases. Up until Crysis' release in 2007, it was full-steam ahead with each new gen taking a big leap being made over the previous gen in performance, and there was a so-called "graphics war," where ever next AAA game made an effort to out-do all others that had already been released. Crysis' release was the final say on the graphics war, before the great graphics-standstill of many years.

 

But because the 360 and PS3 dominated game sales for their time, most all developers stopped developing for the PC first, and the game the PC did get were usually ported from their console versions, without any extra PC features or visual enhancements. So, since most all games were targeting a static console's performance for a long number of years, graphics in games suddenly stopped progressing by any noteworthy degree, and so graphics cards makers must have decided that there was no point in making big graphical performance leaps year after year, and the rate of performance increase in graphics cards came to a relative stand-still over what was previously normal. Only with the GTX 980 ti would I say that things started to pick up the pace a bit again.

 

But the only people who are going to be surprised that a many-years-old card isn't a top performer anymore are people who started buying cards during the great lull in graphics hardware progression of the 360 / PS3 generation, or thereafter, or people who accepted that lull as the new norm. But me, I personally hope that the lull was a temporary aberration caused by the strangling restraint those consoles held over the market for many years, and that now graphics tech development will somewhat continue onward into greater graphics glory. But we currently aren't seeing games move forward in graphical fidelity at rates similar to pre-Crysis standards.

 

Also, it appears to me that AMD and Nvidia have no trouble turning their generational graphics card performance increases up and down, like a faucet , to parallel the practical needs of the gaming industry. So, I'm not amazed by how much performance can be achieved per dollar, as ability to develop and manufacture doesn't seem to be the governing factor for how powerful each new graphics-tech gen is. It seems that raw graphics performance increase road-maps are largely a product of those companies calculating how much they need to do, to accommodate the market, while not getting too ahead.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

The whole xx9.99 is a weird paradigm in marketing that I'd rather went away. I'm more likely to remember a product's price when it says 150 than when it says 149.99

It's 100% a marketing construct, based on real world phenomenon. It's not aimed at online retailers or people that shop around (and try to remember a price). It's aimed at impulse buyers and people just casually looking around.

 

Basically, when you're standing in a store, looking at various price tags, subconsciously, 149.99 is easier to swallow then 150. It has an even bigger affect when nearing the closest tens or hundreds. Take for example: 299.99 vs 300. 299.99 is "under 300" (if only just), but the brain of the average shopper equates that with a better value.

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

Yes, but it's a lie. In retail, stores are likely to outright refuse to give you your penny back (or they won't have any), and even then the difference is so little. It's misleading marketing, which I guess is a redundant statement to make.

Erm... what? No. It's not a lie. 299.99 is 299.99. Some countries (Take Canada, for example) have removed pennies from circulation, so any prices are rounded up or down, to the closest $0.05. But there is tax on (nearly) every item anyway, including graphics cards. So 299.99 with sales tax in Canada is actually $338.99 (13% tax). If you pay in cash, you'd actually pay $339 even. But if you pay with Debit or Credit Card (or any digital form of payment, gift cards, Apple Pay, etc), then you pay the exact figure, $338.99. With the system in Canada, it averages out pretty evenly, so sometimes you pay a few more pennies, and sometimes you pay a few less pennies.

 

But I never carry cash, and certainly sure as hell don't buy things like graphics cards in cash, so it never affects me anyway.

 

In your country, assuming pennies are still in circulation, if they are not giving you your penny back, then that store is actually straight up stealing from you - Report the cashier to their manager, and shop elsewhere (Though good luck going to the police over one penny). If they don't have any pennies, wait for them to get change from their safe. If they are out of pennies, then simply don't buy the product right that moment, or use a different payment method.

[Big-G]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because they only announced Polaris, not Vega.

Yes, and since it's not announced, like the GP102... I don't count it as relevant...

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Plus, that would be acting like a 280x can't game because didn't the 7970 come out like 4-5 years ago?  The 7970 =a 280x.  

Yeah, but that was within the great slowdown of graphics tech generational performance increases, while the consoles' dominating market-shares were the governing factor in what game developers' made as their graphical and game-performance targets. That's the only example in PC graphics history of that happening, with the 7970-380x perhaps being the penultimate example of micro-progression in generational tech, and people shouldn't read that as the norm, but as the worst-case example of graphic-tech idleness.

[killcomic]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

Yes, but it's a lie. In retail, stores are likely to outright refuse to give you your penny back (or they won't have any), and even then the difference is so little. It's misleading marketing, which I guess is a redundant statement to make.

Whoa! What country are you in? Don't you have consumer protection laws? That's outright stealing!

[RagnarokDel]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Sounds good.  Filling a gap I suppose.  I'd want 480 power or more for an upgrade but there's a place for this for sure.

htpc + console emulation

[Ze_Mako]

46 minutes ago, killcomic said:

Yeah, it would probably fly at that resolution. Get yourself the RX 470 and you'll be maxing out pretty much everything with 60 FPS.

I'll have to wait and see what the prices for the two cards are for since it's a PC I don't plan on dumping a whole lot of money into. Pretty sure the 955 BE would bottleneck both cards to some extent so I may need to upgrade that first.

[PlayStation 2]

1 hour ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

I have a feeling that people with older GPUs are suddenly going to see games completely unplayable when they spent $500 4 years ago while a $150 GPU will play 1440p reasonably... kinda weird to think that this generation of GPUs has just skyrocketed in capability but I think it's going to encourage companies to make "Crysis syndrome" games that are horribly un-optimized. Just a guess though.

Wouldn't shock me in the fucking slightest.

Hell, it already kinda happened in the 7th generation and it wasn't any better in the 6th generation, with such gems as SimCity 4, The Simpsons: Hit and Run, and many many more titles like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

[Big-G]

14 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

But ofc there be people whining about how AMD should die off so they can finally pay less for Nvidia cards. 

No, they should actually compete at a level footing rather than just pander to the general masses like the console clans... Fury and Fury X were real competitors for the 980/980Ti/TitanX... (although the 4GB memory put my off)

 

We need 1070/1080 competition sooner than later...

 

I've grown sick and tired of AMD just making do... until they actually compete again... I will never support their products.

[Big-G]

4 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Funny how Nvidia is the big bad wolf trying to rape our wallets but the hate goes somewhere else.

Funny how Nvidia's blamed for high prices, but we want their products and there's no alternative...

 

It's because AMD fails to compete at the level we want that Nvidia can dictate the prices. Competition at the high end will bring prices down. Nvidia is doing what any company without any competition and high demand will do... allow the prices to climb. Economics 101...

 

It's not Nvidia being bad... they are following the law of competition... AMD's the one that's lost the fight.

[Big-G]

2 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

You're right they have absolutely no choice when it comes to pricing. Neither does Apple because there are no adequate Android alternatives. 

 

Its never the fault of people who vote with their wallet by accepting stupid prices. 

That's because want is sometimes a stronger driver than need...

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

3 minutes ago, GidonsClaw said:

That's because want is sometimes a stronger driver than need...

 

^That's it right there 

 

The kind of mind set that's killing prices for everyone else. 

[stconquest]

16 minutes ago, GidonsClaw said:

Funny how Nvidia's blamed for high prices, but we want their products and there's no alternative...

 

It's because AMD fails to compete at the level we want that Nvidia can dictate the prices. Competition at the high end will bring prices down. Nvidia is doing what any company without any competition and high demand will do... allow the prices to climb. Economics 101...

 

It's not Nvidia being bad... they are following the law of competition... AMD's the one that's lost the fight.

Who is this "we"?  I sure as hell do not want a $500-$800 (CDN) GPU.  I will never spend that much to play a video game.  "We" don't see the value in buying an expensive GPU.  "We" have learned that developers make game to saturate as much of the market as possible, not to appease the small percentage of consumers that spend $500+ (USD) for a single PC component to play video games.

 

AMD is competing at a price point that "we" appreciate.

[stconquest]

This guy is just pissed that his less than a year old GTX 980 is now a shit tier card in his own eyes.

[Big-G]

4 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Who is this "we".  I sure as hell do not want a $500-$800 (CDN) GPU.  I will never spend that much to play a video game.  "We" don't see the value in buying an expensive GPU.  "We" have learned that developers make game to saturate as much of the market as possible, not to appease the small percentage of consumers that spend $500+ (USD) for a single PC component to play video games.

 

AMD is competing at a price point that "we" appreciate.

Don't worry... we didn't include you...

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, GidonsClaw said:

Don't worry... we didn't include you...

I know.  I included me.

[Big-G]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

I know.  I included me.

Your "we" isn't required at the high spec level...