Can't decide on gpu for 1440p upgrades

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

6 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

July 28th 2014 for AMD

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-raptr-dvr-gaming-twitch,27331.html

 

May 23rd 2013 for nvidia (almost a year and a half)

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/geforce-experience-official-release

 

Oh damn, you have me corrected on this. I confused the support for another software with raptr. 

 

Though still. Since you've linked the article yourself stating that AMD supported GVR 2 years ago. That is a damn long time for you to not notice it. 

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

Look at the GTX 970 score, kappa... Glad I switched to a 290X which still does amazing, beating 480, 390, 780Ti and 970

780Ti is strong at 1440p.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, 1Cup1Tea said:

780Ti is strong at 1440p.

It's not, it's limited by 3GB of VRAM.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Look at the GTX 970 score, kappa... Glad I switched to a 290X which still does amazing, beating 480, 390, 780Ti and 970

yeah but the 1060 tho...and this is a stock clocked founder edition they've tested....push and overclock on that...and let some time for drivers to mature...where do you think it would fall on the chart if you account for those...also, it's already as fast as the R9 Fury at 1080p...at stock clocks, on very early drivers

the 1060 for the price is INSANE...IMHO one of if not THE best nvidia value GPU in a very long time:

 

 

(and also as you can see here GTX 970 and 290X perform the same at the resolution you game at :p)

GTX 970 doesn't like 1440p

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

The lack of the ability to overclock limits it. Not all games, but killers like Fallout 4 still bring it to it's knees. While a overclocked i7 munches through Fallout 4 without breaking a sweat.

Ah, that's what you mean. So it applies to locked i7's as well, I thought you meant that the Xeon is bad because it's a Xeon for some reason.

 

Well, it's all up to his budget. The 1231v3 is the closest he gets to an i7 for the lowest possible price, not counting the used market here.

But if he can get a 4790K and overclock it, then he's golden.

[1Cup1Tea]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

It's not, it's limited by 3GB of VRAM.

It's beating 970.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, 1Cup1Tea said:

It's beating 970.

Same as R9 290. Which is cheaper and older. Conclusion? 970 for 1440p sucks.

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Ah, that's what you mean. So it applies to locked i7's as well, I thought you meant that the Xeon is bad because it's a Xeon for some reason.

 

Well, it's all up to his budget. The 1231v3 is the closest he gets to an i7 for the lowest possible price, not counting the used market here.

But if he can get a 4790K and overclock it, then he's golden.

That's my point. I appreciate the OP wanting to dive into 1440, but 1440 is not a budget option. Doesn't mean you have to go hog wild and gold plate your 240 rads, but it take a different level of hardware. The RX 480 and GTX 1060 are 1080p cards, through and through. You can get them to play at 1440 using some old games, but come on.

 

OP needs to be able to get one 1440 level component, or should think about staying at 1080p until their budget opens up. So a i7, 1070, or 144hz monitor is a must for that reason, and in my opinion.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Same as R9 290. Which is cheaper and older. Conclusion? 970 for 1440p sucks.

i have a hard time with techpowerup results to be honest...i linked them cause i know you like it...i don't think the 1060 is as fast as a Fury at 1080p and neither do i beleive the GTX 970 to be any slower than a 780ti outside of firestrike benchmarks and compute applications (it should, but it's not)

[App4that]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i have a hard time with techpowerup results to be honest...i linked them cause i know you like it...i don't think the 1060 is as fast as a Fury at 1080p and neither do i beleive the GTX 970 to be any slower than a 780ti outside of firestrike benchmarks and compute applications

Techpowerup is a joke. They run cards at reference speeds so it doesn't show the true performance of the cards. They should be ignored.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i have a hard time with techpowerup results to be honest...i linked them cause i know you like it...i don't think the 1060 is as fast as a Fury at 1080p and neither do i beleive the GTX 970 to be any slower than a 780ti outside of firestrike benchmarks and compute applications

I like them because it's the only site that does the "Performance summary" chart comparing relative performance of the cards, but their scores are so inconsistent I stopped believing in them

[1Cup1Tea]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i have a hard time with techpowerup results to be honest...i linked them cause i know you like it...i don't think the 1060 is as fast as a Fury at 1080p and neither do i beleive the GTX 970 to be any slower than a 780ti outside of firestrike benchmarks and compute applications

Benchmarks are reliable but only to the extent of the benchmarker, people can get wildly different results. For example i went looking up reviews about GTX 480's because yesterday there were a thread that a guy wanted to burn out a friends computer with one.

Turns out some sites got very hot temps, where others got normal temps, and around a 5 FPS difference in some games.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I like them because it's the only site that does the "Performance summary" chart comparing relative performance of the cards, but their scores are so inconsistent I stopped believing in them

You like them because the lack of overclocking tells you what you want to hear  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, App4that said:

Techpowerup is a joke. They run cards at reference speeds so it doesn't show the true performance of the cards. They should be ignored.

when you test at stock clocks you're doing AMD a big favor...we all know why...even the AMD fanbabies will agree...AMD ship the card agressively clocked already with next to no overclocking headroom where as nvidia let you do the job they should have done at the factory.

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

I like them because it's the only site that does the "Performance summary" chart comparing relative performance of the cards, but their scores are so inconsistent I stopped believing in them

anandtech has them as well but it's not any better

what i trust is PCper reviews and digital foundry...those arent BS but they arent overclocking the cards most of the time either.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

You like them because the lack of overclocking tells you what you want to hear  

ewwww...that's a low blow...but a fair one.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

when you test at stock clocks you're doing AMD a big favor...we all know why...even the AMD fanbabies will agree...AMD ship the card agressively clocked already with next to no overclocking headroom where as nvidia let you do the job they should have done at the factory.

 

Oh hohoho man. Are you ready for round 2? 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

ewwww...that's a low blow...but a fair one.

He knows I'm joking. If you add in the overclocking their tables "can" be accurate.

 

 

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

when you test at stock clocks you're doing AMD a big favor...we all know why...even the AMD fanbabies will agree...AMD ship the card agressively clocked already with next to no overclocking headroom where as nvidia let you do the job they should have done at the factory.

anandtech has them as well but it's not any better

what i trust is PCper reviews and digital foundry...those arent BS but they arent overclocking the cards most of the time either.

DigitalFoundry is the best, no doubt about that.

 

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

You like them because the lack of overclocking tells you what you want to hear  

Meh, remember that not everyone overclocks. Both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't OC for quite a bit of time, I had a Core 2 Quad Q8300 when it launched and did not OC it for 4 years I've had it.

[KillDog]

Well OC is what it is, free performance.

In the end it's just raw performance that matters.

If only AMD utilized their hardware much more properly, they'd have been ahead of nvidia by now.

[1Cup1Tea]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

DigitalFoundry is the best, no doubt about that.

 

Meh, remember that not everyone overclocks. Both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't OC for quite a bit of time, I had a Core 2 Quad Q8300 when it launched and did not OC it for 4 years I've had it.

Really? 

Had my QX9770 at 4.3ghz for 3 years, really ramped up FPS in some games.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

DigitalFoundry is the best, no doubt about that.

 

Meh, remember that not everyone overclocks. Both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't OC for quite a bit of time, I had a Core 2 Quad Q8300 when it launched and did not OC it for 4 years I've had it.

But they actually take the step of limiting the cards to reference speeds, they under clock. Read their reviews. So no Boosting for Nvidia cards, which happens out of the box.

 

Example, the 980ti is tested at 1000MHz. My 980ti Boosted on it's own, out of the box to 1366MHz. That's a huge disparity, and why their charts show the Fury X keeping up, when everyone knows it can't.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, 1Cup1Tea said:

Really? 

Had my QX9770 at 4.3ghz for 3 years, really ramped up FPS in some games.

Yeah, I wasn't as tech savvy back then. I just didn't know I could do it.

 

Regardless, obviously OC charts would not hurt and would help people who OC choose the best GPU

 

Another thing is that OCing is often a lottery and you can find a 970 that doesn't do much past 1300mhz and you can find one like I had that did 1530mhz core without voltage increase.

 

1 minute ago, App4that said:

But they actually tack the step of limiting the cards to reference speeds, they under clock. Read their reviews. So no Boosting for Nvidia cards, which happens out of the box.

 

Example, the 980ti is tested at 1000MHz. My 980ti Boosted on it's own, out of the box to 1366MHz. That's a huge disparity, and why their charts show the Fury X keeping up, when everyone knows it can't.

Obviously. Same goes for the 290X/390X case. 290X is a reference one at 1000mhz core and 1250mhz memory, while the 390X is at 1050 and 1500. 390X has to be an aftermarket one, and the 290X is probably a reference one, as memory overclocking with such a badwidth anyway is not too effective, and the core is only 50mhz ahead of the 290X, while the performance is around 7% in favor of the 390X according to their charts. 7% of performance for 50mhz core and 250mhz memory? Doubt that, considering 320gb/s mem bandwidth of the 290X. It probably throttles.

[Prokart2000]

17 minutes ago, App4that said:

That's my point. I appreciate the OP wanting to dive into 1440, but 1440 is not a budget option. Doesn't mean you have to go hog wild and gold plate your 240 rads, but it take a different level of hardware. The RX 480 and GTX 1060 are 1080p cards, through and through. You can get them to play at 1440 using some old games, but come on.

 

OP needs to be able to get one 1440 level component, or should think about staying at 1080p until their budget opens up. So a i7, 1070, or 144hz monitor is a must for that reason, and in my opinion.

Maybe you are right, is it worth me just getting a better 1080p monitor than i already have and just upgrading to an i5

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

 

 

Obviously. Same goes for the 290X/390X case. 290X is a reference one at 1000mhz core and 1250mhz memory, while the 390X is at 1050 and 1500. 390X has to be an aftermarket one, and the 290X is probably a reference one, as memory overclocking with such a badwidth anyway is not too effective, and the core is only 50mhz ahead of the 290X, while the performance is around 7% in favor of the 390X according to their charts. 7% of performance for 50mhz core and 250mhz memory? Doubt that, considering 320gb/s mem bandwidth of the 290X. It probably throttles.

Results don't lie though my friend. A Fury X loses to a 980ti when both are driven by a capable driver every time. Yet their graph shows them being close. Not picking on the Fury X, way cheaper at launch if you go AIO card to AIO card, the 980ti better win. Just really easy to get turned around by incorrect methodology being used, like that employed by that source. Even DF has had some missteps as of late. My guess is there's a lot of pressure for results out there right now.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

But they actually take the step of limiting the cards to reference speeds, they under clock. Read their reviews. So no Boosting for Nvidia cards, which happens out of the box.

 

Example, the 980ti is tested at 1000MHz. My 980ti Boosted on it's own, out of the box to 1366MHz. That's a huge disparity, and why their charts show the Fury X keeping up, when everyone knows it can't.

 

Only for the ref 980 Ti I guess. But the charts for after market ones are always way ahead. Fury X did not have any aftermarket designs. Too bad for AMD. 

 

The way they boost so high takes away all the fun. I was hoping I could add more than +100mhz on core the core. But I could not add as much as I could with my 280x. A lil pity. But mem overclocks well.