New GPU

[undeadfake]

Hey, guys. My old and crappy HD7850 died yesterday, and I need your help to find a replacement. Before anything, remember that these are the only graphics cards available in my country for my budget (around 350 USD or 5500 ARS). The problem for me is that I don't understand why the Sapphire, being the most expensive, has the worst memory clock speed (thanks to SCHISCHKA for pointing out my mistake). I don't understand much about this topic, so if you can enlighten me, it would be very much welcome.

• Sapphire Nitro+ RX470 4G D5 OC - Engine clock: 1216 MHz; Memory Clock: 7000 MHz; 256-bit interface
• XFX RX470 RS 4G - Engine Clock: 1226 MHz; 7000 MHz; 256-bit
• Asus STRIX RX470 4G Gaming - Engine clock: 1206 MHz; Memory Clock: 6600 MHz; 256-bit
• Gigabyte GTX 1050 Ti G1 Gaming - Engine clock: 1366 MHz; Memory Clock: 7008 MHz; 128-bit
• MSI GTX1060 Armor 3G (I'm not completely sure if I can afford this one)

Thanks everyone for your help!

EDIT: I forgot to mention it, but if it's useful, I play on a single 1080p screen, and don't like to overclock since it gets really hot in the summer (around 40ºC or 104ºF most of the days).

[mpsparrow]

What do you do? What games do you play?

[Praesi]

You cant compare AMD and NVidia Clockspeeds on by one.

The GTX1060 would be my first Choice out of these. The second would be the Sapphire RX470.

 

[Castdeath97]

8GB/4GB RX 480, 6GB GTX 1060 prices?

[patric_o]

I have never had much luck with AMD soI would say go with either of the nvidia cards you are looking at and go for the 1060 if you can afford it. 

[Castdeath97]

Just now, patric_o said:

I have never had much luck with AMD soI would say go with either of the nvidia cards you are looking at and go for the 1060 if you can afford it. 

That's your personal experience, it shouldn't apply for him.

[patric_o]

Just now, Castdeath97 said:

That's your personal experience, it shouldn't apply for him.

I am just sharing my personal experience. And with my experience I would highly recommend going with nvidia over AMD. 

[ZXL_115]

If you can afford it, get the 1060. However, for good performance at 1080p, go for the 1050ti. I have a Zotac 1050ti, and I love it.

[Freezanator]

@undeadfake I'd suggest you get the GTX 1060 6GB. Especially if you play MMORPGs, FPS shooters and competitive games since Fast Sync is built into Pascal-based cards like the GTX 1060. Fast Sync prevents screen tearing at framrates higher than your monitor's refresh rate as well as having very low latency comparable to that of V-Sync off.

[CostcoSamples]

The AMD cards have been getting faster over the last few months.  With all of the new optimizations AMD has made, they are now on par or faster than the Nvidia cards.  Go for a 470 or 480 if you can find a good deal.  

[fjdhdhcyfhf]

10 minutes ago, undeadfake said:

• Sapphire Nitro+ RX470 4G D5 OC - Engine clock: 1216 MHz; Memory Clock: 1750 MHz; 256-bit interface
• XFX RX470 RS 4G - Engine Clock: 1226 MHz; 7000 MHz; 256-bit
• Asus STRIX RX470 4G Gaming - Engine clock: 1206 MHz; Memory Clock: 6600 MHz; 256-bit

the memory clocks look wrong. You are confused because your source is not communicating 'effective clock speed'. I just looked up the Sapphire and the XFX cards and they have the same 7000MHz effective clock speed. If you multiply the clock speed by 4 you get the effective clock spped, if you divide the effective clock speed by 4 you get the real clock speed. Just look at the two XFX and sapphire cards, i Would choose the sapphire, i did not look at the others.

[undeadfake]

3 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

the memory clocks look wrong. You are confused because your source is not communicating 'effective clock speed'. I just looked up the Sapphire and the XFX cards and they have the same 7000MHz effective clock speed. If you multiply the clock speed by 4 you get the effective clock spped, if you divide the effective clock speed by 4 you get the real clock speed. Just look at the two XFX and sapphire cards, i Would choose the sapphire, i did not look at the others.

No problem with my source, I made the mistake. Sorry, and thank you for pointing it out.

[undeadfake]

20 minutes ago, mpsparrow said:

What do you do? What games do you play?

I mostly play sim-racing titles like Assetto Corsa or DiRT Rally. I also casually play GTA V or Fallout 4 (this one being too much for my previous graphics card to handle for more than a few minutes). But I basically spend most of my time drawing in Photoshop or Corel Painter. Em, I forgot to mention it, but I play on a single 1080p screen.

[undeadfake]

46 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

8GB/4GB RX 480, 6GB GTX 1060 prices?

• 4GB RX 480: 394 USD
• 8GB RX 480: 482 USD
• 6GB GTX 1060: 469 USD

The RX480 is the only one from that list that I can (probably) afford.

[Castdeath97]

5 minutes ago, undeadfake said:

• 4GB RX 480: 394 USD
• 8GB RX 480: 482 USD
• 6GB GTX 1060: 469 USD

The RX480 is the only one from that list that I can (probably) afford.

Compared to the rest?

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, undeadfake said:

• 4GB RX 480: 394 USD
• 8GB RX 480: 482 USD
• 6GB GTX 1060: 469 USD

The RX480 is the only one from that list that I can (probably) afford.

If you can afford it get the rx 480 but if not the rx 470 or the gtx 1060 3gb variant are good options. I wouldn't go with the gtx 1050ti as the rx 470 outperforms it by quite a bit.

[Freezanator]

6 minutes ago, undeadfake said:

• 4GB RX 480: 394 USD
• 8GB RX 480: 482 USD
• 6GB GTX 1060: 469 USD

The RX480 is the only one from that list that I can (probably) afford.

I'd suggest you get the GTX 1060 6GB because currently, even though having many new features through driver updates, AMD still doesn't have something comparable to Fast Sync which prevents screen tearing when your FPS is more than your monitor's refresh rate.  

[undeadfake]

13 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

Compared to the rest?

Well, the 4GB GTX 1050 Ti costs 325 USD, the Asus RX 470 350 USD and both XFX and Sapphire's RX 470 356 USD. The 3GB GTX 1060 is already a bit out of my budget, at 382USD. The 4GB RX 480 is a bit more expensive, but I can still afford it, while the 8GB RX 480 and 6GB GTX 1060 are totally out of my reach.

[ivan134]

30 minutes ago, Freezanator said:

I'd suggest you get the GTX 1060 6GB because currently, even though having many new features through driver updates, AMD still doesn't have something comparable to Fast Sync which prevents screen tearing when your FPS is more than your monitor's refresh rate.  

Yea, and AMD had chill which drastically drops your GPU usage when not much is happening.

 

Oh yea, and AMD had better performance in new APIs.

 

Oh yea, and AMD wont ignore your GPU when the next generation comes out.

 

Oh yea, and AMD allows for precise control of tessellation so you're not such running it at high settings of your GPU isn't good at tessellation.

 

Oh yea, and........I ran out.

[Freezanator]

5 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Yea, and AMD had chill which drastically drops your GPU usage when not much is happening.

 

One does not simply load a game and not play it. Also, it would take quite some time for the GPU to cool down. It isn't an instantaneous thing.
 

 

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Oh yea, and AMD had better performance in new APIs.

Why have such high frame rates when you have nothing to prevent screen tearing at 60 Hz monitors? Would you like to resort to the high-latency V-Sync? I doubt it.

 

7 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Oh yea, and AMD wont ignore your GPU when the next generation comes out.

I have a GeForce 540M on my older laptop and I personally got increased frame rates throughout the years (albeit not more than 10 FPS diff. due to being a simple notebook GPU) but it is proof that NVIDIA does take care of their older products.

10 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Oh yea, and AMD allows for precise control of tessellation so you're not such running it at high settings of your GPU isn't good at tessellation.

Aren't the latest GPUs powerful enough to handle high tessellation settings and even if they aren't, couldn't the user just bump down the settings a little?

[undeadfake]

49 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you can afford it get the rx 480 but if not the rx 470 or the gtx 1060 3gb variant are good options. I wouldn't go with the gtx 1050ti as the rx 470 outperforms it by quite a bit.

Then I think I'll go for the RX 470, since it's within my originally planned budget. There isn't much difference between Asus, XFX and Sapphire, but which one would you choose?

[ivan134]

8 minutes ago, Freezanator said:

One does not simply load a game and not play it. Also, it would take quite some time for the GPU to cool down. It isn't an instantaneous thing.
 

 

Why have such high frame rates when you have nothing to prevent screen tearing at 60 Hz monitors? Would you like to resort to the high-latency V-Sync? I doubt it.

 

I have a GeForce 540M on my older laptop and I personally got increased frame rates throughout the years (albeit not more than 10 FPS diff. due to being a simple notebook GPU) but it is proof that NVIDIA does take care of their older products.

Aren't the latest GPUs powerful enough to handle high tessellation settings and even if they aren't, couldn't the user just bump down the settings a little?

• Chill has nothing to do with temps and everything to do with dropping the power being used. And yes, temps drop very fast. I used to own a gaming laptop so I know why you think the opposite is true
• Sorry, but tearing is not the end of the world. People have been playing games before fast sync was a thing and that is not a big enough pro to supercede the cons.
• Yea, a 780 that used to compete with a 290 and now hangs with 380x is definitely Nvidia taking care of their customers.
• Ask Kepler owners whether their GPUs are powerful enough.

[Freezanator]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Chill has nothing to do with temps and everything to do with dropping the power being used. And yes, temps drop very fast. I used to own a gaming laptop so I know why you think the opposite is true

So, I assume you load your game and just leave it unplayed?

 

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Sorry, but tearing is not the end of the world. People have been playing games before fast sync was a thing and that is not a big enough pro to supercede the cons.

It isn't, but the technology is already out there, so why not utilize it? I'm sure OP will definitely enjoy building his PC, sit himself down and just enjoy the experience instead of wondering how the heck to solve screen tearing issues from high frame rates. It is definitely a big pro as he's getting a very modern card which can pump out loads of frames.

8 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Yea, a 780 that used to compete with a 290 and now hangs with 380x is definitely Nvidia taking care of their customers.

Think about it. If an r9 290 can "hang" with the more powerful r9 380x, wouldn't that mean that the 380x wasn't getting optimized? 

20 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Ask Kepler owners whether their GPUs are powerful enough.

Totally off-topic. We're talking about modern GPUs here. Older generation GPUs, from both manufacturers, couldn't handle very high tessellations. 

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, Freezanator said:

So, I assume you load your game and just leave it unplayed?

 

It isn't, but the technology is already out there, so why not utilize it? I'm sure OP will definitely enjoy building his PC, sit himself down and just enjoy the experience instead of wondering how the heck to solve screen tearing issues from high frame rates. It is definitely a big pro as he's getting a very modern card which can pump out loads of frames.

Think about it. If an r9 290 can "hang" with the more powerful r9 380x, wouldn't that mean that the 380x wasn't getting optimized? 

Totally off-topic. We're talking about modern GPUs here. Older generation GPUs, from both manufacturers, couldn't handle very high tessellations. 

• In games like civilization, there's a whole lot of nothing happening. And yes, going afk is a thing.
• FreeSync monitors are dirty cheap.
• 290 is 60% faster than a 380x so I don't know what you're talking about. The 780 is now hanging with a card that is a lot slower. Same thing with the 770 and 760.
• Umm, yea. That's the point. AMD card? Turn that down in the drivers and get playable framerates. Nvidia card? Too bad.

[Freezanator]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

In games like civilization, there's a whole lot of nothing happening. And yes, going afk is a thing.

But OP doesn't play games like Civilization. Also, the GTX 1060 6GB from where he's getting from is cheaper than the RX 480 8GB.

 

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

FreeSync monitors are dirty cheap.

OP, or anyone for that matter, wouldn't be able to utilize their old, non-FreeSync monitors, whereas Fast Sync can be used on ANY monitor as it is GPU-based and since both the GTX 1060 and the RX 480 can easily push beyond 60 FPS in the games OP will be playing, Fast Sync will come in handy to get rid of any screen tearing.

9 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

290 is 60% faster than a 380x so I don't know what you're talking about. The 780 is now hanging with a card that is a lot slower. Same thing with the 770 and 760.

I was just responding to your statement when you said the 290 is "hanging" with the 380x and in what game's benchmarks did you use to achieve those results?

10 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Umm, yea. That's the point. AMD card? Turn that down in the drivers and get playable framerates. Nvidia card? Too bad.

I've never heard or seen the GTX 1060 suffer from unplayable frame rates. Which game are you referring to?