Looks like the RX 480 keeps getting better and better

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

No, it's not a lie. My post said: 

I honestly do not believe anyone expects a $100-$200 GPU to last them several years on AAA titles. I have seen no evidence to suggest this either, as most people that do "future proofing" tend to start at the $400+ market, or they buy boards that utilize multi-GPU setups to do so. Either way, it's not a lie. If you buy a $100-$200 GPU, and think that it will last you several years, you are only going to be disappointed.

But you overlook that the definition of "lasting" is different for people at different parts of the market. People buying 1070 will say their cards "last" as long as they can play the latest releases at native resolution, all settings maxed out.

People buying mid-range may say their cards last as long as they can "reasonably play" new games, and maxed out current/slightly older games.

People buying the gaming low end may define it as being able to play at less than native resolution with infrequent stuttering (they will be casual gamers who don't care when a game is released, just when they have the time and will to play a particular game that's still new to them).

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

I simply pay attention to this forums graphics sub-section. People often plan out "future proof" build logs, and are often told the very thing I say here. Future proofing is a pipe dream, and does not exist. That does not mean you can't plan ahead on how long your card will last, at the framerates and graphical fidelity you desire. Let's use older Nvidia cards as an example.

And that's where the whole issue comes from. You pay attention to this forum. But just watch Linus' Amazon shopping list video: you are dealing with a very specific market segment here. Playing is practically a synonym for "playing maxed out". But there is a reason games have all those other settings: there's a large part of the market that will happily play at perhaps a lower resolution than their monitor supports, and dial things back until it "doesn't feel too stuttery", because they won't even install an FPS counter are measuring anything. While not everyone here has the latest and brightest, most aim for it, and most post are driven by people buying "midrange" or higher and looking for 1080p60 ultra, when not 1440p60.

However, there are other market segments, the majority of which won't come here or know who Linus is, some of which would consider $250 a disproportionate investment in a GPU, and if they do it once, they won't expect to repeat it in a long while.

Heck, I'm here and I never spent more than €150 in a GPU, although I eventually spent enough experimenting with stuff that I could have gotten a more expensive card (but not as much fun ). And while I expected some performance from building a desktop, I did count on it eventually needing lower settings, as long as I could keep it for years. After all, I was coming from a P8400, HD3650 1920x1200 laptop, and I was playing Fallout 3 in it (you can guess the settings ). Some consumers want triple A today, longevity as a bonus. You could say I wanted longevity, high settings as a bonus.

 

OK, it's a long post already, but tl;dr: I don't think you are fundamentally wrong, I just think you are right about a part of reality, and you are overlooking the other parts.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

But you overlook that the definition of "lasting" is different for people at different parts of the market. People buying 1070 will say their cards "last" as long as they can play the latest releases at native resolution, all settings maxed out.

People buying mid-range may say their cards last as long as they can "reasonably play" new games, and maxed out current/slightly older games.

People buying the gaming low end may define it as being able to play at less than native resolution with infrequent stuttering (they will be casual gamers who don't care when a game is released, just when they have the time and will to play a particular game that's still new to them).

I don't overlook that definition, I've clarified that in my posts. My entire point, as simplistic as I can possibly explain it, is that everything diminishes with age. With GPU's, it doesn't mean your performance on a specific title gets worse, but as newer, more demanding titles come out, your GPU will find it difficult to maintain the same resolution and settings, depending on the title. My entire point, is that longevity in the low/mid range is not strong to begin with, so expecting this range of GPU's to last you several years (without lowering your standards) is silly. I am not on a holy crusade to attack old or low end cards, as much as people make it seem that I am. I am only pointing out what should be obvious to most people by now. Linus himself even agrees with me (even though I disagree with the other half of his video) when it comes to this subject: 

This is not an endeavor to bring down the low/mid range GPU's, or their owners. This is me trying to reverse the notion in this thread, that longevity improving from the low-mid range GPU is common (as the very title of this thread suggests). 

 

7 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

And that's where the whole issue comes from. You pay attention to this forum. But just watch Linus' Amazon shopping list video: you are dealing with a very specific market segment here. Playing is practically a synonym for "playing maxed out". But there is a reason games have all those other settings: there's a large part of the market that will happily play at perhaps a lower resolution than their monitor supports, and dial things back until it "doesn't feel too stuttery", because they won't even install an FPS counter are measuring anything. While not everyone here has the latest and brightest, most aim for it, and most post are driven by people buying "midrange" or higher and looking for 1080p60 ultra, when not 1440p60.

However, there are other market segments, the majority of which won't come here or know who Linus is, some of which would consider $250 a disproportionate investment in a GPU, and if they do it once, they won't expect to repeat it in a long while.

Heck, I'm here and I never spent more than €150 in a GPU, although I eventually spent enough experimenting with stuff that I could have gotten a more expensive card (but not as much fun ). And while I expected some performance from building a desktop, I did count on it eventually needing lower settings, as long as I could keep it for years. After all, I was coming from a P8400, HD3650 1920x1200 laptop, and I was playing Fallout 3 in it (you can guess the settings ). Some consumers want triple A today, longevity as a bonus. You could say I wanted longevity, high settings as a bonus.

 

OK, it's a long post already, but tl;dr: I don't think you are fundamentally wrong, I just think you are right about a part of reality, and you are overlooking the other parts.

I don't disagree with you at all, and I am actually glad you brought up resolutions, because that is the other half of the equation that often gets ignored. People upgrade GPU's more often than they do monitors. The same people that buy a low-mid range GPU, often game on these OEM monitors that are sub 1080p. I am guilty of this myself, owning several 1366x768 and 1600x900 monitors. These were the panels that were easily driven by my 9800GT for all those years, and my GTX 770 for some time afterwards. For these people, these low-mid cards likely do have enough headroom in them to last them for a few years. That being said, it doesn't change my original point. The mid-range is not a range designed for longevity. I am sure some consumers do consciously think about longevity when purchasing a card from this range, but let's be realistic. Even if it's longevity was weaker, do they honestly have a choice at that budget? They either buy a used stronger card (which is another risk to longevity in and of itself) or settle for the best card within their budget, even if it starts to show it's age earlier than others.

 

TL:DR? The mid-range GPU market isn't designed for longevity. If longevity is on your mind, you are looking in the wrong range in the first place. Buy the best product you can afford, and use it until it no longer meets your standards. That's the best that you can do as a consumer.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, MageTank said:

TL:DR? The mid-range GPU market isn't designed for longevity. If longevity is on your mind, you are looking in the wrong range in the first place. Buy the best product you can afford, and use it until it no longer meets your standards. That's the best that you can do as a consumer.

Also if you buy a decent mid range $200 now and then in 2 years replace it with the new mid range $200 card you are likely to be better off performance wise than having brought a $400 card over 4 years (even 3 years). This typically only holds true for proper architecture changes/node shrinks but it's only recently where that hasn't happened every GPU generation.

 

Even in the high end market it's really a bad idea to be buying these to run them for 3-5 years, it doesn't stop me from doing it but I know it's a false premise.

[MageTank]

Just now, leadeater said:

Also if you buy a decent mid range $200 now and then in 2 years replace it with the new mid range $200 card you are likely to be better off performance wise than having brought a $400 card over 4 years (event 3 years). This typically only holds true for proper architecture changes/node shrinks but it's only recently where that hasn't happened every GPU generation.

 

Even in the high end market it's really a bad idea to be buying these to run them for 3-5 years, it doesn't stop me from doing it but I know it's a false premise.

This is very true. It's also easier to sell mid-end cards and get most of your money back. For example: GTX 1060 came out at $250, 960's came out at $200. You can still sell used GTX 960's for $120-$140, getting 60-70% of your money back to purchase another mid-range card. If you bought say, a GTX 980 Ti for it's MSRP launch price of $650, they currently sell on ebay right now for $350 (buy it now price). EVGA even sold refurbished 980 Ti's for $300 after $50 rebates, offering a 1 year warranty on them as well. Let's use the $350 figure though. You are only getting 55% of your money back to buy another card from that price range. If we use EVGA's $300 price tag, and you sold your 980 Ti for $300, you would only be getting 45% of your original investment back. This is also assuming you spent $650 on a reference card, and didn't pay more for an aftermarket card.

 

The high end, while it lasts longer in the sense that it can handle average settings longer before showing it's age, loses value very fast, and is difficult to replace without making compromises. Not to mention, once you let your standards get used to high end hardware, it's hard to settle for less. For this reason, I try to tell people to think less about their GPU, and more about their monitor. Technologies like Freesync or G-Sync can help prolong the lifespan of hardware, by making less than desirable framerates feel smoother, and thus, making your aging GPU less of a big deal. For AMD users, such an investment isn't hard to make, you can find nice freesync monitors for as low as $130. For Nvidia users, this number starts out at $350 ($430 if you want a nice TN, and avoid the AU Optronics lottery). 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

32 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I am not on a holy crusade to attack old or low end cards, as much as people make it seem that I am. I am only pointing out what should be obvious to most people by now. 

Yeah, you don't need to worry about me in that regard.

 

34 minutes ago, MageTank said:

They either buy a used stronger card (which is another risk to longevity in and of itself) or settle for the best card within their budget, even if it starts to show it's age earlier than others.

I kind of did both, ending up on a CrossFire setup  

 

(it's surprisingly not that bad, though)

 

36 minutes ago, MageTank said:

TL:DR? The mid-range GPU market isn't designed for longevity. If longevity is on your mind, you are looking in the wrong range in the first place. Buy the best product you can afford, and use it until it no longer meets your standards. That's the best that you can do as a consumer.

Yes, I guess the best takeout is: "its drivers are going to be awesome in 2019!" is not the main reason to decide what to buy, especially being a prediction, and one relying on the future repeating the past.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, MageTank said:

-snip-

Also the two RX480 threads are basically the same thing, rather pointless having both. Tempted to lock this one and let the debate continue on the new one, only because it references a more fully fleshed out article rather than just one game...

 

Anyone got objections to this?

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Also the two RX480 threads are basically the same thing, rather pointless having both. Tempted to lock this one and let the debate continue on the new one, only because it references a more fully fleshed out article rather than just one game...

 

Anyone got objections to this?

I've been finding it rather difficult keeping up with both. I almost confused myself, having both threads open, and nearly posted in the other, lol. As long as when you lock it, you link the other thread, I see no harm in it.

[leadeater]

Closing this thread due to duplication, to continue any topics discussed here please do so in the following.