GTX 980 Ti or GTX 1070 - Help me decide!

[johnt]

20 minutes ago, WispTheHusky said:

I did this

[Himommies]

1 hour ago, JohnT said:

I wish it was a bad idea! Nvidia and Intel BOTH need competition. And let's get real... AMD hasn't been able to provide that competition. I've been rooting for ATI/AMD since 2004. Athlon64 for life... but no more. I went Intel and had a taste of the green kool-aid. I'm never going back to red under current circumstances nor can I recommend team red to people who want to spend good money.

Arent we talking about Gppu's here because koff koff rx480 koff fkoff

[Himommies]

1 hour ago, JohnT said:

I wish it was a bad idea! Nvidia and Intel BOTH need competition. And let's get real... AMD hasn't been able to provide that competition. I've been rooting for ATI/AMD since 2004. Athlon64 for life... but no more. I went Intel and had a taste of the green kool-aid. I'm never going back to red under current circumstances nor can I recommend team red to people who want to spend good money.

Arent we talking about Gppu's here because koff koff rx480 koff fkoff

[johnt]

13 minutes ago, Himommies said:

Arent we talking about Gppu's here because koff koff rx480 koff fkoff

Ugh...  yeah... I'm talking about all the same junk that is produced with a Radeon badge on it... hot and loud

 

Support them at your will, bro. Nothing against you. I just won't give them my $$ for the foreseeable future.

[HKZeroFive]

47 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Ugh...  yeah... I'm talking about all the same junk that is produced with a Radeon badge on it... hot and loud

Wow, that's quite the ignorant mindset, seeing how any card (AMD or NVIDIA) with a half-arsed cooler falls in the categories of both "hot" and "loud"...

 

To be honest, the problem I have with that statement is that you generalise the entire AMD lineup based on a few bad cards. Now, it wouldn't be fair for me to say that all NVIDIA cards run hot because of the GTX 480 or because of the GTX 1080 Founder's Edition (or worse yet, the EVGA GTX 1080 FTW before all the BIOS updates and thermal pads... the VRM was hitting 100C), wouldn't it?

 

Same goes for AMD; the XFX GTR, the ASUS STRIX and the MSI Gaming X are all extremely good coolers. And saying that all AMD cards run hot and hot would just be as bad as saying "AMD's drivers are bad". It's simply not true and the fanboy mentality isn't the way to go.

 

@WispTheHusky, sorry to derail the thread even further but some things should be cleared up here. I, like every other person here, suggest the GTX 1070 8GB. It's a newer generation card, more power efficient and has the extra VRAM.

[i_build_nanosuits]

GTX 1070 unless the GTX 980ti is significantly cheaper...the 1070 is more energy efficient, will run cooler, quieter, has a couple new features that improve VR performance and it has 2GB of extra VRAM...if you overclock both, the 980ti is ever so slightly faster but not enough to justify buying it unless it's like...15% cheaper i'd say.

[xAcid9]

Only +20 Euro? Get the 1070 son.

[johnt]

2 hours ago, HKZeroFive said:

-snip-

I wish I was fanboying. Unfortunately I've given AMD too much of my money over the years and it's all been fruitless. To this day not a single AMD card can properly run Just Cause 3, which is one of my favorite series of all time. I have over 1,500 hours sunk into JC2 alone. Game developers just don't work as closely with AMD. It all goes back to the tactics 3Dfx was using back 15-20 years ago. And it's all paying off for Nvidia... just look at market share. AMD has been leeching off the poor for too long. Every product is cheaper than its competitor and nobody questions why. 

 

And actually yes. AMD drivers had a completely useless interface for their drivers until very recently. 

 

And now they are pretending to battle with a 2.5 year old CPU and undercut its competitors price by half or so. And we are all supposed to be impressed?

 

You and anyone else are welcome to disagree with my opinion. But it doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make me wrong. 

[xAcid9]

14 minutes ago, JohnT said:

I wish I was fanboying. Unfortunately I've given AMD too much of my money over the years and it's all been fruitless. To this day not a single AMD card can properly run Just Cause 3, which is one of my favorite series of all time. I have over 1,500 hours sunk into JC2 alone. Game developers just don't work as closely with AMD. It all goes back to the tactics 3Dfx was using back 15-20 years ago. And it's all paying off for Nvidia... just look at market share. AMD has been leeching off the poor for too long. Every product is cheaper than its competitor and nobody questions why. 

 

And actually yes. AMD drivers had a completely useless interface for their drivers until very recently. 

 

And now they are pretending to battle with a 2.5 year old CPU and undercut its competitors price by half or so. And we are all supposed to be impressed?

 

You and anyone else are welcome to disagree with my opinion. But it doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make me wrong. 

What's wrong with JC3? Game run just fine with my 290x.

 

Are you implying all game dev doesn't work closely with AMD?

[johnt]

16 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

What's wrong with JC3? Game run just fine with my 290x.

 

Are you implying all game dev doesn't work closely with AMD?

It runs like absolute steaming pile of **** on R9 280. I mean everything low and 720p resolution. Barely maintains 45 fps. Absolute trash card.

 

I am implying that more developers work closer with Nvidia than they do with AMD.

[i_build_nanosuits]

22 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

What's wrong with JC3? Game run just fine with my 290x.

 

Are you implying all game dev doesn't work closely with AMD?

...but the 290X is a 4 years old card at this point, and still it's within spitting distance to AMD's current best graphics solution...how many cards nvidia has that are noticeably more powerful, more energy efficient etc...

[EslyteMedia]

6 hours ago, WispTheHusky said:

Hi LTT community! I'm hoping you'll be able to help me decide on a GPU to get! I'm torn deciding, and think you guys should be the ones to advise from your personal experience! It's my first fully-fledged build, so could do with some guidance.

 

The rig this is going into contains the following already:

• MSI Z97 Gaming 5 MoBo
• Intel i7-4790K processor
• 16 GB DDR3 1600 MHz
• Corsair HX620W
• NVMe SSD and SATA 3 HDD

General uses of the machine will be:

• Gaming on High-FPS games (regularly)
• Very occasional Video Editing
• My day to day machine

So far, I know that the pro of the 980 ti is that it (seems to) outperform the 1070 when it comes to Gaming Graphics, but the 1070 has the fact that it's newer and the extra 2GB of VRAM. I can't see much more between them really.

 

In regards to cost, they're almost identical (at £370 for the 980 ti and £390 for the 1070), so there isn't really much difference there. Unless anyone can recommend anything else card-wise they think would be good around the same kind of price range! 

 

Thanks!

The GTX 1070 is the better option overall.

[xAcid9]

6 minutes ago, JohnT said:

It runs like absolute steaming pile of **** on R9 280. I mean everything low and 720p resolution. Barely maintains 45 fps. Absolute trash card.

 

I am implying that more developers work closer with Nvidia than they do with AMD.

Wut? My friend with 380 get better FPS than yours with High setting at 1080p.  Are you sure it's not other things bottlenecking it?

 

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

...but the 290X is a 4 years old card at this point, and still it's within spitting distance to AMD's current best graphics solution...how many cards nvidia has that are noticeably more powerful, more energy efficient etc...

And this is relevant to running JC3 just fine because?....

[BYOGamingPC]

To answer the OP and the thread question. I've owned a few 980Ti's and a few 1070's and I would recommend going with the GTX 1070. The overall performance is better, it uses less power, creates less heat, and is generally a quieter card. If you can get a 980Ti for less than $325 then it would be a better buy. If not, go with a GTX 1070. I will also add that the ASUS GTX 1070 STRIX OC is the best model I've owned.

[HKZeroFive]

56 minutes ago, JohnT said:

I wish I was fanboying. Unfortunately I've given AMD too much of my money over the years and it's all been fruitless. To this day not a single AMD card can properly run Just Cause 3, which is one of my favorite series of all time. I have over 1,500 hours sunk into JC2 alone. Game developers just don't work as closely with AMD. It all goes back to the tactics 3Dfx was using back 15-20 years ago. And it's all paying off for Nvidia... just look at market share. AMD has been leeching off the poor for too long. Every product is cheaper than its competitor and nobody questions why. 

 

And actually yes. AMD drivers had a completely useless interface for their drivers until very recently. 

 

And now they are pretending to battle with a 2.5 year old CPU and undercut its competitors price by half or so. And we are all supposed to be impressed?

 

You and anyone else are welcome to disagree with my opinion. But it doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make me wrong. 

The general vibe I'm getting from you is "I wish to live in the past and to ignore the present". I assure you, the image of AMD's driver game has changed dramatically with Crimson which released more than a year ago... from what I've read and heard (online and from mates), the improved user interface that came along with said driver update is far from useless. And coming from a GTX 980Ti owner... let's just say NVIDIA's drivers last year were more than disappointing - the /r/NVIDIA subreddit alone is filled with complaints regarding 327.70. It seems to me that the tables have turned.

 

Just Cause 3 runs on my brother's R9 290 just fine, albeit still getting drops into the 50s. But saying that a card/brand runs badly on one certain game isn't indicative of its actual performance in general, isn't it? It's an outlier. As far as I'm concerned, AMD cards run fine for pretty much any game.

 

And let's go into the matter of market share. So, does market share imply that NVIDIA is superior in every way, at every price point? No, all it does imply is that NVIDIA has the mind share, not the better product. Many would argue that the RX 480 8GB would be a better buy than a GTX 1060 6GB due to FreeSync, continuous driver performance improvements and the prospects of DirectX12 and Vulkan... this isn't coming from AMD fanboys by the way. Many NVIDIA users share the same viewpoint.

 

We're supposed to be impressed by the new Ryzen CPUs because it introduces competition and drives down prices. Have you seen Kaby Lake? Zero IPC improvement over Skylake and they instead ramp up the clocks and charge a premium for it. Or exhibit B, the i7 6950X which costs $1700? It's the lack of competition that allows Intel to have a pseudo-monopoly of the CPU market. Nobody cares about AMD beating Intel because that's not the point. If they get remotely close in terms of performance and charge a much lower price, that's already a win for consumers and will force Intel to rethink their prices.

[Lethalmonk]

1070, runs at lower temps= runs quiter more ram less oc tho (not that big of a deal)

[Biggerboot]

Boy this question is coming up alot.

 

I would say the 1070 for api/vram longevity, 980ti for better short term and rendering performance.  At about the same price I'd take the 1070, but if a 980ti fell into your lap for a lot cheaper then take it hands down.

[johnt]

30 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

We're supposed to be impressed by the new Ryzen CPUs because it introduces competition and drives down prices. Have you seen Kaby Lake? Zero IPC improvement over Skylake and they instead ramp up the clocks and charge a premium for it. Or exhibit B, the i7 6950X which costs $1700? It's the lack of competition that allows Intel to have a pseudo-monopoly of the CPU market. Nobody cares about AMD beating Intel because that's not the point. If they get remotely close in terms of performance and charge a much lower price, that's already a win for consumers and will force Intel to rethink their prices

I don't know if Ryzen is going to do anything. It's competing with the 5930k based on that one AMD based comparison. Can it do it? I don't know. But the current gen i5 and i7 CPUs already do a better job at gaming over the 5930k. So what the heck is Ryzen REALLY going to do? CPU isn't the bottleneck of most people's computing needs... that's why Kaby Lake comes up short in the IPC improvements. And calm down, this isn't Intel's first rodeo at a near $2,000 consumer CPU. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_II_microprocessors) Imagine $1,981 for a 300 MHz chip. Don't bother looking for core count for that era... Intel's current lineup is unbelievably broad. Why do you even mention the 10 core behemoth? Who needs that?

 

I completely agree Intel and Nvidia both need competition (I've already said this). I just don't think AMD is going to be the company to provide it (which is the major problem). AMD hits where it counts: product pricing. The 6950x is a benchmarkers dream come true... nothing more. This is by the same company who offers a tremendously well rounded chip for gaming and computing (6700k/7700k) at a very reasonable price point. I don't think neither Intel or Nvidia are perfect and great. But by comparison, in my opinion, AMD is worse.

 

Believe me I'm not stupid. I know competition benefits consumers. I want Ryzen to do great. I just don't know if it can do anything better than the 7700k. I want Nvidia to get crushed. But I don't think the 490 is going to anything better than the 1080/ti. The 1070 in itself is a ****ing monster. AMD still hasn't responded.

[xAcid9]

15 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

Boy this question is coming up alot.

 

I would say the 1070 for api/vram longevity, 980ti for better short term and rendering performance.  At about the same price I'd take the 1070, but if a 980ti fell into your lap for a lot cheaper then take it hands down.

So how long do you think that 6GB on 980 Ti will be irrelevant compare to 8GB on 1070?

[Biggerboot]

15 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

So how long do you think that 6GB on 980 Ti will be irrelevant compare to 8GB on 1070?

Ehh, I don't really know for sure.  I think those buying gtx 900 cards right now should be looking at an upgrade in 2-3 years - which is what I considered when I bought a 970.  Typically I look to upgrade my main rig every 2 architectures, or about 4 years, so I'm basing this more on past patterns.

 

More and more game engines seem to be leaning towards more vRAM because of the scale games are starting to take, but the requirements can keep changing.  It's just generally better to go for the newer card if you want more longevity.  It'll be supported longer and work better on newer APIs.  But to strictly say 6gb will be relevant for x years is nothing more than a guess.

[johnt]

26 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

So how long do you think that 6GB on 980 Ti will be irrelevant compare to 8GB on 1070?

It's already irrelevant. Rise of the Tomb Raider uses more than 6 GB at 1080p when all the settings are cranked to max. 

[HKZeroFive]

59 minutes ago, JohnT said:

I don't know if Ryzen is going to do anything. It's competing with the 5930k based on that one AMD based comparison. Can it do it? I don't know. But the current gen i5 and i7 CPUs already do a better job at gaming over the 5930k. So what the heck is Ryzen REALLY going to do? CPU isn't the bottleneck of most people's computing needs... that's why Kaby Lake comes up short in the IPC improvements. And calm down, this isn't Intel's first rodeo at a near $2,000 consumer CPU. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_II_microprocessors) Imagine $1,981 for a 300 MHz chip. Don't bother looking for core count for that era... Intel's current lineup is unbelievably broad. Why do you even mention the 10 core behemoth? Who needs that?

Uh no, current gen consumer i7s such as the i7 6700K and 7700K may outperform the i7 5930K but definitely not the consumers i5s. We're starting to see unlocked i5s struggle in several more modern titles (Battlefield 1, Fallout 4, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Watch Dogs 2 come to mind) when paired with a powerful GPU whereas i7s don't. It's also worth noting that i7s provide a much more fluid gaming experience as you get higher minimum framerates and more consistent frametimes.

 

AMD won't release competitive options just against Intel's enthusiast lineup, but also against their consumer lineup which is undoubtedly going to be the most heated area. Also, you're implying PCs are being purely used for gaming when they're not. There's an absolute buttload of multithreaded tasks that will benefit from an octacore CPU and I can't name them all. And even so, you incorrectly applied Amdahl's law to the future of gaming. Who says that games in the future won't benefit more from an 8C/16T as opposed to a 4C/8T?

 

However, I'm going to repeat it again; the point isn't about being the absolute best. It's about the performance it can deliver at a lower price. There's no bad product, just a bad price.

Quote

I completely agree Intel and Nvidia both need competition (I've already said this). I just don't think AMD is going to be the company to provide it (which is the major problem). AMD hits where it counts: product pricing. The 6950x is a benchmarkers dream come true... nothing more. This is by the same company who offers a tremendously well rounded chip for gaming and computing (6700k/7700k) at a very reasonable price point. I don't think neither Intel or Nvidia are perfect and great. But by comparison, in my opinion, AMD is worse.

Reasonable price point? Eh, let's see. In a market dominated by Intel, I don't think we've fully grasped the idea of what is truly a "reasonable price point".

 

Sure, I will completely agree about the point where a significant amount of AMD's products have fallen extremely flat in terms of performance. Bulldozer and Fiji come to mind. But that's the thing about AMD. They already provide competition (less so on the CPU front, more so on the GPU front). R9 290X vs GTX Titan. R9 Fury X vs GTX 980Ti/Titan Maxwell. Guaranteed, if AMD didn't release Vega, we wouldn't see a GTX 1080Ti at all. Please don't be mistaken. They provide competition.

 

And in a market that's already oversaturated, there's no other "saviour" company that will eventually make NVIDIA and Intel bow over. AMD is basically the only hope.

Quote

Believe me I'm not stupid. I know competition benefits consumers. I want Ryzen to do great. I just don't know if it can do anything better than the 7700k. I want Nvidia to get crushed. But I don't think the 490 is going to anything better than the 1080/ti. The 1070 in itself is a ****ing monster. AMD still hasn't responded.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you want AMD to basically outperform NVIDIA and Intel for them to be classified as "good"? That's a rather one-sided way to look at it. Having the crown is great and all but if it comes at a ridiculously high price point, it's a pointless product. Price is what matters, it's not about having the best performance possible.

 

Put it this way. If the RX 490 performs about the same as the GTX 1080 at the price point of the GTX 1070, that's already a win. If the next-gen Fury gets close to but doesn't outperform the GTX 1080Ti/Titan XP, yet priced much lower, that's a win. Sure, Vega has been massively delayed to the point where it's starting to get infuriating, but if it means getting more bang for your buck, I'm sure many (me included) wouldn't complain.

[xAcid9]

2 hours ago, JohnT said:

It's already irrelevant. Rise of the Tomb Raider uses more than 6 GB at 1080p when all the settings are cranked to max. 

Yeah sure. Use = Need right? lmao

[Andrew Sh]

12 hours ago, Himommies said:

I looked at this

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/CDx9TW/xfx-video-card-r9fury4qfa

But now that I looked at the Amazon sellers,I realized it is probably a scam.But since it's amazon I would still give it a try

Don't. That seller has just started and priced this fury much lower. I've seen this before. They'll likely ask you for payment outside Amazon. If payment goes through amazon then you're ok and can claim it back if its a scam. If you pay outside amazon, you lose your Money

[Andrew Sh]

3 hours ago, HKZeroFive said:

Uh no, current gen consumer i7s such as the i7 6700K and 7700K may outperform the i7 5930K but definitely not the consumers i5s. We're starting to see unlocked i5s struggle in several more modern titles (Battlefield 1, Fallout 4, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Watch Dogs 2 come to mind) when paired with a powerful GPU whereas i7s don't. It's also worth noting that i7s provide a much more fluid gaming experience as you get higher minimum framerates and more consistent frametimes.

 

AMD won't release competitive options just against Intel's enthusiast lineup, but also against their consumer lineup which is undoubtedly going to be the most heated area. Also, you're implying PCs are being purely used for gaming when they're not. There's an absolute buttload of multithreaded tasks that will benefit from an octacore CPU and I can't name them all. And even so, you incorrectly applied Amdahl's law to the future of gaming. Who says that games in the future won't benefit more from an 8C/16T as opposed to a 4C/8T?

 

However, I'm going to repeat it again; the point isn't about being the absolute best. It's about the performance it can deliver at a lower price. There's no bad product, just a bad price.

Reasonable price point? Eh, let's see. In a market dominated by Intel, I don't think we've fully grasped the idea of what is truly a "reasonable price point".

 

Sure, I will completely agree about the point where a significant amount of AMD's products have fallen extremely flat in terms of performance. Bulldozer and Fiji come to mind. But that's the thing about AMD. They already provide competition (less so on the CPU front, more so on the GPU front). R9 290X vs GTX Titan. R9 Fury X vs GTX 980Ti/Titan Maxwell. Guaranteed, if AMD didn't release Vega, we wouldn't see a GTX 1080Ti at all. Please don't be mistaken. They provide competition.

 

And in a market that's already oversaturated, there's no other "saviour" company that will eventually make NVIDIA and Intel bow over. AMD is basically the only hope.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you want AMD to basically outperform NVIDIA and Intel for them to be classified as "good"? That's a rather one-sided way to look at it. Having the crown is great and all but if it comes at a ridiculously high price point, it's a pointless product. Price is what matters, it's not about having the best performance possible.

 

Put it this way. If the RX 490 performs about the same as the GTX 1080 at the price point of the GTX 1070, that's already a win. If the next-gen Fury gets close to but doesn't outperform the GTX 1080Ti/Titan XP, yet priced much lower, that's a win. Sure, Vega has been massively delayed to the point where it's starting to get infuriating, but if it means getting more bang for your buck, I'm sure many (me included) wouldn't complain.

These days the bang for the buck value of both teams is good. 1060 is head to head with the 480. IMO both fury and titan are rubbish. Fury lacks the vram to be considered a high end GPU, titan is overpriced AF. The fight is at the mid range and both teams have good offerings. At this time its looking like AMD - better driver support, nvidia - cooler and more efficient. Its a back and forth all the time