|
Upgrading my graphics drivers, I realize that it's kind of weird that Nvidia has kept the brand 'GeForce' after all these years. I remember when the first GeForce replaced the TNT2 accelerator card with an integrated 2D/3D chipset, and everyone thought it was a really awkward name that didn't roll off the tongue easily, but that it would also go into the dustbin of tech nostalgia in a year or two. 
Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Sep 11, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
The way NVidia's $200 price point has been in the lurch for so long is frustrating. I'm on the verge of buying used simply because the reshuffle everyone expected with the 1070/1080 didn't happen; and now it looks like the competition from the other side isn't so strong that it will budge them either.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Klyith posted:$200 has been the place that AMD has actually delivered good value for the last 3 years. If you and everyone else refuse to buy AMD cards even when they're the better choice in a price segment, then drat right nvidia is gonna force you to pay $300 for that choice. I'm a hackintosh, so Nvidia is a must for me simply as a matter of software compatibility. I once used Radeon cards until 2010, though, when I began goofing with Ubuntu etc. If you're a Windows-only person AMD is somewhere between okay and great depending on the price point and how much energy/heat management matters to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Where are you getting OSX drivers, given that Apple hasn't ever used a 9xx series nVidia GPU in their machines? Apple's all AMD right now, and speculation is that the Macbook Pros / iMacs are going to get refreshed with AMD Polaris based GPUs. Yes and it's speculated that Sierra will add support for the 480, but that won't be out until the fall.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
While it's cool that you have a 1080, you could probably reign in the humble storytelling about how you've landed into megamillions. Why the hell is Tomb Raider (is this the sequel?) so problematic? A 970 isn't exactly a slouch, 20 frames just seems unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:AMD should probably make some cards that are better than what Nvidia is offering if they want to get market share. Doesn't need to be better, AS GOOD is acceptable now. It seems like the days when ATI had hardware that was as good it underwritten by shoving 2MB Rage PROs into a Packard Bell. I understand that they're sort of being double-teamed by two companies that would probably be investigated for conspiracy if this was Europe or something. Integrated graphics wiped out their old workhorse of making underpowered 2D-focused cards for the OEM set, and Nvidia has the price tags and money to build the best stuff. It's kind of funny how much Intel's "now you don't even need a graphics card!" shtick only really eliminates what used to be ATI's majority of sales. Meanwhile, despite the early 2000s competitive moment of ATI making good cards and NVidia making hair dryers that allowed you to jack it to that fairy, NVidia never once budged on prices. They lucked out as the whole market swung their way when the PCMR mindset appeared and evangelized paying lots more money for your hardware and compensating with Steam sales. sout posted:Its hard for me to not read "NV" as New Vegas Well people in Old Vegas read it as "Nevada" so you're not alone, stranger.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:What do I do if Im one of the poors who also doesnt mind setting graphics to medium so long as the game runs smoothly? Newegg had an Asus 960 for $160. I'm limping along with an Asus 660 with factory OC and have for three years, going from playing Bioshock Infinite at ultra settings in 2013, to playing Overwatch in above-medium, GTA at medium, and Doom at downright ugly. I figured if I liked this card (which I bought for $200 and sold my old card for $100), I figured I could buy this card and sell my old one at $80 for a similar experience. Unfortunately, I reached a point where I realized that I want Doom to run on high settings in 1080 and have no idea what the gently caress I need for that anymore, since people report bad performance with a 970 even in some games.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
gently caress it, I should just keep waiting until there's some MIR deal or whatever on an aftermarket 480.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Palladium posted:The high Pascal prices has completely to do with Nvidia/retailer price gouging and high demand, and totally nothing to do with AMD complete non-competition in the GTX 1070-1080 tier and massively screwing up the RX480 launch. Nobody cares. The 480 will eventually have cards with aftermarket coolers and modified clocks by Asus, MSI, etc. Those are the models consumers actually buy most often. NVidia doesn't have high prices on a product because of this limited audience having power problems on the first batch of reference hardware, the high prices are because NVidia always competes among themselves and ignores AMD in pricing. They always have done it that way. It's about not cannibalizing the 1070 audience, so either price/perf gets adjusted accordingly. Competition would make one model or another the red-headed stepchild, and for some reason they can't have that. That's probably why they got rid of ###Ti cards.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
I've decided I'm going to create a GPU company, and while our performance may be middling our company will be built on a guarantee: there will be stock for you to buy one. We will achieve this guarantee by implementing a technology to determine whether the card is being used to make BitCoins and setting the host PC on fire if it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
That Tom's article made me think about buying one. In my entire history of computers, I've never overclocked something even once. I've bought factory OC cards with warranties, but I always buy new hardware rather than OC to try to squeeze more juice out of the hardware I already bought. This Asus 660 cost me $200 in early 2013 and now has lasted me 3.5 years. If the 480 can run do the same at stock frequencies and not short anything out, I don't see why not. I just am loathe to purchase reference coolers because this PC's focus was on absolute quiet, but it's not worth $100 more for cooling. If it does eventually break this motherboard, that would be disappointing, but offset by the fact that this is a four year old Z77 motherboard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:It's not all bad, somebody's mom has the right idea: Update: one hour later... 
Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
PBCrunch posted:No poo poo, why not just delay the 4GB card until sources of smaller capacity memory chips were available? Why do that when you can sell a "4GB card" for the price of your 8GB card and find your profit by selling an unlocked 8GB card for even more than that? This feels like a real early to mid 90s Apple move, like back when they used to have the same components in models at different price points so they crippled the bus speeds to make a performance jump worth paying for.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Truga posted:Your daily reminder that a gsync monitors cost $100+ more than the same freesync models. This seems like a "nobody cares" kind of thing. If you've got a hotshit 1080, you can obviously afford the premium. If you refuse to spend a dollar over $250 on a video card, you're probably hooked up to a 1080p TV anyway. It's like pointing out to a guy spending $95,000 on a car that a Viper costs $5,000 less than a Porsche.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Truga posted:Actually, a guy who refuses to spend over $250 on a GPU will notice a huge increase in his game quality, by paying $20 extra over a non-sync model, for a freesync one, whereas that guy who spent $1000 on a titan P won't really notice much, as his monitor is running at 144hz constantly anyway. I guess I see these GPU-specific monitors to be niche products for people with money to blow. I admit I'm strange, though: I bought a fan-loving-tastic 1080p TV waaaay back in 2009 and have been using that ever since, and I just can't find a classic monitor solution because I love integrated sound too much. I threw away two different 4.1 sound systems from the 2000s just a few weeks ago, and I don't ever ever ever want anything other than a stereo speaker under my display ever again. Positional sound was interesting when I was playing Quake 3 but these days I actually enjoy keeping it simple. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Truga posted:Sure, but so are $200 GPUs. Mainstream buys PS4s and plays lol on intel HD4000 or a best buy box with a R5 230 or a GTX 750. I have a 750 equivalent (from 2013 when it was a $200 GPU) and my ability to feel mainstream died a little while ago when I saw how demanding GTA is; just about the most mainstream game there is. As I watch TV over a LAN tuner now and see that there's PC monitors with built in speakers I suppose I could buy a new monitor, but with the current ATI product I'd probably buy a FreeSync display if I had the money to spend on one at all, then wait and see if their equipment ever gets better in the future. Regardless, my point is that I'm not making any money and throwing irreplaceable cash at a video card, so this "you really should buy a display" business seems unnecessary to me. If I was to buy a display right now it would mean going cardless. I just want hot Overwatch framerates (though what I get now is acceptable) and all the little environmental details in GTA. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
I don't understand why grown-ups who look down on, say, console wars feel this need to embellish graphics card manufacturers. I enjoy laughing at the idea of RX480 fires, but I'm not going to pretend that AMD is Yugo; nor is NVidia an evil empire because they want you to pay more for what the believe and consumers agree is a premium product. At the end of the day, you're the guy who cares this much about framerates to spend 10% more and get 5% extra frames. I had a Galaxy 460 for before my current 660, and I think it was a Fermi. I don't remember it being absurdly hot. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Where do you think this comic came from? There needs to be a reversed version of that for today. Regardless, I love that Intel made a tiny amount of progress in the first two panels. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Pascal VS Polaris
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Once upon a time, I bought a (then seven month old) 660ti with the Asus DirectCU fan and the factory overclocking for only $210 on Amazon, with a $20 rebate, and I was able to sell my old 460 for like $55 on eBay and get an okay card for $120 overall and 3.5 years later I'm still using it and only sometimes feeling the pressure to upgrade. But holy gently caress there is nothing like that going on now. I figured 970s would be that "we're now over six months old and there's something nicer out there" card at discount but nope. A 960 isn't enough of an upgrade to justify.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Should I get an RX480 and one of those Samsung PLS Freesync panels? Keep in mind my current setup is a 40" 1080p HDTV that I'm sitting too close to, it makes streaming difficult as one-display setups always do and it feels a bit too big and bright for my eyes a lot of the time. I'm sort of nervous about buying a TN screen because I hear Bad Things. EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently anything other than TN doesn't achieve 144? I don't know why I'm interested in this anyway. Any tech that's going to make me hate console gaming is probably something I should stay away from. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
FrankieGoes posted:FYI, 1080p 37" has been horrible as poo poo ever since the Westinghouse craze of 2006/7. 40" 1080p is even worse and has basically never been acceptable. It basically rolls down to having a really high quality picture on this model TV and also I Don't Want To Own PC Speakers Ever Again. And at the time, there weren't all these monitors that have built in speakers. In fact, I had just spent $300 on a 2007WFP because I'm a fool.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
KillHour posted:What do you have against good sound? I cleaned up my computer room the other month and threw away not one but two different 4.1 PC speaker setups from the past decade. I don't even have surround sound on my primary TV and I grew up with that. It largely comes down to me admiring the Apple "everything is integrated" approach, and part of that is stereo sound. If I want good sound, I'll get good headphones.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
If you want a 1060 for $250, now's your time. I need people to sell these out so I don't do something stupid like buying a $250 graphics card when I'm addicted to Overwatch and happy with what I'm getting from that game already.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
I think I'm finally decided on an MSI 470, with a Freesync monitor coming "probably later, possibly never."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Do we have any new info regarding what 470 to buy? Because last I saw the Asus Strix is a bit of a dud that's hurting the card's first impressions due to how ubiquitous it is for review copies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I'm not sure I care, and I'm not sure the average consumer should care, either. As far as I'm concerned, the tiers are too tightly packed that they should be holding out for a 480 or a 1060 anyways. FaustianQ posted:Yea, the 470 for ~$150-180$ makes sense, not when it's going for 480 MSRP. You guys are assuming that 4GB 480s aren't going to be like the Lochness Monster. The original launch batch was just re-badged 8GB cards that allowed you to Download More RAM meaning that they haven't proven they've actually manufactured any real 4GB cards, and it seems possible that they never do and just tell people to buy the 470 instead. All that speculation and you have to wait for non-reference boards, too; while the 470 has non-reference boards right now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Truga posted:A friend of mine preordered 4GB nitro 480 from ocuk and got it just fine a week ago or so. Did he try peeling the sticker off?  I admit that this is a bit too close to the GPU version of jet fuel and steel beams, but it wouldn't really shock me if it AMD's entire plan for the 4GB 480 was to own the valued performance-to-dollar news story leading up to the 480 launch, but not actually have to deliver such good value that they hobble their mainstream/entry-level card. All they have to do to look competitive is release a small batch of loss-leading "4GB" cards while telling their partners it's just a one-time thing. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but the fact that everything (in North America, anyway) is 8GB after the initial supplies wore out kind of suggests that it was a doorbusters idea meant to drum up interest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
I feel like I can't buy anything, because that $200 4GB 480 is never in stock and the $240 8GB Amazon sells out in five minutes. I feel like the prices I think I deserve ($200 for a 4GB and $250 for an 8GB) must not be allowing the OEMs to make any profit or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:I've heard rumors circulate among the sea cucumbers that the 4GB 480 never really existed and is going to quietly disappear into the shadows after looking real good in price-performance comparisons and briefly showing up as 8GB 480s with half their VRAM disabled via BIOS. Has there been any proof to the contrary yet? MSI's 4GB 480 has shown up for sale at a few places for $250, offering you lousy value in exchange for a better cooler. Anime Schoolgirl posted:There is, however, a GTX "1060" 3gb for $200
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
People really complain about the RX470 being overpriced compared to the 4GB 480, but are these FPS differences really worth it? The other reviewers that panned the card seemed to get models that run too hot. Performance-wise I'd do best to buy this OCed 1060, but the 3GB makes me think the bottleneck will be felt before three years, and I'm kind of leaning AMD for an eventual FreeSync monitor at the cost of performance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Guru3d put up a review of the 3GB 1060. It compares it to an 8GB 480 and a 4GB 470 but not an 8GB 470, so you'll have to open their review of that card in another tab to see if AMD can close the gap with almost 3x as much memory. Spoiler: They almost do. Enough to make the 8GB 470 an appealing apples-to-apples option to the 3GB 1060 if one wants to buy a Freesync monitor and not spend $1000+ on PC gaming graphics in a year. Despite all those additional RAM units, power/noise is comparable. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
In stock at the moment (all MSI on Newegg) RX470 4GB: $200 RX470 8GB: $240 RX480 4GB: $250 Oh god which do i buy None, because I'm about to stop gaming for a month next week.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:Get an aftermarket 1060 for $250. It's 10-15% faster than a RX480, and has 6GB for the price. After six years of owning NVidia exclusively, I'm switching across again. It's just that cards like these and the $225 Asus 4GB 480 keep going in and out of stock and I have no idea what the best deal is. I expect to be at 1080p Ultra settings for the next 3 years. I want to eventually buy a Freesync monitor, which is why I'm disqualifying NVidia. I have no intentions to buy VR or 1440 or 4K in the next three years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Taima posted:In any case this is pretty much a moot point because the man claims that he will get 3 years of ultra gameplay at 1080p with a 480 which is basically ludicrous. High settings? At 30fps? Keep in mind I have like no expectations for frames here. I went from a 460 to 660 in 2013 because Bioshock Infinite couldn't play at Ultra without giant texture blurs where the card ran out of memory. That happened before frames ever got so low that I'd have had enough. I'm a consoles-first guy, though I'm not buying these refreshes and will wait for a proper new gen instead. This is why I'm happy bottlenecking myself at 1080p and consider any FPS over 30 to be gravy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:I wish i was blessed with your low expectations, I would save so much money Try not having money to spend. Works for me! I dunno. I just know I'm at the point now where the NVidia utility that chooses settings for you is choosing medium-high stuff for GTA so it's time to upgrade. Also I haven't played many PC games that aren't Dota 2 and Overwatch since 2013, so it was like for years my computer was fine and then one day the Doom beta came by and it's minimum specs knocked my socks off. I only have a 3700K and I want a card that will run ultra stuff now and in 2018 when I buy new PC hardware I can stuff this in there. 470 8GB seems fine. The fact that the framerates will be iffy will, apparently, be smoothed out somewhat by *sync, which is fine since I need a second monitor to do streaming any justice. The reality is that "run great detail setting for three years" doesn't meet your guys standards for framerates etc, but I have a low budget because I don't have luxury income. I have to have lower standards since I want 2-3 years of playability for no more than $250. I still have a $489 receipt from the now extinct MonarchComputer in 2004, for a 6800GT I bought for Doom 3 (a game I hated.) I have been where you are before, but I had parents buying me stuff then, and today I have parents refusing to buy stuff as they try to force me to get a job. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
DSR prevents you from playing in wi sowed borderless, so for me it's a thing for a real niche subset of people. As I like to pop into a browser or OBS occasionally, I will never go for it. GeForce Experience is usually a good guideline but it does try to push you into DSR on older games.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
So when does more VRAM falloff begin? Because I've been convincing myself the Sapphire 470 8GB clocked at 1260 for $240 at Newegg is the best choice under $300.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I don't think I can do it. I want a 1440p 144Hz IPS and I don't think I can pay the GSync tax. It would be in budget at Acer Recertified but I don't really feel comfortable with only a 90 day warranty on something that I need to last years and that has already been returned once, especially reading some of the bad stories here and on Reddit with faulty monitors. Also it never seems to be in stock there anyway. Get a Freesync monitor and an AMD now, and the cost in the future of selling your AMD used and getting either an NVidia that supports Freesync if that universe comes, or a better AMD model if it doesn't, is still less than the GSync tax. The 470s/480s perform worse than the 1060 by a margin, but the threat of having to replace a video card in a couple years because it wasn't the best performer in it's day isn't worth "I guess I'll just ignore this technology completely."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
I'm one of those people who gets hit with sales tax on Jet, so I'm operating in percentages rather than raw dollar values. They have a Gigabyte RX470 4GB for 16.8% less than their best deal on a 4GB RX480, but unfortunately it looks be some OEM fans thrown on a barely touched board. The raw dollar values, for me anyway, is about $186 for the 470 and $218 for the 480. My brain hurts from reading benchmarks, I need to go to bed. I should probably get that 470, though. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 11:49
|
|