|
Oh man, I was wondering if I'd regret buying the 1070 since I didn't wait for the 480 reviews. Well, that fear is put to bed.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
Larrymer posted:Oh man, I was wondering if I'd regret buying the 1070 since I didn't wait for the 480 reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Just placed my order on the last remaining Zotac GTX 1070 AMP Edition non-FE at slightly lower than the asking price of the Fool's Edition. Strictly speaking the RX480 perf/$ is fine but the idle/load power draw and noise was the deal breaker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
http://www.techspot.com/review/1198-amd-radeon-rx-480/page8.html - Price/performance chart for the cards. If you can get a GTX 1070 for 399.99, you're pretty much in the ballpark of the RX 480 and that's comparing an aftermarket cooled Gigabyte to a reference cooler card. If you have to spend an extra 20 on a RX 480 to get an aftermarket cooler, it ends up being the exact same price/performance as the 399.99 GTX 1070. Mileage will vary here as most have paid more than 399.99 for a GTX 1070.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Palladium posted:Just placed my order on the last remaining Zotac GTX 1070 AMP Edition non-FE at slightly lower than the asking price of the Fool's Edition. Yeah, I'm disappointed by the idle draw. The noise is a matter of a new cooler, and that'll help load power as well, but it looks to not have enough ROPs to run the desktop at really low clocks, and that's annoying. The µarch is going to have to scale well with ROPs or have to be better optimized for high clocks on TSMC's process than the GF one was for Vega to be evenly competitive with bigger Pascal, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
A few days ago I asked the thread about running two different video cards (a 980 and a 1080) to drive 3 monitors (2 on the 980 and 1 on the 1080) in a gaming system on Windows 10. I'm back with a trip report! The good:
The bad:
The ugly:
Going to do some more tinkering around with the setup in the coming days, but unless I can find a solution to the recurring framerate drop issue, I would not recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:The only time regret is possible is if you bought an FE. Getting a mildly factory OCed 1070 at 400 is a good performance-per-dollar ratio and will be for quite a while since the headroom is proportionally wider than the 1080's headroom. The difficult part is that I'm looking at the FEs since blower-style coolers are nice for the classic Mac Pros (once nVidia releases web drivers for the 1070 and 1080 for OS X). It sucks to have to pay the premium though...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
So the 8GB one is the one to get because it has faster RAM, the stock cooler is poo poo AGAIN, and the power consumption is basically that of a 970 (despite process advantage) or 1070 (despite being much lower in performance). It's a fine card at $200, still fair at $239, but now I see exactly why they could not have positioned it any higher in the market. It's essentially a 970 with a usable amount of RAM for a discounted price. My recommendation to AMD is to throw the 4GB version in the bin, and look to get the 8GB one close to $200 as possible, and make lots of easy sales before the 1060 arrives. The 1060 will no doubt have a similar performance profile, but I'm guessing a better power profile, which, if they do launch the 1060 at the $200 mark, will make the 480 instantly a less attractive proposition. The 1060 however is rumoured to cap out at 6GB, which is why I think AMD should run only with the 8GB 480 to keep that edge. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
AMD: Delete your fabsMoogle posted:This is not going to be a good year for consumers. I dunno. NVIDIA put out the 1070, letting consumers buy performance that previously cost around $600 for $400 -- with a new generation of hardware features power improvements to boot. They also put out the 1080, which allows for levels of performance that were until now unattainable, or at the least could only be approached by spending well over $1000 on some crazy dual-Titan configurtation (again with much improved hardware performance). Yeah, maybe the prices aren't as low as they might be if NVIDIA were fighting tooth-and-nail for its life, but I think consumers did pretty well there if you're not taking free exponential improvement as an entitlement. Meanwhile, AMD has kind of flubbed it by putting out a GPU that performs, oh, about as well at the same price point as was already available. I mean, they are still contributing a lot to the discussion about rendering technology, and spurring NVIDIA to continue doing new and interesting things so I don't want to be too hard on them. Don Lapre posted:AMD didn't hype this at all I don't think anyone would argue that RX480 isn't the run-away choice for people who want to play Ashes Of The Singularity for under $300 (at least not if you can't wait for the 1060  )e: I just noticed the "GPU Utilization: 51%" there. Because what says value like massively sublinear scaling? :facepalm: Hubis fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Beautiful Ninja posted:http://www.techspot.com/review/1198-amd-radeon-rx-480/page8.html - Price/performance chart for the cards. If you can get a GTX 1070 for 399.99, you're pretty much in the ballpark of the RX 480 and that's comparing an aftermarket cooled Gigabyte to a reference cooler card. If you have to spend an extra 20 on a RX 480 to get an aftermarket cooler, it ends up being the exact same price/performance as the 399.99 GTX 1070. Mileage will vary here as most have paid more than 399.99 for a GTX 1070.  also   http://techreport.com/review/30328/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-reviewed/1 So to be fair to AMD, this is exactly what they claimed - VR-ready performance (ie. 970 level) for $200. At the same time the lack of headroom is quite disappointing so I might end up shelling out for a 1070 after all, as I'll want to have smooth VR and usable 4k eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
480 summed up for me in one word: meh. I'll wait and see what the 1060 brings to the table otherwise I may stick with the 7970 for another generation of cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
aftermarket 480s will be cooler, and its still not a terrible card, those coming from a 750-760 will be more then happy with the 480. Its defaintly a good midteir card for us poors, not a 1080ti killer as the hype train was claiming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
B-Mac posted:480 summed up for me in one word: meh. Keep on truckin, the longer you ride that 7970 the more you're going to be wowed when you spend $200-300 on whatever current gen at that time is. Any games giving you trouble on it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:The 1060 will no doubt have a similar performance profile, but I'm guessing a better power profile, which, if they do launch the 1060 at the $200 mark, will make the 480 instantly a less attractive proposition. The 1060 however is rumoured to cap out at 6GB, which is why I think AMD should run only with the 8GB 480 to keep that edge. I'd hope they go for another 660/760 and at least surpass the 970 and price that accordingly wrt to the RX 480. They'll still price the FE something stupid though, and people WILL buy it at that price, because Nvidia's brand has all the mindshare and not many people have caught wind that AMD's drivers have been better for almost a year and counting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:It also entirely depends how neutered GP106 is, considering the 960 and 950 were tire fires after the 760 and 660 were good buys. I didn't think the 950 was a bad GPU? They were $120 really soon after launch, a friend of mine upgraded to one from a 5850 and was pretty happy with it, especially for the price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
^^ The 950 was a solid, well positioned card. It was the 960 2 GB at $200 that was a byword for lovely midrange card positioning and shook my faith in reviewers and the video card buying public. It's also a nice card to go at least the 480 isn't that bad with. Hey at least it isn't an actively bad price/perf proposition that's already obsolete from lack of VRAM!Hubis posted:Meanwhile, AMD has kind of flubbed it by putting out a GPU that performs, oh, about as well at the same price point as was already available. I mean, they are still contributing a lot to the discussion about rendering technology, and spurring NVIDIA to continue doing new and interesting things so I don't want to be too hard on them. That level of performance only started coming to that price point when the 480 was on the horizon though. It's still a 50% drop in that segment. I'm ignoring the 290(X) when it was at crazy low prices because that's what customers did (also that seemed to be more a US thing). Hopefully the aftermarket coolers are affordable and give it a boost because it's unexciting otherwise.
xthetenth fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I didn't think the 950 was a bad GPU? They were $120 really soon after launch, a friend of mine upgraded to one from a 5850 and was pretty happy with it, especially for the price. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Reference 480 isn't looking like a great proposition compared to stepping up to the 1070 or waiting for the 1060, but I didn't expect it to. I'll see what the aftermarket cards look like, by which time there will be more stock of the 1070 and more information about the 1060. The last two somewhat intensive games I got were Witcher 3 and Overwatch and both of those work fine on my 7850 at 1080p medium+ detail, but I am thinking an upgrade to a 4K TV is in the near future so that might push me towards the 1070. I don't think I'll feel compelled to run all my games at 4K but the potential would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yep, the vapor chambers are good but they're pricy and tbh gently caress that if you're trying to cut price on a relatively low powered card. I think it's less "Because They Could" and more "Because They Had To" in order to have a compelling marketing story ("VR Ready for $200"). At "optimal" clocks for the chip they ended up with it does seem like it might be a very nice fit for a mobile device. I kind of wonder if they set out building Polaris to spec for the next Macbook line, and basically tried to wring a desktop-competitive product out of it by pushing the clocks as hard as they could given the timeline already established by the OEM product cycle. That would explain the weird "no big Polaris, Vega right on its heels" cadence they have set up. It also makes me wonder what the console refresh GPUs are going to look like. On the one hand, probably an underclocked RX480. On the other hand, they're going to have to deliver 4k, and presumably make VR competitive with the current-gen PC attainable, which doesn't really give them a whole lot of room to step down...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I kind of wonder if they set out building Polaris to spec for the next Macbook line, and basically tried to wring a desktop-competitive product out of it by pushing the clocks as hard as they could given the timeline already established by the OEM product cycle. That would explain the weird "no big Polaris, Vega right on its heels" cadence they have set up. If only Bulldozer could be undone
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
If only GCN had gotten early drivers like what they are now. 7970 and 290 would be legends.Hubis posted:I think it's less "Because They Could" and more "Because They Had To" in order to have a compelling marketing story ("VR Ready for $200"). At "optimal" clocks for the chip they ended up with it does seem like it might be a very nice fit for a mobile device. I kind of wonder if they set out building Polaris to spec for the next Macbook line, and basically tried to wring a desktop-competitive product out of it by pushing the clocks as hard as they could given the timeline already established by the OEM product cycle. That would explain the weird "no big Polaris, Vega right on its heels" cadence they have set up. A mobile first design with Apple in mind with a follow on desktop part that's been aggressively targeted towards a low price point would make a bunch of sense. I wouldn't say they had to target it that low, it's not 960 bad, and a better cooler might have been worth the cost (why did the leakers who should know better like the cooler, wtf).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
How does CF perform so badly in other games, but in COD it's a champ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
It's one of the few games where crossfire and SLI actually work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:It also entirely depends how neutered GP106 is, considering the 960 and 950 were tire fires after the 760 and 660 were good buys. I always considered the 960 as horrible value with a 2GB VRAM bottleneck, especially with 290/390s dipping into the mid $200 region. All NV needs to do win over the RX480: ~$250 GTX 1060 of GP106 1280SP + 192-bit bus + 6GB with stock cooling that isn't complete crap, then clock high enough to beat the 480 and perf/W will take care of the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
I haven't even gotten into the comedy about overclocking GM206, where a 125% increase in power gets you 33% more performance; and they apparently shelved all plans of any mobile GM206 parts and just used all of the GM204 salvage dies for that  They can price the 1060 at $300 and still win with identical performance to the 480, it's not like they have any more consumer goodwill to saturate. THE DOG HOUSE posted:Did any of these review sites try to OC the ram? I wonder if the 7 gbps is artificial. If it isn't... being compelled to purchase the 8gb for ram speed is so god drat lame ... Anime Schoolgirl fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Did any of these review sites try to OC the ram? I wonder if the 7 gbps is artificial. If it isn't... being compelled to purchase the 8gb for ram speed is so god drat lame ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Keep on truckin, the longer you ride that 7970 the more you're going to be wowed when you spend $200-300 on whatever current gen at that time is. Any games giving you trouble on it? No not really. I'm still 1200p/60hz and don't mind turning settings down to high to get a bit better frame rate. I got the card for $250 just about 3 years ago and would like to upgrade when I can get doubleish performance for $300 or so. Also freesync or gsync IPS would be nice since I'm on TN.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:If only GCN had gotten early drivers like what they are now. 7970 and 290 would be legends. From what it sounds like, they had a lot of troubles hitting the clock speeds they wanted with acceptable yields. If their goal was to have the RX480 running 10-15% faster than they ended up with, it might really have been a different story. Ninkobei posted:How does CF perform so badly in other games, but in COD it's a champ? It's all about how the engine is designed (how many inter-frame dependencies are there, and how many of them can be eliminated if multi-GPU is detected), how much effort the developer/devtech is able to put into working around the dependencies that can't be eliminated (by coding alternative behavior for multi-GPU), and how much time the IHV has to craft a profile for the driver that minimizes the impact of the dependencies that can't be removed. There's also the fact that the engine needs to be sufficiently optimized for CPU perf/sufficiently heavy on the GPU workload that you can realize good scaling before you become CPU-bound. CoD is pretty impressive: 100% scaling is mostly just a fever dream. Getting over 50% is pretty good, and 80% or so is great usually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Hubis posted:It also makes me wonder what the console refresh GPUs are going to look like. On the one hand, probably an underclocked RX480. On the other hand, they're going to have to deliver 4k, and presumably make VR competitive with the current-gen PC attainable, which doesn't really give them a whole lot of room to step down... I feel like people are realizing that forcing things into 4k this console generation would be a mistake. It seems to be brought up less and less in the marketing. Also, here's some tweets from the lead graphics dev for Doom (former CryEngine guy):  He also retweeted:  Here's the original tweet he was responding to: https://twitter.com/ryszu/status/742831396767535106 Frankly, I think that going anywhere near 4k even with a PC and top of the line card is premature, especially with a tv without some sort of adaptive sync.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Did any of these review sites try to OC the ram? I wonder if the 7 gbps is artificial. If it isn't... being compelled to purchase the 8gb for ram speed is so god drat lame ... I saw one site for just below 9 on the ram OC. Can't remember which one, didn't seem to do much of a difference, core clock was at around 1375. Actually guru3d I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:I feel like people are realizing that forcing things into 4k this console generation would be a mistake. It seems to be brought up less and less in the marketing. Yup, and this all seems really on the money to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Fortunately for me, I won't be ready to purchase a video card until August at the earliest, which means I should be able to see how the 1060 actually compares to the 480. I was really hoping the 480 would be slightly faster than the 970. It's close enough, really, but the power consumption bothers me, especially when using multiple monitors. Good thing I'm patient, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Lol, I feel so vindicated right now. I mean I was hoping for more but loving lol AMD only managing what Maxwell achieved on 28nm, Kyle Bennett was right. I need to sell a 290X and 1440p Freesync monitor now so I'm not trapped with some dead technology when AMD goes bankrupt in the next year or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:Fortunately for me, I won't be ready to purchase a video card until August at the earliest, which means I should be able to see how the 1060 actually compares to the 480. You're in luck, the current rumour is the 1060 will be announced on the 7th of July and released on the 14th.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Lol, I feel so vindicated right now. I mean I was hoping for more but loving lol AMD only managing what Maxwell achieved on 28nm, Kyle Bennett was right. I need to sell a 290X and 1440p Freesync monitor now so I'm not trapped with some dead technology when AMD goes bankrupt in the next year or so. Also you have to buy a GP100. Nevermind not having any video outputs, you'll figure it out Don Lapre posted:Already has a price drop Thanks Micro Center 
Anime Schoolgirl fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Already has a price drop http://www.bestbuy.com/site/xfx-radeon-rx-480-oc-8gb-ddr5-pci-express-3-0-graphics-card/5446200.p?id=bb5446200&skuId=5446200
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Yeah, its gouging at some level somewhere. Either the MSRP was a big fudge, or AIB's decided to take advantage of the two-MSRP bs. I'm leaning towards the latter. The ACX cooler is only $20 more for a EVGA 1080, so a $600 MSRP and for an extra $20 you get the cooler. That's more than fair, and consistent with the past. For the 1070's released later, oh sorry that's $40 more, and $60 for more for the one we're actually going to release, the "Gaming SC". Which is just a smaller, longer running scam on top of the gouging, they are the same card with different clocks. But the "normal" SC isn't released yet, which is still somehow going to be $420, yet the SC with the clocks turned a tiny bit higher are available. I guess they're still waiting on the parts for the cheaper part number? FWIW, the normal EVGA 1070 w/ACX is out for $420 (at least, it's listed on Newegg and EVGA's site), and the SC is $440. It's the "SuperSuperClocked" version that doesn't exist yet. After seeing those 480 benchmarks I'm pretty much locked in on the 1070 SC, now I just need to have the patience to wait a few weeks to see if the prices drop. I did end up selling my 960, and man it's tougher to go back to a 360 (non-slim!) than I thought it would be. Loud as gently caress, long-rear end loading times, and 30fps... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Hubis posted:From what it sounds like, they had a lot of troubles hitting the clock speeds they wanted with acceptable yields. If their goal was to have the RX480 running 10-15% faster than they ended up with, it might really have been a different story. I hope so, GloFo being fuckups is reasonable, and kind of an oh well deal because of the WSA meaning it's a viable way to trade performance for cost even when they do mess up, and still lets AMD make power critical parts on the high end with TSMC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
repiv posted:You're in luck, the current rumour is the 1060 will be announced on the 7th of July and released on the 14th. Yeah, I saw that. Hopefully it means there will be actual stock in August when I'm ready to buy, presuming the 1060 ends up being the better buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:Are you going to get a Jen-Hsun Huang tramp stamp to go with your new radioactive status I'm not the one cheerleading a garbage company anymore. I mean buy your soon to be dead company products but lol if you think I am "melting down". For everyone else DO NOT BUY THE RX 480, THE GTX 1060 WILL RELEASE IN TWO WEEKS AND WILL BEAT IT. I strongly urge you to not buy AMD products.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:04
|
|