Impressive. I liked the comparisons the narrator was using. I've been pretty much convinced that I would get a R9-480X when it releases, now I am sure of it. Although, I am going to wait for 60 days after they release it. I'm not looking for a better price, I'm looking for a better cooling solution. Reference fan/coolers for mid/high video cards are notorious for their poor overall performance. Waiting until the manufacturers can add their own custom cooling is very much worth it to me.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
This is almost too good to be true. I'll keep an eye on the 480, because i've had had some faulty AMD cards in the past. So i'll wait until real people have tested it.
But then.. my monitor is a 60Hz and with Vsync, 60 fps is all i need. My 970 provides 60 fps with ease in almost every game. I paid 380 for it and would get like 100 bucks once the 480 is available...also not too thrilling.
It always bothers me when people are hoping AMD fails or goes away. It's like they are begging Nvidia to gouge them for the rest of time and barely innovate. Even if you think AMD sucks (i think they are just fine tbh) with only 2 players in the game why would you root against anything and hope for a monopoly? Cause you know corperations are always about the people and would NEVER take advantage of a monopoly right?
This is almost too good to be true. I'll keep an eye on the 480, because i've had had some faulty AMD cards in the past. So i'll wait until real people have tested it.
But then.. my monitor is a 60Hz and with Vsync, 60 fps is all i need. My 970 provides 60 fps with ease in almost every game. I paid 380 for it and would get like 100 bucks once the 480 is available...also not too thrilling.
Decisions, decisions...
If you have a 970 then there is very little reason to get the 480. I have a 390 and i wouldnt even bother because there would be prettty much nothing to gain. The only step up would be the 1070/1080 or a presumed 490.
If anything i would just hold off until next gen where they are getting into HBM2 and should be a large step up from where we are now. These cards from both sides are just cheaper and more efficient versions of what we have now (1080 being the only actual upgrade). Supposedly those HBM2 ones are going to be near the start of next year.
I've been using an AMD card since I build my first PC. No problems with it, the benchmarks are mostly bad for AMD, but it's not something that I notice once I'm gaming. 60FPS on high/ultra with the r7 265 2gb edition. I'm loving this new model as it fits my price range nicely and I don't want to spend money on an older card that's the same price as this new one.
This is almost too good to be true. I'll keep an eye on the 480, because i've had had some faulty AMD cards in the past. So i'll wait until real people have tested it.
But then.. my monitor is a 60Hz and with Vsync, 60 fps is all i need. My 970 provides 60 fps with ease in almost every game. I paid 380 for it and would get like 100 bucks once the 480 is available...also not too thrilling.
Decisions, decisions...
If you have a 970 then there is very little reason to get the 480. I have a 390 and i wouldnt even bother because there would be prettty much nothing to gain. snip
Actually my experience on DX12 on 970 has not been fine (Hitman, QUantum Break and Forza and by benchmarks Total War too) at all and im switching to 480 when it comes out. Ive postponed playing those games until then due to bad performance/driver crashes. And theres plenty of DX12 games that ill certainly want to play in 2016 (deus ex, civilization 6, battlefield 1)
970 to 480 isn't a good upgrade. The only difference you will see are in games that heavily use Async, like total war and civ vi, but not a notable gain. A higher speced card coming Q4 2016 makes more sense. Regardless, if you are experiencing issues with a 970 in those titles, it is probably just a setting or bad driver install. Do a clean install of the drivers.
This is almost too good to be true. I'll keep an eye on the 480, because i've had had some faulty AMD cards in the past. So i'll wait until real people have tested it.
But then.. my monitor is a 60Hz and with Vsync, 60 fps is all i need. My 970 provides 60 fps with ease in almost every game. I paid 380 for it and would get like 100 bucks once the 480 is available...also not too thrilling.
Decisions, decisions...
If you have a 970 then there is very little reason to get the 480. I have a 390 and i wouldnt even bother because there would be prettty much nothing to gain. snip
Actually my experience on DX12 on 970 has not been fine (Hitman, QUantum Break and Forza and by benchmarks Total War too) at all and im switching to 480 when it comes out. Ive postponed playing those games until then due to bad performance/driver crashes. And theres plenty of DX12 games that ill certainly want to play in 2016 (deus ex, civilization 6, battlefield 1)
My experience with a 970 and DX12 titles has been fine. The 480 is just a side grade with performance gains in only a few very specific corners. I wouldn't upgrade if I had a 390X either. All you're really getting there is mostly a downgrade for a little less power consumption.
The 1070 and 1080 haven't impressed me at all. I won't be upgrading from a 970 to 1070 either. Not enough performance gain.
If anyone has a 380/390X or 960+ I think it's worthwhile to wait and see what next spring brings. We'll start to see more mature designs on the new process by then with better memory configurations. Hopefully they'll be a little more interesting.
All this is good to hear... at least from my perspective. Thanks for the input everyone!
I've always been a fan of AMD and will most likely upgrade to the 480, currently using a GTX 750 ti. Quite literally the only reason I like Nvidia over AMD atm is Shadowplay. I hope AMD can improve their recording software to be on par.
I have gotten rather jaded about hardware over the years. I do a lot of research before I buy anything anymore, because tech continues to change, not always for the better (although, admittedly, most of the time for the better). But price also factors in, and $200... wow, that kind of performance for about $200... it will be hard to get that kind of value out of Nvidia's lineup.
I'm using an AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB card right now, and I am quite happy with it. It is 4 years old though, so I am considering a step up. The R9-480X is a big enough step up, and with the price being near $200, it will be hard to pass it up. Like I said in a prior post, I will wait for models with second generation cooling. It's not like I am suffering with my current card!
If I had a 390X or a 970 Ti, I wouldn't waste the money for such a minimal performance increase. I would wait two years until the next generation of the GPU wars hits the tarmac!
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
If anyone has a 380/390X or 960+ I think it's worthwhile to wait and see what next spring brings. We'll start to see more mature designs on the new process by then with better memory configurations. Hopefully they'll be a little more interesting.
That is where I am sitting. I have a R9 380 and with my new monitor and working on a Cryengine project I am struggling a bit with my card. I want to upgrade but I also am wanting to see what is around the corner.
This is almost too good to be true. I'll keep an eye on the 480, because i've had had some faulty AMD cards in the past. So i'll wait until real people have tested it.
But then.. my monitor is a 60Hz and with Vsync, 60 fps is all i need. My 970 provides 60 fps with ease in almost every game. I paid 380 for it and would get like 100 bucks once the 480 is available...also not too thrilling.
Decisions, decisions...
If you have a 970 then there is very little reason to get the 480. I have a 390 and i wouldnt even bother because there would be prettty much nothing to gain. snip
Actually my experience on DX12 on 970 has not been fine (Hitman, QUantum Break and Forza and by benchmarks Total War too) at all and im switching to 480 when it comes out. Ive postponed playing those games until then due to bad performance/driver crashes. And theres plenty of DX12 games that ill certainly want to play in 2016 (deus ex, civilization 6, battlefield 1)
My experience with a 970 and DX12 titles has been fine. The 480 is just a side grade with performance gains in only a few very specific corners. I wouldn't upgrade if I had a 390X either. All you're really getting there is mostly a downgrade for a little less power consumption.
The 1070 and 1080 haven't impressed me at all. I won't be upgrading from a 970 to 1070 either. Not enough performance gain.
If anyone has a 380/390X or 960+ I think it's worthwhile to wait and see what next spring brings. We'll start to see more mature designs on the new process by then with better memory configurations. Hopefully they'll be a little more interesting.
Well, 970 should be good for 1080p but it isnt in those titles but it isnt, sorry. I tried to swap to for 390 but everyone suddenly want "monetary compensation" along with 970 lol. So ill just sell 970 and get 480 instead.
I dont want to pay > 300$ for GPU because that should be more than capable of handling 1080p. And the only other card in price range will be 1060 (i guess, but with 1070 starting at 379$......) with same problems like 970 (and all other NVidia cards) in DX12, so yeah, i dont really want to wait 2 years for new generation to upgrade or hope NVidia fix DX12 problems if they havent been able in the past year.
Yeah it seems a great deal. I am not one to prefer green camp or red. I just go with the card that provides me with a good experience at a price I like at the time I am looking to buy. I really have been happy with my 380. I just knew when I bought it that it was a cheaper card to get me through until the new cards started coming out. Now they are starting to I am still thinking I want to wait and see what is around the corner. I am excite to see what is revealed next.
Even if you are struggling with your Cryengine project, I would still wait until the 490X card comes out. That should be a really big step up over your 380, and I bet you will find them for about $400... even if that price is wrong I'm sure it will be far less than a 1080.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
I'm not sure why people aren't excited about both of these products, both of them are gains in performance that we haven't seen for roughly 5 years from one generation to another. Obviously that's primarily due to the smaller process node. But, consider that a 1070 is pretty much faster than a 980ti across the board. That's like having a new generation of Ford Mustang come out, and the base model 6 cyl mustang is faster than the outgoing generations GT500. Much less comparing previous gt500 to new gt500 (obviously this is an anecdote).
Anandtech did a price/perf ratio and the 1070 is comparable to the normal "kings" of price/perf which is usually the $200 ish cards like the 960's/380's etc. Yes it is still roughly 2x the cost of one of those cards but you also get 2x the performance, where traditionally going from say a 960 to a 980 was more like 50% more performance for 2.5x the cost.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I'm not sure why people aren't excited about both of these products, both of them are gains in performance that we haven't seen for roughly 5 years from one generation to another. Obviously that's primarily due to the smaller process node. But, consider that a 1070 is pretty much faster than a 980ti across the board. That's like having a new generation of Ford Mustang come out, and the base model 6 cyl mustang is faster than the outgoing generations GT500. Much less comparing previous gt500 to new gt500 (obviously this is an anecdote).
Anandtech did a price/perf ratio and the 1070 is comparable to the normal "kings" of price/perf which is usually the $200 ish cards like the 960's/380's etc. Yes it is still roughly 2x the cost of one of those cards but you also get 2x the performance, where traditionally going from say a 960 to a 980 was more like 50% more performance for 2.5x the cost.
People are excited for both products, but the price on the AMD is right where most people want to pay and considering the performance you get people are extremely excited for it.
I'm not sure why people aren't excited about both of these products, both of them are gains in performance that we haven't seen for roughly 5 years from one generation to another. Obviously that's primarily due to the smaller process node. But, consider that a 1070 is pretty much faster than a 980ti across the board. That's like having a new generation of Ford Mustang come out, and the base model 6 cyl mustang is faster than the outgoing generations GT500. Much less comparing previous gt500 to new gt500 (obviously this is an anecdote).
Anandtech did a price/perf ratio and the 1070 is comparable to the normal "kings" of price/perf which is usually the $200 ish cards like the 960's/380's etc. Yes it is still roughly 2x the cost of one of those cards but you also get 2x the performance, where traditionally going from say a 960 to a 980 was more like 50% more performance for 2.5x the cost.
umm no, 1070 is slower than 980ti across the board. Maxwell OCs like crazy, Pascal doesnt. Stock to stock, 1070 is on par, but once you OC both, 1070 is 7-10% slower than 980ti and only ~45% faster than 970. considering you could have bought 970 for 280-290$ for more than 10 months, and that cheapest 1070 will be 390$ number crunching is:
1070 is 45% faster than 970 but is also 36-62% more expencive. And in DX12 it may be barely any faster than 480.
And thats the problem with Pascal (1070/1080): you get something "faster" but you also pay for that performance just like you did before since NVidia has raised the prices. Theres barely any perfoemance/price improvement and that means no new value for the gamer.
Comments
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
I'll keep an eye on the 480, because i've had had some faulty AMD cards in the past. So i'll wait until real people have tested it.
But then.. my monitor is a 60Hz and with Vsync, 60 fps is all i need. My 970 provides 60 fps with ease in almost every game. I paid 380 for it and would get like 100 bucks once the 480 is available...also not too thrilling.
Decisions, decisions...
If anything i would just hold off until next gen where they are getting into HBM2 and should be a large step up from where we are now. These cards from both sides are just cheaper and more efficient versions of what we have now (1080 being the only actual upgrade). Supposedly those HBM2 ones are going to be near the start of next year.
60hz 1080p you should be fine for a while.
Regardless, if you are experiencing issues with a 970 in those titles, it is probably just a setting or bad driver install. Do a clean install of the drivers.
I'm using an AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB card right now, and I am quite happy with it. It is 4 years old though, so I am considering a step up. The R9-480X is a big enough step up, and with the price being near $200, it will be hard to pass it up. Like I said in a prior post, I will wait for models with second generation cooling. It's not like I am suffering with my current card!
If I had a 390X or a 970 Ti, I wouldn't waste the money for such a minimal performance increase. I would wait two years until the next generation of the GPU wars hits the tarmac!
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I dont want to pay > 300$ for GPU because that should be more than capable of handling 1080p. And the only other card in price range will be 1060 (i guess, but with 1070 starting at 379$......) with same problems like 970 (and all other NVidia cards) in DX12, so yeah, i dont really want to wait 2 years for new generation to upgrade or hope NVidia fix DX12 problems if they havent been able in the past year.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
Anandtech did a price/perf ratio and the 1070 is comparable to the normal "kings" of price/perf which is usually the $200 ish cards like the 960's/380's etc. Yes it is still roughly 2x the cost of one of those cards but you also get 2x the performance, where traditionally going from say a 960 to a 980 was more like 50% more performance for 2.5x the cost.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
1070 is 45% faster than 970 but is also 36-62% more expencive. And in DX12 it may be barely any faster than 480.
And thats the problem with Pascal (1070/1080): you get something "faster" but you also pay for that performance just like you did before since NVidia has raised the prices. Theres barely any perfoemance/price improvement and that means no new value for the gamer.