I'd like to add something about my shiny new RX-480, besides the fact that it is shiny(!). This is very, very likely to be true of the latest Nvidia cards as well.
I have a Z77 motherboard with an Intel 15-3470 quad. When I first installed the 480, it would not boot to video. I was ticked! How could I get a bad card? I went onto the XFX website and put in a support request. They suggested that I upgrade the BIOS. I had upgraded it in 2013, and since there have been 3 generationso of Intel CPUs since I bought that, I did not think there would be a BIOS update. But I was wrong. I downloaded it, installed the new BIOS, and lo and behold, the card started working!
If you are using a 3+ year old motherboard, it would be a good idea to check for a BIOS upgrade before you install the latest generation of either flavor of video card.
You should upgrade BIOS perodically regardless of installing new hardware. At least check for new BIOS 1/year.
Average frame rates? Bah! They should do a geometric mean, instead. That way, you don't overweight games that give everything high frame rates and underweight games that give everything low frame rates.
There are too many people who don't know what a geometric mean is. I think in this case average frame rate is better result because larger portion of their readers understand it.
That is if any of the random boost games existed. The 15 games they used pretty much said the same thing and although one game gave 140fps and another game gave 80fps. The overall quality vs the other cards on the list is still fairly accurate.
yeah, some "review", if that isnt paid by NVidia to push uber bad card like 1050ti i dont know what is lol
But even in this rigged review 470 comes miles ahead of 1050ti/1060....or anything else.
Because he used the high quality higher cost cards. Maybe he should have picked the cheap ones to help give your discredit more weight.
240$ for 1060 6GB 139$ for 1050ti 109$ for 1050
cheapest possible crap cards, thats what he used for "calculation". its one page "review" its hard to miss really, but you managed to do so, no surprises there lol
but then he didnt even mention WHICH cards he actually used in tests.
Your poor attempt at apologizing for that abomination of "review" is highly amusing ROFL
Most sites agree the 1050 ti performs better than the RX 460. However, it is priced between the RX 460 and RX 470. The 1050 is competitive against the RX 460 at around the same price. If we are talking prices, there is no magic going on right now. Everything is priced where it slots in performance wise. If you want to play modern PC games with good image quality, you probably shouldn't be looking at the 1050, 1050ti, or RX 460. The RX 470 is a good minimum, but I would still aim a bit higher if you want nice graphics.
1050ti is prices WAAAAAAAAY to close to 470. The jump from 1050ti to 470 in performance is bigger than jump from 470 to 1070, the jump in price from 1050ti to 470 is 20-30$ while jump from 470 to 1070 is 240$.
1050ti is prices WAAAAAAAAY to close to 470. The jump from 1050ti to 470 in performance is bigger than jump from 470 to 1070, the jump in price from 1050ti to 470 is 20-30$ while jump from 470 to 1070 is 240$.
Kinda puts it into perspective lol
But the 1060 is the one beating the rx 480. You are comparing the 1070 with the 470 which is rediculous because that 1070 outperforms the 470 by a huge margin. They aren't even in the same league with each other. Even in the AOTS benchmarks its not close and that game is build to run specifically on AMD cards. Man you got some real problems with seeing the truth about this. To think the 470 outperforms the 1060 is just plain silly. And you dont need the 1050ti to beat the 460. You can easily beat it with the 1050 which only runs 10$ more then the 460.
I am in the same boat Jean-Luc. I am using the 290x looking to upgrade. The 480 and 1060 perform about the same as my current card, and the increase to the 1080 really isn't worth the price. So it's just waiting to see what AMD and nVidia bring in Q1 2017 as both the vega and 1080ti are released.
1050ti is prices WAAAAAAAAY to close to 470. The jump from 1050ti to 470 in performance is bigger than jump from 470 to 1070, the jump in price from 1050ti to 470 is 20-30$ while jump from 470 to 1070 is 240$.
Kinda puts it into perspective lol
But the 1060 is the one beating the rx 480. You are comparing the 1070 with the 470 which is rediculous because that 1070 outperforms the 470 by a huge margin. They aren't even in the same league with each other. Even in the AOTS benchmarks its not close and that game is build to run specifically on AMD cards. Man you got some real problems with seeing the truth about this. To think the 470 outperforms the 1060 is just plain silly. And you dont need the 1050ti to beat the 460. You can easily beat it with the 1050 which only runs 10$ more then the 460.
Your post is completely pointless. It has NOTHING to do with wathsoever.
I am in the same boat Jean-Luc. I am using the 290x looking to upgrade. The 480 and 1060 perform about the same as my current card, and the increase to the 1080 really isn't worth the price. So it's just waiting to see what AMD and nVidia bring in Q1 2017 as both the vega and 1080ti are released.
Aye, the "normal" 1080GTX isn't that big of an improvement, but there's the high end TI coming. I also watch AMD side of course, I never was a brand fanatic. And for us with a 290x, upgrading for a 480 or a 1060 would be wasted money. The minimum we could get to get a decent improvement right now is either a Fury or a 1080, with the 1080 being the best choice for performance.
Yea we are expecting something from AMD that hopefully outperforms the 1080 and is much cheaper. It is expected around Q1 2017 and possibly Q4 2016.
I am in the same boat Jean-Luc. I am using the 290x looking to upgrade. The 480 and 1060 perform about the same as my current card, and the increase to the 1080 really isn't worth the price. So it's just waiting to see what AMD and nVidia bring in Q1 2017 as both the vega and 1080ti are released.
Aye, the "normal" 1080GTX isn't that big of an improvement, but there's the high end TI coming. I also watch AMD side of course, I never was a brand fanatic. And for us with a 290x, upgrading for a 480 or a 1060 would be wasted money. The minimum we could get to get a decent improvement right now is either a Fury or a 1080, with the 1080 being the best choice for performance.
Yea we are expecting something from AMD that hopefully outperforms the 1080 and is much cheaper. It is expected around Q1 2017 and possibly Q4 2016.
I doubt it would be both faster and cheaper. That's not usually how things get priced. AMD will price it where they think they can compete based on it's performance: if it is faster than a 1080, expect it to cost somewhat more than a 1080 (and if it's slower, then somewhat less expensive than). Then expect nVidia to lower the prices on the 1080 (and/or release the 1080Ti), and AMD to follow suit, until someone hits the price point they can't undercut based on manufacturing costs.
Simultaneously faster and cheaper happens all the time in computers--provided that you're also willing to accept later. For Vega 10 to eventually be both faster and cheaper than a GTX 1080 founders edition was at launch is a lot more likely than for Vega 10 to be simultaneously faster and cheaper than a GTX 1080 with prices slashed as necessary to compete. Nvidia is the only GPU vendor out with GPUs faster than a Fury X, and they price their higher end cards accordingly. Hopefully Vega 10 changes that.
Simultaneously faster and cheaper happens all the time in computers--provided that you're also willing to accept later. For Vega 10 to eventually be both faster and cheaper than a GTX 1080 founders edition was at launch is a lot more likely than for Vega 10 to be simultaneously faster and cheaper than a GTX 1080 with prices slashed as necessary to compete. Nvidia is the only GPU vendor out with GPUs faster than a Fury X, and they price their higher end cards accordingly. Hopefully Vega 10 changes that.
You have a point, but, but I'm talking about in current prices. You have to be competitive vs what's on the market today, not what was on the market several months/years ago.
For instance, an Intel C2Q Q6700 was about $530 when it first released. A i3 6300 is both faster and cheaper - so your right, time will make that happen. But it's not like a Q6700 is competitive or relevent in any way today.
I can believe Vega will be less expensive than release-day Founders Edition 1080 prices. That isn't a far stretch to believe it will be <$900. But will it compete with whatever the current prices are whenever Vega finally launches... or if the 1080Ti beats it to launch, with that?
Simultaneously faster and cheaper happens all the time in computers--provided that you're also willing to accept later. For Vega 10 to eventually be both faster and cheaper than a GTX 1080 founders edition was at launch is a lot more likely than for Vega 10 to be simultaneously faster and cheaper than a GTX 1080 with prices slashed as necessary to compete. Nvidia is the only GPU vendor out with GPUs faster than a Fury X, and they price their higher end cards accordingly. Hopefully Vega 10 changes that.
You have a point, but, but I'm talking about in current prices. You have to be competitive vs what's on the market today, not what was on the market several months/years ago.
For instance, an Intel C2Q Q6700 was about $530 when it first released. A i3 6300 is both faster and cheaper - so your right, time will make that happen. But it's not like a Q6700 is competitive or relevent in any way today.
I can believe Vega will be less expensive than release-day Founders Edition 1080 prices. That isn't a far stretch to believe it will be <$900. But will it compete with whatever the current prices are whenever Vega finally launches... or if the 1080Ti beats it to launch, with that?
No matter how you cut it. They won't be able to charge more if they aren't faster. Right now NVIDIA is alone on that top position so they can basically charge what they want for those high end cards. People who want high end expect to pay for it. So hopefully we can see AMD bring a strong competition to the table. Which will in turn give us some lower prices. But then there is the whole reform that USA is about to go through and the taxes on foreign products are going to hit the roof.
Comments
You check for games you have actual official result database and check the results
busted that review is pure crap ROFL
ALso busted on "bang for buck" table which has absolutely no connection to any other numbers in that "review" and that table is absolute nonsense.
According to him, RX480 costs 300$ ahahahhahaah and RX470 costs 220$
RX480 4GB - 189$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131706
RX480 8GB - 240$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202224
RX470 4GB - 170$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137050
yeah, some "review", if that isnt paid by NVidia to push uber bad card like 1050ti i dont know what is lol
But even in this rigged review 470 comes miles ahead of 1050ti/1060....or anything else.
139$ for 1050ti
109$ for 1050
cheapest possible crap cards, thats what he used for "calculation". its one page "review" its hard to miss really, but you managed to do so, no surprises there lol
but then he didnt even mention WHICH cards he actually used in tests.
Your poor attempt at apologizing for that abomination of "review" is highly amusing ROFL
So....that guy proclaims 1070 as "best card for gaming" and praises its "performance for price" and how awesome it is.
and few lines below he posts a chart showing 1070 at the bottom of "performance/price" chart, worse than even last gen cards.
Its really funny how his "opinion" contradicts his OWN facts LOL
stay away from such sites, "reviewers" and "reviews" lol
If you want to play modern PC games with good image quality, you probably shouldn't be looking at the 1050, 1050ti, or RX 460. The RX 470 is a good minimum, but I would still aim a bit higher if you want nice graphics.
Kinda puts it into perspective lol
Vega 10 Specs
http://wccftech.com/amd-vega-10-gpu-hbm2-q4-2016-professional/
For instance, an Intel C2Q Q6700 was about $530 when it first released. A i3 6300 is both faster and cheaper - so your right, time will make that happen. But it's not like a Q6700 is competitive or relevent in any way today.
I can believe Vega will be less expensive than release-day Founders Edition 1080 prices. That isn't a far stretch to believe it will be <$900. But will it compete with whatever the current prices are whenever Vega finally launches... or if the 1080Ti beats it to launch, with that?