i have a radeon hd6950. is it worth it to upgrade to a 1070?

what games do you play?

I'm on a 7950 and that's my plan if the 490 turns out shit.

more info
>want to play graphic intensive games like witcher 3
>goal is to be moving on to 1440p 144hz
>most liekly single monitor.
>not totally strapped for cash but dont want to get too crazy (no 1080 unless really good deal)

pls respond ;_;

>>56201094
>>goal is to be moving on to 1440p 144hz
1070 won't do that at max for most games, unless you turn settings down

for maxed out, you'd probably need a 1080ti

but a 1070 is probably 3-4x faster than your 6950, maybe more

>>56201389
>1070 won't do that at max for most games, unless you turn settings down
it will do it well at 60hz though right?

any Nvidia card is a huge upgrade from AMPoo

>>56201435
even a gt 250

>>56201417

Just google the benchmarks for those games.

>>56201445
At least it wont fry your PCIe slot even as a fucking low end card

running a 7950 here, i can play every game at max settings at 1440p, however THEY USUALLY DO NOT run them at 60fps, i get around 20-60 depending of how bad optimized is the game

>>56201094
>144Hz
Honestly what the fuck would you need that refresh rate for. 75 is good enough

>>56201457
>>56201435
Go away fanboy(s)

>>56201481
Multiplayer games

>>56201053
>>56201094
i'd say it's definitely worth the upgrade, but you won't peg 144+ fps at max settings, but with a g-sync monitor it should still be nice as fuck

>>56201512
if it's something like csgo or dota then a 1070 will be totally fine

>>56201512
You probably wouldn't get much of a competitive advantage with the law of diminishing returns. 75 or anything under a 100 is good enough.

whilst we're on this topic, anyone has a good idea of cpu/mobo+gpu for overwatch 144+fps stable low settings?

>>56201053
Yes. It's a great card. I used to have a 290x, but it died, so i bought a 1070. No regrets. Probably the smartest buy you can make right now. 1080 is overpriced, 480 is cheaper, but not as powerful, TITAN XP is a joke, and 1080ti is probably going to cost around 900$.
Also fastsync.

>>56201053
second 6950 will be more beneficial, even if you need a need psu it'll still be cheaper

>>56201593
ps4 works good

>>56201612
i disagree

>>56201621
noty

>>56201625
at 1080p it's more than enough.
at meme res and ultra meme fps obviously he needs le meme cards to go with it.
but who's dumb enough to waste this much money for gaymen, especially when the price of bracket GPUs are twice what they were when he bought the 6950...

>>56201621
only decent option.
the market is currently overpriced out the ass and performs no better than 6950.
literally will get the exact same performance for spending 250-300 (the price of a new 6950)

>>56201073
AMD will not release the ''490''. The rx480 was the biggest Poolaris chip.

>>56201445
>even a gt 250
The 8800GTX!

>>56201821
I don't give a shit, 490/vega/whatever, if it's not out by black friday and good it's 1070 avenue for me.

>>56201073
This I'm waiting too just to know my options.
>>56201821
>what is Vega

>>56201930
Rajeet my son, now is time to buy new GPU
Here are your options
>Beautiful and clean Nvidia GTX 1080/1070
>Shitting in the street with AMD

>>56201094
>1440p 144hz
You need a titan XP for that or 4k

just get a 480, maxes out 1080p 60hz and does well at 1440p

>>56201821
>>56201915
>>56201930
490 is a dual 480 card

>>56202096
You seem pretty confident over something that's just a rumor.

>>56202123
They need something to hold over until vega to say they can compete on performance with a 1080(in like the 5 games it works in), will probably just be a limited run card from Power Color or something

will also be marketed for one GPU per Eye VR stuff

>>56202096
>dual card
it's trash

just get a good single gpu card

>>56202143
>will also be marketed for one GPU per Eye VR stuff
nvidia blows this out of the water with simultaneous multi-projection, if vega doesn't have it then amd is truly pathetic, amd should've thought about this stuff because it's crucial for vr, curved displays and triple monitor setups

>>56202146
It'll make miners happy, and for a few production applications it gives you 16gbs of VRAM for maybe $500, probably $600 on launch

>>56201787
The 1060 delivers all the 1080p action you need and sips power compared to doing a janky crossfired 6950 build.

If you're buying a 1070 or better and only have a 1080p display, and don't plan on buying a new monitor for another 2-3 years, you're a fucking idiot.

>>56202162
>nvidia blows this out of the water with simultaneous multi-projection
you forgot single pass rendering as well

that's all well and good, but that's only a few performance increases, if they can get devs to utilize affinity multi-GPU, they'll have 100% GPU performance per eye, and with the 470/80 being so cheap it's a great VR solution

Besides, it's only a matter of time before AMD announces FOSS alternatives

>>56202190
>1060
Ew man, the 480 is a far better choice for the long run, in addition to saving like $100 minimum on a free-sync display vs g-sync display

>>56201053
It's faster, but it has huge latency problems.

If you were fine using a 6950 for so long, then a 470 would be a cheap upgrade with 2-3x the power - I'm also sitting on a 6950 and that's the upgrade I'm going to do.

>>56202253
>1070
>latency problems
haven't heard of this before, links/explanation?

>>56201053
Hey anon i have a HD 6950

i went to the RX 470 it gave me a good 100% boost in performance

but the 1070 is like 40-60 faster than the RX 480

>>56202287
latency issues with the new 10xx seriees

big thread on ocn about it.

>>56202313
im sorry im a retard but what does latency mean when talking about gpus

>>56201389
>1070 won't do that at max for most games, unless you turn settings down
desu if you're going for 144fps you probably don't care about half of the graphics settings, they just get in the way.

>>56202253
>i went to the RX 470 it gave me a good 100% boost in performance
>>56202298
don't listen to these faggots.
the truth is out there
470 is just a rebranded 370 which is a rebranded 7850 which is a rebranded 6950
but costs twice as much.

would literally get twice your performance for 1/4th the cost if you bought a second 6950 though...

>>56202354
i dont give a shit about DOF and chromatic shit. do those drag down frame rate?

>>56202382
Not really.
AA, Texture size, and Mesh Quality are the real big taxers on GPU workload.

>>56202346
it's the delay between what goes on in the game and what you see on the screen

>>56202203
top kek
the 480 and 1060 will be outdated by the time dx12 and such becomes prevalent/standard.
By that time AMpoors will be cucked by another great nvidia card.
So, 1060 is by far the better choice.

>I don't know why but turning off the threaded driver optimization got rid of most of my microstuttering in CSGO?
>threaded driver optimization
when will this multithreading meme die, you can just multithread everything and expect everything to improve

>>56202368
>470 is just a rebranded 370 which is a rebranded 7850 which is a rebranded 6950
>but costs twice as much.
>14nm process is a rebrand
how retarded are you anon?

File: are you a magnet.jpg (77KB, 531x513px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 531x513px

>>56202368
>dual card setup doubles performance

>>56202416
until the 480's performance is improved in drivers and it ends up faster even in DX11

>>56202542
LMAO
>muh drivers

>>56202553
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SYNayNQi6s

>>56202542
huh...?
every single test shows that 1060 is faster in 100% of dx11 games
480 is only faster in a select few (dx12)
are AMpoors retarded?

>>56202635
Ya, 1060 is 10-20% faster in DX11, 480 is 10-20% faster in DX12/Vulkan

AMD generally eventually fully unlocks the performance of their cards over time, while nvidia cards run near 100% from the get go, AMD takes time to get going, while still being relatively competitive in the mean time, so over time it ends up being a better investment, especially with DX12/Vulkan coming down the pipe

>>56202681
do you want good perf now or in a couple of years when it's time to upgrade your low-mid range card anyway?

>>56202751
this. im buying a fucking graphics card not a stock.

>>56202751
>>56202767
The 470/480 already does 1080p 60fps ultra in most cases, and it'll only get faster in time and outpace the 1060

>>56201094
I went from an HD 6950 to a gtx 980, difference is night and day. I play 1440p 60hz

>>56202880
is the difference from 1080 to 1440 really that big? ive heard the difference between 60 and 144hz is a lot better. i might go with 1080 at 144hz but idk . is there a place where you can see 144hz monitors in person?

If i only want 144hz for dota but am fine with 60 in all other games can i just get a 1440p 144hz monitor? like it doesn't look worse on the other games if you cant reach 144hz right? sry if this is a sttupid questoin

File: 1459199003071.png (75KB, 341x322px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 341x322px

>>56202073
underrated post

>>56202995
help

>>56202995
Yes you can.

File: Me101115c.jpg (24KB, 418x438px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 418x438px

>>56203004

>>56202995
If you can't hit 144, you'll drop down to needing to hit 72 fps. If you can't reach 72, you'll be stuck at 31 hz effectively if you don't want some hot screen tearing action.

>>56203270
is it that bad? that sounds horrible.

>>56202917
1080p is a shitty res, never liked it. I had 1920x1200 at work and 1920x1080 at home and I felt inferior.

Now that I have 2560x1440 I feel like a real man.

Next step is 144hz for me

>>56203311
It just means that if you're playing games at 30-71 frames per second, you might as well have just gotten a regular 60 hz monitor.

>>56203270
Or you turn Vsync off.

>>56202995
get a 144 Hz g-sync monitor and if you're at around 60 fps it will still even look better than a 60 hz monitor

File: 1471783634620.jpg (90KB, 596x291px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 596x291px

>>56201053
>nvidia
>no async
>no dx12
>no vulkan
>certified gimpworks soon
Very good for older games but prepare to turn some settings down for future games if you plan to keep it long

File: AMDelusion.jpg (39KB, 800x445px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x445px

>>56204127
nice meme

>>56204421
What are you trying to imply with this image?
Too much work is a lazy thing to say, game companies should be trying to get more people to be able to play their games.
Fucking jews.

>>56204549
they're saying it's a meme, it's a 5-10% gain at best, and you're probably misinterpreting the part about too much async work, they're saying that you can't put too much of an async workload to the gpu because it's a meme

>>56204616
5-10% plus whatever Vulkan and dx12 offer will add up and allow AMD cards to really be powerhouses, in a perfect world.

5-10% can add up, it's not a meme, it's really innovative.

>>56204421
>>56204616
because too much async work will have negative effects eg. maxwell cards. Meanwhile, amd gcn cards will run it comfortably

>>56204678
>in a perfect world
sure like aots which is a shitty meme game that no one plays

>>56204727
too much async work is bad for all cards idiot, it's the same deal as cpu multithreading, it can speed up certain code to an extent but if you overdo it it's just worse

File: ek-fc-rx-480.jpg (707KB, 1510x1006px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1510x1006px

>>56202096
Stop doing this shit! Have some valid proof or stfu.

>>56204915
cute!

>>56202190
Why? The 1070 or better are more future proof.

>>56202917
3440x1440 is a big difference yeah

>>56202995
That's what I'm doing. I bought a gsync 1440p 144hz monitor and I love it. The 1440p is sexy, the 144hz is very very nice to have for games that can work with it (League, Dota, TF2, whatever other shooters that may need some settings lowered), while the rest are evened out by Gsync.

4k is still too hard/expensive to run, 1080p isn't near as good as 1440p. Sticking to the 1440p 144hz gsync is a pretty safe option. Slap on a 1070 and you're good to go

>>56205215
ok nice. i was leaning pretty heavily but this post pretty much confirms it. thanks anon ! :D

>>56202395
>Texture size
That's VRAM and memory department, having minimum or maximum textures won't affect his FPS with a 1070 anyway

>>56202203
>the 480 is a far better choice for the long run
why do I keep hearing this even though the DX12 advantage is non existant?

>>56205338
Doom vulkan is the best example we have currently for what a low level api can do

http://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/rx-480-vs-gtx-1060-vulkan

110 avg fps vs 73 for the 1060

>>56205434
so one game should be the reason you buy a mid range GPU, even when the competitor it's better in every single possible way including actual availability? I'm an AMD user myself and I still think the 480 was the product of a rushjob and should be avoided. People should either get a 470 or go green side anyway

>>56205468
The 1060 is only 10-20% faster in DX11 on average, and both card as easily capable of 1080p high+ settings

>>56205483
Are you nuts? 10-20% is a BIG advantage. Also the 1060 is cooler and more efficient, while being a much better overclocker. Considering you can buy both at the same price only a madman would prefer a 480 at this point

>>56205434
1080p vulkan:
>rx 480 28 min fps
>gtx 1060 42 min fps

>>56205543
I have a 470 and I don't hit below 60 at 1080p. I call bullshit.

>>56205516
That 10-20% doesn't matter when both cards are being used on a 1080p 60hz display, both cards can saturate the display on a high level

it's like 80fps vs 90 fps in most cases

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-5

>>56205599
maybe it's fine but IF there is microstuttering going on then something like fraps isn't going to detect it since it takes the average fps, it doesn't measure individual frametimes

When will we stop seeing threads about "is it worth to..."? You are hard pressed to ask something more subjective and personal.

>>56201821

actually, in a couple of months 490 will be out.

>>56205625
Don't think fraps works with vulkan, testing on vulkan is currently a nightmare

>>56205619
with that reasoning then 480 is not really better than 1060 since 1060 is still at 73 fps in doom vulkan

File: 1469516023077.png (232KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1366x768px

>>56202084
>Titan XP

Maybe if it were at least $200 cheaper

>>56205638
Right, but as time passes and both cards struggle to hit 60fps in newer titles with higher settings, DX12/Vulkan will keep the 480 alive and well longer

the advantage the 1060 holds in DX11 won't last as long as the 480's advantage in DX12

>>56205619
then the only advantage the 480 currently have doesn't matter too since both cards can play doom at 60+ fps

>>56205654
i would rather not base my purchase off of putting faith into amd of all companies to put out driver updates

>>56205654
desu if I was buying a 1060 I'd be replacing it before that became a problem anyway

>>56205654
>Right, but as time passes and both cards struggle to hit 60fps in newer titles with higher settings, DX12/Vulkan will keep the 480 alive and well longer

you and me both might as well be dead when that time comes, though. or we could just upgrade. even then it's a theoretical chance, so I don't know why anyone would purchased based on that

>>56205684
Most people keep their cards for a good long while

>>56202190
good luck on that 1070 2-3 years from now in 1440p when games becomes more advanced and need to fall back to lower details because it cant maintain smooth framerates.

>>56205695
1440p is dead m8, 4k is already here

Only thing that 1440p still has going for it is 144hz IPS displays, but those are nearly as rare as the high refresh rate 21:9 1440p displays

>>56205687
these low-mid range cards are too weak to keep for more than maybe 2 years or so, you have to keep upgrading them if you care at all about gaming

>>56205702
Used my 7850 for 4 years

>>56205716
not anyone's fault you're poor lmao

>>56205722
Never had a reason to replace it until a Fury X was on sale

do i buy a 1070 now or wait until cyber monday?

>>56205716
that 20% better DX11 performance won't go away 4 years from now, anon. also their DX12 performance is basically the same at stock clocks (1060 overclocks better anyway), I don't know why you keep defending the worse product

>>56205732
>Fury X
the only reason to get a fury is brand loyalty, so I get were you came from

>>56205755
>the only reason to get a fury is brand loyalty, so I get were you came from
I have a 1080p 144hz display, so it's a perfect match

>>56205745
get it now imo, there's always something to wait for (new cards and so on), you already waited for pascal so now is the time to enjoy it, but sure you can wait if you want to

I have a 9500gt and a shit 500w cm elite PSU. What's the best modern bang for bucks that will let me play gaems even at low-mid settings?

>>56205772
>a perfect match
not perfect when you have a gpu (980ti) who can output fps closer to 144hz at that resolution

>>56205795
gtx 1060 3GB is around $200 and it can do 1080p high settings

>>56205800
980ti wasn't water cooled for $400, the display is also free-sync, not that I ever even really ended up using it

Gets to the Triple digits where I'm at during the summer

>>56205805
>gtx 1060 3GB
Jesus Christ no, that's going to be one of the worst cards you could possibly buy

>>56205808
finally... free sync is a reason to get AMD, I can agree on that

>>56205808
>free-sync, not that I ever even really ended up using it
because it's trash lol

>>56205820
Works fine for what It is, but I simply don't care about it really, rather just have the lowest possible latency

>>56201094
Sounds like me but I don't wanna play witcher 3, more like Mafia 3 and forza horizon 3, bf1.

>>56205805
>gtx 1060
>when he most likely has a q6600 or something as a processor

>>56205866
a q6600 is decent, probably on par with a dual core haswell/skylake when overclocked, games are mostly gpu limited

>>56205844
those frame rates 2 1080tis are necessary.
and they're not even out yet.
probably can get away with two 480x though.

>>56205755
>20%

lol be real nigga. in one game does it do 20% better. most games its like 3-4% faster

also the 480 ocs to 1410 is like the 1060 on 1900mhz,

>>56205907
Yeah well i'd probably buy a 1070 and play at 1440p at med/high and leave 144hz for csgo and bf1 etc.

>>56205866
I have a i3 540. Can't upgrade mobo atm.
>>56205805
Will my PSU handle it?

>>56206003
>Will my PSU handle it?
yes, the new cards are power efficient

>>56205920
Why pay more for nvidia though?
AMD is more than capable and cheaper.

>>56205805
1060 is over $350
480 is better
480 is between 275 and 350
why pay more for less?

>>56206039
amd doesn't have anything on par with 1070

>>56206062
>1060 is over $350
wew lad

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500405

>>56205820

works fine for me bruh :) keep shilling tho

>>56206496
it's an improvement over vsync but not as good as g-sync, it's basically a software hack (like async compute on nvidia, hurr hurr) whereas with g-sync you have active hardware support in the monitor itself

>>56206579

yeah and the difference is barely noticable. heck it seems that only way to notice a difference is by capturing a picture when testing,

or when fps drop below 30, which should not happen unless you are retarded.

>>56202162
AMD has their own shit with LiquidVR.
Also, have you forgotten that the Pascal series can't even SUPPORT HTC Vive? DOESN'T HAVE THE REQUIRED DP1.4 BECAUSE IT'D INTRODUCE ADAPTIVE-SYNC, AKA, FREESYNC.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHHA NVIDIOTS BTFO

There is no 480 aftermarket cards in my shithole country. I'm gonna use it for 1080p. I don't plan to install W10. Which one is a better choice, shill your hearts desire.

MSI gamingx 1060 6 gb for 1330 gorillion shit currency
or
rx 470 8 gb msi-sapphire customs for 1000 gorillion of the same worthless paper.

>>56204944
I love how small cards are getting now days.

>>56202401
And people here tested it themselves. The amount of people who is affected is fucking minuscule. Hardly anyone here had issues, and like 50+ tested it.

>>56201571
>I have never played a competitive title on 120hz+ monitor - The post.

>>56206812
htc vive is shit

>>56207574
are you talking about pascal-specific latency or latency in general? if it's the latter, you're retarded

File: 600.png (201KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 600x480px

Just ordered this MSI 470 4GB. How did I do?

Keep in mind that it's the same price as the other 470s in my country and the cheapest available 480 costs about 25% more.

>>56208054
The 1070/80 latency.

>>56201053
I had a GTX 285 before I got the 1070.

It can run Borderlands 2 at 4K max settings but drops to about 30 FPS during heavy PhysX battles.

The thing is that 4K looks so good on a 1080p monitor it's ridiculous. I feel like maybe I should have waited for a single card that could do 4K Ultra at 100+ FPS like how my 1070 can do 1080p with 100+ FPS at Ultra.

Why did I have to build my new rig now...should have waited. Hell, right now it's having RAM problems and I can't even use it anymore until I RMA the parts. Fucking hassle, wasn't worth it. 1 month old and it's already dead. Massive buyer's remorse.

>>56201612
Disgusting

>>56208253
>4K ultra at 100+ fps
No point in waiting since this wont be available before 2018. The 1080 cant do it, the new Titan X cant do it, therefore a 1080ti wont be able to do it either. For Ultra 4K with 100+ fps you will need either of the new technologies, and based on AMDs most recent performances you shouldnt count on them. So getting the 1070 is enough for the next 1-2 years, after that you can sell it and upgrade. There isnt a single GPU setup that does what you want right now and there wont be for a while.

>>56201612
Fuck no. I actually had that setup years ago and it sealed I will never get a dual GPU setup ever again. You can imagine AMD driver issues squared and negligible CF scaling in games. Sometimes negative scaling, sometimes visual glitches when running with CF on, crazy heat output and heavy issues with frame pacing.

>>56207646
>I am a csgo placebocuck: the post

>>56202073
Shitting in the streets is best price/performance ratio ;^]

>>56201435
>not AMDoodoo

You had one fucking job.

>>56208082
meh. it's alright.

>>56208454
Do 4k 120hz monitors even exist?

>>56201512
if its shit like mobas you dont even have to upgrade

>>56208972
Thats a good question. I only know of 1440p 120Hz myself.

But here is something that will come out soonish
http://www.pcper.com/news/Displays/Dells-New-30-4K-120Hz-UP3017Q-OLED-Monitor-Coming-Soon

and apparently ASUS already has some models (cba relinking this shit)
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/06/asus-will-apparently-have-the-worlds-first-144hz-4k-monitor/

>>56201915

vega is already confirmed to not be coming until next year at the earliest.

>>56201612

the 6950 isn't even supported by mainstream amd drivers and is 1/4th the performance of a modern midrange gpu, crossfire would be far from worth it (and would only be supported on games released before 2013...)

File: 1471707069137.jpg (19KB, 227x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 227x200px

>>56202096
>actually believing pootech

>>56207964
>Sour grapes, the post

>>56204951
Because it cost like 150 more?
Get a 480 now and max everything for at least 2years
After 2/3 years change gpu with the cash you didn t waste and here you have your future proff

>>56205672
The advantage of the 480 is on all the next gen games that will come out on dx12 or vulkan in the next 2 years...

Who would buy a 480 or a 1060 to play 2/3 years old games at 1080?

>>56205674
Too bad thatin the past 2 years AMD unlike Nvidia increased the performances of all it s gpu with drivers updates

>>56201593
I5 6600k/980ti

I play on 1080p 144hz with model details ultra, 16x af, ultra textures, rest on lowest @ stable 200+ fps (I have an i7 3770k instead tho)

>>56210181
Which games?

File: angry-spoiler-a1.png (6KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 100x100px

>>56201053
most fitting thread

can some /g/tard explain to me why there are no good non-gaymen monitors?
best monitor I can find is Acer Predator, only big screen with energy efficiency class A
everything else is ranked B or C
what is every manufacturer BTFO by a meme for 14yo?

>>56210531
What in the hell are you going on about?

>>56210595
Quote the part you're struggling to understand and I explain it to you

>>56210639
everything retard, gaming monitors doesn't mean anything

>>56202382
U basically turn everything low except resolution and texture quality.

How fucktard Im if a go for a 470 instead of a 480? Im planning on run all the actual games (such Overwatch and Witcher 3) on Ultra, 1080p. Im on a 6600k thou.

>>56211820
Weren't the benchmarks for the 470 super close to the 480? I'm sure it can be OC'd a bit to 480 levels. Just advise against going Ultra unless you play at 60hz, if at 144 you should cut some of the useless crap.

>>56205701
4k is not standard enough yet.
Not enough hz yet.
Not enough proper support for variable DPIs yet
Not enough GPU power to sustain 120+ fps yet.

I'm sure it will become a standard eventually, but we're still years far from it.

Besides they COULD support 120hz on 4k displays when using lower resolutions than native, but no one is doing it.

I'm waiting the 2nd gen of vr helmets, and whatever gpus will come out by then, before getting into 4k.

I'd hope to see a full featured 4k with 120hz, customizable refresh+strobe, good contrast and colors, it would be great for emulators and all the shit I could possibly need to do, ranging from gaming to deving to painting.

>>56211944
Im on 60hz

>>56210531
if you're talking about FCC class A/B/C, B/C is BETTER than class A. you can also look at energy star

>>56201612
>Multi GPU
>Any game not DX12
SLi/Crossfire was shit, still shit will always be shit

>>56211967
Or you can buy 4k now, and then never have to replace your display

>>56211820
pls help

>>56208717
>hes never used a 180hz monitor

:^)

>>56211967

Unless your a competitive FPS player the monitor over 60hz meme is stupid. I owned a 1440p 120 hz monitor. Now I own a 4K 60hz monitor and the difference is unnoticeable unless I go play CS:GO and even then it's barely a difference.

>>56201053
Just bought this about an hour ago. Love it so far!

But I am stuck with a dilemma. Since this card isn't really getting about 60fps at 1440p should I even invest in a 1440p monitor? I'm thinking about sticking with a 1080p 144hz monitor tbqh

>>56212450
display tech will still improve like refresh rate, g-sync etc, and once 4k is more common then 8k (and resolutions in between) will start to become a thing although admittedly it will probably take quite some time for that to happen

>>56212797
it depends on what you're doing but if you look at youtubers who has done blind tests on 60hz vs 120/144hz they can in fact notice the difference, maybe not as dramatic as 30hz vs 60 hz but a higher refresh rate is still an improvement

>>56212809
imo 1080p 144hz is fine if you enjoy it, maybe in a few years it will be feasible to upgrade to 4k 120+ hz so maybe save up money for that instead

>>56205516
>>56205543
>>56206064
>>56205820
Nvidiot shills go back
>>>/v/

>>56211820
anyone? ;_;

>>56215219
it's probably fine for 1080p but you might have to turn some settings down

>>56212797
I don't agree, everything is more fluid, i can strobe rts games at 120 and get no blur. I can't go back to 60, unless i want to watch a movie or play a demanding game.

Can you even buy a 480 that isn't $400 right now?

Anyone think the aib 8gb 480s will drop from 290 bucks? The prices are high as shit right now

File: 129574951067.jpg (17KB, 233x197px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 233x197px

Would there be much of an advantage for a 1080p user to get an 8gb 480? I'm thinking games will only get more bloated as time goes on and that extra memory might come in handy.

>>56216902
>>56217714
>>56217778
just get a 1060 3gb (better bang for the buck) or a 1070 (better performance)

extra memory is only useful if you've got the gpu power to back it up, at fucking 1080p you don't need more than 3gb, at worst you can scale some settings down to get under 3gb

>>56202560
But in the end it still lost to its Nvidia equivalent?
https://youtu.be/dh9Akfu90Gs?t=7m14s


I have a fear the 1060 won't age as well.

my 6950 gets super hot when playing games, like 93C

MSI RX 480 for £253
EVGA SC for £243

>>56218132
i can't even use dual monitors in 2d desktop without my 6970 heating up and making noise like crazy

>>56201053
>>56201094
Best card for your situation right now. You could wait a couple months and check wccf/currytech for rumors.

>>56201073
The 1070 and 490 will have approximately the same perf/$. Likely that the 1070 will equal the 490 in DX11 perf but fall behind in DX12.

>>56201389
There's no reason to play modern games on Ultra. High is pretty with good performance. TW3 and DE:MK are perfect examples. 1440p or an ultrawide is definitely viable.

>>56201821
Of course they will

>>56202096
Possibly. We'll see

>>56202416
Shut up, idiot. DX12 is already standard with AAA games.

>>56202162
>simultaneous multi-projection
Pretty interesting tech. AMD really needs a counter. As usual, it requires developers to use the SDK (IIRC). Unlike DX12, I haven't seen it in practice yet.

>>56218165
NVIDIA is a better deal in Europe

>>56217845
>1060 3gb
Definitely a better deal than the 6GB version. I bought the 470. Hopefully it will outperform the 1060 on average in DX12, but who knows at this point. I'm hoping to be able to XF the 470 later when multigpu is good in DX12.

Despite the fact that neither of the versions of the 1060 support SLI, they can be used in tandem if the game supports it
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2519-gtx-1060-sli-benchmark-in-ashes-multi-gpu

is it a good idea to buy a 1070 and a 1440p 144hz monitor and eventually sell the 1070 when it becomes outdated in a few years and buy the newer card which by then should be able to handle these settings better.

>>56219837
if the monitor is g-sync then that's like the ideal setup for this budget class imo

>>56219952
ok cool. should i be exclusively looking for gsync or is freesync ok too?

>>56219963
only g-sync works with nvidia cards and g-sync is also a bit better than freesync

>>56202368
Holy fuck, so much wrong.

>>56219998
i see thank you. do you have any recs?

>>56219548
Don't forget one of the streaming multiprocessors is cut in addition to the memory decrease. I'd say 470 or 6gb 1060 are they way to go, depending on budget. 3gb 1060 and rx480 are meh comparatively.

File: $$$$.png (294KB, 1091x570px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1091x570px

Holy fuck lads we're about to get expensive

>>56220010
Acer Predator XB271HU
ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q

they're a bit pricey so it depends on your budget and they have some quality control issues but if you manage to get a good one they're top notch

>>56220077
high refresh rate IPS is impressive though, it's like the bleeding edge of display technology, you get good color reproduction and it's fast too

>>56220077
Going over 120hz/144hz is just retardation, CPUs can't push FPS much higher even if you got an intel something at 5ghz for AAA games

>>56219837
It's a good idea to not write like you're retarded.

>>56220036
Definitely true about ~10% CU cut, but IMO 6GB is a little too much for a card of that tier, especially since pooled memory is on the horizon. There's a Gears of War Ultimate texture comparison on gamegpu(?) and the 3GB mark is where the noticeable difference in quality stops. Also there are quite a few cards that use 3GB from both AMD and NVIDIA.

Currently the cards can't really be found for their MSRPs, which complicates the purchasing choice.

>>56220402
gtx 1060 3gb can be had for $199

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500405
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487263

>>56220077
retards

>>56220990
Which is why it's better to get the 3GB 1060 or the 4GB 470 right now

Had a 6870 and upgraded to a rx480, feels good op. Not that big of a difference in source engine games other than probably +60 fps on high, but you can feel it on other games like overwatch and Skyrim