>it's an Nvidia skimps on VRAM episode They really never

>>56296251
The 1060 6GB should have been the 1060ti, and the 3GB should have just been the 1060.

Its a completely gimped card, not just the gram retard.

It should be 1050ti

>>56296283
Gram is vram*

>>56296251

I was one of those tards that bought the 960, I need to replace it already. Can't afford the 6GB 1060, should I go rx 480 4GB? Never used AMD before so I really don't know what to expect. I can't tell which memes are true.

>>56296251
No you idiot. Its called marketing. You think they are going to just give you a future proof card like that. No, thats what the 1080 is for. The 1070 is for now. Take the 960 for instance. Its literally a 980 cut in half. Why did they do that especially for things like the bus when it wouldnt have hurt them at all to increase it. Because then the 960 is a real competitor and encroaches on the 970 and 980 cards.

>>56296345
480 4GB is in fact a meme because you can't buy it anywhere.
If you wait for it to actually be available and actually get one for $200-$220 it's the best perf/$ of this generation

>>56296345
It's not worth it to go with a new 4GB 480, you're better off getting a 4GB 470.

>>56296283
>>56296309
I said that exact thing in my post.

>>56296345
The 480 is absolutely going to be more future proof. There's a lot of memeing about AMD buyers being poorfags. But the fact is, Nvidia rips you off all the time. The 960 was gimped and the 1060 is overpriced for what it offers.

File: we just dont know.png (179KB, 463x325px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 463x325px

>>56296251
>tfw even my 960 has 4gb of VRAM

I can't fathom why they went backwards

File: nvidip.jpg (61KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 300x300px

>>56296368

But it's literally in stock at my local PC store right now. $399au for the MSI gaming X and $369 for the Sapphire Nitro (which I don't think I want because everyone says the cooler sucks)

>>56296371

Why isn't it worth it? The 4GB 480 performs like 95% as well as the 8GB version for about 20% less money? Seems like it's a pretty strong, good value 1080p card. I want this gpu to my last 1080p card before I go to 4K in probably 2-3 years time.

>>56296377

Yeah, the only thing I'm specifically concerned about is game support and general performance. However, I don't buy games when they're new so out of the gate drivers aren't important to me, I always wait at least a good 3 months or so minimum for prices to drop.

File: 1470031290626.jpg (83KB, 337x367px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 337x367px

>>56296392

>implying your 960 can even take advantage of 4GB with it's 128 bottleneck

Nvidia is skilled in the arts of ripping you off, gimping your card, filling games with proprietary bullshit, and lying.

AMD is skilled in the arts of disappointment, shitty drivers, and overheating.

>>56296475
Not even remotely correct

AMD is currently hot with great drivers but crypto miners own all the cards

Nvidia "just works" till they decided to add another feature then you have to upgrade

File: Screenshot_2016-08-27-18-39-46.png (519KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1080x1920px

Someone explain this...

File: 1471740074153.jpg (131KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 803x688px

>outperforms the 480 and as good if not the same as the 6gb 1060
>ITS GIMPED, YOU GUIZ

File: hehshit.jpg (209KB, 712x612px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 712x612px

>all these big boys with their big boy GPUs
still on a 660 here
>mfw seeing all those benchmarks of games I don't want to play

>>56296681
crypto currencies.
ask /biz/.
don't believe anything /biz/ says.

>>56296377
My bad only read half. I'll bump since a lot of noob builders see the 1060 outperforms 480 on dx11 but buy this gimped version since it has the name and its cheaper.

File: 8096208bd9777019a58e8836ccb5d3d1.jpg (803KB, 2114x3047px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 2114x3047px

>>56296251
>midrange gpu
>future proof
Why are you so retarded?

>>56296754
Not the fact it's amd, the fact that the 4gb is 20$ more than the 8gb...

>>56296694
>the same performance as the 1060 6GB
>actually has like 15% less processing cores
Yea, sure buddy, you sure know what you're talking about

>>56296424
>buying a "future proof" 4GB card in 2016

>>56296251
Then buy something else you twatbag

>>56296812

I don't intend on playing absolutely every game at ultra, as long as I can run things at high or equivalent I'm satisfied.

>>56296345
Welcome to the life of someone who doesn't buy ultra high end parts.
7600 GT = replace after buying.
9600 GT = replace after buying.
GTX 460 = replace after buying.

It's the same thing every time. If you buy weak ass parts like mid range card and you think you're future proofing because you get more VRAM, you're getting hoodwinked.

I have a GTX 980 and it's already showing its age. Believe me, it's not the fucking VRAM. Here's the kicker. The 480/1060 isn't a whole lot better than 980. Now imagine if you bought that and my 980 is already showing its age.

Oops, looks like you bought a product you have to replace right after buying it again. Fuck midrange cards and fuck retards who meme that you can "future proof" mid-range trash.

In b4 this only applies to nvidia. AMD mid range might be marginally less crap, but it's still crap.

>>56296251
Then get an 8GB AMD and upgrade in 5 years

>>56296839

As I said >>56296836 I don't feel the need to arbitrarily play games at absolute max settings, it's just diminished returns that don't justify the performance overhead imho. As long as I can play most games at around high or so (Assuming most games have low, medium, high, very high) at a pretty consistent 60 at 1080p then that's all I'm after. If the 480 4GB would be capable of this then, sweet. If not, then fuck it I probably just won't upgrade and go without.

My 560ti gave me performance that I was happy with a lot longer than the 960, it took about 3 years for me to want to replace that card.

File: jew.gif (1MB, 255x191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 255x191px

>>56296910
>Implying he can find one in stock

>>56296802
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RWItff0eQ
Only encounters problems when it runs out of vram

>>56296938
>>56296910
out of stock means people are buying them cause they are better than nvidia product

>>56296839
Got an R9 390 on a WQHD monitor. No reason to upgrade. Maxes out most games and there is not a game out there I can't play on high settings or better.

Basically the only reason higher end cards sell is benchmark fetishism and e-penis enlargement.

>>56296923
Of course the 480 is capable of playing games if you reduce your graphics settings. So is the 1060 3GB and a 970, and a 960 and a R9 290 and a R9 280X, etc.

Hell you can play some games like GTAV on a GTX 480 from 2010 at 60 FPS.

>>56296945
>people
you mean buttcoin miners

>>56296958

Yeah but it's about how much you have to reduce the settings.

Generally when you have to really go down into the medium level, which I do with some games on the 960 to get 60fps, I'm not satisfied with the visual quality. Hence the want for a 480.

And yes, all those other cards you mention I've considered. The 1060 3GB has less vram than I'd be comfortable with, the 970 is still a good 20% more expensive where I live than the 480 4GB, I could find one used but I like having warranty. The R9 cards look like pretty good value however I have a 600w psu that is over 5 years old now so I don't know what it can put out anymore, and I just appreciate more power efficiency in general so I find the 480 more appealing than previous gen amd cards.

>>56297022
Well that varies game by game. You can have pretty high settings in GTAV even on a GTX 480.
I mostly have to turn off MSAA on GTX 980 to get good frame rates. In some games like The Witcher III I have to work harder to get 60. But that's not gonna last for long I imagine, I'm sure they'll figure out how to give their games even more demanding effects once DX12 titles start popping out.

>"Blah blah that card is too weak to use the extra VRAM!!!"
>Meanwhile, textures have literally no impact on performance

Why are there so many people on /g/ who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. People are constantly talking about how "weak" GPUs can't use much VRAM or their bus is too narrow. And yet there are tons of videos of these cards performing the same as low VRAM models, just with better textures.

File: 1468196615069.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>56296251
>3gb
>20+16

>>56297062

Oh yes I agree it absolutely varies game by game. I agree on GTA V, because that was the one game where I was actually fully satisfied with the 960's performance. It ran high settings with a few things on very high (like shadows, to my surprise) like an absolute champ. Great optimisation on that game. Witcher 3 I was able to play at high settings locked at a reasonable consistent 45fps which was acceptable as I played that with a controller.

And yeah I've often avoided MSAA in games to get more performance when I've needed it. I know heaps of people hate FXAA but I've used it often to save performance. Yeah, it looks a wee bit blurry compared to better AA methods but it's better than none for me.

>>56296839
I bought a GTX 760. I'm only replacing it because it's started to die and it's out of warranty, but I otherwise could have just used it indefinitely. I play at 1080p without MSAA,so all of the new games that I've wanted to play work with it.

I'm gonna buy a 1060, and it will probably be the same story.

>>56296839
oh hey another 980 (non-ti) owner, have you overclocked yours? if so how far did you go?

>Tfw got the fury nitro for 310 on amazon

Best deal of my life desu

>>56297073
Because ultra high res textures aren't that important to the overall aesthetic unless you're a texture peeper where every pore must be visible while you inspect your screenshots at 800% magnification.

I mean if you know you're gonna use 8GB of VRAM, then by all means buy a card with 8GB of VRAM, but for gaming and good looking games it's barely relevant. Even with 2GB VRAM you can have good textures. Just not absurd res textures.
What do those Skyrim modders use, 8K textures? Come on.

>>56297174
I can't overclock it, I'm on a tight thermal budget. The MSI GTX 980 which is slightly overclocked from factory is already pushing it hard.

>>56297073
What games have textures that are large enough to use 2GB of VRAM? I've never been close to that. I think the most VRAM usage I've ever had, at 1080p without MSAA was 1GB in GTA V. The only things I've had put me over 2GB have been MSAA and resolution.

>>56297274

What texture setting did you play GTA V with? Because very high in that game definitely requires more than 2GB for optimal performance.

>>56297303
I played with max. Never exceeded 2GB of VRAM, as far as I'm aware, though the menu warns you that it will.

>>56297320

What card? I played gta v with the 960 and high settings filled my vram right up. When I tried very high textures it was noticeable less smooth and couldn't maintain 60 properly.

>>56297345
760. I get a fairly consistent 70ish FPS, so I'd guess MSAA, SSAO or resolution is eating up your ram.

>>56297345
Not him, but looking at my own screenshot with most things maxed without MSAA at 1920x1200, I use about 2.4GB of VRAM in GTAV. Bringing that below 2 would be super easy.

>>56297245
>What do those Skyrim modders use, 8K textures?
To play on their 1080p monitors.

I never understood the 3GB/6GB shit. Why not 4GB/8GB?

>>56297369

I was using FXAA and playing at 1080p, I can't remember if I was using SSAO. I think what >>56297370 is saying is accurate.

>tfw got a 8GB Nitro+ RX470 for a much lower price than a 480
Not going to replace this until it dies.

File: tw3.jpg (933KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 1920x1200px

>>56297370
Also, The Witcher 3 can get by with even less.
Graphics settings still too high for the card. I think that's maxed with no AA and hairworks on low.

>>56297385
Bus width.
192bit bus has 6 memory controllers in 3 pairs. That means you have 6 memory channels. You can't fit 4GB on 6 channels, it doesn't divide evenly. You'd have to do some fucked up partitioning like... 4x 4Gbit and 2x 8Gbit GDDR5. Nvidia has done that before and boy did everyone grill them for it.

I wish Nvidia made a 4GB GTX 950. I know it "can't use all that" but it could use more than 2GB. I honestly just need 30fps at 1680x1050.

I hope the 4GB 1050 is decent.

>>56297370
>>56297397
That's weird. Maybe it's SSAO or I'm just remembering wrong.

File: Screenshot_20160828-025420.jpg (538KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1080x1349px

>>56296938
Coincidence?

How much longer will the rx 480/470 be out of stock because of Buttcoin miners? This is silly. I know a miner who got 60 cards and he's just a scrub with like 10 little mining racks in an apartment spare bedroom.

Asshole wouldn't even sell me one.

>>56297446
That's irrelevant. They can design the card to use 4/8GB which would make is seem much more attractive.

>>56297530
Nvidia are always cheap with the memory bus. They can't really change the memory allotment once they choose the bus width. That would mean some memory modules are accessed faster than others, which ends up with a >3.5GB situation again.

>>56297530
They'd have to widen the bus, which equals more power usage.
Or they'd have to narrow the bus, which equals less throughput. Pick your poison.

Either way in my opinion what you're gaining from that extra 1GB/2GB of memory is largely irrelevant and not worth the tradeoff either way.

>>56296251
>buying a card with less than 8gb
why even bother with this shitty topic, OP?

>>56297561
Oh yeah, and just to add to that. In both cases production cost significantly increases.

>>56296681
The 4gb model is a scalper reselling. The msi gaming x 4gb is 199$ if you buy it from Newegg, not through Newegg.

>Not being able to buy a new card every 6 months
>Being this poor

AMD fags really are bottom of the barrel welfare leaches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXHMPJfTMYA

RX480 DOOM 5K

Dude, what fucking game uses even ONE fucking gig of VRAM. Sam Andreas only uses like 200 MB at most.

>>56297759
here's you (You) and now go back to your sketching board and think of some better bait

>>56297785
Seriously, if you play any game made past 2008, you're fucking retarded. Yeah, I still use my original xbox, so what?

File: DSwnLiR.gif (791KB, 318x242px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 318x242px

>>56297724

> It actually manages to hit 30fps for a while at 5120x2880

Holy shit

>>56296251
I got a GTX 680 4GB when it first came out and am still not feeling pressured to upgrade yet.

While benchmarks show clear fps boosts with newer cards what I am getting is fine for 1080p and even run Elder Scrolls Online at 2x DSR, 45 to 70 fps high settings.

Glad I didn't settle for the 2GB version and wouldn't touch the newer 2 or 3GB cards.

>>56297810
why do you feel the need to be so contrarian and retro to seem interesting? there is nothing wrong with enjoying something that others like. having opinions that are popular isn't an issue. for instance: I play games from [current year] because I like pretty visuals and don't like looking at models that I can see the polygons of. others share this opinion. say what you want about the story of san andreas, but chances are that of all of the games from 2008-2016, there are probably some that have more interesting and immersive experiences.

>>56297932
Dude, fuck off, all new games are shite

I gladly pay Nvidia tax because Nvidia GPUs actually work on Linux.

>>56296251
I found a 1060 with 6GB, what is your excuse?

>>56297946
Thank their absolute domination in the HPC market.

>>56297724

Yeah DOOM Vulkan is really the 480's flagship game. It's amazing how well it runs it.

>>56296471
>In reality using 3.6GB of VRAM playing GTAV with no issues.

2 GB or 3 GB just won't cut it anymore, unfortunately. It's not even a matter of not maxxing out the game or anything, there are already games that require more than 2 GB on NORMAL textures (I think Hitman is one of them). Tomorrow even low textures won't be enough. AMD was smart to make the 460 4 GB, even though the card itself isn't great.

>>56297925
Well done ignoring the idiots who always spout "xD that card will never need 4GB!!"

>>56296345

Get the RX470 Nitro 8GB when it comes in stock again. If it pops up on Jet you can use the code Triple15 to drop 30 bucks off the price. The Sapphire RX470 8G has 8000Mhz VRAM as opposed to the usual ~6700Mhz

>>56296251
Is the 1070 shit also? I was considering picking one up, but then I saw the price tag. Absurd for that range of card. I've been on the wait train for 4, almost 5 years now. AMD is taking forever as usual even though I want their cards more, and Nvidia always seems to have some fucking kikery at work in hardware and price.

Just can't fucking win. I want to replace my 460 SE already.

>>56299171

just get a used 980ti. performance of a 1070 for less money.

>>56298981

I'm not in america so that isn't really an option, and I'm avoiding the sapphire nitros as their cooler looks to be underwhelming.

>>56299210
>buying used cards for (((less))) money
>6gb instead of 8gb
>same performance
980 ti cuckold detected. There's literally no reason to buy a 980 ti over a 1070.

>>56299298
>(((nvidia)))
wew lad

Would the R9 Fury be a good option over an RX480 right now for a pleb playing at 1080p for the foreseeable future? It's on sale right now for just a little more than these overpriced 480s

>>56299298

Especially considering nvidia's habit of intentionally gimping their previous series cards in order to try to get people to upgrade even when they don't need to

>>56299298
The 980tis are currently on clearance at my local stores 150-200 AusBucks cheaper than 1070

So I would argue $150 to $200 is a pretty decent reason.

Also 980Tis used sell for nothing on OCAU

>>56299171
I second this, but I really dont know about the rx 470/480, should I do a cf or single 1070?

I tried to wait for a 480 Nitro and said fuck that shit. Got a Fury Nitro for $350 and this fucking morning they're on Newegg for $300. Reeeee!

>>56299609

Also the Fury Nitro is in stock right now.

I can't decide between the RX480 and Nitro Fury @ $300. How soon 4GB of VRAM is an issue at 1080p is my worry.

>>56299653
>durr hurr the Nitro Fury in stock

I mean the Nitro+ RX480 is in stock right now.

>>56299653
Shit, I went for a fucking $490 gaymen monitor when I jumped up to the Fury. Don't get the Fury just to do 1080p, I think that'd be dumb. Not sure if it would last longer than 480. Really it's only a year or more older but the power draw, heat, etc. It runs DOOM very well, around 90-100 on Ultra, though. So it would be good if you're doing 144Hz 1080p

File: 1469664762970.png (758KB, 498x724px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 498x724px

Ausfag here, in desperate need of a new gpu. My old as fuck 560ti is near dead and I basically haven't played any games this gen because of it (and another life shit). Trying to decide between:

rx 480 for $419au
https://www.pccasegear.com/products/36317/xfx-radeon-rx-480-gtr-oc-8gb

or

gtx 1060 for $435au
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/Graphics_Cards/NVIDIA/64706-G-P65LB-60NRH7DVM6EC

Playing at 1080p, don't want to upgrade for another 3 years or so. Never used AMD but I'm tempted since they allegedly age better? Also between the two choices the XFX is a nicer physical card with better warranty for less money. But, the 1060 is the faster card right now, and a friend of mine has that same galax cooler on a 960 and says it's good. Both are fast enough for my needs but I just don't know if the 480 will overtake the 1060 with time.

Will be running with i5 4690 (non k) and 16GB 1600 Kingston HyperX.

>>56300336
You sound like the kind of person who only upgrades every few years. The RX 480 will last you longer and will probably perform better than the 1060 as it gets driver updates.
Really though it's up to you, unless you want to squeeze every frame can out of your cards both are viable.

>>56300382

Yes, I am that type of person though I am unusually overdue with upgrading this current card, I do think every 3 years or so is pretty optimal for me. I don't give a shit about overclocking what-so-ever, they will be running stock.

I want to look at some cold hard benchmarks that demonstrate AMD cards aging better than nvidia cards of the same age, are there any good resources for that?

>>56297670
I just saw this today, makes me so glad I bought the Newegg version yesterday.

>>56296973

Who the fuck mines bitcoin with a GPU at this point? There are vastly more powerful hardware out there.

File: perfrel_1920_1080.png (39KB, 500x1130px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x1130px

>>56300441
Look at this image. Note the position of the 770 and the 280x. The 770 is essentially a 680 rebrand and the 280x a 7970GHz, two cards that were fucking neck and neck on launch. With all the driver updates both cards have received over the years the 280x destroys the 770 by over 8%.
There's another image floating around comparing more AMD/Nvidia cards that better illustrates how well AMD drivers age.

>>56300336
>gtx 1060 6gb
http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=gtx+1060+6g&spos=1

>rx 480 8gb
http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=rx+480+8g&spos=1

thats about as cheap as you're going to find them except on sale/amazon.

File: 1470285619015.gif (951KB, 350x201px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 350x201px

>>56300557

Hmm, I see, looks somewhat promising. I'll look more into myself, because if they really do get better over time it would make much more sense for me to go with the 480. My only concern is that if the 280x and 770 were neck and neck but now the amd is faster, that might mean that the 480 may merely "catch up" to the 1060 rather than surpass it.

Still, I'm aware that the 480 has hardware level support for async which will benefit it in vulkan and dx12 games more? It's impressive how much the 480 kicks the 1060's ass in doom vulkan.

Anyway, cheers cunt.

>>56300640

Thanks, but I'm avoiding stock coolers so the ones I've found are the cheapest I can get of either, especially since I'm in driving distance of both here in east melbourne, so no delivery.

>>56297759
>>56297810
>>56297944
why do all tripfags just spew out retardation whenever they post? Is it involuntary?

>3gb
more like 2.5gb
anyone who buys nvidia is the most pathetic goy in the world, except if you absolutely need a 1080

>>56297529
the fuck does this even do? how much money does he make doing that dumb shit?

>>56300754
it's impossible to make any money with consumer hardware through bitcoin these days, but other coins have potential to make it big like bitcoin and people are using AMD hardware to mine them. it's all speculation at this point

>>56300771
well that is the dumbest shit i ever heard, and it kept me from getting muh $199 rx480, i had to get $199 rx470 instead. fucking assholes lol.

File: 1471239651078.png (721KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1024x576px

Just purchased this.

I can say it's the best video card I have ever owned and with 36 gigs of vram I know this is truly future proof card

>>56298648
GTAV will use whatever you give it, doesn't mean performance is being improved much.
Look at benchmarks, the 4GB variant barely improves over the 960's already terrible performance.

Guess my HD7950 is now completely useless

>>56300557
Just to point out, you won't be seeing this in DX12. What you see is more or less what you get.
Only reason AMD gets such nice performance increases in the DX11 driver is because it was so horribly behind nvidia in the first place. In DX12, AMD driver is no longer behind.

>>56301404
>36 GB GDDR4
>not getting Hyper Fury XXX X2 with 32 GB HBM3 instead

Plebs buying non Ultra High End cards with unnecessary VRAM lmao

>>56296839
>>56297160
same except my 760 is still fine. but because literally the only games I want to play other than aoe2 are the new doom and incoming quake 5: the dissappointingment, I am considering a rx480

In reality settings that require 8gb of vram would be running at <30fps constantly on these mid ranged cards. Even if you were to have 1tb of vram on a 480 or a 1060 it's not going to do anything for you.

GPU manufacturers make higher vram models for the same reason you see shitty laptops with 12-16gb ram being advertised as a feature, it's a bigger number and normies don't know the difference. Most people have been programmed to think RAM = Performance.

I have a 780ti that still works great. My next update will probably coincide with a 4k display.

I just RMA'd my 390 and I'm waiting for their call, if sapphire can't repair it they'll have to send me a new card and 390's are out of stock.

So basically this >>56299332

Also, how often do they repair RMA'd GPUs?
Mine crashed the computer on furmark at about 80ºC

>>56299332
Yes. I got an R9 Fury for 270€. I can play Deus Ex Mankind Divided on 1440p Very High / Custom settings (I disable shit like DOF and Bloom) with >50 fps.

>>56298935

You mean every kepler owner when hawaii released? Or the generation before where 2gb was all you need because lol AMD putting 3gb on tahiti.

File: 290x vs 780ti.jpg (736KB, 521x6071px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 521x6071px

>>56300557

Probably not the picture you are thinking of, but its a good one.

>>56296471
Unreal Tournament 2016 takes advantage of that
2GB is not enough, 960 with 4gb is enough though

>>56299338
please
post
source
of
gimped
cards
with benchmarks
before
and
after
please

>>56303330

If AMD has no drivers, how does it outperform a 780ti these days?

>>56303402
>780ti
>a 28 year old card
gee I don't know

what are you on about?

>>56303411

I'll translate:

>if AMD has no drivers, why does a 290x outperform a 780ti at this point in time when the 290x was slower upon release?

>>56302382
I thought Furmark induced damages weren't covered by warranties? Something about how it produces an apparently unrealistic workload that the cards were never meant to endure.

>>56303479
nice logic you shithead

post benchmarks concerning the 780ti and not a shitty anecdotal comparison

>>56303533

See >>56302438

>>56303568
absolutely not what I asked for

Post 2 benchmarks
benchmark p (date&driver version x; performance a) and benchmark q (date&driver version y; performance b) where x < y and a > b

>>56303605

How do you explain the 290x being faster if Nvidia isn't gimping their stuff and AMD has no drivers (as /g/ repeatedly states)?

>>56303623
fuck the memery is so strong in you holy shit

I am not /g/ and I don't give a shit about the no driver meme
stop this gay ass shit

holy fuck

post benchmarks or fuck off to 9reddit you disgusting cunt

>>56303640

So what we are seeing is kepler dying on its feet because its simply a shit architecture? It doesn't help maxwell is heading that way as well with recent trends.

File: i-regret-nothing.jpg (88KB, 1360x924px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1360x924px

>>56302438

REEEEEEEEE DELET THIS

>>56296345
480 has power consumption issues IIRC.
I did a build recently and went for a 6GB 1060 instead of a 480. The 1060 is slightly better for a very similar price.

>>56303676

>480 has power consumption issues IIRC.

Its been fixed.

>>56303623
It's more a case of Nvidia not optimizing their drivers for older cards on newer games. Older games should still be performing the same on those cards?

>>56304316

>It's more a case of Nvidia not optimizing their drivers for older cards on newer games

Extrapolating from that what is being said is lack of optimisation (i.e not having a card perform as well as it could) is different to gimping?

>>56303676

Sure. But freesync displays are cheap and I have one so I'm givin AMD a go this time around.

So cheap R9 Fury it is.

File: 1472089127409.png (38KB, 684x1013px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 684x1013px

>>56305214

Since the fury has dropped in price quite a lot recently its an absolute monster of a card for the money.

>>56305737

Just realized Newegg doesn't let you return GPUs anymore. They're all replacement only.

I've been playing Rise of the Tomb Raider on Very High and it regularly goes over 6GB shown in Afterburner.

>>56296785
its amazon pricing on a "rare" item

>>56306137

I was worried about this but since I game on 1080p and can just turn down whatever Vram taxing setting there is I think it will be okay for a while. At least better than an Rx480

File: 1450735957614.png (6KB, 356x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 356x480px

>>56296251

Should I pay 300 for a fury?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202186

File: 1311737077996.jpg (8KB, 331x240px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 331x240px

>>56306472
I just did

>>56306472

>sapphire fury

Best one on the market - that cooler is a fucking beast among air coolers. It laughs at the 275w or so TDP fiji rocks.

Just a heads up. If you are not overclocking/undervolting your RX 4xx you are doing it wrong. My MSI RX 480 Gaming X throttles at stock settings of 1303mhz. By undervolting I managed to get it to stay at a constant 1303Mhz no matter how hard I pushed it on Firestrike stress test. On stock voltage it was all over the place. I advise to always undervolt if you can on stock settings. It will save you some power usage as a bonus.

Overclocking was more tricky and I still get the odd throttling going on at 1370Mhz (I sadly did not win the silicon lottery). I cannot get Firestrike stress test looped without some form of throttling and 1330Mhz with a -15mV and +50 power limit was where it stopped throttling.

HOWEVER.

I can play most games at 1370Mhz and around +66mV/+50 PL without any throttling (RotTR on Very High with Anisotropic Filtering pulled down a notch to 8x). No juddering/stuttering/frame drops or anomalies

YMMV.

>>56306542

THIS

This applies to the Nitro Fury too, it responds well to undervolting. Saving you power consumption and not impacting performance.
AMD cards seem to really need individual tweaking I noticed.

>>56306542

The 480 throttles simply because it hits its power limit due to AMD allowing for absurd voltage to maximise yields.

>>56306572

GCN likes undervolting because most of the time AMD has clocked it way out of its power draw vs poerformance sweet spot (typically in the 800-900mhz range). Its a factor into why the 7970 originally launched with absurdly low clocks and why years later the 290x shipped at 1ghz with considerably more shaders packed in.

Its also why the fury nano matches maxwell for perf/watt due to that actually being a binned chip voltage wise and (relatively) conservative clocks. In fact form a technical standpoint the nano is probably the most impressive 28nm card released as its one of the densest gpus ever made and power draw lower than cards before it that packed less hardware.

>>56297446
That looks like shit dude.

File: 1413712390594.jpg (30KB, 525x481px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 525x481px

>tfw gtx 980
>overclocks like a beauty
>runs everything I throw at it like a dream at 1080p/1440p
>bought it for clearance prices a year ago
>mfw there's some assmad amdrone who is about to have a tantrum over the fact I like my nvidia card

Incoming
>b-but nvidia
>b-but gimping

>>56296251
you think rx 480 is future proof? its already struggling with todays titles at 1080p. Neither rx480 or 1060 is future proof be it 3gb 4gb 6gb or 8gb.

>>56296251
>he didn't buy a 480

Kek. In 2 years when 480s are flooding the market, I'm gonna buy a second one on the cheap and crossfire them to get 1080+ performance. Can the 1060 crossfire. Nuh uh, no it can't.

When is the non reference 1080 coming out?

A 1070 is looking pretty future proof with 8GB of VRAM

>>56306486
>>56306499
So it's a good deal?

File: Rx 480 total warhammer DX12 1080p.png (35KB, 681x802px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 681x802px

>>56308106

Probably.

>>56307909
anything non blower style is non-reference, so they have been out for a while now.

>>56301480
Because increasing available memory beyond what a program needs won't improve performance. A 32GB GTX 1080 wouldn't perform any better than the current 8GB model if a game doesn't need more than 8GB VRAM.

>>56306472
>>56306499
if sapphire is so great, why do they only offer a 2 year warranty?

>>56301480
Still disproves the original comment of the 960 being unable to use it's 4GB of VRAM (on 4GB models).

>>56297946
>I gladly pay Nvidia tax because Nvidia GPUs actually work on Linux.
>Fedora, all the Ubuntus, KDE Neon, Debian and Mint latest stable releases don't even boot on GTX 1080/Pascal out of the box
Yeah it's totally amazing.

>>56307307
same
gonna sit on it for a few years till 4K becomes more than a meme

>>56308429

Why isn't the earth round?

>>56296345
Lol I replaced my gtx 260 with a 960 earlier this year come at me

>>56308515
980s will really only do 4k in AAA titles if you have 2 and the game supports SLI well, i speak from experience

File: GTA V Max copy.jpg (1MB, 3836x2159px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3836x2159px

>>56308313
>I can't read a post

>>56296251
>skimping on vram
don't know what you are talking about, famafam, my 960m has 4gb of DDR5

>>56297698
>not having a variety of hobbies, none of which take the kind of financial priority to buy the best new thing every six months
>not living a full life
>wrappped up in shader pipeline measuring contests on 4chan
>it's actually really sad
>sorry your life sucks so much, bro.

>>56297944
Elite: Dangerous is seriously blowing my mind.

I'm playing it at 1280x800 - Lowest Settings and it works... I made a million credits. Next week, I'm installing a 1060 6GB in an old af system with an E5700 and 8GB of RAM.

>>56296681
All the crypto miners only need 2GB of vram and bought all the 4GB cards. So The price was raised on the 4GB cards to even out the stock and make some more cash.

>>56296785
The 4GB was selling faster.

>>56300545
There are new crypto coins out there that you can only use GPU's with.

File: 1471439023505.jpg (181KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 657x527px

>>56303284
please explain to me how the 960 can crunch through that 4GB of VRAM with its pathetic 128 bit bus mem

>>56296251
>omg a variant of the 1060 with 3 gbs of vram it's the end of the world!

It's just a slightly cheaper variant and you don't need to buy it, holy shit.

quality thread

>>56300754
Let's see here 60 480s. If he's running them 24/7 and mining the most profitable coin right now...

He should be making $47,193.86 a year not including hardware and electricity cost.

>dumb shit

>>56307721
You can buy two of them today and crossfire them for 1080+ performance for less than the price of a 1080.

>>56310367
>He should be making $47,193.86 a year
what the fuck, that's some nice seed money to get started on investing

File: link of lies.png (85KB, 539x991px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 539x991px

>>56310240

To be fair, allocating out vram is easy. Providing the bandwidth when swapping is a different matter entirely. Its (partly) why AMD is hand tuning fiji profiles in their driver to ensure it swaps out intelligently to overcome games that just dump all their shit into vram and call it a day (looking at you CoD). To be fair though AMD is right when it says fast ram with proper management can overcome raw capacity limitations to a degree, though naturally there will be a hard upper limit (per program) that cannot be overcome in this way.

Nvidia does the same with the 970 to overcome the massive bandwidth throttling its design has.

>>56310367

Reminds me of RussianSensation - he is quite in favour of AMD and puts too much stock in gpu mining as a way to recoup costs. which while technically correect is somewhat pointless for the majority of users.

File: 1441510046415.png (540KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 500x500px

>>56297944
>Tripfags trying to make a point
Here's that (you) bud.

>>56301514
Tell that to my 6950, with one of the fans starting to go. I'll be at the nearest bomb shelter while I wait for prices on the new cards to go down.

>>56310571
>using crossfire or SLI
>ever
Just asking for problems. Single card solutions are always the best. Too bad the single card solution in this case is fucking over priced and AMD's high-end is no where to be seen. Fuck everything.

>>56310367
>hardware and electricity costs

File: 1469955551091.jpg (11KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x320px

Upgrading from my gtx 670 to the rx 480 this week. Pretty excited, should be a huge upgrade. First time amd owner, what am I in for? I'm giving them a try because I figure if I don't like it, fuck it, I'll wait the generation out and go back to nvidia and sell the 480.

EVGA 1060 SC is objectively the best mid range card right now. Prove me wrong

>>56311919

To clarify, the 6GB version

>>56311859

I severely doubt one is going to spend 47 grand running those gpus for a year. Even if you spend 20 grand on juice thats still anotther 27 thousand in your pocket.

I see that Pajeet from AMD's "viral marketing" team is at it again.

>>56311919
How good is the cooler on that?

>>56311867
>First time amd owner, what am I in for?
Cursor glitch.

>>56311867
>First time amd owner, what am I in for?
I hope you like absurd power draw and heat production. Worst part of owning AMD cards.

>>56311919
its not a 480 so its shit

>>56312105

That does look annoying but from what I'm reading it's not super common or widespread? I'll look into it more but it looks like there's fixes just in case.

>>56312213

Power draw on the 480, while not as good as the newest nvidia shit, is hardly absurd, and the same for temperatures on the good aftermarket coolers.

>>56307307
Good for you, been on Nvidia cards since 1999 Riva TNT 2, they're reliably good performers but I don't like Gsync $ premium so I went Freesync/AMD

>>56307625

That's with max settings, and even then they run games ~60fps in demanding titles. Deus Ex is the exception because it's absurdly demanding at max settings.
It's like the second coming of Crysis, but less visually impressive relatively.

>>56312301

The cursor glitch is rare as fuck and hasn't been anything close to common for best part of 4 years.

>>56312497

Yeah, that's what I thought. I also seems that it can happen to nvidia users as well, so I'm not going to worry about it. I've never had it or heard of it until now.

>>56312213
The high power draw is to be expected for the hardware you're paying for. That's one of the primary points of divergence between AMD's GCN architecture and Nvidia's. AMD tries to reduce their powerdraw without sacrificing any of the hardware features, while Nvidia is more interested in how to accomplish the most with the absolute minimum amount of hardware. One of reasons for why Nvidia can't do Async properly has to do with how they removed hardware features from the architecture. It does give them much lower power draw though.

>>56312635

Even if you do suffer from it the quickest "fix" is to enable cursor trails at the lowest value.

>>56297187
nice I wish the Nano was around that price

>>56311919

With only one fan? The MSI Armor 6GB is superior the EVGA.

File: 1468921006593.png (268KB, 1924x1083px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1924x1083px

>>56312718

An often forgotten fact of gpu design (and microchips in general) that hardware > software for any given task. Thus if one found a way to tap into GCN's strengths (something that doom is a decent showcase for when running vulkan and tssaa) GCN fucking murders its equivalent Nvidia card.

>>56313932
Doom is written specifically for GCN shaders, not vulkan in general you fucking retard.

>>56300557
>>56302438
>>56313932
Wow, all this goes to show just how shit AMD drivers were/are. They could have been world beaters if they'd delivered the kind of performance that the hardware has shown to be capable of on release.

>>56313932
The most hilarious part of the equation comes when you realize that Nvidia's Fermi architecture- Famous for being the original housefire meme- actually had the hardware needed for async compute to work perfectly.

>>56313966
That's a nice source you got there.

>>56313932
>it's ok when amd does it

I'm still using 1GB just fine.

>>56313994
does what

File: 56277fce-c771-4fc7-b9a7-79219a8c7a92.jpg (114KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x600px

What's the AMD equivalent of GSYNC?

>>56316245
Freesync