Sapphire Nitro Fury

>amd

>>56986987
I have the Tri-X of this card and it's great.

Puts out a shit-ton of heat, but then it's getting colder now so that just makes it comfier.

That said it runs fine off a 600W power supply even at +75mV.

>burgers
>cheap gpu

Confirmed for Yuropoor trash.

>$369 AUD
>same price as 3GB MSI GTX1060
>same price as 8GB Sapphire RX480
>roughly 15-20% better than either offering

fuck it why not, my EVGA 750W Gold power supply should handle it fine, and it should last for a little while at least, and a good step up from GTX760

>>56986987
>costs 3x as much as a 480 in my country
Cucknada, not even once.

>>56989263
fucking hell mate, even australia doesn't have it that bad, and au/ca are pretty fucking similar in currency conversion

>>56986987
It's a good deal but
>DX12 performance
Won't be relevant in most games until the card has already reached its end of life.

>>56989280
Yeah, if shit shipped from the US to canada, it would literally be at least 30% cheaper than the cucknadian price, even including shipping costs.

>>56989263
On new egg its about $410 canadian dollars and thats about $300 USD so its not too bad.

File: Fury-290.png (102KB, 804x521px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 804x521px

>>56986987
Bought one for 300 €, sold my old 290 for 167 €, am satisifed.

>>56989359
Only with the $40 promo code applied, then it's ~$310 USD (~$340 without the promo code). It's more like 20% off with shipping rather than 30% off though, but still.

>>56989416
(that is, 10% off + $40 off, for a total of $90 off, the base price is CAD$500 (~$380USD) and that's pretty much the cheapest available model)

File: wew lad.png (355KB, 1366x728px)

355KB, 1366x728px

that's a decent sale

Enjoy your shit drivers and burned down house

>>56989519
I will, cheers cunt

>>56986987
it's a good deal but the 4GB...

>>56989539
4GB is plenty. The GTX 1060 3GB is still a kickass card despite the "low amount" of vram.

>>56988945
>nvidia

>>56989754
The 3GB version is so bad, even a joke would make for a better graphics card.

>>56989865
Atleast the drivers are better than the Poo 480

4gb is borderline unviable video memory

you will regret in two years when 6gb 1060s are running games significantly better

>>56989880
Sure, if you enjoy stutters, melted screens and bricking. Nevermind the fact that this crap of a card can't even async.

>>56989903
Gsync is way fucking better, Pajeet.

>>56989924
My sides!

>>56989884
>1060
>not gimped to hell and back in 2 years

>>56989924
Freesync =/= what that post meant

>>56990064
Stop trying to change terms, shill.

File: amd mistake.png (284KB, 2068x1460px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 2068x1460px

>>56989754
good luck

>>56990076
Stop confusing terms, goy.

>>56986987
The tri-X is actually a fury, not a fury X
>tfw bamboozled

But not better than the 1070

>>56990064
>>1060
>>not gimped to hell and back in 2 years

It will be better off than faster cards with lower video memory. video memory is the only thing crippling a lot of four or five year old video cards now. vram is the fastest increasing spec REQUIREMENT on cards. My radeon 5850 from six years ago could still run most games on high if it had 6x the video memory.

>>56990091
jesus. what a mess.

>>56989283
Literally every triple a gayme released in 2016 has it
its relevent now

>>56990531
Actually we're pretty much reaching the limit on the amount of memory we can put on a card without making them gigantic (i.e. unable to fit in regular cases) or slow as fuck. Chances are 4GB will be enough until a next technological change occurs, at which point you'd want to upgrade anyway.
Memory is easily the slowest increasing spec requirement, though. Even 1.25GB is enough for all but 2 games right now.

>>56986987
I'm happy with my $350 fury x. So.. yeah.

>>56990618
I'm happy with my $200 GTX 750 Ti
:^)

File: fedorafag.jpg (41KB, 400x533px)

41KB, 400x533px

>>56990582
>Actually we're pretty much reaching the limit on the amount of memory we can put on a card without making them gigantic (i.e. unable to fit in regular cases) or slow as fuck.

I can't tell if you are really that ignorant or just baiting.

>>56986987
Can it play 144Hz?

>>56986987
>>56986987

acutally bought this like 3 weeks ago for $310 after taxes and everything from amazon
i'm waiting for the inevitable sale so i can apply my price protection from Discover and get my money back

>>56990582
>Even 1.25GB is enough for all but 2 games right now.
this is blatantly wrong, I had to upgrade my radeon 5850 from 2010 or 2011 because my 2gb vram was bottlenecking games on high/medium when my FPS was otherwise fine.

>>56990777
Lol'd hard.

>>56990810
activate something that monitors your vram

play a game on high settings

your vram usage WILL go above 1.25gb and you're full of shit if you say otherwise. Overwatch gets to 3-4 gb regularly on me and it isn't even a particularly high spec game.

>>56990829
This is the funniest post I've ever read on /g/. Congrats!

>>56990878
at 1440p, the industry standard, 3-4gb is standard usage for Overwatch. In two years 4gb isn't going to be viable if it is the lowest viable specification right now. This is common sense.

>>56990951
I play OW at 4K and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it hit 4GB, everything except render scale (have it at 100%) is maxed.

>>56990951
/v/tards everybody!

>>56990984
at 1440p w/ high-max settings 3xxx is all I've ever seen, with the occasional jump to 4xxx situationally. Especially during play of the game for whatever reason it goes up by around 30%.

I'm not trying to make a case for needing over 4gb VRAM for Overwatch, but a few AAA games now and certainly many games in two or three years will be needing more than 4gb. If 1.25gb was all someone needed 8gb would not be the standard for high-end cards released in 2016. Even nvidia's low-end card this cycle went up to 6gb. Don't get robbed by your blindness. Things change, specs go up. VRAM needs are skyrocketing.

>>56991031
Stop it, you're destroying my sides!

I've only ever gone over 2GB once, which was in Hitman: Absolution, other than that, I've never had issues with even 2GB

>>56991093
1080p?

>>56991105
1080p and everything maxed out

File: 20161008_233811.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px)

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>56990951
Full of shit,
I play Overwatch at 1440p@144hz with render scale at 150%
I don't even hit 2GB

>pic related, I'm browsing /g/ on mobile while waiting for the next round, just took this

I literally just bought a gtx 1060 6gb

Did I make a mistake?

>>56991181
what cpu you got? and how well is it performing?
curious about it since I might look at picking one up after I'm finished college

>>56991181
its a choice of raw power vs efficiency

you can get more power by buying used last-gen stuff, but Pascal is super efficient in power and logic and 6gb is a good place to be at for vram to future-proof if you don't play a ton of games.

I think 1060 is the right choice, because you may have to drop the settings down sooner, but your card will age better.

>>56991198
It's not here yet, ordered it a few days ago.

I have an i7 4770

My current card is a gtx 760 which is pretty bad

>>56991031
I just played a match, 4K everything maxed, it topped out around 1900MB. Are you running CF and reading the VRAM usage from some program or something?

>>56991231
just running the game maxed out on a gtx 1080@1440p. nothing fancy. I see 3xxx always using the in-game reader.

>>56986987
>not 1080 Classified
and then you ask yourself, why am I such a failure, when everyone else is happy

>>56989283
It beats both in DX11 performance too
The only reason to not get one is if you really want the newest stuff released
>>56991181
Nah m8, not the best value but not bad either
You would had committed a mistake if you had bought the 3gb version

>>56991246
Post screenshot. What do you mean maxed out? 200% render scale? If it doesn't even use 2GB at 4K there's no way you're using 50-100% more at 1440p.

>>56990559
>Literally every triple a gayme released in 2016 has it

Maybe if you pretend there were 4 triple A games this year.

>>56991206
I checked out a lot of benchmarks and it didn't seem like the 1060 was too behind the 1070, and also the 1070 was like +50% the price, and the 1080 was double.

I figure I should be fine for awhile.
Could next year's games really be so crazy that a 1060 can't handle them? I've even seen the 1060 getting 60-70 fps on the Hyper settings for Mirrors Edge(meant for 1070+)

>>56991289
1060 is going to play 1080p for a few years - it is THE 1080p card.
1070 is better for 1440p
1080 is for 1440p@144hz/entry level 4k

>>56990640
Tbh senpai, GTX 750ti is a good card as well. Used that before i went to fury x.