Is the GTX 1070 the best value card at the moment? I'm

File: AMDominance.png (53KB, 766x895px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 766x895px

No, the Rx 480 is.

>>58749881
DELET

>>58749881

>one console port
>never shut the fuck up about it

File: untitled_1_2_.png (44KB, 678x909px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 678x909px

>>58749948
I fart in your general direction.

File: Untitled.png (905KB, 1289x872px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 1289x872px

He's right.

>>58750003

I like that guy. He's friendly and informative.

>>58749800
>it can into

Learn Grammar closed mined autist

>>58750021

be less new

>>58750021
>close mined

nobody cares about you

>>58750021
Spotted the new friend. Lurk more

1080 just isn't worth the price.

File: 1470344503672.jpg (134KB, 614x442px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 614x442px

>>58750003
unfortunately the 1070 cost 200% more than the Rx 480 while only being 20% faster so it flops hard as a "best value card"

>>58750077

In that particular title, you're right.

>>58750077

hitman is also very poorly optimized

File: 1470344566431.jpg (164KB, 614x444px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 614x444px

>>58750090
how about this one?

>>58750094
Is quantum break also "poorly optimized"?

>>58750103

another poorly optimized game

>>58750114

yes

it's also a shit game

>>58750077
>>58750103

1070 outperforms it in both these cases, so I don't understand your point.

File: bf1-benchmark-1440p-dx12.png (33KB, 712x609px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 712x609px

>>58750115
>>58750134
So any game that shows how dogshit nvidia hardware is, is "poorly optimized" is that correct?

>>58750134

This.

>take Max Payne
>remove the interesting protagonist
>add in powers that barely do anything useful or interesting
>shoehorn in a plot about multiple timeline bullshit

The goddamn cutscenes were far more fun to watch than any part of the game was to play, and that's even discounting the idea of a world where everyone uses Windows Phone.

>>58750077
>>58750103

1070 is better futureproofing, and you get far better performance at 1440.

>>58750162

>have to use the Fury

lmao

>>58750160
see
>>58750077


>>58750178
>dogshit dx12 performance
>futureproofing
0/10 bait

File: 1471962885739(1).jpg (320KB, 903x760px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 903x760px

>>58750169
let me guess, let me guess

deus ex:md is also a shit game, right right?

>>58750288
>deus ex:md is also a shit game

Actually it is. It's poor performance is indicative of this.

>>58750288
everything is a shit game unless the most expensive radeon card gets 1fps more than the least expensive geforce card


1070 is fucking based and everyone who says otherwise is a sperg

>>58750288

MD was not too terrible. The gameplay was a direct improvement over HR and Prague was a well-designed hub, but the story was one note played over and over while going nowhere, not to mention the performance was shit.

I've clocked my 1070 at 2100MHz core and 9000Mhz memory, and I get slightly under stock 1080 performance. This is a standard OC, anyone can do it.

File: ricky gervais laugh.webm (848KB, 494x408px) Image search: [Google]

848KB, 494x408px

>this desperate AMD shill

File: untitled-34.png (32KB, 686x808px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 686x808px

>>58750304
>>58750306
>>58750374


get ready everyone, quantum break is about to become a shit game

>>58749800
>best value
If you mean bang-for-your-buck, that would be the 470. The 1070 is an excellent card though, and it is the best card in its price range.

>>58750404
I've played through quantum break
it already is a shit game
I did like the movie parts tho
that was A+

My """honest""" 2 pence:
The 1070 is the best value card (NVIDIA) at the minute if you're happy with 1080p or 1440p maxing out at 60fps on Ultra for the vast majority of modern titles. The 1080 is better for gaming at 1440p, pushing fps 90+ easily on Ultra on most titles (my experience). I personally use the 1080 and get an average of 100-110fps on most games at ultra, obviously (nothings obvious) I use a 144hz monitor otherwise it wouldn't be worth it, which of course adds to the price but it fit my budget so why not? It's not worth playing at 4K at the minute because you need like a 40" monitor to get the full effect, anything smaller is more of an upscaled 1080p and a lot of games don't even support it yet, plus the optimum distance to sit from a 40" 4K monitor is like 5ft which isn't really ideal for gaming anyway.

File: hmmm.png (757KB, 660x620px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 660x620px

>>58750460

>be Australian
>1070 = $600
>1080 = 1100

>>58750421
8GB Rx 480 is like 30% expensive than the 4GB Rx 470 while giving you 10-20% better performance in most games. I think the extra price is worth it desu senpai.

>>58750421
Also while I do agree the 1070 is the best card for its price range it won't last for long. vega 10 is in the horizon.

>>58750486

That's painful my dude. I nabbed a 1070 on Black Friday for about $350USD. I never understand why almost every other country besides burgerstan jacks up the price of parts so high.

>>58749800
RX480 is the best value right now

>>58749881

Well, in the real world some stuff you can't easily put a number on like reliability, driver support and image quality is also important.

It's nice to see AMD can keep up in some cases but that doesn't suddenly make an AMD GPU a realistic choice for a new build (if quality matters to you of course).

>>58750503
>I never understand why almost every other country besides burgerstan jacks up the price of parts so high.

Basic economics

>>58750540
>nvidia
>quality
I love this meme

http://wccftech.com/nvidias-latest-game-ready-driver-allegedly-killing-gpus-plagued-issues/

>>58750503
Because they can. And when you are on kangaroo island, they can jack the price up all the way. What are you going to do? Buy a plane ticket to get your items cheaper elsewhere?

This thread is making me consider an RX480.

Should I?

https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/kXQ33F

>>58750576

Yes. When Vega comes out, you'll be sad you just spent 600 dollars on a 1070 when you could've gotten 75-80% of the performance for half that.

>>58750576

You'll be saving $200, so yes.

>>58750576

https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/WzT4JV

look at the savings

>>58749994
Oh man oh man, TWO console ports!

>>58750592
>>58750593
>>58750605

they're both 8gb, so why is the 1070 so much more expensive?

>>58750635
Performance does not come from the jeebees.

File: 1479071760603.jpg (26KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 360x360px

>>58750592
Mate, there's no damn way Vega 10 is going to perform worse than a 1080. It's known to have 4096 shaders, and a clock speed over 50% higher than the Fury X. Even without any IPC improvements it should be over the 1080.

>>58750635

1070 is just better hardware. The recent games with RX catching up is only because those games are poorly epitomized.

>>58750576

~50% performance difference in synthetics
~30-40% difference in game benchmarks

~100% difference in pricing

Not efficient if you're looking for bang/buck

stay with the 1070

>>58750576
Gonna be honest here

If you like the newest releases: yes

if not then get an nvidia card, they have the best performance for games like call of duty 2, half life 2, battlefield: vietnam, dead space, ect ect

>>58749948
>one
I have bad news for you.

>>58750673
You're so full of shit.

>>58750576
>>58750673
see
>>58749881
>>58749994
>>58750077
>>58750103
>>58750162
>>58750288
>>58750404

>>58750486
Its called conversion u dum fuck.

US dollar is worth 1.32 Aussie dollar.

$600 AUD is roughly $450 USD. That's the 1070's going price in US if you include tax.

>>58749800
>1070
>"best value"
>can't really do 4k/60 fps without compromises
>can't really do 1440p/144 Hz without a few compromises
>can do 1080p/144 Hz but so can a few other cards with very little compromise making it a shitty buy here
>can do 1440p/60 Hz but who gives a fuck

The 1070 is only a good value if you're at 1440/60 and hellbent on max settings or 1440/144 with as few settings turned down as possible. You are making sacrifices at 4k however you look at it if you want rock solid 60 fps.

The bottom line is the 1070 is a great "value" for an Nvidia card in terms of what you get relative to the 1080 but it's still a card that objectively shouldn't have a market based on the cross-section of PC monitors out there. Like fucking 1.2% of people have 1440p monitors and it's a meme stopgap resolution anyway that will never scale perfectly with content, the vast majority of which will be optimized for 1080 and 2160p.

Having said that, reddit-tier knowledge fuels the industry and since the prevailing logic of "I always get the x70 Nvidia card" is more powerful than actual tech awareness it is probably one of the highest grossing cards for Nvidia ever.

>mfw the VAST majority of 1070 owners have 1080p/60 Hz monitors
>mfwihnf

>>58750664
Keep shitposting the same mantra, it won't become suddenly true. The NV hardware is clearly superior, the driver is dog shit, meanwhile the RX 480 is steadily improving due to better drivers, that's why it's catching up.

t. 1070 owner

File: rly nigga.png (694KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 600x600px

>>58750772

I have an MSI 1070 with a 1080p 144Hz monitor.

Any of the newest vidya where I set everything to ultra I get nowhere near 144 fps.

What do? Should I overclock?

>>58750576

As a fellow Ausfag, definitely. That's damn near $200 you can put towards a Freesync monitor. I recommend AOC for a bargain.

>>58750673
Percentages are misleading when you state them like that.

If the 1070 costs $100 and performs 100fps, the RX 480 costs $50 and performs 75fps. That's how your percentages could be interpreted, and it still makes the 480 sound like better value.

File: zimbabwe-banknotes-50-trillion-front.jpg (623KB, 1752x884px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1752x884px

>tfw a Trillioniare can't even afford to buy a GTX 1070

WTF I hate Nvidia now

>>58750810

Okay, how's this?

https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/sBCpFd

>>58750673
lel I actually meant to write stay with RX 480, somehow accidentally wrote 1070. Fucking brainfarts

>>58750801
You fell for the meme. There is nothing you can do.

>>58750801
That's not a problem, all you need to do is buy a NVIDIA® Titan X™ Pascal™, or get a second GeForce™ GTX™ 1070 and use SLI™.

>>58750925
>>58750983
So I've been memed. When will the memeing stop?

>>58750995
Just wait for Vega™.

>>58750995
It stops when you die, anon.

It could be worse, you could be one of those who won't even realize what's happened to them.

RX480 chugs like shit with GTA V.

Notice the AMD shill just posted benchmarks with the R9 Fury X, which still fails in comparison.

t. someone who owns all 3 cards as a tester

>>58750404
>get over 60fps with 1070 and even higher overclocking
>barely get 50 with 480
>this somehow proves something

>>58751058
>GTA V
The trend of this 4 year old console port being unironically used as a benchmark of GPU performance needs to fucking die.

>>58751068
>twice as much money for a little more performance
>this doesn't prove anything

Nvidiots are getting desperate senpai.

>>58751072

Sorry I hurt your feelings by using a well optimized game as opposed to all the new optimized trash you've been spamming.

>>58751097

Overclocked, the 1070 absolutely shits over the 480.

>>58751108
>new optimized trash

unoptimized even

File: r_600x450.png (114KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x450px

>>58751058
even gtx 970 outperforms it. this is ridiculous.

>>58750995
When you realize that 60 fps 1080p ought to be enough for anyone.

>>58751108

this

the only reason the 480 has manage to not be shit is because these new games are so poorly optimized. GTA V is still used because of how well make it is. I own multiple systems, and while the 480 is fucking great for the price, it does not outperform the 1070 in any way.

>>58751108
>new games
>irrelevant
Get a load of this guy and his ancient games.

>>58751130
>how well make it is
about as well as your sentence.

>>58751119

and this is fucking 1080 to boot

>>58751136

GTA V isn't that old, and the only reason it's still used to benchmark is because of how perfectly optimized it is. You can keep posting broken games if it makes you feel better.

>>58751145

This just showcases your desperation.

I'm not even saying the RX480 is a massive saving over the 1070, and isn't more bang-for-your-buck, but trying to pretend it outperforms a better made video card is ridiculous.

>>58749800
it is

>>58751163
>I'm not even saying the RX480 is a massive saving

isn't^

I need sleep.

>>58751163
> it outperforms a better made video card
What do you mean better made?
also nobody is trying to say rx480 is better card than gtx1070, people are saying it's better value card.

>>58751130
>it does not outperform the 1070 in any way
Holy shit really. I'm surprised because they're the same exact pri-- oh wait a minute, the 1070 is $200 more. It's almost like the 1070 should outperform it.

Face it Nvidicucks, if Nvidia can't get their greasy paws all over game devs prior to a game's release so that they have dozens of driver hacks cobbled together then they are going to lose to AMD on price/performance just about every goddamn time.

>>58751163
>a game is broken if it runs like shit on Nvidia™

>>58751130
You and other nvidiots are missing the point here. Paying $200 more for several frames is asinine and makes you look like an idiot. The fact you feel you have to defend it proves that you are indeed an idiot.
RX 480 has a better bang for buck than 1070.

>>58751058
>RX480 chugs like shit with GTA V.


Took like 80 posts for someone to point this out..

>>58749800
buy AMD if you don't plan on gaming

>>58751186
Took 0 people to try and deny it also.

File: daweed.png (103KB, 354x418px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 354x418px

>>58751181
>>58751182

>nvidicucks
>nvidiots

As I've said, I have absolutely nothing against the 480, It's well worth the money, but as it stands the 1070 is just better. I'm just stating facts. I'm sure the Vega will wipe the floor with the 1080, and in fact I hope it does, because it's an overpriced piece of shit.

Try to hide your fucking pathetic fanboyism better.

File: Consider the Following - Watashi no Okashi.jpg (85KB, 627x685px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 627x685px

>>58749800
It's a nice performing card, but the RX480 is by far the best value this generation.

>>58751182
by that logic, why not buy a cheaper-older card, since it does run the game, but with "several frames" less.

>>58749994
Lel seems like AMD has started gimping their cards like Nvidia

>>58751211
here

>>58751212

I completely agree. It just does not outperform the 1070. That's all I'm trying to say.

>>58751224
There is nothing wrong with this.
If you can find good deal go for it.

>>58749800
>450 €
>Budget

>>58751211
Nobody is arguing the opposite. That's all we were pointing out when you burst into the thread stating the obvious that the 1070 is the more powerful card.

>No shit

I guess we agree then.

>>58751253

For 60+ FPS

1080p budget = RX480

1440p budget = GTX1070

There, everyone shut up.

Which one should I choose, 480, 980 or 390X if they are at similar price?

>>58750864

stick with the 1070

you'll never reach 144 fps with an RX

>>58751280
Show me one example of gtx1070 having 60+fps over rx480..

>>58751224
You totally neglected the "best bang for buck" notion.

Getting a 750Ti for 75% the cost of an RX 480 with a 150% performance difference is stupid. Pay the extra $50 and get 150% better performance. (Random numbers. Don't take it literally.)

Paying $200 difference between the 480 and a 1070 for 15-20% more frames is also stupid. The 480 has the better bang for buck in both scenarios.

>>58751294
390X if you have a strong power supply and a good case for cooling. 480 if you don't.

>>58751347

GTA V for 480 is an average of 80fps, for 1070, it's 90-100.

>>58751382
now I'm not mathematician but 20fps is not 60.

File: ru fur real.jpg (64KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x640px

>budget babbies trying to claim their shit is better

against a 1060 maybe, but a 1070 kicks the hist out of a 480

>>58751403

actually meant to say 120 - not joking

look at benchmarks

>>58751413
Nvidiots could not possibly strawman any harder in this ITT.

the reason 480 is catching up is because of improved updates/drivers, not because games are getting worse

idiots

>>58751456

okay budget baby

further prove my point by fanboying

you're seriously worse than console babies

>>58750801
You're a dumb motherfucker if you thought you could just max everything out and get that fps.

Reduce shadows and draw distance until you reach a CPU bottleneck if you're serious about getting high fps.

>>58751458
I would say it is both. Devs are incompetent shit.
Just wait for Vulkan in 10 years since no one wants to jump on it.

>>58751382
can't find any of this claims, not rx or gtx

>>58751471
Nobody is saying the 480 is better than the 1070 on raw performance. Can you read?

>>58751490

here comes the backpedaling

>>58750178

With an RX 480 available for as low as $175 and a 1070 costing $400, futureproofing isn't much of a factor. I'd rather spend much less for a card that can max everything now, then upgrade to a much better card in the future, not be stuck with a 1070 for longer

>>58751550
You can't be serious.

>>58751554

muh 1080p 144 fps and muh futurebroofing maymay

File: gtav_1920_1080.png (27KB, 500x570px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x570px

>>58751058
>>58751119
>480 performs worse than a 970
You were saying? Driver updates my mango, this was done in mid November.

>>58751623

>fury
>8gb barely outperforms 4gb
>1070 still shit on absolutely everything

my sides

>>58751650
>1080p
>bringing up VRAM
Only an issue if you're a 3.5cuck.

i bought a 1050 ti and amazon accidentally sent me the one with 2 fans instead of 1

sorry im probably not autistic enough for you guys :[

>>58751735
>1050 ti
le disapproving man with cancer

>>58751650
It's not a well optimized game for AMD by any means.

Nor well optimized actually. Runs like shit for the draw distance it has.

Guys, I have a problem

I'm using an rx 470 temporarily because I want to wait for Vega or gtx 11 series.

Anyone have news when the 11 series will come out? Or even 1080 ti?

>>58750801
On a related note, what monitor specs would suit a 1070 best?
1440p 60hz?

>GTX1070
>budget card

you must be fucking ballin if a 1070 is budget for you

>>58751862
The current media meme is that the next series will be GTX 2080

>>58749800
>value card
I hate Nvidia for this, the brainwashing is too much. Next thing you're going to say is that it isn't a high end card.

>>58749881
>only 2 cards can do 144

Is AMD even trying?

File: Capture.png (23KB, 476x425px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 476x425px

As someone who switched from 390x to 1070, I could not be happier.

>IB4 1080p

Its enough.

>>58750021
>close mined

He left the thread long ago with red cheeks

>>58749881
>Higher power draw with lower framerate

uhh.....

>>58753919
The problem is that with 4k and 144 hz monitors nowadays a gtx 1070 is a minimum requirement.

>>58749800
970 is enough for me.

>>58753941
>1080p 60Hz
What a fucking moron.

>>58749800
Its basically updated and not cucked 970, which is the highest selling card in quite some time. Draw your conclusion from that.

>>58751368
This. I know 390x can handle high temp. but my computer turns into oven everytime I use it for demanding task.

>>58754013
>not cucked with different memory
Also, the point of the 970, which I have, was that it was a great buy for 1080p. The 1070 is a decent buy if you have a 1440p monitor ora high refresh display. Given how almost nobody runs both, you can take your shitposting analogy and shove it up your boipussy. A RX480 can be found for less than $200 and you'll be set for 1080p for years to come.

>>58753935
OP said what the best value card was and anon provided that. Are you brain damaged or something?

>>58754064
>A RX480 can be found for less than $200 and you'll be set for 1080p for years to come.

>projecting this hard

480 already doesnt get locked 60+ in highest demanding titles on 1080p. By this year end it will dip below on 60 on every new release, and you poorfags will still claim its enough even though you will lower details out the ass.


If you want unprecedented 60+ fps on 1080p 1070 is best card to get. And it wont be long until 1070 wont be enough to ultra everything on 1440p (there are already cases where it isnt enough, just like RX480 @ 1080p).

So please, kindly shut the fuck up.

>>58753960
nope, it turns out pascal and polaris have about the same energy consumption when rendering games at the same framerate (vsync).

Props to amd for making strides in energy efficiency. My HD 6990 ate power like a motherfucker.

inb4 you post an irrelevant furmark benchmark despite cards outputting different amounts of FP32 TFLOPS

>>58754158
Then can you explain
>>58750726

>>58754158
>By this year end it will dip below on 60 on every new release

Most future titles will most likely take advantage of dx12 though. This will greatly reduce the potential of any Nvidia card except 1080.

>>58750503
So they can tax your taxes in order to collected more taxed tax money via taxes.

File: titanfall2.png (185KB, 1299x3629px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1299x3629px

>le one console port
>le two console port
>le vulkan game
>le + one shit game
>le + another shit game
>le le le n times
HA-HA-HA-HA Novideo btfoed.

>>58754256
you forgot "le 12dx game"

File: AOTS.png (79KB, 679x140px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 679x140px

>>58750404
kek

>>58750742
What the fuck is this post? Why do people insist that every game has to be played on ultra? Most people that use high refresh rates are competitive players that lower settings anyway.

>>58749800
the rx 480 is the best value by a mile

>>58754206
>>58754256
DELET

I got mine for about 320 after I had an order cancelled, which caused the coupon to not be used again, so they gave me credit with the value of the coupon. But now I could use the credit and another, smaller, coupon

>>58754181
Most of the difference between AMD and Nvidia cards power use wise is the memory. Because AMD has a wider bus on their cards, they need more memory chips, which increases power consumption.

Maxwell and GCN 1.2 were pretty damn close in power usage outside that.

>>58750178
>1070 is better futureproofing
oh man you guys are going to be sad once volta comes out and the 1070 can barely keep up with a 480, magically.

Reminder: 1070 is not a viable 1440p card.

>>58755265
It depends on what you're going for, anon. You can't just making sweeping generalizations like that. It many scenarios, your 'reminder' is incorrect.

>>58751225
nah, newer architecture at the resolution it was made for, put that to 1440p and it goes back to 390x above it. because more rops.

>>58750540
image quality, how long ago was it that nvidia software disabled shaders when run in benchmarks to synthetically make it look better, or when comparing amd to nvidia, it looked like nvidia just had no af support?

when there is a bug on amd's side, they tell you, and you know it, but on nvidia's, it only happened during benchmarks, so you take the more cynical 'they want more fps on charts' view, and when games look worse on launch compared to a month later and a driver makes sure all the features are rendering, it seemed like they want to hide real performance.

>>58750460
>144 Hz
>gaming on an overpriced TN panel

Hertzfags are cancer.

>>58754936
>he doesn't backup older drivers

This is the current state if /g/.

>>58756354
>having to back up buggy outdate drivers
It's very sad when nvidia is so shit that you actually have to do this to not get performance heavily gimped

>>58750645
The test vega lost in vulkan against a 1080 in OpenGL

>>58756336
smoothness of motion > black levels

File: image.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>>58750742
>1440p/144Hz with as few settings turned down as possible
You say that like its a meme or something

>>58750995
You were the one who wanted 144fps
You thought there would be no memes in your journey?

>>58749800
Does he have fake teeth? It looks like they're about to fall out.

>>58750540

lmao the damage control by this green shill.

>>58754316
first true dx12 game

that means its going to be a staple for benchmarking for years.

Its also a game with a repeatable benchmark that scales through 8 cores, so it will be used in every benchmark for a long time.

oh and also http://steamcharts.com/top
do note the games and how high they are on the chart vs how often they are used in benchmarks

How do 2 480's in Crossfire compare to a 1 1080?

>>58754206
Wasn't this supposed to happen last year?
And all we got was BF1

>>58755265
I literally cannot make it not a 1440p/60fps card

>>58750645
>a 470 RX beats 1060 in Doom Vulkan by 10%. It's 15% weaker in other games.

>A Fury X beats 1070 in Doom Vulkan by 10-20%. It's 10% weaker in other games.

>Flagship Vega beats stock 1080 by 10% in Doom Vulkan, it will magically also be better in other games

Really fires up my brain synapses.

>>58756470
They give you 80-90% the performance over a single Rx 480 so it basically shits all over the 1080.

Wish more companies supported crossfire, it's only a handful of games that properly support it right now.

>>58751429

Not that guy, nor a mathematician, however I believe that 40fps is still not 60.

>>58756383
>>58756354
Holy fuck it's been 4 years and you retards keep using those same old /g/ marketing tier memes.

Backing up drivers won't do jack cuz Nvidia didn't gimp Kepler, there were videos confirming it by doing same benchmarks on new drivers 3 years later. No difference. They simply completely drop driver support for newer titles on a 3 years old GPU that costed over $500. And that's the fucking problem.

Still I'd rather have Nvidia, sell it after 3 years and upgrade than own AMD, they're still terrible in 4 out of 5 reasons for which I buy gpus. They matched up in fps, at least for budget cards but they still have worse features, worse temperatures which equal worse noise levels and worse pricing in EU. Nuff said.

>>58756517
>Implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQW0kfSaceQ
>20 fps lower across the board
>20-50 fps lower minimums across the board
>4 times higher latency

CF and SLI are memes.

>>58756517
Except for that microstutter, high frame latency, high input lag and like you said, lack of support. SLI/Crossfire is going to go the way of the dodo since implementing these in DX12 requires a great deal more effort from game developers which just isn't financially feasible since the userbase is extremely tiny.

>>58749800
I'd say either the rx470 or the gtx 1060 are. The 1070 is a really nice card, but it's not the best bang for buck, even if it's pretty much the only option at that price point.

>>58753941
>1080p/60hz
>gtx 1070
>i7 6600k

Such a waste of money anon.

>>58749800
I have another issue with 1070. Literally every i5 cpu out there will bottleneck this card in AAA games. Retards who claim otherwise are obviously full of shit. I've seen it myself with my i5 3570k and this post opened my fucking eyes to how bad reviewers really are.

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/5973-my-2500k-vs-6700k-upgrade-fps-results-hefty-fps-increase/

>>58756383
>>58756354
>>58756540
>/g/ unironically believes the gimp meme

Sums up /g/'s lack of knowledge and research nicely.

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/

>>58756573
That's not what bottleneck means.
You mean to say that many new games require more CPU/fps than they require GPU/fps. Or that the 1070 is overpowered for any game that can max out an i5.
I guarantee it's not bottlenecked and you are losing zero max performance of your 1070

>>58754936
That's not going to happen, I really do hope it does, so I can get a cheaper card with that much power, but I'd be willing to bet it won't, sadly.

>>58756580
It wasn't a meme

t. x-nvidia user

>>58756573
>here is a benchmark during a 50-player match
>My CPU is at 100% and I'm not getting more fps after it hits 100%, fucking nvidia!

>>58756587
That's literally what CPU bottleneck means, games reaching 90%+ usage on my CPU before my GPU does means lower maximum frames which is kinda important for my 144Hz monitor. I just ordered 6700k anyway. Had enough with every AAA game hovering my GPU at 70% usage.

>>58756606
Cool story, AMD kiddo. Educate yourself.

>>58756611
But that's literally not what bottleneck means.
Even used casually meaning "CPU-fps is not good enough to surpass the rendering-fps", that still has nothing to do with the GPU, you're running a CPU at its limit, before the GPU hits a limit in this specific 50-player game
The fact that arma uses lots of CPU doesnt just mean that any GPU used to play arma is trash

I recently got myself a Xeon X5675. It's not the newest chip but it does have 6 cores and I have it overclocked to 1.6Ghz. Would it bottleneck a GTX 1080? Do I need even more cores?

>>58756652
In many games, yes, your CPU will limit the fps before the GPU does. Some games that don't use CPU power and are basically dressed-up hallways simulators will be fine with that low speed CPU.
New DX12 title MAY perform alright, maybe those cores can help compensate for the speed in that case.

>>58756645
HOLY FUCK ARE YOU RETARDED. THAT'S LITERALLY A CPU BOTTLENECK. IF EVERY GAME REACHES THAT FULL LOAD ON i5 BEFORE IT DOES ON MY GPU THEN I MIGHT AS WELL SELL MY 1070 AND STICK TO 1060 SINCE THE FPS WILL BE LITERALLY THE SAME IN BOTH CASES. I NEED A FUCKING i7 TO ACTUALLY FULLY USE MY GPU AND IT'S NOT LIKE HE ONLY FUCKING SHOWED MP SUPER CPU BOUND EXAMPLES LIKE ARMA 3.

Would a Kaby Lake i5 bottleneck a Titan X?

>>58756670
>>58756652
I meant 4.6hz

>>58756652
And for something like 4K/1440p and low fps, that setup should definitely be able to handle itself
Just don't expect 144fps on anything

>>58749800
The RX 470/480 are the best cards to buy right now

the 1070 cannot do 4k, you need titan XP levels of performance

>>58756699
yeah but AMD

>>58756392
>OpenGL
So....

File: notabottleneck.png (3MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1200px

>>58756645
>CPU load in 90s
>GPU at 40%
>Not a bottleneck

Yea I think the retardation of this board will never cease to amaze me or are you implying that no matter what CPU you will put in there the GPU usage won't increase? Cuz if so you're death wrong.

File: 1485950452662.jpg (53KB, 1024x771px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x771px

>amd users vote for hillary
>nvidia users vote for trump

>>58756677
>every game
That's why it's not a bottleneck, because it's game dependent and not hardware-dependent.
I get 400fps on one of my games (when the CPU hits 100%) and I get 60 fps in another game (where the CPU hits 100%)
This is true for literally any game using both CPU and GPU power to display a frame

>>58756716
>>58756506
So...

>>58756699
470 RX is literally a meme card in everywhere but USA. $40 more expensive than 1050 Ti, $5 cheaper than 4gb 480RX and 3gb 1060gb

>>58756712
That statement makes no sense

>>58756737
That'd be like saying test vega won against the 1080 in OpenCL

>>58756699
>1070 cannot do 4k

Yes it can. Just lower details

>>58756752
Then you might as well run at 1080p high/ultra settings which an RX 480 could do man

>>58756750
sorry I like my cards to have more than just 2 drivers released per year kek

Best value would be the RX480, because it's a budget card made for poor people.

>>58756763
>an RX480 can do

yeah poorly. Why are you shilling so hard?

>>58756764
Didn't nvidia just have another bad driver release last month?

>>58756763

There's nothing wrong with lowering the details in modern games. Nothing can play 4K properly, not even the 1080.

>>58756786
Didn't AMD have another driver update last year?

>>58756778
a 480 can run most AAA games above 60fps at 1080p high/ultra what the hell are you talking about?

the fury X/1070 is more for 1080p 144hz


>>58756788
You need a titan XP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoGzZ9g8v1o

>>58756716
There's probably 800x the number of games using OpenGL compared to the TWO games using Vulkan. The 1080 performs better in the API that games actually use.
I'm just saying getting 1080 performance isn't as impressive when you compare Vulkan (which runs amazingly in the two games using it) and OpenGL which has been the "norm"
They used their own best optimized APIs and match
Saying that anything beats anything regarding vega is just stupid. The doom test really didn't give us any comparable information about vega
>>58756763
>You'd have to run 4K on high, you might as well run 1080p on high at that point ugh!

>>58756750
Are we on the same page? All I'm saying is that Doom in Vulkan is AMD's best case and those AMD counterparts that beat Nvidia in this game are usually overall weaker in majority of other titles. I simply state that those benchmarks were best case scenario and if anything Vega beating 1080 in OpenGL would be something remarkable, but in Vulkan it's simply meh since a) it's a DOA API that has no future in games that $600 gpu owners buy to play on maximum frames and best details.and b) Like I said saying AMD beats Nvidia in Vulkan means it will beat it in all non-Vulkan games is simply a lie.

>>58756802
Yes with ReLive, which works better than Shadowplay and doesn't require user information to gain access to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHHkPaxC7iE

>>58756824
lol who cares about any of that shit

>>58756824
>Linking Adored

Adored already gave up on Vega. Relive is doa and while I don't use AMD as a streamer it's kinda weird that AMD owners who do streaming are still forced to use OBS.

>>58756809
What other AAA games have used Open GL? Isn't it mostly an Indie game thing where most of those aren't even graphically intensive?

>>58756820
Vulkan should surpass DX12 adoption since it's FOSS and doesn't require windows 10

it's just that microsoft will push DX12 as hard as they can to force Windows 10 adoption

I can understand amd shills jumping all over the 1060, but trying to claim an RX480 is a better bargain than the 1070 is an absolute joke.

>>58750077
price/performance is the ultimate poor person metric. You people would think an AGP card you found at the dump was good value.

>>58756847
>should

shoulda woulda coulda. It's already dead in the waters, same way Mantle was.

>But muh cross-platforms.

What cross-platforms? Like you said MS shills for DX12 and Windows 10/Xbone exclusivity. Sony shills for exclusivity cuz that's what sells consoles so no matter what api devs would use Sony would still pay them to make it Sony exclusive. Tablets and Android? Their hardware is simply too weak to be relevant in gaming world where AMD and Nvidia GPU's compete. Vulkan might have some nice cross-platforms uses for programs but it sure as fuck won't be gaming.

>>58750021
>close mined
what a retard

>>58749800
>Not that more powerful than RX480
>Twice the price
>"BEST VALUE GUIZEE"

Which actual 1070 is the best?

Gigabyte?
MSI?
EVGA?

Which model?

>>58756806
If top tier cards can't even quite handle this stuff at 60fps maxed out at 4k, and Quadro's aren't gaming cards, wtf are the developers using to test this stuff?

Wheres a good place to sell Graphics cards?

I got an rx 470 I never used but I damaged the serial number and cant get a refund

>>58756954
They don't care, if it runs on current top tier cards, you moron. And rightfully so. The "I need to max out everything" meme is so fucking retarded, it's like a badge for babby's first computer along with multi-GPU solutions with 2 cheapo cards because "It's more performance for the same price!".

>>58756947
>Not that more powerful than RX480

Already been proven several times in this thread that it is.

>>58757018
They can obviously run maxed out settings on the workstations they develop it on. Hairworks in W3 they guy said is a massive drain on resources. So how are the designers testing it if the cream of the crop gaming card can't run it?

>>58756952

Normal - Gigabyte Gaming 1
Overclocking - MSI Gaming X

File: 1485674912934.jpg (12KB, 317x267px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 317x267px

>>58756336
>he believes the human eye can't see more than 30fps

>>58757105
It can't static, but it can detect changes in motion at more than 30 fps. Also varies per person naturally and with conditioning.

>>58757088
Why not Gaming Z?

>>58757190

forgot about that lmao - but is it really worth the $$$?

>>58757076
>They can obviously run maxed out settings on the workstations they develop it on.

No, you're just (wrongly) assuming that. There have been cases where no GPU solution will run a game at standard resolutions and max settings at the desired fps. Crysis comes to mind, people may not remember but there literally didn't exist a GPU solution in any form that would run it at over 40(ish) fps on very high settings.

File: RTSS065-1024x688.jpg (69KB, 1024x688px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x688px

>>58756719
Tablet users voted for Hillary, Nvidia users voted for Trump, and AMD patricians voted for Evan McMullin

File: 1485972789284.jpg (55KB, 634x369px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 634x369px

6C/12T Ryzen confirmed having 3.3ghz stock - Bad overclocking potential confirmed just like rx 480

You can't make this shit up. [A]nother[M]ajor[D]isappointment on suicide watch.

https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/826829044402552833

>>58756895
Are you retarded?

>>58757154
Who the fuck cares about framerate on static images?

>>58757759
>trusting snaileating pussy who lets mohammed fuck his wife
Are you OK anon?

I'm still using and abusing my 980TI. Have yet to experience any of the driver gimping people fall about.

>>58757809
That's because you haven't been paying attention.

t. ex-nvidia user

>>58751130
>I own multiple systems
Proof?

File: PROOF.jpg (472KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1280x1280px

>>58757849

>>58757831
Paying attention to what exactly? I mean I don't update drivers every single time a new one comes out. I only recently updated to the RE7 release day driver because I was experiencing random FPS drops into the low 30s and it would get stuck there. Prior to that, I had the same driver for almost 5 months.

I still get the same average fps in stuff like GTA5 and other such titles and my benchmark scores aren't different.

What's changed? Oh and I used to be an D owner. Xfire 290s, a single r9 fury. Bought them all at launch. The problem with all of them? They didn't get usable drivers until almost a full month after launch.

>>58757809
It doesn't exist. Just something AMD fanboys like >>58757831 came up with to meme with. I recall this one guy on /v/ who took screenshots of ArmA when the frame rate would dip on his AMD card and then labeled the lowest dip with the newest nVidia driver version. He tried to force it for a couple weeks but eventually gave up after getting BTFO so many times.

Novidya is better for 'old' games. The 1070/1080 is more powerful that a RX 480 but you pay a pretty penny for small increments. We can all agree they brute force newer games and will be very fast on older games. But the AMD GPUs offer better value for the majority running 1080 displays.

>>58749800
>Nvidia
>best value

>>58758279

so it's for poor people

>>58758886
>poor people

High fps at 1080 is poor now?
1440 still isn't mainstrean, and 4k is still meme status for games. More people at 1080p/60hz are either waiting on a card that can do 4k/60 without crying or going for 1080 with high refresh rates.

>>58759021

yes
1080 in 2017 is poor

>>58759037

enjoy your 4k 60hz monitor

>>58759077

I will, cheers.

enjoy your shitty detail 1080p monitor with pointless 144hz you'll rarely hit

>>58759136
>enjoy your shitty detail 1080p monitor with pointless 144hz you'll rarely hit

GTX 1070 breaks 100+fps often.

>>58759153
>GTX 1070 breaks 100+fps often

and rarely even hits 120

retard

>>58759136
>144hz you'll rarely hit

try never - not unless they lower the detail

>>58759077

lmao how is this even an insult

>>58759246

lol enjoy your crystal clear display with great fps

lmaoooooo

>>58749800
yes. don't listen to these faggots claiming the 480 is the best value when the fury outperforms it and can be found for the same price.

1070 > fury > irrelevant under-powered garbage

>>58761360
480 is such a meme outside of /g/. AMD been releasing the same card performance wise for the last 5 years with small cuts in price and even then prior to launch of 480RX you could buy 390x for less than you can buy good 480RX 8GB right now.

>>58761853
>check steam hardware survey randomly the other day
>rx 480 right down the bottom
>1060 and even the more expensive 1070 right at the top

even though it's not a super accurate measurement of the userbase, that's still pretty poor as a ballpark assessment of the userbase.

WHATS THE BEST 1070 MANUFACTURER
FUCK

>>58761853
Those cards use up to like 250% of the power the 480 does, and with a healthy OC the 480 is clearly the fastest card in the bunch

>>58754393
>buying a $430 graphics card
>have to turn down settings
fucking idiot

>>58759174
Mine keeps 120fps stable on almost all of my games
Play Dirt rally or fallout on max settings 1440p at 120fps solid with ULMB strobing is so much better than the fucking TV I had before

>>58762000
I don't think I've been asked to take the survey since I installed my 480 months ago

File: image.jpg (116KB, 432x736px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 432x736px

>>58765052
One of my games had several warnings when switching to "movie" max settings, saying I wouldn't be able to play real-time and those settings are just for replays
>mfw 380fps

>>58765052
>getting 144fps on any game
>Cheap and without compromise

>>58765102
>getting 144fps
>falling for memes
one in the same desu

>>58762000
>Nvidia selling more of everything
This is not surprising at all. Nvidia has a mindshare close to Apple's level.

>>58765052
>buying a $220 graphics card
>having to turn down the settings AND the resolution

I got the 1070 because I wanted 60+ FPS in 1440p. If I only wanted to play 1080p, I would have gotten the 480.

It's as simple as that. If you want budget gaming, you get the 480. If you want mid-tier gaming, you get the 1070. This is not a hard equation to figure out.

It's not the problem of Nvidia that AMD cannot deliver.

The GTX1070 is the card to get, even if I or you don't have a G-Sync display.

>>58749800
>TFW pick up open box 8gb Powercolor Rx480 for $180 from Microcenter

If you actually bought a 1070 for "futureproofing" you got scammed hard

>implying the GTX 1060 isn't the best value card

performs much better than the RX 480 in games that matter like GTAV and is half the price of a GTX 1070. instead of getting a 1070 I decided to just get a 1060 and then get an 1160 in 2 years which will outperform the 1070.

>>58763784
I am.

File: 14664125.jpg (70KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 300x300px

>>58765881
>he actually believes the GTX 1060 is the best value card

>>58765881
Aside from the 1060 giving you less VRAM than the 480 and not scaling as well with DX12/Vulkan, and not saving you money with a free-sync display

>>58765881
"the value" is the rx470

Its the deal

I can get the cheapest 1070 for 460€ and the cheapest 480 for 280€. I think I should go with the 480 right?

I only want to do 1080 at 60fps + streaming.

>>58765259
A $400 card is not midtier gaming. Anything above a 480 is enthusiast.

>>58767526
Then you should get a 480. A 1070 is overkill for 1080@60 and you have to deal with Shadowplay.

Gonna get a GTX1070 for 360€ on sale even though I have a freesync monitor.

And yes, I will use a GTX1070 for 1080p because I want constant 60fps+ for another year or two.

>>58749800
If you starting taking OC into account 1070 and 1080 are about equal. ROG strix OC comes with silicon lottery chips and easily reach 2.2ghz core and 12ghz memory, while being at the same price. (which is about 25% faster than stock 1080). Not sure about the 1070 rog strix. But yeah I 1080 rog strix owner here and I can confirm the OC memes being real.

>>58769958
Other than that on paper should be 470X / 480
in terms of price/perfomance ratio.

>>58750077
>Caring about price when it comes to cutting edge technology

Fucking unbearable stuttering with Vsync on with my 470

>>58750103
Under DX11 QB is a clear win for NVIDIA.. not surprising since the game comes from Remedy, a former PC developer

>>58750114
Yes

>>58750134
>>58750169
Agreed

>>58749881
>One game that was somewhat optimized for AMD

>>58767911
Embarrassing

>>58765881
1060 is a good value, but not the best. As everyone has already pointed out, it's the 470

>>58770634
"No"

>>58769958
>If you starting taking OC into account 1070 and 1080 are about equal.
The fuck? If you can OC the 1070, you can OC the 1080 too. Anyway you're not hitting stock 1080 performance with an OC'd 1070

>>58750021
get laid m8