So I haven't upgraded my computer since I first built it

>>376176298
A 480 and 1060 are fine for 1080p gaming.

Wait. It always pays off to wait for a new Nvidia card

>>376176585
For NOW.

>>376176298
1060 and you'll be good.

File: fuckingtom.jpg (26KB, 534x403px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 534x403px

>>376176298
Get the 1070. It's the most bang for your buck. A 1060 will work but it won't last you as long. Ignore the waitfags. Founders edition cards are trash. Aftermarket coolers take weeks if not months to release and availability of said cards is a bitch for weeks if not more months.

File: 1457822398686.jpg (39KB, 640x475px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x475px

>tfw thinking about dropping $500 on the EVGA 1080

S-should I just go for the 1070? I'm worried about them announcing Volta 2 weeks after I buy my card.

1060 is insufficient, you may wait or grab the 1070 or similar amd card

>>376176298
You have that 2500 AT 4.6 Aleast right?

>>376176298
>I know that a newer architecture or whatever is right around the corner
It will never not be like this. There is always new tech right around the corner.

File: explains.png (163KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x600px

>>376177861
What's your resolution?
>if 1080p
1070
>if 1440p/60hz
1080

Get an rx580

>>376178341

A RX580 is only a slightly higher clocked 480. Save the money, get a 480 and overclock it to 580 levels.

File: dhrC4k6tWr2vXEYMH7q2zY-650-80.png (79KB, 608x815px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 608x815px

>>376177857
If OP is playing at 1080p, you couldn't be any more wrong.

I'd go with a 580 or 1060.

>>376176298

stop fucking making these threads here

>>>/g/pcbg

>>376178482
>tfw just bought a 970

Feels great going from a shitcard

>>376178430
They're the same price in the US

File: Sure.png (91KB, 307x295px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 307x295px

>>376178482
You can't argue that the 1060 will outlast the 1070. Also, meme card at the top. Into the trash.

>>376178307
1080p but I've been considering moving up.
The EVGA revamped 1070 is 410 right now, the revamped 1080 is 520. It's just enough to make me consider making the jump, even though I know by the time I switch to 1440p or something, the next series will be coming out shortly.

>>376178482
>3.5GB meme at the top
Amazing. Is this taking used prices into consideration? Because The 980 being above the RX480 is really odd.

>>376178608
Just don't max out those textures my man.

6 or 3gb 1060?

>>376176298
as someone with the 1070 its worth the money. the gigabyte ones are master race

Get a Titan Xp

File: 656519641.png (131KB, 359x330px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 359x330px

>>376178832
A difference of $90 will give you extra time into the next generation. In the meantime and into the beginning of the next generation you will have maxed out settings. If you make the leap to 1440p/60hz the 1080 is perfect.

>Volta prices at launch
I'll pass

>>376176298
https://youtu.be/BdwUsalwBJ8

>>376178743
You can argue that the 1070 is an excessive waste of money if a 1060 or 580 can pull off 60+ fps on ultra settings in current games at 1080p.

There is no point purchasing a 400 dollar card for 1080p visuals based on the premise that it will last a little more. Just take the 180-200 dollars you'd save buying a 1060 or 580 and get something in a couple years that will surpass the 1070 at that point.

>>376179153
>Volta prices at launch
Shit son, that's a good point. Considering that the 1070's were 550 and 1080's were 650 at release, it's probably not saving much unless you wait a full year.

File: 1430298117078.jpg (57KB, 618x618px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 618x618px

>>376179320

2500k is going to bottleneck it.
it would even bottleneck a 1060.

Get a fucking titan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISciX2IGJi0

>retards thinking a 1070 will "last long"
not only has nvidia had a terrible history of short term support for their older cards, but you're all assuming a 1070 will perform proportionately well at 1080p for longer when one of its main strengths is higher resolutions and better graphics. You can't just pay for a higher end card and think it will last proportionately longer, look at how the fucking 780 gets outperformed by the 280x and 960, or how the 1060 and 480 are equal to or even exceed the 980 in some games.

And he's not going to be getting that sweet 144fps action at 1080p either since his CPU will bottleneck it.
With a 2500k and a 1070 at 1080p he won't even be able to obtain constant 60fps on very high.
You idiots just bought a 1070 and think it's best for everyone because it was best for you.
He should buy a 480 or 1060 and put the money he saved towards a CPU upgrade.

File: sleeping-bag-with-leg-pants-0.jpg (28KB, 742x597px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 742x597px

>tfw just got my 4670K in the mail and going to get the 1050ti soon

Who /budgetfag/ here?

>>376179495
what if his 2500k is OC'd to 4.5ghz?

>>376180012
he'll still have trouble in a lot of newer games and he'll still be buying a card targeting 1440p-4k for 1080p.
Never, EVER buy PC components to "future proof".
It never works, they release new shit ever year that much better than the last.
You buy what you'll get the best performance with RIGHT NOW, paying extra for a 1070 at only 1080p with a 5 year old CPU is retarded and when the 1100 series drops in less than a year and destroys your card for cheaper, and when despite paying more you never even used it at real 1440p, it will be this thread's shitty advice that put him in that situation.

>>376176298
>My only problem is
Your only problem is you have a dead end socket CPU. A fairly priced i5-3570K (which is the best chip for your socket) is going to be tough to find.

>>376179905
I run a 2500k and 1070 and never dip below 80 FPS in any game on max settings at 1080p.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>376180513
a 2500k even with an OC will bottlneck at 1080p when paired with a 1060 let alone a 1070.
I've tested these cards myself, you don't know what you're talking about.
He won't even be able to run GTAV at constant 60fps.

File: IMG_6483.jpg (239KB, 800x2700px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 800x2700px

I want to build my first pc, how is this?

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NqMT7h

Budget is around 1500-1600, already have mouse monitor ect

>>376179905
It's kind of a shitty time to be buying a GPU, since it's just a month or so away from new information on Volta, but prices are coming down just enough to validate buying a upper mid-range GPU.

If you buy now, you'll be killing yourself later when the 1160 or 2060 performs like a 1070, and the 70 card performs like a 1080ti.

If you wait, you'll be holding onto your $450~ for another 6-8 months for the cards to release and get partner versions, and then be told to buy AMD or wait for the newer cards.

>>376180378
I7 2600k whoops it's ass you know nothing

>>376180627
I7-2600K is perfectly fine with a 1070

File: 1493432335152.gif (2MB, 400x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x224px

>>376180636
>$1500
>i5 + 1070

>>376180653
buying now is FINE so long as you intend to use the card now as it's intended, bottlenecking it and running at a mere 1080p is seriously under-utilizing it, making it effectively not any better than a 1060 or 480.
You can easily look up benchmarks that display this, the 1070 isn't going to just scale down to 1080p and be proportionately faster, that's not how it works.

PC components are not investments, you're never going to come out on top by buying now with the expectation it will last longer.

File: 1431073588900.gif (2MB, 250x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x216px

>>376180761
>>376180836
>hyperthreading for gaming
Scrubs

>>376180971
Please help

>>376180636
Looks okay but you probably don't need water cooling for a 7600k, you could drop it to one of the nice Noctua or BeQuiet ones that are like half the price

Your ram is also too fucking expensive, just get regular ram for like $130 nigga

Then use that saving to upgrade to an i7

>>376180986
>bottlenecking it and running at a mere 1080p
>the 1070 isn't going to just scale down to 1080p and be proportionately faster
What did he mean by these?

>>376181041
Hey GTA V uses them well. I get about 80avg with a 1070 and a 2600k

How dumb would it be for me to drop $700 on a 1080i? I sort of wanna play with 144hz and 1440p, I feel like that's just autism tho.

>>376176298
i have a 4690k and a 1070 and it's a pretty good combo. might upgrade the cpu in a years time though.

>>376181115
What's the advantage from i5 to i7? Will do on the ram

>>376181049
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/jsrqJV

File: 541651654.png (132KB, 421x398px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 421x398px

>>376181253
I'm at 2k/144hz as well and I just did this on a FTW3. I'm king autismo but at least I max out every game.

reminder kaby lake processors and up will only work with win 10

this is what they're moving towards

>>376176298
A good 1060 is all you need, by the time a game you actually care about comes out there will be an 1160 that = 1080ti

>>376179905
>1060 and 480 are equal to or even exceed the 980 in some games
>new manufacturing process shrink and more capable architecture works better than one on a much larger process node and less capable architecure

woah

woah

>>376181195
I mean that if you're under the impression that because the 1070 is 40% better when it come to high end 4k gaming that it will be 40% better at 1080p gaming you are mistaken.
>>376181449
reading comprehension?
the whole point is people are advising he buy a 1070 now even though it will bottleneck hard and will only be used at 1080p.
Computer hardware is not an investment.

>>376181358
>suggesting that disasterous ryzen to anyone

Sorry I don't want to light my flat on fire

>>376176298
I bought a 1070, upgraded it from my 970 and it takes a huge shit on my 970 i am maxing everything at ultra on 1080p, if i want to go higher i just downsample and turn off AA

>>376180636
I'd go for an R5 1600 and a B350 motherboard, drop the insane cooling. That alone would save you a good amount of money, basically the same game performance, and a few more meme cores just for the hell of it.

File: IMG_9365.png (142KB, 511x564px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 511x564px

>>376181358
>amd anything

>>376181574
the included wraith cooler is actually good enough to OC a 1600 and not sound like a jet engine, he was definitely going overboard.

File: specs.png (51KB, 873x637px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 873x637px

what do i need to upgrade to make it powerful enough to play 4k

>>376181609
I bought my first nvidia card just recently and I'm never buying from them again.

>>376181539
>he didn't do any research
>he buys his parts because of the label on the box instead of the actual performance instead
1700 is an 8 core 65w chip while the 7600k is a 4core 95w chip

>>376181687
>>376181574
Thanks anons I'll look into this.
>>376181358
Thanks anon although I'm in love with the s340 elite case

>>376181535
>"the whole point is people are advising he buy a 1070 now even though it will bottleneck hard and will only be used at 1080p."
>"even though it will bottleneck hard"
>1070 will bottleneck hard at 1080p

holy fuck you're either some spastic who didn't pass english class and can't correctly put a point across or you have no idea what a bottleneck is. the cpu would be the bottleneck in this situation, not the 1070. the correct statement would be, "the whole point is people are advising he buy a 1070 now even though it will (be) bottleneck(ed) hard (by the cpu as he) will only be (playing) at 1080p."

>>376181292
Hyperthreading which more games use now, and higher clock speeds; though the 7700k is a fairly hot CPU. Consider a 6700k if you don't need the Kaby Lake features, or Ryzen, though I'm not sure if the issues with Ryzen+NVIDIA are resolved.

>>376181759
What's wrong with nvidia cards

>>376181889
>What's wrong with nvidia cards
Jews. Still better than amd performance though.

>>376181868
Not him but nope they aren't resolved. /g/ anons card caught on fire the other day

>>376181764
Your point?

File: 1479332163584.jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

>>376181889
>buy 1070 thinking I was getting a quality option, everyone always shat on AMD
>find out drivers include telemetry
>find out youtube can't even use hardware rendering in chrome without crashing
>yes my new expensive video card can't even watch youtube, I have to disable hardware rendering
>shit DX12/Vulkan performance
>wish I just waited for 580 or Vega

>>376181535
That's not what a bottleneck is nigga

A 1070 will get 30-50% higher FPS on games than a 1060 would, which doesn't matter if you're only at 60hz. But at higher refresh rates, a 1070 would greatly outpace a 1060.

1060 = 1080p 60fps
1070 = 1080p 120/144fps OR 1440p 60fps
1080 = 1440p 120/144fps OR 4K 40-60FPS
1080ti = 1440p 144fps for a while, or 4K 60fps

>>376182003
580 will probably be weaker on DX12 performance

>>376180636
Just watch this episode on YouTube in the hopes that that fourth panel is real.

Titties make me gullible. Nice hips, though.

>>376181758
Literally a whole new computer

>>376179410
Are you fucking stupid? 1060 can run any game at 1080p max settings with 60fps. you really think it's worth spending an extra $100-$200 to get another year or two of use?

just buy a 1060, put $100 aside and save/wait for a new card.

>>376182052
go look up some benchmarks and realize how retarded your numbers are.
the 1070 does not get double or more fps at 1080p, that's retarded.
Plus his CPU would bottleneck it even if it could.

File: DELIDTHIS.png (320KB, 667x672px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 667x672px

>>376181539
Good goy, now don't do any unauthorized overclocking! Those temps are YOUR fault!

>>376181609
this

amd are a dead brand. their shares drop like 25% a couple days ago. also the 580 is extremely overpriced, over here in europe anyway. actually now that i think about it i don't think i've ever seen amd being cheaper here aside from one off sales but then again nvidia also has similar sales so it balances but in general nvidia gpu is cheaper than amd gpu whilst being better.

hardware unboxed did a video and showed the overclocked 480 (580) being a measly 2% faster than a 1060 but uses 22% more power and like i said before the 580 also costs more. the 480 is now slower than the 1060 across the 27 game average and costs the same or slightly more than the 1060 so it's either pay more for the 580 for 2% more performance (580) or pay the same for slightly worse performance (480). outside of the usa the radeon brand is literally worthless. nvidia gaining marketshare from and last quarter says it all.

>>376176298
The next-gen of cards won't come out until 2018, you won't get anything new this year.
Don't think you would have any problems going for a 1060 6GB.

>>376181758
dude just overclock

>>376182195
Why do they even make K vers if they don't want overclocking?

>>376182052
With all of the botched versions of PC games and differences due to DX12 / AMD bias you can't really make approximations

Mass Effect Andromeda, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands, Hitman and Dishonored 2 all run fairly poorly

>>376182003
>>yes my new expensive video card can't even watch youtube, I have to disable hardware rendering
Same for RX480 nigga

But then again I also got a bum card that has driver crashes in every game and after a RMA it still wasn't fixed

>>376181969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1OpdVsgPQ
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/248908-intel-responds-i7-overheating-issue-cluelessly-suggests-stop-overclocking
AMD's octacore processor is more power efficient than any unlocked kabylake quadcore. Intel's response to overheating problems with the 7700k is to stop overclocking

File: 1416658885645.png (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>376182003
what is this youtube bullshit? i only ever use chrome and haven't changed any settings yet youtube has never failed to not work and has never crash. why are you spreading lies?

also
>telemetry

http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidias-telemetry-monitor-is-not-spying-on-you/

>>376176298
buy 1060 6gb.
1070 does not matter if you're playing 1080.

if you want to go above 1080, don't, the current monitors aren't good enough. wait 2 more years. you only want >1080 if it's also IPS and 144hz.

>>376182195
>Using Intel's default heatsink

Own fault

>>376176298
Get a gtx 1050/rx 460 now sell it before the release of new series and buy new gpu.

>>376178482
what about the 1060 6gb?

File: plshalp.png (189KB, 888x846px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 888x846px

>>376182124
>>376182269
what if i slap in a 1080 ti with this base pc
is there going to be bottlenecking?

>>376182425
>K series
>Having a stock cooler

Stop.

File: 20170506202104_1.jpg (209KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1600x900px

go with a 1060 goyim.

>>376182195

>Not researching before buying any component

>>376182457
Fuck no. That CPU is a monster

>>376176298
Listen dude, buy a whole new rig, if your CPU is as ancient as that, you'll bottleneck like a motherfucker.

>>376182456
That's just the 1060 in the middle i'm assuming

>>376182490
K series does provide stock coolers (unless Intel mysteriously stopped supplying them in the 2 years since I bought a K series CPU) and my point is you shouldn't use stock coolers if you're going to overclock

>>376182575
so what do i gotta do,i know shit about pc building and i cant really trust these tech hebrews
and also have to take into account prices inflation for parts is around 10% here

>>376182640
>if your CPU is as ancient as that, you'll bottleneck like a motherfucker.

nope, most games dont use shit for CPU. this is also why 1060 or 970 is his best option though

>>376182664
Huh. How about that. There it is. I'm a faggot.

>>376182672
They don't, even the unlocked i3 doesn't have a stock cooler.

>>376178482
I like how my 290x is cheaper and beats the shit outta the 3.5 but isn't on that list lol.

>>376182737

use logical increments. follow it to the letter. there you go

hey guys i got a decent computer like 5ish years ago.

basically i want to upgrade to a 1060 card. i got 8gb of ram and should be fine. but i don't know much about processors and I currently have an
>intel i5-3550 CPU @ 3.3 GH z
and i'm running windows 7, 64 bit.

will i run into any issues? like will my processor bottleneck my performance? i don't even care too much about 60 fps, so long as i can play 1080p, 40+ fps i'm happy.

File: mac tobacco.gif (814KB, 367x270px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 367x270px

>>376182861
>290 underwater
>1440p high settings 60fps

>>376182914

if your mobo is 5 years old, it might not support a newer cpu

>>376176298

Right now, wait. The best thing you can do is wait for AMD "Vega" to see how it compares. There's the possibility it may be within the 1070's price range, yet have more like 1080 or better performance. That is, if you were planning on an Nvidia 1070 anyway.

If you only game at 1080p, the 1070 will last you a good long time but may be more power than you need - and more price as well. The AMD RX 580 8gb (or RX480, they're practically the same except clock rates, if you get a custom board variant of each) will pretty much thrash everything at 1080p no problem. And yes, its a better buy than the NV 1060 for a number of reasons.

So either buy a RX 580 / 480 8gb now, or wait to see what Vega brings, then you can decide on a 1070 or higher versus Vega if you want to go higher end.

File: 34.png (428KB, 566x609px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 566x609px

>>376182859
When did this happen?

>>376182914
it will be fine. do not listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

>>376182914
>i don't even care too much about 60 fps
then buy a fucking console, faggot.

>>376182914
nigger purchase more ram.

File: 1060 vs 1070.png (50KB, 873x583px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 873x583px

>>376182157
I never said double you stupid motherfucker I said 30-50%, which is highly dependent on game, developer optimization, and whether it is more CPU based or not. It varies a lot between games but there is a observable and somewhat significant increase.

>>376182334
That's also true. A lot of shit optimization makes a 1070 barely enough to run some shit at a solid 60 at 1080p, which is fucking sad.

>>376182861
No it doesn't. All evidence shows that the 970 is still up to par with the gtx 1060 and rx 480. Both of those are still faster than the 290x.

>>376183002
Skylake, honestly the right move since nobody getting one of those should be using the stock cooler. But it's not like the savings were passed onto the consumers.

>>376182397
>why are you spreading lies?
google it, it's a long standing problem for the entire 1000 series and has yet to be fixed

File: 34345.png (126KB, 334x408px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 334x408px

I bought a 1080ti and amazon mistakenly gave me a full refund a month later.Feels good

>>376176298

It may be starting to be time for a CPU upgrade too, which means either an Intel KabyLake/Skylake CPU (go for an i7 "k" variety) or an AMD Ryzen 1700 or 1700X (1800 series is expensive for no real benefit), along with requisite high end mobos for each and DDR4 RAM. However, even with your current Proc/Mobo/RAM stepping up from your 560 Ti is a BIG step forward in gaming power.

File: Prey benchmark.png (78KB, 899x870px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 899x870px

>>376183070
>All evidence shows that the 970 is still up to par with the gtx 1060 and rx 480.
????

>>376183182
>Had this happen with my PSU
Enjoying that free $90 bucks mang

File: DOOMx64 2016-05-14 22-24-55-99.jpg (166KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1920x1080px

>>376183047
>Doom 4 runs well on everything
What went so utterly right?

File: 1080.png (31KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x650px

>>376183234
https://youtu.be/1dhyjcnCylI

>>376183020
cheers mate. all i needed to hear. new card cometh within a week.

>>376183037
i already have two, you poor faggot

>>376183043
You really think so? could you give me an example of a game that would have issues with 8gb of ram? i thought that ram was like diminishing returns and more than 8gb is only really necessary on 1440-4k gaming?

>>376183234
Absolutely nobody plays games in 1440p.

>>376183070
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1CJwBj2co
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUMeuuoebu8

>>376182334
But anon, Andromeda, Hitman, and Dishonored 2 all roughly line up with that anon's analysis of the 10xx series.
DXMD and Wildlands I'll give you, DXMD especially is fucking horribly optimized considering it genuinely looks like a last gen game in a few areas.

>>376183373
Why the fuck does it take so long to launch though.
Jesus christ.

File: John-Carmack.jpg (89KB, 555x250px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 555x250px

>>376183373
John Carmack ran those developers through the hell of OpenGL for over a decade, they came out the other side like gods.

>>376183432
cheers. you don't need more ram, he's being an ass

btw, turbo setting on i5-3300 can be modified to gain 400 mhz, and most motherboards will allow you to set turbo always on

>>376178482
So a GTX970, which performs worse than an RX480, is better performance per dollar than the RX480, despite costing the same.

Really activates my almonds.

>>376183451
https://youtu.be/1dhyjcnCylI

https://youtu.be/fLKtdA7Ezyk

>>376183432
Yes, you said you don't care for anything beyond 60 fps but more ram helps you with loading, pop in, and shit like that. Hell most newer games are requiring you to have 16. It wouldn't hurt you to buy just 1 extra stick for 50 bucks

>>376183070
M8 it's actually rare for a game to have the 970 outperform the 290x and has been that way for a while now. Specially in 1440p. The 290x is a monster of a card, it released with the 770 and outperforms the 970.

>>376183373
Carmack magic

File: 1493056023295.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>376183437
correction, 970 users don't play games in 1440p or the high res textures will destroy frame rate
>>376183660
i don't see a 290x or 390 in either of those videos

>>376183810
The 290x (390x) was never a 970 competitor. The 290 (390) was. At stock the 290x was about on par with the 390 though but the extra cores allowed it to pull ahead later on because of drivers over the 390.

>>376183904
>increasing resolution increases texture resolution
/v/'s understanding of video graphics in a nutshell

>>376184012
>or
Congratulations on being blind.

>>376183904
>>376183234

>All evidence shows that the 970 is still up to par with the gtx 1060 and rx 480.
>????

>posts evidence of the 970 being up to par with those gpu
>retard attempts to shift the goalposts after getting BTFO

Wow

>>376184116
>No it doesn't. All evidence shows that the 970 is still up to par with the gtx 1060 and rx 480. Both of those are still faster than the 290x.
>>>>>>retard attempts to shift the goalposts

>>376184070
Are you stupid? It doesn't make a distinction between resolution and textures. It claims one affects the other not that one or the other affects it.

>>376183547
Ah understood. Now i only vaguely know about the GHz, like a remember when i was a child, i was lagging in counter strike 1.6 and couldnt figure out why, so my master race dad had a look and said it need more ghz. (from memory it was like 400mhz but needed 800mhz to run the game properly). is there any sorta of popular or big game you could think of where 3.3ghz would be an issue? Hate to ask so much shit, but i just want to be able to run newer games in 1080, high settings, with at least 40 fps. could probably tolerate 30 though if need be. Though i am expecting with the upgrade most games i have now ill get over 60 fps and some newer games i'll be able to run. No fucking idea how I can get 30-60 fps in MGSV on mid-high settings, but Dawn of War 3 on lower resolution and minimal settings is 20 fps. fucking boggles ma mind.

>>376184070
>get destroyed for being an idiot
>try to turn it into a semantic argument and be bill clinton
>your worthless validation doesn't even make sense

you said something stupid and don't know what you're talking about. own up to it.

>>376184256
You dumbass, it implies that while high res textures won't destroy the framerate at 1080p, they WILL at 1440p.
Do you think resolution has no impact on video memory usage?

>>376184234
Tell me where in this post >>376183234 the person asks anything about the 290x. The question marks were in response to the crystal clear quote within that post about the 970, 1060 and 480. Go back to English class before you respond to me again.

>>376184370
>No fucking idea how I can get 30-60 fps in MGSV on mid-high settings, but Dawn of War 3 on lower resolution and minimal settings is 20 fps. fucking boggles ma mind.

doesnt boggle my mind at all
>company spends millions of dollars and years to make engine
>engine is great
>company just uses cryengine or unrealengine or something and doesn't bother to modify the code to fit their game
>engine sucks dick

im not here to teach you how to computer, 1060 6gb will be fine for several years.

If I don't overclock my 7700k and have a good heat sink and water cooler I wont have any problems right?

>>376184417
>Do you think resolution has no impact on video memory usage?

resolution has an extremely negligible effect on video memory usage. once again, you don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about

>ram is the only resource a video graphics adapter has!!!!!!!!!!! 3.5!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>376184417
>this damage control
>This shifting of goalposts once again

As the other anon said, the textures won't change a thing at 1440p which the other retard claimed it would.

>>376184489
well I understand the engine/optimization is to blame, but it boggles my mind that there is such a distinct difference in performance, in the sense of.
>how did relic/gw/whoever make DoW3 fuck it so bad?
that boggles my mind, not the fact one runs poor while the other doesn't

File: o2_vram.png (45KB, 629x284px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 629x284px

>>376184643
>resolution has an extremely negligible effect on video memory usage
Congrats on being a retard.
VRAM could mean the difference between playable performance and unplayable performance at higher resolutions.
>>376184659
>the textures won't change a thing at 1440p
For a 4 GB GPU they will, you'll likely be lowering textures to avoid stuttering.

>>376184453
who gives a fuck about the prey benchmark(that favors the 290x anyway)? >>376183451 is responding to >>376183070, and you must be one thick headed knucklehead to believe that nobody plays at 1440p.

>>376176298
test

>>376184689
i looked it up its still using a newer version of the fucking essence engine from company of heroes

that's 2006...there's your answer

in that time computing has gone from one core to 4 and graphics cards have gone from like 60 cores to 400, engine has to be programmed differently to use those things

File: 1491795930330.png (124KB, 300x268px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 300x268px

>>376184915

File: me4_vram.png (53KB, 629x284px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 629x284px

>>376184840
And here's a game that pushes past the 4 GB barrier just moving from 1080p to 1440p.

File: 1396059415832.png (166KB, 363x504px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 363x504px

>>376179926
>tfw still running my 4670k from 2013 and just made a CPU+GPU custom loop and overclocked it to 4.8 single core 4.7 all cores.
>tfw I get 130-144 fps in overwatch at 1440p Ultra and 100% CPU load so it's just barely adequate for me.

>>376177580
For EVER.

>>376184935
holy fucking shit, no wonder.

DoW 3 was a bit of a stupid, impulsive buy for me, but i liked it overall and feel like i'm goign to get my money worth out of it. but reading this shit makes me want to refund it flat-out

File: 1440.png (33KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x650px

>>376184865
See
>>376183660

>50% of steam players play at 1080p
>over 90% play at 1080p and lower
>a whopping 2% (!) play at 1440p

Everyone plays at 1440p tho amirite

A 2500k CPU is going to start being a bottleneck pretty soon because it's old as fuck.

It's also stuck with old peripherals like PCI express 2.1 instead of 3 and older SATA connections.

You'll need to change your entire rig within 2 years so for now just buy a cheap 1060 gtx or radeon 480 (this one for more bang for the buck)

>>376184840
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels
2560x1440 = 3686400 pixels

1440p is 56% more pixels than 1080p

going up from 1080p to 1440p in the example you posted used 14% more video memory. extremely neglible compared to the amount of pixels

it's time for you to stop posting. Let me tell you for the third time: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>376181205
The 2600k is shit and is bottlenecking your gpu in GTA V.

File: vram.png (10KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x250px

>>376184840
Going from 1080p to 1440p is usually very small when it comes to vram increases. The extra ~200mb or so extra vram utilization is mostly the frame buffer iirc.

>>376185182
>14%
Are you retarded?

On the 1060 moving from 1080p to 1440p in that example uses 26% more VRAM.

In >>376185007 it increases VRAM by 24% on the 480 and 27% on the 1060.

And you're a retard for trying to compare the amount of pixels rendered to the VRAM usage as if it increases linearly, even moving from medium to high textures in most games has a much more negligible impact on VRAM than moving from 1080p to 1440p.
>>376185352
Depends on the game really, Prey is generally pretty light on VRAM.
But the point is, the difference between 1080p and 1440p could be the difference between 4+ GB of VRAM usage and sub-4 GB of VRAM usage, ergo the difference between playable and unplayable on a 4 GB GPU.

>>376185236
GTAV is a half decade old console game, even a 6 year old GPU like the 2600k is not a bottleneck. The 2600k is at least 3 times as fast as any last gen console.

File: 1492915187075.jpg (68KB, 649x506px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 649x506px

>>376185154
>mobile steam users and chinks playing dota 2 don't use 1440p
really gets my bacon shakin

>>376185640
>And you're a retard for trying to compare the amount of pixels rendered to the VRAM usage as if it increases linearl

THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING. I WAS PROVING YOU WRONG. LOL.

fucking conversation OVER kid get the fuck out of here little man you aren't ready to be around adults yet

>>376185749
>THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING.
No not really, I'm making the case that 1440p would be a problem for a 4 GB GPU, I'm not comparing the percentage increases in VRAM vs pixels.
>kid
>howtospotan18yearold.tiff

>>376185745
dota 2 literally benefits more from downsampling than any other game in existence, its fucking beautiful with the amount of detail going on. there is so much tiny shit in dota you can barely see

i was thinking about buying an old 970 just for dota but its kinda pointless since they cost same as a 1060 6gb retail

>>376185745
kind of random, but any idea if those autistic CS players purposefully use a lower resolution/avoid 1440p ?
I know they do autistic shit like set graphics to minimmum so "enemies are easier to see at a distance" and shit like that. i'm curious about what res they'd all use though

>>376185934
people did this back in the day in quakes, dunno if anyone does it now

>mfw I went with a GTX 1050 TI
>mfw I get 120 fps on everything I run

Explain to me why I need a 1070 or a 1080?

File: 20170507002555_1.jpg (985KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 3840x2160px

>>376183373
Doom is fucking magic honestly.
Shame the only way you can take screenshots with Vulkan is through Steam.

>>376186108
gotta be able to run those god awful console ports that you don't want to play like mass effect andromeda on ultra quality bro

it's so funny when you see a video card thread and all the arguments are being made over benchmarks of ME:A, deus ex, shit like that

if you play shit like that just buy a console and go fuck off and play it at 20fps, those arent pc games

>>376186276
>Vulkan

What is this meme? Is there any actual discernible difference between it and opengl?

>>376186276
>Shame the only way you can take screenshots with Vulkan is through Steam.

or just get any of the 56 programs that can capture screenshots directly from framebuffer like dxtory

File: 1473433322140.png (66KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 554x400px

>>376186108
not all of us are esport cucks M8

>>376186347
dude honestly it pisses me off that ashes of the singularity is benchmarked so hard these days
i just recently found out it was an rts and that it's pretty much panned critically

>>376186385
amd cards get considerable improvements through vulkan vs opengl because of their architecture, which nvidia didn't really care to plan for with the 1000 series

>>376186385
>Is there any actual discernible difference between it and opengl?

the entirety of its API and the philosophy behind it, yes I would say it's slightly different by being a completely and totally different thing

File: spiccy.png (51KB, 711x496px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 711x496px

1070 is the perfect card in terms of price/performance IMO.

>tfw can get 120+fps in both 1080 and 1440p

>>376186615
>850 evo
>has an optical drive installed

brofist

>>376185640
You sir are retarded

>>376186693

i know optical drives are outdated but I still have a lot of old pc games I like to pop in

File: 118_04_msi-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-gaming-11g-new-4k-king.jpg (214KB, 1832x1000px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1832x1000px

Will there ever be a day where the GPU becomes the entire PC itself with an integrated CPU & RAM?

Imagine just swapping out a card onto a motherboard is all you'll need for upgrading.

File: 1493789657540.png (701KB, 845x909px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 845x909px

1070 or a 1080 for 1440p?

>>376186385
On AMD?
Yes, huge performance increases.
>>376186423
I've tried dxtory, OBS, MSI Afterburner, that shitty Action! replay crap, most of them either don't work or produce inconsistent results.

>>376186846
~10 years.

>>376186894
If your monitor refresh is high enough to make use, 1080

>>376186894
Just go for the 1070. No one should ever have to spend more than $400 on a graphics card, honestly imo $300 is still too fucking much. Just go with a 1060 and settle down with 1080p which is still good enough for 99% of people out there on this planet.

RX480 or GTX1060 are literally more than enough for 1080p high+ settings
Or, if you want a strong card now to not have to worry for ages, either wait for AMD Vega (announced in a few days, released at most at the end of June), or grab a 1070 for under $350

>>376187184
>Which is still good enough for 99% of people out there on this planet.
99% of people out there have pretty shit standards tbqh

>>376187331
Once 8K finally comes around in a few years I can only hope the display wars will finally settle down.

4K will be the new 720p while 8K will be 1080p.

File: 1488663780579.png (2MB, 1943x1295px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1943x1295px

>>376187541
8K will be easier for graphics cards to achieve because it's just merely doubling 4K standards, compared to 1080p to 4K which is quadruple the resolution.

>>376187658
>>376187541
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnjdWcnPWtE

>>376187294
People should honestly just wait until 2020 for 4K gaming when midtier graphics cards will handle it with 120fps.

>>376187857
Honestly, I'm waiting for Vega for the potential price drops, then I'll probably buy a 480/580 or a 1070/vega-equivalent, and alongside my r5 1600, not have to worry about upgrading until at least the end of the 4 year AM4 lifespan should be comfy

File: muhpc.jpg (78KB, 1066x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1066x600px

plz rate my meager setup

>>376187718
I'm seriously contemplating getting a 1080 ti and its not just for the sake of games, its mroe for the sake of having a monitor (Preferably a 4K one) for work resolutions so I can render at 4K and see the results clearly and also have fuckton more desktop space for apps.

I'm very unsure though.

>>376187970
I think people sometimes fail to realize that the new Nvidia 1000 GPUs are literally meant for 4K gaming, meanwhile those of us still using 1080p reap in the benefits as our GPUs will last us for many years on ultra settings.

>>376188194
I still have a 1440x900 monitor kek

File: 1491454445371.png (72KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x600px

Buy a Ryzen and wait for vega

>>376187981
This is perfectly average. I don't see any problems with it. It's a decently capable machine for modern games.

Average/10. Much better than any console.

>>376186792

There's nothing wrong with optical drives. /g/ reccomends buying external units, but /g/ tends to be retarded that way.

File: 1490910212910.gif (3MB, 280x154px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 280x154px

Is it worth going back to a TN panel from an IPS for higher refresh rates?

Do you even bench-

-mark?

what do you bench?

>>376188646
I don't think he wants to throw away his money.

File: my card before this was a 9800gtx.jpg (69KB, 483x417px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 483x417px

I guess it's been a few years since my last upgrade

Motherboard doesn't support DDR4 so I'm tossing up either a new motherboard + RAM or a 1060 6GB. Is that fair reasoning?

>>376189426
get the 1060 you will be fine for like 3 more years.

>>376189426
just get a 1060 or 580. if you want to upgrade your mobo you'll need to get a new processor as well, i'd wait for ryzen 2 if you want to go that route.

>>376189536
'Aight.

>>376189585
>if you want to upgrade your mobo you'll need to get a new processor as well,
Ah shit, I didn't even think of that.

>>376189585
>i'd wait for <amd processor>

what is this "wait for amd" meme

"don't lose your virginity now bro, wait for an ugly girl" that's what you are saying

number of times ati/amd has been relevant enough in history to make up for their products shortcomings:

k6-2 processor
radeon 9800 pro
athlon xp/barton

that is it

Just get a RX580

>>376189729
Currently ryzen is shredding intel

>>376188718
thanks for the validation

>>376189426
Get a RX580 first and then save up for a ryzen CPU

>>376189729
waiting is the best course of action for him. IPC increase from ivy bridge to ryzen is considerable, but it isn't enough to warrant an upgrade. If he was looking for a fresh build then yeah buy ryzen now.

>>376189941
Not really for gaming when it's Ryzen 7 vs. Core i7. Now Ryzen 5 vs. Core i5 is a different story, better value for the money with the AMD one there, good if you need a somewhat capable cheap rig for things.

>>376189729
More like
"don't go for that girl that only wants your money and looks, wait for an actually decent girl that cares for you personally, and will aid you every step of the way"
besides, comparing a girl to a computer is retarded at this point in time, give it a couple year to where there are actual tangible waifu-bots, and maybe then what you're saying will be relevant

>>376183437
I do
And its fantastic

>>376190115
Ryzen 7 ties with the i7 in most games, while having better frametimes, consuming less power, coming with a stock cooler and having a lot more headroom for background stuff

>>376189426
You could also get some faster 16GB of RAM, but if you'll change the mobo eventually might as well leave it as is.

>>376187658
8k is 4 times 4k

>>376183373
Static as fuck environments that aren't taxing.

>>376176298
Old 2500K and 560 Ti owner here. My 1060 3GB was a good increase (it was all I could spend) but the 2500K at 4.6Ghz was definitely a bottleneck, prepare for a shit load of that.

>>376181758
A 1080 or 1080ti, if youre ok playing at the framerates your CPU can provide

>>376177580
For at least a few years
Everything above high settings is a meme

>>376189941
>Currently ryzen is shredding intel

No, it's not. Ryzen is not even historically a good effort from AMD.

Ryzen is "shredding" intel in cherrypicked situations, just like AMD loves their fucking ashes of the singularity bullshit that has 0 players on steam

File: IMG_9352.jpg (12KB, 183x141px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 183x141px

So ultimately if I want to build a Pc, I should avoid AMD at all costs? This thread seems to hate amd..

>>376190591
I'm going to make a metaphor for you and this metaphor will represent the reality of AMD vs Intel.

Intel processors are a Honda Accord. Sure, they're more expensive than some other things, but you can rely on them to ALWAYS be good at EVERYTHING. They will never have any major issues, they will never have any major engineering faults. They will always be better all-around than cheaper sedans.

AMD processors are a Kia Optima. They're a "good value", but if you really want quality in any area, you will find out that across the entire board, they are just lesser in every single department. Oftentimes, while they will look very similar to the Accord and have good air conditioning, the engine will be lacking.

>>376187658
you're fuckin stupid. 1080p is 2k.

4k is 4x 2k, and 8k is 4x 4k.

>i5 2500k still going strong since 2011
>never redid the thermal paste
>hits 50c under heavy load
>rx480 doesn't bottleneck

Feels good man

>>376191239
>1080p is 2k.

>>376190591
/v/ tends to hate AMD because it's full of gaymen shitters that don't understand the hardware or what makes a CPU/GPU have a good value. Most people here don't have historical perspective either. If you want good PC advice head to /g/'s /pcbg/.

>>376190726
>I'm going to make a metaphor (that's wrong) because I can't articulate why /v/ is ignorant about PC hardware.

I own a 5820k for the record.

File: 1492820286960.png (56KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 624x624px

>>376191239

>>376191372
it is. 4k is 3820x2160. Divide the first number in half, what do you get

>>376191409
the metaphor serves its purpose. talking about historical perspective my first processor was a 486 dx..get fucked kiddaroonie

File: 1494073899774.png (871KB, 801x1500px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 801x1500px

>>376190591
If youre a good goy and want to pay more shekels go intel

>>376181868
kaby lake doesn't have any "Features" at all. you're thinking of the z270 chipset versus the z170 for 4k streaming. you can easily put a 6700k in a z270 board.

>>376191409
>/v/ tends to hate AMD because it's full of gaymen shitters that don't understand the hardware or what makes a CPU/GPU have a good value. Most people here don't have historical perspective either. If you want good PC advice head to /g/'s /pcbg/.
>I own a 5820k for the record.

>>376191372
>>376191447
He is correct you brainlets

File: 1494074403406.png (37KB, 661x447px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 661x447px

There is no reason to buy intel right now

>>376176298
Upgraded my 770 2gb to the 1070 and it was fantastic. Obviously, the vram limit of the 770 was really fucking me in the ass. If you only play on 1080p though, I think the 1060 will suit you just fine. My bro has one in his rig and plays 1080p. So far no issues whatsoever playing games on highest settings and getting at least 60fps. Though if you do opt for 1060 get the 6gb model or don't get it at all.

>>376191661
The metaphor is a gross oversimplification. Maybe it's not wrong but it's still laughable, but this is /v/ so I'm not sure what I expected.

>>376191827
Yeah? I've owned it for almost 2 years. Ryzen was nowhere in sight then.

>>376185934
ESL rules are 1080p only i think

>>376186385
hahaha woww just buy the game for 6.99 off of a keyshop and run it yourself... you'll be mindfucked

>>376191851
1920x1080p (FHD) is never properly called 2K. 2K is something else altogether, used in some cinema formats I believe. Just look it up, fuck.

All this means is that "4K" is really a misnomer as it's just 3840 horizontal pixels, not literally 4000.