480 or 970?

james.miller · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:35

Rroff said:
I don't really consider the VRAM (while more is nice) that big a deal - at resolutions and settings where the extra VRAM is useful I've found the 970 is already running out of core performance - the exception there being for a crossfire setup but IMO if you are putting down that kind of money upfront it is silly to go for multi GPU over a single GPU that can perform about the same as the 2 card setup.

Rroff said:
TBH power consumption doesn't really enter the equation in my mind (after all I've generally run SLI setups) - while I find the whole 3.5GB thing detestable and think nVidia got off way too lightly over it - I've never actually found it an issue in normal use - only way I've been able to have it cause a problem is with synthetic loading up.

wait for the 1060, and buy whatever the best card is. wont be a 970 though.

Rroff · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:36

LegendaryDread said:
Pascal is basically 16nm Maxwell, so this won't happen. Having said that, buying a 970 right now is a bad move.

Nah there are several differences especially when it comes to the compute shader stuff - different set of optimisations even though the architectures aren't a million miles removed so there is no guarantee there.

LoadsaMoney · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:36

Boomstick777 said:
I think the power difference is ~ 5-10 Watts depending on review. That would bother you... Mental lol 0.0. This guy would be better off with RX480. Bang for buck.

Doesn't bother me how much power it uses, as im on AMD myself, it only matters to Nvidia owners

Boomstick777 · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:38

LoadsaMoney said:
Doesn't bother me how much power it uses, as im on AMD myself, it only matters to Nvidia owners

Lol.

Rroff · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:42

james.miller said:

I've generally bought into SLI at very specific price and performance points where it is possible to utilise it to best effect

though even the GTX470s eventually fell down there as they ran out of VRAM before the core performance of a pair became obsolete :S

Sparkman · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:45

If you are going to keep the card Long term 480, short term 970. We know historically RX 480 will age well plus DX12.

wellibob · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:48

480 over a 970 right this minute.

Rroff · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:54

Sparkman said:
If you are going to keep the card Long term 480, short term 970. We know historically RX 480 will age well plus DX12.

Thing is though at the end of the day - compared to what is "possible" with 500+mm2 cards the 480 is really a low end card in its (somewhat theoretical at this point) generation line up - when developers start really targeting DX12/Vulkan the 480 is going to be a good way down the scale unless both AMD and nVidia screw up and we don't see real high end cards for a long long time - I'm not convinced of its long term potential.

You aren't going to see developers limiting themselves to the 480 as their budget for performance if the 1080 becomes more mainstream let alone if we have significantly better full fat cards on the table.

Wrinkly · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:54

480 easily. Nvidia are still having problems with DirectX12 while even older AMD cards are only getting better. then consider the cost difference of Freesync vs Gsync and the fact that game developers are targeting GCN (AMD) primarily due to consoles. It's not really a question you have to ask.

I don't see Nvidia having an answer to AMD at this level.

CEUOTC · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:59

480 is a great shout especially for the sub £200 market.

james.miller · 2 Jul 2016 at 17:59

Rroff said:
I've generally bought into SLI at very specific price and performance points where it is possible to utilise it to best effect though even the GTX470s eventually fell down there as they ran out of VRAM before the core performance of a pair became obsolete :S

I can believe that.

I've maintained the 970s will run out of steam before they run out of ram, been saying it since the the ram issues were exposed. The exception is sli as you say but then sli is broken because of the wonky vram config anyway. You'd be nuts, or very lucky not to have run in to issues, if you're still running 970 sli today.

The 970s are great cards but time has come. the 480s have them beat and when the price settles down there'll be little to no reason to buy a 970 anyway. The only reason i still have mine is because nVidia have screwed us out of a decent upgrade path. Well, there is one, but i'm not moving up a price bracket to gain any worthwhile improvement over my 970 when i've already had it for 18 months. Shouldn't have to!

Jack Bauer · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:01

Sorry for the thread hijack, but what are peoples thoughts on the 480 vs 390x as they are basically the same price right now (assume none standard cooler).

Currently gone with the 390x which appears faster for now...but in the long term?

Rroff · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:02

james.miller said:
The 970s are great cards but time has come. the 480s have them beat and when the price settles down there'll be little to no reason to buy a 970 anyway. The only reason i still have mine is because nVidia have screwed us out of a decent upgrade path. Well, there is one, but i'm not moving up a price bracket to gain any worthwhile improvement over my 970 when i've already had it for 18 months. Shouldn't have to!

At this point (though 1-2 games I don't play maybe would change my perspective) struggling to justify moving on from the cards I do have - even at 1440p the 970 is happily serving up playable performance in Doom with ultra settings, etc. (slightly helped by having G-Sync) certainly I don't have an incentive right now to go up a price bracket to my normal spend as I would have to.

se_vietboi · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:03

I'd say 480.

RavenXXX2 · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:05

Jack Bauer said:
Sorry for the thread hijack, but what are peoples thoughts on the 480 vs 390x as they are basically the same price right now (assume none standard cooler).

Currently gone with the 390x which appears faster for now...but in the long term?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1746?vs=1748

A small OC should bring it up to 390x speed and 390x uses over 100 watts more. I would look at the sapphire 480 that has just gone on pre-order.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:06

Jack Bauer said:
Sorry for the thread hijack, but what are peoples thoughts on the 480 vs 390x as they are basically the same price right now (assume none standard cooler).

Currently gone with the 390x which appears faster for now...but in the long term?

The Sapphire Nitro RX480 8GB is £249.95,so I would probably consider that over an R9 390X TBH.

Jack Bauer · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:12

Power isnt really too important for me (but understand it is for some), but will have to consider the performance of the Sapphire I agree. Will take a look at the BM as they come in.

I mainly went with the 390x as I have zero time for maintianing/Ocing my PC these days so went for out of the box performance. My main worry is that the 390x may not age well. That said a quick look at the DX12 performace vs the 480 seems to indicate that it will be fine.

Just to add both are £250.

erazor51 · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:14

480 any day, it's more future proof then 970, plus more memory.

RavenXXX2 · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:16

Jack Bauer said:
Power isnt really too important for me (but understand it is for some), but will have to consider the performance of the Sapphire I agree. Will take a look at the BM as they come in.

I mainly went with the 390x as I have zero time for maintianing/Ocing my PC these days so went for out of the box performance. My main worry is that the 390x may not age well. That said a quick look at the DX12 performace vs the 480 seems to indicate that it will be fine.

Just to add both are £250.

The sapphire is overclocked out the box, no confirmed clocks yet.

old gamer · 2 Jul 2016 at 18:17

480 would be my choice, swings and roundabouts dx 11 and dx 12 the 480 is stronger