• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

480 or 970?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HAz
  • Start date Start date
A factor I brought up a few times in the other thread but to consider.

When hype grows and people discover the quality of 10bit HDR they will be glad to have these new GPU that supports it. Brings so much more detail/enjoyment for improved visuals compared to say going from 1080-4K. Shame that it will take next year before we likely see good 10bit panels in monitors or TVs at decent prices.

Although this years Samsung SUHD 4K Tv from the 8000 series up will look fantastic with upcoming HDR tone mapped titles. Considering the high-end Samsung UE48JS9000 4K SUHD 48" is currently available under £1000 you can be sure at clearance or new 2017 models such 4K HDR ready models could be available for £600 or less.

I personally look forward to this new tech in getting a big ass HDR screen in the future and that even 21:9 34" monitors are available around £400 from LG or others. The monitor market will get a shake up next year with 10bit panels.
 
Last edited:
The 970 will be a lot faster when it's overclocked vs anything a reference 480 can do in DX11 games, which accounts for the vast majority of games today and will remain so for the next year or even two. It also runs much cooler, is much quieter, and uses less power. A user here has already mentioned the 480 is much louder than his 980, and TTL in his OC3D review said exactly the same thing.

The extra VRAM is almost meaningless at 1080p, since these cards run out of compute power way before any memory limitations. That said, the 480 is definitely the better long term card, and probably even in the medium term since AMD actually produce competent drivers these days and will improve its performance gradually.
 
IF the 1080's are in the £600 mark and the 1070's £500 then the 1060's wont be around £200 surley?

I will ask him to wait a bit longer for the 1060 pricing to be announced and then look into that or a custom 480.
 
I wouldn't base it on Dx12, as by the time we get some actual proper Dx12 games, non of this patched in later rubbish, and a good amount of them, the 480 will be old hat.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
I wouldn't base it on Dx12, as by the time we get some actual proper Dx12 games, non of this patched in later rubbish, and a good amount of them, the 480 will be old hat.
Click to expand...

Battlefield 1 is DX12 and is coming this October. I don't think the 480 will be that old by then.
 
Get a 4GB 480. Beats the 970 in many games (overwhelming majority of the ones Guru3D tested), often by a substantial margin, cheaper and has modern features. It will age a Hell of a lot more gracefully than the 970.
 
By any conceivable metric the RX 480 is a better buy right now, even with just reference. Plus, you'll hate looking at benchmarks a year from now and seeing the 970 falling over itself while the 480 keeps getting updates.
If you can't up the budget to £250 and wait for the Sapphire Nitro 480, get the 4gb 480 now.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Get a 4GB 480. Beats the 970 in many games (overwhelming majority of the ones Guru3D tested), often by a substantial margin, cheaper and has modern features. It will age a Hell of a lot more gracefully than the 970.
Click to expand...

Well..

a0ccd8v.png


(at 2560x1440)
Number games where both gpus were tested: 13
Number of games where difference was within +/- 10%: 8
Number of games where the 480 was more than 10% faster: 4
Number of games where the 970 was more than 10% faster: 1 [edit: make that none, got the GTA5 numbers wrong. now fixed]

Basically....meh. That's from the guru3d review, btw.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
2560x1440

ydUWhvZ.png


Number games where both gpus were tested: 13
Number of games where difference was within +/- 10%: 8
Number of games where the 480 was more than 10% faster: 4
Number of games where the 970 was more than 10% faster: 1

Basically....meh. That's from the guru3d review, btw.
Click to expand...

Where's that from? I want to see 1080p benchmarks, not a resolution where these cards aren't viable.
 
Mayh3M said:
Where's that from? I want to see 1080p benchmarks, not a resolution where these cards aren't viable.
Click to expand...
For the record, graphic cards of this level are capable for games at 1440 res, even more so if on a monitor with Gsync/Freesync.

I am using a single 290x with a 34" 21:9 3440x1440 Freesync monitor, and I'm really surprise how smooth the game is, even with frame rate dropping to to around 35-40fps.

Also rather than trying to insisting on finding some win for the 970, the key thing anyone should bear in mind is that any new releases the 970 will no longer be performing to its full performance, and more like may be 70-80% of its peak performance since there will minimal support in optimising for old gen cards, as Nvidia would have majority of their resource put toward optimising for the new cards on the new architecture instead. Just need to look at 780Ti as an example.
 
Mayh3M said:
Where's that from? I want to see 1080p benchmarks, not a resolution where these cards aren't viable.
Click to expand...

Why, do you think that would change the results much? I've added them to the chart by the way, and the results are from the guru3d review as i said, the review h4rm0ny mentioned.
 
Poneros said:
Plus, you'll hate looking at benchmarks a year from now
Click to expand...

I think that is something people are overlooking a lot with both the 480 and 1070/1080 - less to do with (lack of) driver optimisation on the older cards and more to do with the newer cards having forward look architecture tweaking that will become more apparent with future releases.
 
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?
Click to expand...

The 390x is a better buy now, and likely to stay the better card for at least another year. After that, it's all speculation, but no major differences are going to appear. If you're not bothered by extra power required then the 390x is the best choice right now.
 
maybe you should stop replying on overclock potential and go with what you can afford, obviously the 480 is newer and cheaper(new price wise) and as people say faster than the 970, but if it was me and i had enough of waiting i would buy a used 970 for around £150-170(look on gum) and see how that goes and wait till better versions of the 480 comes out or even wait for better versions of the 1060 to be released as im sure their first line with be rubbish references like the 1070/80.


people will learn that overclocking is not the be and end all :rolleyes: i mean seriously, people must have more money than sense to worry about making the card faster after spending over £500 or over £200.
 
Last edited:
ExoMale said:
maybe you should stop replying on overclock potential and go with what you can afford, obviously the 480 is newer and cheaper(new price wise) and as people say faster than the 970, but if it was me and i had enough of waiting i would buy a used 970 for around £150-170(look on gum) and see how that goes and wait till better versions of the 480 comes out or even wait for better versions of the 1060 to be released as im sure their first line with be rubbish references like the 1070/80.


people will learn that overclocking is not the be and end all :rolleyes: i mean seriously, people must have more money than sense to worry about making the card faster after spending over £500 or over £200.
Click to expand...

I know, right? You'd think this is an overclockers forum!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom