AMD RX480, nVidia 1060 GTX 6GB or save a bit more for 1070GTX?

Brazo · 13 Sep 2016 at 14:31

I always love the Vulkan comments because how many games make use of it or are planned?

Zero I hear you say? Correct!

What's that voice at the back? Doom?, was that doom? The game that already ran perfectly on OpenGL? So no real need for Vulcan there then.

Back to zero.

h4rm0ny · 13 Sep 2016 at 14:31

~>Dg<~ said:
also rememeber games need to sell ! so with the 970 gtx being one of the biggest cards ever sold sales wise it will get support for a good while yet so will the 980.

We're not talking about support from people trying to sell games, we're talking about support from people trying to sell new graphics cards - i.e. Nvidia. Game studios will write for whatever people have, but Nvidia have a history of moving their old cards down the We Care ladder pretty quickly. You're confusing who we're talking about support from.

h4rm0ny · 13 Sep 2016 at 14:34

Brazo said:
I always love the Vulkan comments because how many games make use of it or are planned?

Zero I hear you say? Correct!

What's that voice at the back? Doom?, was that doom? The game that already ran perfectly on OpenGL? So no real need for Vulcan there then.

Back to zero.

Is that directed at me because I referenced the Doom benchmarks? I was correct to do so - I was pointing out the importance of not dipping below 4GB for future games development. That's a relevant point whether we're talking DX12 or Vulkan (or even DX11). It shows that developers have started working against an assumption of 4GB as the baseline. And unless you expect Windows to dominate gaming forever, then Vulkan is going to be used. And if you DO expect Windows to dominate gaming forever, then it's DX12. Whoever wins, Nvidia loses (in their current generation).

Rroff · 13 Sep 2016 at 14:46

Aretak said:
Can't really agree with that, having ditched a 780 earlier in the year. One that was a good overclocker too, going well past 1200MHz once flashed with the Skyn3t BIOS to remove its shackles (although the Elpida memory was complete trash, as always). The experience in many newer titles was just awful, despite the fact that in most older games it could keep up with a 970. Just Cause 3 in particular was one that drove me up the wall, coming nowhere near a locked 60fps at 1080p even with a bunch of settings turned down/off, whereas a 970 is more than enough for it maxed out. It just seems to hate Kepler. VRAM limitations were a constant thorn in newer games too. 3GB isn't enough any more, even at 1080p. Even just stepping up to 4GB improves things massively, as so many newer games sit in that 3-4GB range now at 1080p.

They're not terrible by any means, especially if you're playing mainly older stuff, but the power consumption and heat combined with the massively unpredictable performance in new games made me absolutely delighted to be rid of it. The frustration of running every benchmark around and seeing it match (sometimes beat even) a 970 and then firing up a game and the performance just not being there was immense. It's the only card I've ever had that I really came to hate.

My 780 GHZ came out the box boosting just shy of 1200MHz and ran 1300MHz with a custom BIOS - could run 1440p games fine largely never mind 1080p - sometimes had to back the AA back/use FXAA to keep other settings high. Was starting to strain the 3GB limits though hence why I never went SLI and a large part of why I wouldn't recommend them today.

Aretak · 13 Sep 2016 at 15:14

Rroff said:
My 780 GHZ came out the box boosting just shy of 1200MHz and ran 1300MHz with a custom BIOS - could run 1440p games fine largely never mind 1080p - sometimes had to back the AA back/use FXAA to keep other settings high. Was starting to strain the 3GB limits though hence why I never went SLI and a large part of why I wouldn't recommend them today.

Clearly we play very different games then.

As for the Revision B/GHz Edition cards, yes, they did boost higher. Mine was a Revision A card, and the mid-1200s is a good overclock for those on air. Still, an extra 50MHz isn't going to make a vast difference when it comes to in-game experience.

Rroff · 13 Sep 2016 at 15:35

Only games really I haven't tried/played (and albeit they seem to be 2 of the worst for Kepler) are The Division and The Witcher 3. In most stuff, DX12/Vulkan aside, my card was giving performance within ~2% of a RX480 (obviously some games where one or the other had bigger gains) - despite in some cases tech site benchmarks showing a 780 at closer to 280/7970 performance.

triss · 13 Sep 2016 at 22:20

Rroff said:
Only games really I haven't tried/played (and albeit they seem to be 2 of the worst for Kepler) are The Division and The Witcher 3. In most stuff, DX12/Vulkan aside, my card was giving performance within ~2% of a RX480 (obviously some games where one or the other had bigger gains) - despite in some cases tech site benchmarks showing a 780 at closer to 280/7970 performance.

Thats due imo to most review sites locking 780's to its reference clocks , which is understandable and tbh fair as thats what Nvidia released them at. I do know however from my own tests reference vs a 780 at 1300 core is a good improvement

Brazo · 13 Sep 2016 at 22:29

h4rm0ny said:
Is that directed at me because I referenced the Doom benchmarks? I was correct to do so - I was pointing out the importance of not dipping below 4GB for future games development. That's a relevant point whether we're talking DX12 or Vulkan (or even DX11). It shows that developers have started working against an assumption of 4GB as the baseline. And unless you expect Windows to dominate gaming forever, then Vulkan is going to be used. And if you DO expect Windows to dominate gaming forever, then it's DX12. Whoever wins, Nvidia loses (in their current generation).

Ok really not interested in who wins and loses. I don't think either company loses and I don't suspect Nvidia think they've lost this generation given they don't actually have any competition in the mid to high end cards and yes AMD have come close at the lower end with their 480 but I genuinely believe the lower price of these cards have allowed people to overlook actual facts and performance figures.

BlizzardX · 13 Sep 2016 at 22:43

So, thanks to those that have answered

From what I can tell, neither manufacturer has advantages over streaming tech compared to the other; although has anyone tried nvidias game streaming with something like moonlight?

Now to keep the 'discussions' going over usage, I don't see myself moving to anything more than 1080p for some time due to the use of TVs for playback. I'm presuming that a 1070 will have more longevity than an RX480 simply as it has more power? Will I see much difference between an RX480(8GB)/1060(6GB) and a 1070GTX with my i5 2500, i.e. will the cpu bottleneck them?

Poneros · 13 Sep 2016 at 23:09

Nvidia definitely plays nicer with more outdated CPUs than AMD atm, though that changes for DX 12 / Vulkan somewhat. Not that the i5 2500 is bad by any means, but lagging a bit now (even assuming it's a K and you overclock). If your 2500 isn't a 2500k, then I'd rather do an AMD 480 + upgrade CPU than a 1070.

h4rm0ny · 14 Sep 2016 at 07:57

BlizzardX said:
So, thanks to those that have answered From what I can tell, neither manufacturer has advantages over streaming tech compared to the other; although has anyone tried nvidias game streaming with something like moonlight?

Now to keep the 'discussions' going over usage, I don't see myself moving to anything more than 1080p for some time due to the use of TVs for playback. I'm presuming that a 1070 will have more longevity than an RX480 simply as it has more power? Will I see much difference between an RX480(8GB)/1060(6GB) and a 1070GTX with my i5 2500, i.e. will the cpu bottleneck them?

If you're confident you'll be playing at 1080 then I don't think you need more than a 480. Check benchmarks - guru3d had the 480 scoring over 70fps in most games with a few dropping below that and one outlier hitting 55. That's fine and if you're playing in a television anyway I don't think there's much point in throwing more money at the card. Not except for the purpose of planning upgrades anyway. A good monitor should be your priority once that's an option as it will make far more difference than the difference between a 480 and a 1070. But a 1070 is likely to always be the better card - I'd be pretty surprised if 480 ever caught it, so you might want to get it for the day you move to 1440, but I believe a 480 will meet your needs for as long as you're gaming the way you are.

Brazo said:
Ok really not interested in who wins and loses. I don't think either company loses and I don't suspect Nvidia think they've lost this generation given they don't actually have any competition in the mid to high end cards and yes AMD have come close at the lower end with their 480 but I genuinely believe the lower price of these cards have allowed people to overlook actual facts and performance figures.

You may not be interested in "who wins and loses" but OP who created this thread probably IS interested in whether DX12 and Vulkan are a win (my actual wording which means something else) for AMD.

Another win for AMD is Freesync. When OP upgrades to a monitor one day it's very nice to not hqve to pay a £100 GSync surcharge for what is effectively the same benefit as Freesync which is becoming standard on any monitor that isn't GSync for little to no extra cost. I firmly believe that Nvidia will have to add Freesync support to their cards eventually (which they will loathe doing and out off as long as possible) so that's an advantage the 480 has even over the 1070. (thiugh wont make a difference to the OP for as lomg as they're gaming on a TV).

Anyway, @OP, I hope all this has been of help. Both 480 and 1070 will be good buys for you. 1060 will be fine but just doesn't make as much sense as a 480 imo. Do not buy the 3GB 1060.

That's about all I have. Enjoy whichever you buy.

Brazo · 14 Sep 2016 at 08:30

h4rm0ny said:
If you're confident you'll be playing at 1080 then I don't think you need more than a 480. Check benchmarks - guru3d had the 480 scoring over 70fps in most games with a few dropping below that and one outlier hitting 55. That's fine and if you're playing in a television anyway I don't think there's much point in throwing more money at the card. Not except for the purpose of planning upgrades anyway. A good monitor should be your priority once that's an option as it will make far more difference than the difference between a 480 and a 1070. But a 1070 is likely to always be the better card - I'd be pretty surprised if 480 ever caught it, so you might want to get it for the day you move to 1440, but I believe a 480 will meet your needs for as long as you're gaming the way you are.

You may not be interested in "who wins and loses" but OP who created this thread probably IS interested in whether DX12 and Vulkan are a win (my actual wording which means something else) for AMD.

Another win for AMD is Freesync. When OP upgrades to a monitor one day it's very nice to not hqve to pay a £100 GSync surcharge for what is effectively the same benefit as Freesync which is becoming standard on any monitor that isn't GSync for little to no extra cost. I firmly believe that Nvidia will have to add Freesync support to their cards eventually (which they will loathe doing and out off as long as possible) so that's an advantage the 480 has even over the 1070. (thiugh wont make a difference to the OP for as lomg as they're gaming on a TV).

Anyway, @OP, I hope all this has been of help. Both 480 and 1070 will be good buys for you. 1060 will be fine but just doesn't make as much sense as a 480 imo. Do not buy the 3GB 1060.

That's about all I have. Enjoy whichever you buy.

1070>1060>480

Difficult isn't it

meldarthx · 14 Sep 2016 at 12:27

Brazo said:
1070>1060>=<480

Difficult isn't it

Fixed it for you unless you're going to claim 1060 3 gig is faster than 480?

1060 is a solid card - over priced - but its not greater than the 480 overall. Some things it is - older titles etc; yes.....newer titles and features not by a long shot.....

Honestly I'd grab a 480 - use that for while to see prices lower and what Vega brings - all three will be fine for streaming at 1080p.....one of the biggest issues for streaming is going to be Lan speed - Will you be wired in and gigabit speeds or wireless?

Also CPU does play a bit into streaming also. Steam streaming works most of the time - but not always - I used my main system to stream to AMD APU system on my tv and works most of the time very well.

h4rm0ny · 14 Sep 2016 at 12:31

meldarthx said:
Fixed it for you unless you're going to claim 1060 3 gig is faster than 480?

1060 is a solid card - over priced - but its not greater than the 480 overall. Some things it is - older titles etc; yes.....newer titles and features not by a long shot.....

Honestly I'd grab a 480 - use that for while to see prices lower and what Vega brings - all three will be fine for streaming at 1080p.....one of the biggest issues for streaming is going to be Lan speed - Will you be wired in and gigabit speeds or wireless?

Also CPU does play a bit into streaming also. Steam streaming works most of the time - but not always - I used my main system to stream to AMD APU system on my tv and works most of the time very well.

To be honest, unless I think there's a realistic chance of them misleading someone, I'm just not bothering to reply anymore. And I don't think simplistic and not really accurate one liners with "Difficult, isn't it" are likely to do that. Most people here aren't idiots and can judge for themselves from the arguments. A witty saying proves nothing. An unwitty one even less.

humbug · 14 Sep 2016 at 12:43

Careful when saying the RX 480 will never catch the 1070, the RX 480 has performance enhancing tech in it that none of Nvidia's cards do, so the potential is in it.

There is only 10% in it here....

JediFragger · 14 Sep 2016 at 12:44

humbug said:
the RX 480 has performance enhancing tech in it that none of Nvidia's cards do, so the possibility is in it.

Aka - A **** driver team who need 18 months+ to extract a chips full potential

(j/k)

JediFragger · 14 Sep 2016 at 12:46

On a more serious note, it does seem like Vulkan is gonna be kickass for AMD and it'll solve a lot of its problems...

humbug · 14 Sep 2016 at 12:50

JediFragger said:
On a more serious note, it does seem like Vulkan is gonna be kickass for AMD and it'll solve a lot of its problems...

It can do quite well in DX12 too... this is a £250 card vs a £450 card.

Hitman 2016.

~>Dg<~ · 14 Sep 2016 at 13:08

1070 gtx start from 350 and falling.so not £450

by christmas some 1070s will be £300.

doom amd invested a lot to get the driver right.remember before they did that the amd cards were well behind. so take all with a pinch of salt.

the 1070 gtx is quite a bit faster than a 480.

humbug · 14 Sep 2016 at 13:13

~>Dg<~ said:
1070 gtx start from 350 and falling.so not £450

by christmas some 1070s will be £300.

doom amd invested a lot to get the driver right.remember before they did that the amd cards were well behind. so take all with a pinch of salt.

the 1070 gtx is quite a bit faster than a 480.

The RX 480 starts at £199.99 but i'm talking about what you would pay for a good one.

Doom in Vulkan like Hitman in DX12 has A-synchronous shading, something no Nvidia card has.