Do AMD have a cheaper card that matches a 1070?

Griffildur · 9 Nov 2016 at 08:17

AthlonXP1800 said:
LOL AMD got nothing that matched 1070 in VR games but 1060 is slight better than Fury X in all VR titles. Nvidia owned the whole PC VR market and AMD never won a single VR game performance out of around 800 VR titles.

HardOCP have review for latest VR game The Brookhaven_Experiment.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/11/04/amd_nvidia_gpu_vr_perf_brookhaven_experiment

Just forget about AMD for now, if you want to get 1070 now for VR, better get it now before prices could go up again. AMD Vega is long time away but we never know if it will be any better or yet another disaster in VR performance to compete with 1080 Ti and Titan X Pascal since AMD cancelled consumer version of Fury Pro Duo.

Well, I expect the prices to fall dramatically very quickly.... right ? Well, of course that's not what usually happens .. quick to go up ... extremely slow to go down ... I wonder why ... hmm ... ok maybe it was a bit of sarcasm in there ... somewhere

Griffildur · 9 Nov 2016 at 08:19

maonayze said:
And good for you too. The only way we will see cheaper prices is if no-one buys the cards at the ludicrous prices we are seeing today.

Some people just have no will power to resist being on top of some benchmarks list. LOL

Why do you assume people only buy top cards because of benchmarks?

We know very well that even the 1080 can't do proper 4k. If that's what one wants then yes they will buy the 1080 TI.

james.miller · 9 Nov 2016 at 08:32

Phixator said:
actually it does not. Competitive does not have to mean "faster or as fast" as the top card from the competition. AMD has choosen a bracket to compete in which is the midrange cards and they are doing just fine there performance wise.

if AMD doesnt have a card that competes with the 1070 then cant you guys just call a spade a spade?

loonies

Minstadave · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:04

Phixsator said:
actually it does not. Competitive does not have to mean "faster or as fast" as the top card from the competition. AMD has choosen a bracket to compete in which is the midrange cards and they are doing just fine there performance wise.

I love the idea that AMD have chosen to compete in that area.

Nasher · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:11

The Nvidia cards are not good value for money any more though.

Plus as we have seen from the last few generations of cards, performance drops off or stops improving once the next ones come along. I wouldn't be surprised if in a years time we see the 480 slowly catching the 1070 up.

maonayze · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:22

Gregster said:
This is a stupid statement (you have made several of those lately). The OP wants to play VR and currently NVidia own in VR, AMD have nothing that is really good enough unless you want to turn down settings by a chunk, which in turn spoils the VR experience.

This thread was nothing to do with being top of benchmarks and all to do with VR gaming and what is the OP's best option. And if people can afford to buy decent VR cards, why shouldn't they?

Get out of bed the wrong side Greg?

So what stupid statements are those then Greg? and who are you to judge what is a stupid statement made by myself or any other poster for that matter. I am sure that you have made a few "Less than astute" comments along the way and I certainly haven't had a go at you for any of them. The benchmarks comment was followed by a suitable emoticon IMHO. Why don't you get off yer high horse and chill a bit fella :rolleyes:

maonayze · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:28

james.miller said:
if AMD doesnt have a card that competes with the 1070 then cant you guys just call a spade a spade?

loonies

Okay, AMD havent got a card that competes with the 1070. Do you feel better now?

But we all know that Vega has been promised for H1 2017 (Hopefully sooner in H1 rather than later) and when it is released we will know what is what in that segment of the market.

james.miller · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:33

Maonayze said:
Okay, AMD havent got a card that competes with the 1070. Do you feel better now?

since you're telling the truth, yes

That is, afterall, what the OP asked.

nightrider1470 said:
AMD have always been bang for buck, but not sure if they have something that matches 1070?

Thanks

beany_bot · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:42

2 pages going on 3. When this thread could have been answered with 2 letters.

No

Griffildur · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:44

Nasher said:
The Nvidia cards are not good value for money any more though.

Plus as we have seen from the last few generations of cards, performance drops off or stops improving once the next ones come along. I wouldn't be surprised if in a years time we see the 480 slowly catching the 1070 up.

Sorry, this is simply not true. I personally don't care about what this AMD card or any other card is going to do in 3 years from now. I want performance now, and certainly don't like this waiting game AMD is playing. Here, buy for the future means nothing. You buy for now and in 3 years there will be much stronger cards to move up to. We had this level of performance what ... 3 years ago?

If you're happy with this then by all means wait and keep waiting. I'd rather enjoy my games properly.

Nasher · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:48

Well most people only upgrade GPUs every 2-3 years. Otherwise Nvidia gimping wouldn't be so talked about.

Griffildur · 9 Nov 2016 at 09:57

Nasher said:
Well most people only upgrade GPUs every 2-3 years. Otherwise Nvidia gimping wouldn't be so talked about.

So by gimping you mean that if I play the same game on the same card now and in 2 years time, my card will performance worse in 2 years. That's what gimping means and this is not my experience at all especially since I have a lot of games I play for a while every now and then.

What I have seen is that AMD cards do behave a bit better and granted this is based on what people have said on this forum.

This to me means they have really bad drivers which get better over time. So basically the cards could perform a lot better from day 1 IF the drivers were better. That's one of my main gripes with AMD cards. I want decent performance now, not over the next 3 years.

I watched how a lot of people were amazed how fluid their games were with RX480 and kept thinking yes, welcome to 2013, my 970 did all that and still does. AMD need to break this cycle and for once catch up. Maybe next year.

maonayze · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:07

Griffildur said:
If you're happy with this then by all means wait and keep waiting. I'd rather enjoy my games properly.

Thank you, I will wait as it is my right to do so. Just like it is your right to go and buy whatever card you like right now.

I not only enjoy my games "properly" but I enjoy mine at a cheaper price hardware wise. Do you actually think that AMD owners would buy a product that does not play games, as you put it... properly. If my AMD card didn't play games properly I wouldn't be using it. :confused:

I am a value for money person at heart and therefore cannot see me getting an Nvidia card for a while yet. Not at those kind of prices anyway. I also have a worry about Pascal and DX12/Async for future performance, so it's no to Nvidia right now. Whether they change all that in Volta is another matter and I would possibly consider another Nvidia card if they did (If the price was right, of course).

Nasher · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:12

Griffildur said:
So by gimping you mean that if I play the same game on the same card now and in 2 years time, my card will performance worse in 2 years.

That is exactly whats been happening with new drivers on old nvidia cards.

maonayze · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:21

Griffildur said:
I watched how a lot of people were amazed how fluid their games were with RX480 and kept thinking yes, welcome to 2013, my 970 did all that and still does. AMD need to break this cycle and for once catch up. Maybe next year.

Seriously, I think you will find that this WOW factor at how well games played on a 480 was more down to the cost of the card and the fact that it performed well considering it was a mid-tier card. Not because it was the first time they had witnessed an AMD card playing games over 5 FPS :confused:

The 290/390/X werent exactly slouches and still give good performance today. Granted it's not the best performance as things have moved on, but the way you talk AMD cards were running in stop frame animation until the 480 came along.

Quick someone go tell Gregster that I think I have found a statement that is stupider than anything I have ever said (IMHO

).

Nasher · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:25

The 480 performs very well for it's price, better than my 970 does. In dx12 there is no contest. If my 970 had not become unstable on STOCK clocks, I would have sold it

triss · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:28

Nasher said:
That is exactly whats been happening with new drivers on old nvidia cards.

I must say had my gtx 780 for 2+ years and it didnt seem FPS wise to preform any slower when i sold it in the same games that it did when new.

Yes it was slower then a 900 and a 1000 series on newer games but thats lack of optimisation and in some cases if did certain things less well and not a case of gimping as described.

Nasher · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:29

triss said:
I must say had my gtx 780 for 2+ years and it didnt seem FPS wise to preform any slower when i sold it in the same games that it did when new.

Yes it was slower then a 900 and a 1000 series on newer games but thats lack of optimisation and in some cases if did certain things less well and not a case of gimping as described.

The 780 used to beat the 290x. Now it's the other way round :/

triss · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:34

Nasher said:
The 780 used to beat the 290x. Now it's the other way round :/

Thats due to the 290x being optimised more especially since it was basically relaunched as the 390x and until Polaris a Current gen card for AMD.

Overall you look at fps for a 780 for games on its release vs that same card same clocks running todays drivers you wont see a decrease

Gimping is reducing its performance against itself you cant compare it to a card thats increased and call it gimped.

maonayze · 9 Nov 2016 at 10:40

triss said:
I must say had my gtx 780 for 2+ years and it didnt seem FPS wise to preform any slower when i sold it in the same games that it did when new.

Yes it was slower then a 900 and a 1000 series on newer games but thats lack of optimisation and in some cases if did certain things less well and not a case of gimping as described.

Yeah, you are correct. I have never thought that Nvidia were actually programming drivers to make older cards perform worse. They just don't optimise for older cards as much as AMD do. This is yet another perpetual myth that seems to cling on for dear life around old Nvidia cards with no concrete evidence to support it.

AMD have similar skeletons which are banded about continuously (Crap Drivers for Example) with no real justification for digging it up in this day and age. Unfortunately they are just worn old out sticks which we beat each other with when we feel the need. :cool: