• 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.

please just stop it, stop buying

Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
The price/performance argument just doesn't seem to hold up for me:

AFTbCbZ.png

This shows that the best cards on performance/price are:
  • RTX 2070
  • Vega 64
  • GTX 1070 Ti
  • Vega 56
Then you have the RTX 2080 Ti, GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 2080 at similar, lower, performance/price levels at the premium performance end.

For me the anomaly is the 1080 Ti. I don't see the value proposition of buying old tech at similar performance and price as the RTX 2080, and removing the optionality of DLSS.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274

He managed to convince gibbo into giving a discount, so it made sense at that price point ;)

The RX570/80 and Vega56 must be some of the best options for performance per pound. The 1080ti's along with all Nvidia cards are horribly overpriced.

Edit: Actual performance per dollar figures from recent tests.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/XFX/Radeon_RX_590_Fatboy/34.html

Update with some more cards:

LVKsDIh.png

Of the high end cards, the performance gains are significant enough that you get what you pay for, with diminishing returns that are always seen on the cutting edge. Only the 1080 Ti doesn't make sense at these price levels.

Of the mid-range cards, at £350 to £400, the Vegas and the 1070 Ti are a good value proposition. Depends if you have a gsync or freesync monitors. The 1080 is overpriced and not worth it.

At the low end, given the price differences, only the RX590 or RX570 make sense. Only reason to get a 1060 is gsync.

1050 Ti and 1050 are irrelevant outside of media centres now, in my opinion.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,597
G-sync, which will cost you an extra £1-200 over Freesync for the monitor :/

If your swapping from an AMD setup to a 2080ti your looking at closer to 2k all in! You can literally buy an entire gaming PC (with monitor) for that, a good one too.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
G-sync, which will cost you an extra £1-200 over Freesync for the monitor :/

If your swapping from an AMD setup to a 2080ti your looking at closer to 2k all in! You can literally buy an entire gaming PC (with monitor) for that, a good one too.

And you need 9900K with very good ram to push the 2080Ti.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
Citation needed. This thread disagrees: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/time-spy-standard-dx-12-bench.18740536/

For high resolution/high FPS gaming AMD cannot currently compete.

Since 2016, is been proven that TimeSpy is not a fair benchmark. It is using Nvidia optimizations on the code path at Graphic Test 2, completely crippling AMD performance.
It is better to use DX12 games for benchmark than TimeSpy.

Firestrike which hasn't such optimizations, is better indicator. Yet still, resent games like BF5 and Forza show that a Vega 64 is directly comparable to 1080Ti & 2080.
 
Associate
Joined
13 Jan 2018
Posts
1,223
This shows that the best cards on performance/price are:
  • RTX 2070
  • Vega 64
  • GTX 1070 Ti
  • Vega 56
But you need to quote resolutions when presenting this sort of stuff. At 1080p yeah these cards are better value. But at 1440p and higher 1080 ti will come into it's own. Techpowerup do some good stuff on this. I think according to them the 1080ti is slightly better value than 2070 even at the rrp.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,597
Since 2016, is been proven that TimeSpy is not a fair benchmark. It is using Nvidia optimizations on the code path at Graphic Test 2, completely crippling AMD performance.
It is better to use DX12 games for benchmark than TimeSpy.

Firestrike which hasn't such optimizations, is better indicator. Yet still, resent games like BF5 and Forza show that a Vega 64 is directly comparable to 1080Ti & 2080.

Yea I'm wondering if more recent games are tapping in Vega's compute power more, which it is still a monster at.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
But you need to quote resolutions when presenting this sort of stuff. At 1080p yeah these cards are better value. But at 1440p and higher 1080 ti will come into it's own. Techpowerup do some good stuff on this. I think according to them the 1080ti is slightly better value than 2070 even at the rrp.

But why would you buy a 1080 Ti when a 2080 can be had for the same price (or slightly cheaper)?
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy

I think he means the current pricing not £579

He managed to convince gibbo into giving a discount, so it made sense at that price point ;)

Of the high end cards, the performance gains are significant enough that you get what you pay for, with diminishing returns that are always seen on the cutting edge. Only the 1080 Ti doesn't make sense at these price levels.

The 1080ti makes sense at sub £600

But why would you buy a 1080 Ti when a 2080 can be had for the same price (or slightly cheaper)?

You wouldn’t .
 
Associate
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Posts
590
Location
Australia - Sunshine Coast
Yea I'm wondering if more recent games are tapping in Vega's compute power more, which it is still a monster at.
Well anything that uses Async Compute properly, you'll see Vega shine. Also anything setup to run Turing properly will also benefit any GCN based arch from AMD. Hence the screeching over BFV and Forza, both of which play to the benefits of Turing and GCN. Just because it's not the standard in the industry at the moment, it's fast becoming the standard for new gaming tech except stuff from Bethesda. Until Bethesda start to use a proper engine instead of trying to mismatch Gamebryo to everything they'll still suffer **** performance and limitations in their games.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,102
He managed to convince gibbo into giving a discount, so it made sense at that price point ;)



Update with some more cards:

LVKsDIh.png

Of the high end cards, the performance gains are significant enough that you get what you pay for, with diminishing returns that are always seen on the cutting edge. Only the 1080 Ti doesn't make sense at these price levels.

Of the mid-range cards, at £350 to £400, the Vegas and the 1070 Ti are a good value proposition. Depends if you have a gsync or freesync monitors. The 1080 is overpriced and not worth it.

At the low end, given the price differences, only the RX590 or RX570 make sense. Only reason to get a 1060 is gsync.

1050 Ti and 1050 are irrelevant outside of media centres now, in my opinion.

Since when was userbench something we used in here for price performance. Game benchmarks and the actual price at the time is far more reliable. New games keep coming and it's clear to see in them what performs well. A quick look at the price at the time tells you all you need to know. Nvidia right at this moment are just about as bad as it gets end of story. The main probably for high end after Vega is it's NV v NV.
 
Associate
Joined
13 Jan 2018
Posts
1,223
But why would you buy a 1080 Ti when a 2080 can be had for the same price (or slightly cheaper)?
I think at current prices 1080ti / 2080 there is not much difference. But you were saying that 2070/ 1070 ti / vega 56 are best value for money. I'm sayin you need to consider the resolution your playing at.
 
Back
Top Bottom