1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz. Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz. Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
Its kinda odd they made this card better then the RX 460 but not as good as the 470. I saw some benchmarks and you are right. It looks like they are just aiming to destroy AMD"s 460 market. Man NVIDIA really came out full force against AMD this year. I was going to buy the 460 but when they got the 1050 for just 10$ more then I'm getting it.
Well my 3gb 1060 i got for 199 beats a 480 in heaven bench marks, and gets 300 more if i over clock, so the 6gb 1060 is def much better. The 1060 is basically a 980.
1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz. Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
Its kinda odd they made this card better then the RX 460 but not as good as the 470. I saw some benchmarks and you are right. It looks like they are just aiming to destroy AMD"s 460 market. Man NVIDIA really came out full force against AMD this year. I was going to buy the 460 but when they got the 1050 for just 10$ more then I'm getting it.
It's not odd at all. Nvidia designed four Pascal chips for GeForce cards. They have 6, 10, 20, and 30 compute units, respectively. Salvage parts can fill in some holes, such as how the GTX 1070 uses a GP104 chip with 20 compute units, then disables 5 of them to leave 15 functional. That gives Nvidia a reasonable GPU chip for everything from $100 budget cards to top of the line flagship cards, and everything in between. Building a second GPU chip that is about as fast as the first makes no sense unless you want to discontinue the first for some reason. Both Nvidia and AMD have used this basic strategy for pretty much every single architecture for many years now.
1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz. Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
Its kinda odd they made this card better then the RX 460 but not as good as the 470. I saw some benchmarks and you are right. It looks like they are just aiming to destroy AMD"s 460 market. Man NVIDIA really came out full force against AMD this year. I was going to buy the 460 but when they got the 1050 for just 10$ more then I'm getting it.
I'm not sure where the 460 is supposed to fit in the market but it's not really gaming. The 1050 is barely a gaming card. It works okay for low end games, but then so do SoCs.
The 460 is an entry level gaming card, but its real worth is that it is what you mate to an A-12 APU system to get proper dual graphics. This is a cheap way to get nearly 480 level graphics in a budget system. I doubt such a rig would be truly VR ready, but it would likely play all of the games that are out and most of the upcoming games as well.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz. Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
Its kinda odd they made this card better then the RX 460 but not as good as the 470. I saw some benchmarks and you are right. It looks like they are just aiming to destroy AMD"s 460 market. Man NVIDIA really came out full force against AMD this year. I was going to buy the 460 but when they got the 1050 for just 10$ more then I'm getting it.
I'm not sure where the 460 is supposed to fit in the market but it's not really gaming. The 1050 is barely a gaming card. It works okay for low end games, but then so do SoCs.
The 460 is an entry level gaming card, but its real worth is that it is what you mate to an A-12 APU system to get proper dual graphics. This is a cheap way to get nearly 480 level graphics in a budget system. I doubt such a rig would be truly VR ready, but it would likely play all of the games that are out and most of the upcoming games as well.
You saying the apu gfx can be combined with the gpu with dx12 or something? Because I have never heard of anyone using both at the same time for gaming.
1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now
Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now.
Again I ask. What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950? All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970. Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.
The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz. Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
Its kinda odd they made this card better then the RX 460 but not as good as the 470. I saw some benchmarks and you are right. It looks like they are just aiming to destroy AMD"s 460 market. Man NVIDIA really came out full force against AMD this year. I was going to buy the 460 but when they got the 1050 for just 10$ more then I'm getting it.
I'm not sure where the 460 is supposed to fit in the market but it's not really gaming. The 1050 is barely a gaming card. It works okay for low end games, but then so do SoCs.
The 460 is an entry level gaming card, but its real worth is that it is what you mate to an A-12 APU system to get proper dual graphics. This is a cheap way to get nearly 480 level graphics in a budget system. I doubt such a rig would be truly VR ready, but it would likely play all of the games that are out and most of the upcoming games as well.
You saying the apu gfx can be combined with the gpu with dx12 or something? Because I have never heard of anyone using both at the same time for gaming.
Ok I looked it up and AMD does have this ability. But right now its very limited and not currently available with the RX, R9 cards.
I think you're overestimating the capabilities of APUs, at least if you exclude consoles. AMD hasn't yet launched an APU with more than 8 compute units. A Radeon RX 460 has 16 compute units, and they're clocked higher, too. It also has more than double the memory bandiwidth, so it's going to better than double the performance of an APU at just about anything where you don't have a PCI Express bottleneck. Better than double the performance--and commonly more like triple it--is enough to justify buying a discrete card.
Now, APUs do make the next tier down mostly obsolete. There's no real point in buying a Radeon R5 230 or a GeForce GT 730 for a new system. But it's not a coincidence that those are based on discrete GPU chips from 2013 and 2012 respectively, and neither AMD nor Nvidia design new, discrete GPU chips in that range anymore.
Once we get HBM on the APU package, that makes the RX 460 and GTX 1050 tier of performance obsolete in a discrete card, and possibly the next tier up, even. But we're not there yet.
Once your at the budget level of a $100 GPU, I thik the difference between 8 and 16 compute units is also the difference between a decent PSU or one that's utter junk, a 40G SSSD vs a 128 or 256G SSD, and 2G of RAM vs 8G of RAM.
Sure, 16 compute units is nicer than 8, but so are all those other things too... My comment was not about matching performance, it's about meeting a budget
@holdenhamlet I'm saying that Nvidia messes up just like AMD does.
Any other claims are a nice mix of bias and bullshit.
It's not about "messing up". It's about the cards not even working correctly with certain games.
AMD has a history of that.
oh really?
whit all the screwups NVidia has done over the years with drivers (blowin up monitors, blowing up cards, requiring specific drivers for specific games which ment keeping dozens of drivers and reinstalling them for specific games) JUST in 2016. NVidia drivers have broken Windows on 5 releases. They had to pull 3 driver releases (ALL WHQL "certified") because myriad issues the caused all from breking Windows to burning cards.
Not to mention that my games werent usable due to constant driver crashes and i had to postpone playing them. Now i have AMD card and no problems whatsoever.
People like you who have no clue what theyre talking about and just parrot what paid shills spread over the internet. OH yeah, NVidia does that, i bet you didnt know that either lol
Well my 3gb 1060 i got for 199 beats a 480 in heaven bench marks, and gets 300 more if i over clock, so the 6gb 1060 is def much better. The 1060 is basically a 980.
Thats great, my 480 smokes both 1060 3 and 6GB 1060 in Firestrike. 480 is faster than 980! ANd guess what: 480 costs 199$ lol
And thats great if you play benchmarks.
ANd by your logic, 970 is also basically 980 because is you OC it it surpasses reference 980 lol
Well my 3gb 1060 i got for 199 beats a 480 in heaven bench marks, and gets 300 more if i over clock, so the 6gb 1060 is def much better. The 1060 is basically a 980.
Thats great, my 480 smokes both 1060 3 and 6GB 1060 in Firestrike. 480 is faster than 980! ANd guess what: 480 costs 199$ lol
And thats great if you play benchmarks.
ANd by your logic, 970 is also basically 980 because is you OC it it surpasses reference 980 lol
So for some reason I'm trying to see the benchmarks on firestrike and I can't figure out how to see them. Could you give me directions so I can see this proof that the benchmarks for the 480 are better?
HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.
The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.
At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.
If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.
HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.
The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.
At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.
If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.
But they ARE talking about the 1050. Maybe you missed something here.
The eVGA thing really isn't nVidia's fault. nVidia only makes the chip which runs cool. They can't be held accountable if the board partner doesn't cool the VRM. MSI did something similar as well by pushing the voltage on a card well beyond its limits a few years ago. The only instance I can think of where nVidia or AMD was responsible for frying cards was the 8500m/8600m. A driver update caused these chips to run out of spec frying them. Since 2006, nVidia has had a worse record for driver updates. The only anomaly I can think of in the last decade with AMD was with UI overlays in nVidia sponsored titles out of the blue. I am pretty sure that was something outside AMDs control as rolling back the drivers did nothing to correct the issue. It was fixed a month later. It's just the benefit of updating only 2 architectures verse updating 7.
I'd rather pay more money for a solid Nvidia card then pay less money to deal with the shit AMD drivers.
By the time DX12 is a notable consideration for gaming, I suspect Nvidia will be releasing a card that's at least comparable to whatever AMD is offering if not superior performance-wise.
@SedrynTyros wins - first to mention "bad AMD drivers" in an AMD vs nVidia thread.
I base my opinion on personal experience. When I tried my first AMD card back when it was still ATI in 2001? Their drivers sucked. And now that I use a AMD card while at work? Yep ... they still suck.
As soon as AMD drivers stop sucking, I'll be the first one to congratulate them, but a 15 year suckfest is one helluva streak so I'm not going to hold my breath
lol what i've had less driver issues on my RX290xs with AMDs drivers, than i had with 4 previous generations of nvidia drivers cards from the GTX 200 - 700 series... infact i haven't had any new release games just flat out not work or run incredibly poorly on release day with my RXs in comparison to many titles i had issues with on release day with my nvidia cards.
the whole bad drivers is an outdated old wives tale that people still seem to like to bring up with no actual foundation or proof
@holdenhamlet I'm saying that Nvidia messes up just like AMD does.
Any other claims are a nice mix of bias and bullshit.
It's not about "messing up". It's about the cards not even working correctly with certain games.
AMD has a history of that.
You mean like Nvidia has a history of frying their cards? I had several Nvidias and several AMDs.. guess which ones fried?
Um, no Nvidia doesn't have a reputation for "frying their cards". Sounds like you had a bad power supply.
Yep that was totally the issue. And that's why Nvidia replaced the card with a newer model because the cooling system of my original card was beyond broken so they had already taken it off the market.
Either way I am done with this back and forth in this thread. There have only been a few real inputs in this discussion.
The majority of posts reads like tl;dr: AMD evil - Nvidia godly
It's not about good or evil. It's about "Will this piece of hardware work correctly with software I want to use it with (both now and in the future)."
owned my RX290x's since just before wildstar launched back in 2014, since then i have not had a game on the market be unplayable or unable to be used on these cards, infact friends who were having launch day problems on 900 nvidia cards i was not experiencing and able to play said games in all their glory with no issue.
Edit - not to mention 2 years later and they're still going strong, unlike the EVGA GTX 780s i had in SLi that both burned out within 8 months of purchase, was actually the reason i made the move to AMD... very happy i did!
Heh, war between AMD and nVidia fans will never end. So pointless. I usually swap between nVidia and amd when buying my next card, but this time I upgraded MSI 270x to MSI rx 470 Gaming 8GB. I was reading dozens of tests and wondering if I should get GTX 1060 6gb or RX 470, but honestly I see no point if you plan only to play in 1080p. Both cards can run everything on max and hold steady 60+fps even in Witcher 3.
tl;dr 1060 3gb - nono (check some FCAT analysis, noticeable stuttering in some games due to not enough VRAM) 470 4gb - same as above, but to a lesser extent; less future-proof than 8gb version 470 8gb - sweet spot, best bang for your buck, when overclocked beats stock 480 and comes close to 1060, better in dx12 1060 6gb - more expensive with less VRAM, while providing no noticeable difference (both can hold 60 fps in most games), better in dx11
tl;dr 470 4gb - same as above, but to a lesser extent; less future-proof than 8gb version 470 8gb - sweet spot, best bang for your buck, when overclocked beats stock 480 and comes close to 1060, better in dx12
I disagree with that. Getting 8GB version of 470 will give just situational advantage over 4GB version, when you could be spending that money to invest in 480 or 1060 which are faster in all situations.
8GB version of 470 is aimed for people who are easily impressed by large numbers, but for gaming performance it doesn't make much sense.
tl;dr 470 4gb - same as above, but to a lesser extent; less future-proof than 8gb version 470 8gb - sweet spot, best bang for your buck, when overclocked beats stock 480 and comes close to 1060, better in dx12
I disagree with that. Getting 8GB version of 470 will give just situational advantage over 4GB version, when you could be spending that money to invest in 480 or 1060 which are faster in all situations.
8GB version of 470 is aimed for people who are easily impressed by large numbers, but for gaming performance it doesn't make much sense.
I've got over 20 computers, 6 high end rigs running Cad's. Probably over 50-60 rigs over the last 25 years, lost count. I haven't had a single graphic card issue period, over all those years.
I wonder how many people ever blow the dust out of their systems.
I've got over 20 computers, 6 high end rigs running Cad's. Probably over 50-60 rigs over the last 25 years, lost count. I haven't had a single graphic card issue period, over all those years.
I wonder how many people ever blow the dust out of their systems.
HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.
The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.
At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.
If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.
But they ARE talking about the 1050. Maybe you missed something here.
There is a 1050, and there's a 1050 Ti. They are two different cards, at two different prices.
HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.
Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.
HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.
The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.
At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.
If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.
But they ARE talking about the 1050. Maybe you missed something here.
There is a 1050, and there's a 1050 Ti. They are two different cards, at two different prices.
HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.
Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.
I wasn't aware that the 1050 is even available for testing.
Comments
Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz. The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz. So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.
So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
http://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/nvidia-gtx-1050-release-date-specs
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
Sure, 16 compute units is nicer than 8, but so are all those other things too... My comment was not about matching performance, it's about meeting a budget
whit all the screwups NVidia has done over the years with drivers (blowin up monitors, blowing up cards, requiring specific drivers for specific games which ment keeping dozens of drivers and reinstalling them for specific games) JUST in 2016. NVidia drivers have broken Windows on 5 releases. They had to pull 3 driver releases (ALL WHQL "certified") because myriad issues the caused all from breking Windows to burning cards.
Not to mention that my games werent usable due to constant driver crashes and i had to postpone playing them. Now i have AMD card and no problems whatsoever.
People like you who have no clue what theyre talking about and just parrot what paid shills spread over the internet. OH yeah, NVidia does that, i bet you didnt know that either lol
https://consumerist.com/2006/02/06/did-nvidia-hire-online-actors-to-promote-their-products/
Oh yeah, its very hard for you to play gemes when your GPU is on fire lol:
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-evga-cards-dying/
And thats great if you play benchmarks.
ANd by your logic, 970 is also basically 980 because is you OC it it surpasses reference 980 lol
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/30/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_gaming_x_vs_amd_radeon_rx_470/1
At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.
If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.
Since 2006, nVidia has had a worse record for driver updates. The only anomaly I can think of in the last decade with AMD was with UI overlays in nVidia sponsored titles out of the blue. I am pretty sure that was something outside AMDs control as rolling back the drivers did nothing to correct the issue. It was fixed a month later. It's just the benefit of updating only 2 architectures verse updating 7.
the whole bad drivers is an outdated old wives tale that people still seem to like to bring up with no actual foundation or proof
Edit - not to mention 2 years later and they're still going strong, unlike the EVGA GTX 780s i had in SLi that both burned out within 8 months of purchase, was actually the reason i made the move to AMD... very happy i did!
I usually swap between nVidia and amd when buying my next card, but this time I upgraded MSI 270x to MSI rx 470 Gaming 8GB. I was reading dozens of tests and wondering if I should get GTX 1060 6gb or RX 470, but honestly I see no point if you plan only to play in 1080p. Both cards can run everything on max and hold steady 60+fps even in Witcher 3.
tl;dr
1060 3gb - nono (check some FCAT analysis, noticeable stuttering in some games due to not enough VRAM)
470 4gb - same as above, but to a lesser extent; less future-proof than 8gb version
470 8gb - sweet spot, best bang for your buck, when overclocked beats stock 480 and comes close to 1060, better in dx12
1060 6gb - more expensive with less VRAM, while providing no noticeable difference (both can hold 60 fps in most games), better in dx11
8GB version of 470 is aimed for people who are easily impressed by large numbers, but for gaming performance it doesn't make much sense.
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/grafikkarten-speicher-vram-test/3/#diagramm-deus-ex-mankind-divided-texturen-ultra-geforce-gtx-1060
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/grafikkarten-speicher-vram-test/2/#diagramm-mirrors-edge-catalyst-texturen-hyper-geforce-gtx-1060
Sure, if you like the stuttering.
I've got over 20 computers, 6 high end rigs running Cad's. Probably over 50-60 rigs over the last 25 years, lost count. I haven't had a single graphic card issue period, over all those years.
I wonder how many people ever blow the dust out of their systems.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.
Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.