to add to some previous discussions, higly OCed 1070 (2025 MHz Gigabyte XTreme) only 39% faster than stock 470 (in 2 different site benches its same 39%)
1070 GGB Extreme: 460$ 470: 170$ (HIS is cheapest 470)
"sweet spot" right lol
you get 170*1,39= 236,3 $ worth of performance for 460 $ if you buy 1070 lol
Eh? thats actually THE point of CPU tests meaning theres no CPU botlenecks EVEN with GTX1080.
Well, that is an interesting piece of data to have, but it doesn't say anything as to per-core scaling or IPC requirements or specific instruction requirements of the particular game, which, in my opinion, is more to the point of a CPU test. If your test shows a $350 Core i7 Skylake running the same as a $70 FX-4300 (and everything in between), your not painting a complete picture with your test - may as well just test everything on 640x480 then.
It may be there are no settings that are able to put significant stress on the CPU. That would be unusual, but not unheard of, for a game to be so heavily GPU bound.
The only interesting thing about this CPU chart - for some unknown reason, the 3.8 Ghz FX-4300 outperforms the 4.0 Ghz FX-8350, and the 3.5 Ghz FX-6300 does worse than both, by a large margin. Given those are all the same architecture, those results don't follow clock speed or core count. It's another item that makes me question this CPU test.
Haven't run a game at 1080 in ages, not that i am interested in Titanfall 2 at all, but when it comes to benchmarks, about the only ones i am interested in are the ones at 1440 and 4k (2k and 4k).
The 470 same as the 1060 in @Phry post. Unless you are going for a 1070 or higher and need a card right now there is no reason to buy Nvidia atm. Once the 490 comes out there may not be a reason at all this go around.
The 470 same as the 1060 in @Phry post. Unless you are going for a 1070 or higher and need a card right now there is no reason to buy Nvidia atm. Once the 490 comes out there may not be a reason at all this go around.
i think for 2k gaming you would need at least the Rx480 8gb version, though even then, to get decent framerates you would want the R9 fury x or the slightly better 1070, if the 490 equals or exceeds 1070 performance for less of a price tag, you might have a point though.
Unless you are going for a 1070 or higher and need a card right now there is no reason to buy Nvidia atm. Once the 490 comes out there may not be a reason at all this go around.
By the time RX 490 comes out, we may well be comparing it to NVidia's new Volta graphic cards.
This generation NVidia launched their first Pascal cards before AMD launched their first Polaris cards. There's no guarantee that next generation AMD can even launch their first Vega graphic card before NVidia launches Volta.
The 470 same as the 1060 in @Phry post. Unless you are going for a 1070 or higher and need a card right now there is no reason to buy Nvidia atm. Once the 490 comes out there may not be a reason at all this go around.
i think for 2k gaming you would need at least the Rx480 8gb version, though even then, to get decent framerates you would want the R9 fury x or the slightly better 1070, if the 490 equals or exceeds 1070 performance for less of a price tag, you might have a point though.
I was meaning in the context of the new cards. From what I have seen the 470 can hold its own in 2K and that is without settings tweaks. However I am not the type that is 60FPS or go home ( steady 40+ is fine for me ).
I do believe the 490 will cost less than the 1070. That seems to be AMDs strategy to get more of the market and I see no reason for them to stop since it is working quite well.
Unless you are going for a 1070 or higher and need a card right now there is no reason to buy Nvidia atm. Once the 490 comes out there may not be a reason at all this go around.
By the time RX 490 comes out, we may well be comparing it to NVidia's new Volta graphic cards.
This generation NVidia launched their first Pascal cards before AMD launched their first Polaris cards. There's no guarantee that next generation AMD can even launch their first Vega graphic card before NVidia launches Volta.
Well the 490 is supposed to be first of the year sometime but who knows. That is earlier than the last I heard about Volta as well but again who knows. I think AMD has caught Nvidia off guard with their recent releases and price points so I wouldnt be surprised for them to do all they can to release first.
I'm interested in Titanfall 2, and in BF1 as well, but knowing how poorly they do on PC (population wise) i will be playing them on PS4 after the premium edition gets cheaper. I bought BF4 premium edition (normally a $120 scam) for just $22 bucks. I'll be doing the same with TF2 and BF1. Too bad the superior PC version of non-Steam shooters always die quickly.
EDIT: As for the main article... if those benchmarks are accurate and the 970 is doing that low in 1080p (50-60?)with such a beast set up, mine is going to be in the 30-40 fps most likely. No ty.
Eh? thats actually THE point of CPU tests meaning theres no CPU botlenecks EVEN with GTX1080.
Well, that is an interesting piece of data to have, but it doesn't say anything as to per-core scaling or IPC requirements or specific instruction requirements of the particular game, which, in my opinion, is more to the point of a CPU test. If your test shows a $350 Core i7 Skylake running the same as a $70 FX-4300 (and everything in between), your not painting a complete picture with your test - may as well just test everything on 640x480 then.
It may be there are no settings that are able to put significant stress on the CPU. That would be unusual, but not unheard of, for a game to be so heavily GPU bound.
The only interesting thing about this CPU chart - for some unknown reason, the 3.8 Ghz FX-4300 outperforms the 4.0 Ghz FX-8350, and the 3.5 Ghz FX-6300 does worse than both, by a large margin. Given those are all the same architecture, those results don't follow clock speed or core count. It's another item that makes me question this CPU test.
Yes, they tested that game and it says all that it needs to be said about that game just as every other game they tested, it shows CPU requirements for Titanfall 2. And yeah, guess what, vast majority of games are GPU bound and chaper CPUs will have same performance as more costly ones, you seems surprised by that fact, when its pretty much self evident (and why recommending expencive CPUs is ridiculous with kind of GPUs that 99% of people buy)
a bit oldr test (but even more relevant as games were more CPU bound before due to ancient signle threaded DX11) shows that CPU is pretty much irrelevant except with low res+high end card (well pointless combination in 99.9% of cases in real world it wont happen as those that buy high end GPUs dont tend to play in 720p/1080p)
FX4300 has a bit higher and more stable boost but its within of margin of error so irrelevant (1-2 FPS at 100+FPS...yeah lol)
Haven't run a game at 1080 in ages, not that i
am interested in Titanfall 2 at all, but when it comes to benchmarks,
about the only ones i am interested in are the ones at 1440 and 4k (2k
and 4k).
dam, even worse for 1070, only 30% faster than 470 (73/56=1,3) and we see that there and no CPU bottlenecks or anything.
Price/performance you get: 170*1,3= 221$ worth of performance for 400+$ if you buy 1070 instead 70.
That doesnt stop some less fortunate individuals to call it "sweet spot" lol
And for 470 vs 1050ti: 56/34= 1,65 so 470 is 65% faster.
Performnce/price: 140*1,65= you get 231$ worth of performance for 170$ if you buy 470 over 1050ti.
yup...performace/price, bane of NVidia cards, yet it doesnt stop people to fall for NVidias BS PR (and those shills that hype such crap cards and call abbysmal performance/price cards like 1070 "sweet spot" are regular part of that BS PR and deceiving people)
Haven't run a game at 1080 in ages, not that i
am interested in Titanfall 2 at all, but when it comes to benchmarks,
about the only ones i am interested in are the ones at 1440 and 4k (2k
and 4k).
dam, even worse for 1070, only 30% faster than 470 (73/56=1,3) and we see that there and no CPU bottlenecks or anything.
Price/performance you get: 170*1,3= 221$ worth of performance for 400+$ if you buy 1070 instead 70.
That doesnt stop some less fortunate individuals to call it "sweet spot" lol
And for 470 vs 1050ti: 56/34= 1,65 so 470 is 65% faster.
Performnce/price: 140*1,65= you get 231$ worth of performance for 170$ if you buy 470 over 1050ti.
yup...performace/price, bane of NVidia cards, yet it doesnt stop people to fall for NVidias BS PR (and those shills that hype such crap cards and call abbysmal performance/price cards like 1070 "sweet spot" are regular part of that BS PR and deceiving people)
What I see from your Benchmark is that:
To get GTX 1070 performance from AMD, you need an R9 Fury X
Really? You compare last gen to current gen? And its actually NO better than the last gen? awwwwww
In fact when you compare 1070/970 and 1080/980 you see how abbysmal new NVidia cards are lol They cant even beat LAST gen (and AMD even had better offering with 390/Fury in that class)
OTOH RX470 4Gb and RX480 4GB are kings of price performance beating EVERY old and new card ever since theyve launched. THAT is called sweet spot not some twice overpriced card like 1070 thats worse than last gen lol
Really? You compare last gen to current gen? And its actually NO better than the last gen? awwwwww
In fact when you compare 1070/970 and 1080/980 you see how abbysmal new NVidia cards are lol They cant even beat LAST gen (and AMD even had better offering with 390/Fury in that class)
Really? You compare last gen to current gen? And its actually NO better than the last gen? awwwwww
In fact when you compare 1070/970 and 1080/980 you see how abbysmal new NVidia cards are lol They cant even beat LAST gen (and AMD even had better offering with 390/Fury in that class)
OTOH RX470 4Gb and RX480 4GB are kings of price performance beating EVERY old and new card ever since theyve launched. THAT is called sweet spot not some twice overpriced card like 1070 thats worse than last gen lol
Your argument is severely flawed. If Nvidia new cards are so strong they make the old cards look old. Well then they are doing what is called producing better cards. When AMD is producing cards that are not as good as last gen. The picture is clear. They are suppose to be producing better cards no matter how you cut it. Considering the 980's are better then anything AMD has produced so far I wouldn't be saying they are obselete.
awwww, you actually cannot accept the facts, instead saying "yeah im wrong" you turn to insults, ah well, thats how NVidia fanbois are.
Yeah my point still stands, thanks for acknowledging at least that lol
Nividia Fanboi Lol
If AMD comes out with a card that's outperforms the competition, I'd throw it in my rig and have a big smile on my face, just like I did with the ATI Radeon 9800pro.
Comments
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=17086&compareGPU=Titanfall 2
for those who doubt
to add to some previous discussions, higly OCed 1070 (2025 MHz Gigabyte XTreme) only 39% faster than stock 470 (in 2 different site benches its same 39%)
1070 GGB Extreme: 460$
470: 170$ (HIS is cheapest 470)
"sweet spot" right lol
you get 170*1,39= 236,3 $ worth of performance for 460 $ if you buy 1070 lol
It may be there are no settings that are able to put significant stress on the CPU. That would be unusual, but not unheard of, for a game to be so heavily GPU bound.
The only interesting thing about this CPU chart - for some unknown reason, the 3.8 Ghz FX-4300 outperforms the 4.0 Ghz FX-8350, and the 3.5 Ghz FX-6300 does worse than both, by a large margin. Given those are all the same architecture, those results don't follow clock speed or core count. It's another item that makes me question this CPU test.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
This generation NVidia launched their first Pascal cards before AMD launched their first Polaris cards. There's no guarantee that next generation AMD can even launch their first Vega graphic card before NVidia launches Volta.
I do believe the 490 will cost less than the 1070. That seems to be AMDs strategy to get more of the market and I see no reason for them to stop since it is working quite well.
Well the 490 is supposed to be first of the year sometime but who knows. That is earlier than the last I heard about Volta as well but again who knows. I think AMD has caught Nvidia off guard with their recent releases and price points so I wouldnt be surprised for them to do all they can to release first.
EDIT: As for the main article... if those benchmarks are accurate and the 970 is doing that low in 1080p (50-60?)with such a beast set up, mine is going to be in the 30-40 fps most likely. No ty.
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/BioShock-Infinite-and-Civilization-Beyond-Earth
a bit oldr test (but even more relevant as games were more CPU bound before due to ancient signle threaded DX11) shows that CPU is pretty much irrelevant except with low res+high end card (well pointless combination in 99.9% of cases in real world it wont happen as those that buy high end GPUs dont tend to play in 720p/1080p)
FX4300 has a bit higher and more stable boost but its within of margin of error so irrelevant (1-2 FPS at 100+FPS...yeah lol)
dam, even worse for 1070, only 30% faster than 470 (73/56=1,3) and we see that there and no CPU bottlenecks or anything.
Price/performance you get: 170*1,3= 221$ worth of performance for 400+$ if you buy 1070 instead 70.
That doesnt stop some less fortunate individuals to call it "sweet spot" lol
And for 470 vs 1050ti: 56/34= 1,65 so 470 is 65% faster.
Performnce/price: 140*1,65= you get 231$ worth of performance for 170$ if you buy 470 over 1050ti.
yup...performace/price, bane of NVidia cards, yet it doesnt stop people to fall for NVidias BS PR (and those shills that hype such crap cards and call abbysmal performance/price cards like 1070 "sweet spot" are regular part of that BS PR and deceiving people)
To get GTX 1070 performance from AMD, you need an R9 Fury X
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487265
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G3KF9262
pot meet kettle
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
In fact when you compare 1070/970 and 1080/980 you see how abbysmal new NVidia cards are lol They cant even beat LAST gen (and AMD even had better offering with 390/Fury in that class)
Fury X 349$:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150742
Fury Nitro 279$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 600566291
whoopsie, 1070 is even WORSE than that lol
OTOH RX470 4Gb and RX480 4GB are kings of price performance beating EVERY old and new card ever since theyve launched. THAT is called sweet spot not some twice overpriced card like 1070 thats worse than last gen lol
4 gig bargain brand
Point still stands
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Yeah my point still stands, thanks for acknowledging at least that lol
the amount of stupidity in this thread really goes to new lenghts....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709 600536050&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36
i dont see 980 for 170$, in fact cheapest one is 420$, crappy blower card, while 480 is 199$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709 601203793&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36
thers even MSI Gaming X for 199$.
im not really sure why do you embarass yourself so much.
If AMD comes out with a card that's outperforms the competition, I'd throw it in my rig and have a big smile on my face, just like I did with the ATI Radeon 9800pro.
Fact is your a Zealot.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee