Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,423 +5,070
I don't agree... The 780 still outperforms the 7950....and most titles still prefer the 970 over the 390...
I do agree that I expect the trend to continue
I do agree that I expect the trend to continue
if you consider that hd7950 was the competitor to gtx660ti, it is still a very decent card. This is very interesting in fact. Remember, hd7970 was the competitor to gtx 680 back in those days. gtx 780 was much faster at first but these days I see a many benchmarks where a hd7970 goes toe to toe with gtx780 (especially at 1440p). So what happened to first keplers?I don't agree... The 780 still outperforms the 7950....and most titles still prefer the 970 over the 390...
I do agree that I expect the trend to continue
When we talk about a card that's $200-$250 we can only speak about "decently well" or "satisfactorily well" and not "ultra" or not "4k", no matter what fanboys say we gotta talk facts. These cards could give excellent performance or not, depending on the game, api and settings. These statements include gtx 1060 tooNo one moved any goalposts... A bunch of AMD fanboys decided to declare this card the be all and end all of video cards saying that it provided high-end performance at mid-tier price...
I (and others) were simply trying to tell them that this card doesn't do that!!!! It provides 2 years ago high end performance at mid-tier cost.... As most mid-tier cards do!!
Just because they are wrong doesn't mean that this is a bad card - it's just a mid-tier card... Once the 1060 is released and reviewed, we can see how much "value" it actually has!
Yes the goal post is moved. Because when I explain longevity, and that I'm still using an HD 6850, some people try to convince me that in two years it will be completely garbage and unusable, while the 980 Ti will still play games well, even though it is well known that AMD cards get a huge boost in upcoming APIs and nVidia's cards do not.
And then, those people have the nerve to accuse others of being fanboys, while they themselves are obviously biased over 9000.
After reading your post, I ran a google search and checked the recent performance tests of 770 and the 7970. I still have an opinion that those are decent cards? Are you really thinking in the "mainstream" space or do you expect these 3-4 year-old cards to max out games with 60fps? In my definition, a decent gameplay is about 1080p@40+fps (or as high as possible). When I start a game, first I test it and tweak the settings to provide me these criteria I mentioned. If you don't want to bother with settings and just hit ultra and go, then you are not a mainstream/mid-tier user. By the way, which game did you have to set low to be able to play with these cards and what resolution? In the benchmarks I saw, 7970/770 can still run many games on high/ultra at decent fps except some newest AAA titles that offer the richest eye candy but even those can be tweaked to offer some decent experience. The thing is, it's about what your expectations are and what kind of experience satisfies you.There is a slight difference between what longevity means to you and what it means to other people. I for one was enjoying playing on a 2Gb GTX 770 until a month ago. Yes I know ...it's Kepler, yes I know ....you have the opinion that it got nerfed in time. Bottom line it's a mid-range card and that's what I expected it to be. Is it horrible after 3 years? Yep. Can it still perform? Kinda. Does it show that it's a 3 year old mid range card? Clearly. On a second rig I do have a HD7970 GHz Edition and to be fair I can't tell the difference between them. They both play horrible while cranking up the settings because let's face it nobody wants to play a game on low or to downscale it back to the stone age. The only difference between them is that one is a space heater ... guess which one? And yes they are complete garbage for my needs and I'm willing to bet that when the card you have starts to underperform in some titles you're a bit bitter about having to turn down the settings to make it playable, heck everybody is...
After reading your post, I ran a google search and checked the recent performance tests of 770 and the 7970. I still have an opinion that those are decent cards? Are you really thinking in the "mainstream" space or do you expect these 3-4 year-old cards to max out games with 60fps? In my definition, a decent gameplay is about 1080p@40+fps (or as high as possible). When I start a game, first I test it and tweak the settings to provide me these criteria I mentioned. If you don't want to bother with settings and just hit ultra and go, then you are not a mainstream/mid-tier user. By the way, which game did you have to set low to be able to play with these cards and what resolution? In the benchmarks I saw, 7970/770 can still run many games on high/ultra at decent fps except some newest AAA titles that offer the richest eye candy but even those can be tweaked to offer some decent experience. The thing is, it's about what your expectations are and what kind of experience satisfies you
No I don't have the opinion that it got nerfed in time. I have the realization that nVidia's cards are built on planned obsolescence to create a shorter cycle for their cards than necessary. Smart business? Yes. Good for consumers? Absolutely not.There is a slight difference between what longevity means to you and what it means to other people. I for one was enjoying playing on a 2Gb GTX 770 until a month ago. Yes I know ...it's Kepler, yes I know ....you have the opinion that it got nerfed in time.
Oh really? 280X vs GTX 770.Bottom line it's a mid-range card and that's what I expected it to be. Is it horrible after 3 years? Yep. Can it still perform? Kinda. Does it show that it's a 3 year old mid range card? Clearly. On a second rig I do have a HD7970 GHz Edition and to be fair I can't tell the difference between them.
I can understand that, but that was never my point. So, when I say that the goalposts are moved, that's what I'm talking about. Read on.They both play horrible while cranking up the settings because let's face it nobody wants to play a game on low or to downscale it back to the stone age. The only difference between them is that one is a space heater ... guess which one? And yes they are complete garbage for my needs and I'm willing to bet that when the card you have starts to underperform in some titles you're a bit bitter about having to turn down the settings to make it playable, heck everybody is...
So... If it might be matched, what are we arguing about?As for the 980Ti as long as DX11 (let's face it it's a DX11 card) is still around it can still show it's teeth. And DX11 would still be around for a couple of years at least. But then again we're talking about a card that's on the enthusiast tier on which I'm willing to bet that it won't be outclassed by a mid-rage card from the current AMD line-up. Matched maybe, outclassed no.
Not if you don't have enough money for the upper tier. And even if you do, a Fury X is a much better choice for the long term than a 980 Ti or even a 1070.Thus said buying into the upper tier would still be more profitable in the long run than buying into mid and waiting for the "magic of low-level API's" that might come or not at a certain point.
I can keep things civil. But look. What did I say? I said;Moving the goal post? not by a long shot. Everybody here spends his/her time by theory crafting scenarios. And frankly nobody is being biased(apart from certain trolls). Some people see value in the card others don't. Still it's their opinion and I for one respect it. Let's try to keep things civil and not start a flame war.
Remember my prediction?So now the 1060 is out... And shockingly.... It is better... But more expensive... Will have to wait a few weeks to see what the "real" prices of both cards are, as right now you can't get either at msrp
Remember my prediction?
- 1060 better than reference RX 480 under DX11
- AIB RX 480 to match 1060 and/or slightly beat it
- RX 480 to wipe the floor with the 1060 under Vulkan
So tell me. If you only had ~$280, and the only cards left in stock are a reference RX480 and a reference GTX 1060, both at that same price, which one would you buy?
I know exactly what I mean by long term. Maybe you didn't understand what I mean by it because you were too busy thinking of your own definition.The problem here is that you willfully misunderstand what "long term" means... If you are buying a high end card (no, NOT this one!), you expect that you can play just about anything at the highest details at the highest resolution.
Unfortunately, no card can actually do this except maybe the 1080... and even it struggles with some titles at max settings on 4k...
You see, that's your problem. You set your own criteria and think that everyone should meet that criteria.So what does "long term" actually mean when you buy a video card? You are saying you want 3 years or more out of it... Well, for a card to give you 60FPS at ultra settings at 1440p NOW, you need a high end card - even the 1060 doesn't quite do it...
If that's your definition of long term, what if I told you that it has been shown time and time again that AMD loses less performance over time than nVidia? Then why are you insisting that people should keep buying nVidia? Or are you going to say again that your money's value over the long term doesn't matter, and it only matters on what there is right now? Then you might as well buy every GPU that comes out that appears the fastest at time of launch. How did that work out for ya with your Titans?Can you tell me that in 3 years, the fury, 1070, 1080 will still be able to play the newest titles at ultra settings at 1440p? I'd doubt it... your best bet is going to be the 1080, but even that would be a risky venture.
So, what do we REALLY mean by "Long Term"? I'd say that we mean an acceptable loss of performance over a certain amount of time... software is always going to demand more from the hardware, and the "perfect" video card will be the one that comes out 6 months after you buy yours... (in my case, the 980Ti, which came out weeks after I bought my Titans)
Now lets go back to your rather ridiculous argument about this card... RIGHT NOW, this card can give you less than 60FPS at ultra settings on 1080p and 1440p on the newest titles... In 2-3 years, I think it would be fair to say that it STILL WILL NOT GIVE YOU 60FPS in the newest titles.... in fact, I would posit that they will be barely playable unless at the lowest detail settings...
Now, this is perfectly reasonable, as this card only costs $200....
You were indeed batsh1t crazy to buy those Titans.Let's say I went batsh1t crazy and bought 3 Titan X cards last year (Yes, I actually did - long story...) I could play every title at over 60FPS at ultra settings at 4k.... it's a year later and I still can.... I figure it will be at least another year before I can't... and I will still have "acceptable" playability on the newest titles for a few more years after that. Now, I paid $3,000 - 15 times more than a single 480.... Am I going to get 15x more value? Of course not! It would have to last at least 20 years for me to get the value back.... But that's as close to really "future proofing" a PC as you can get....
I can agree with that, but you're constantly acting like your own needs are the end all be all. And there is still a difference between AMD and nVidia in this regard. Spending more money on nVidia does not necessarily give you more longevity than a slightly less expensive AMD card. That is the whole point of this discussion, but you do everything to avoid this fact.Nothing lasts forever - but the more you spend, the longer it will last... I'm not advocating that high-end cards are worth the purchase - everyone has to make that decision based on their own gaming preferences as well as budget...
LOL you sure are a comedian aren't you. If two cards cost $200, and one will be able to play games 60 fps for 2 years, and the other for 3 years, which one is the better value? Obviously the one that will be able to play at 60fps for 3 years rather than two years. If you want to call that BS, I don't know what to tell you.But don't go off spouting about how your card is more valuable because it will age better... That's just plain BS....
Yeah. And if it was nVidia doing well, it would be a great benchmark. You have a double standard and you don't even know it. I bet you think 3DMark's TimeSpy is great.Vulkan results have to wait until we have a bunch of titles that use it...
Funny. When someone says that AMD's card will be faster, the reply is wait for benchmarks. And now, we can claim an AIB RX 480 won't beat a 1060 despite having no bechmarks of AIB RX 480 cards. And for things we do have a benchmark for, like Vulkan, yeah, we need more of those. They are only valid when nVidia wins of course, because nVidia is simply better than AMD!and the AIB 480 doesn't beat the 1060...
AMD's IPC is higher. A smaller OC nets more gain compared to nVidia. But you don't mention the 8GB vs 6GB advantage. Ah yes. "That doesn't matter right now, no games will use 8GB, and the future doesn't exist". Just like the 3.5GB of the GTX 970 vs its own 4GB vs the 8GB of the R9 390 didn't matter, right? RIGHT????and the 1060 has far more OC headroom so it can easily beat the 480 by even more with some tinkering - or by getting 3rd party cards from ASUS, etc...
Oh boy. 40 watts is oh so much power. It'll cost you a bajillion dollars per second and will burn down your house! Not to mention you need a 2500W PSU rather than a 400W! And yeah, performance per watt under Vulkan doesn't matter because Vulkan doesn't exist right now, it will exist somewhere in the future where all mid cards will already have vanished.And despite the power fix by AMD, the 1060 still uses far less power than the 480...
Because Vulkan doesn't exist, and we should ignore all benchmarks that put AMD in a positive light. Only DX11 matters.The only possible reason to purchase the AMD card is because it's cheaper - if I had to choose between them at $280, it's obvious that you should pick the 1060... but I'd prefer to spend a bit more and get the 1070....
Except we already have evidence for future performance with Doom Vulkan. But yeah, that one does not exist. We need more benchmarks, and benchmarks are only valid when nVidia wins.Your argument continues to be about the "future", and how this card will age so much better than it's competitor...
First of all, any arguments about the future are speculative at best - no one knows the future!!
Because your definition of acceptable performance is universal, and Doom Vulkan benchmarks don't exist.Second, when buying a mid-tier card (I feel that I'm repeating myself here, but you don't seem to get it), the future is a foolish thing to plan for. Mid-Tier cards are for NOW - they won't be giving you acceptable gaming for very long - and the difference between competitors by the time their lifecycle is complete is largely irrelevant. Who cares if a card plays a game at 12FPS and its competitor plays it at 9FPS??!!? Yes, one is better... but both can't play the game!!!