Radeon Fury X vs. GeForce GTX 980 Ti: Are They Still Worth Buying?

[OcelotRex]

Define "vastly". 1070s start at $400 typically on newegg, and go up from there. At their peak, the fury x and 980ti were $650 cards. The fury X slots in along the 980ti, a card it used to loose to, and now performs as well as nvidia's second best card (excluding the stupid price titan).

So a year and a half later, the same performance still costs over $400. Sounds like the fury x held it's place pretty well. It's been pretty good for a halo card. It's not a true stand in for a proper polaris or vega based 490, of course, but given amd's position., I'm amazed at how well it has aged compared to, say, the 780ti.

The 1070 FE has 9-12% better performance than the Fury X at 2160p and 1440p. The MSRP for partner boards (which outperform the FE) was $379; there's 10-12 cards on Newegg presently (including the FE) for under $400, many hitting the MSRP with and without rebates.

I'd consider 10% better performance at a 42% price savings to be vastly cheaper in this space.

 

[darkzelda]

I'm almost sure I'll buy an AMD card next time, I have a GTX 970 and with new games it's embarrassing, while taking a look at AMD's cards they aged really well.

 

[Nodeity]

I have the Geforce GTX 980ti Strix, how does it compare?
I was considering buying a second one and using them both in SLI, would that be worth doing or not? Ta

 

[Sir Alex Ice]

Stock 1070 vs. stock 980 Ti, the 1070 wins hands on.

You have about the same price, new games included as bonus and the card is brand new if you buy the 1070.

The 980Ti you can find has already been in use for more than a year, warranty is likely to be over and you run a higher chance to damage it if you overclock it.

So 980 Ti is a really bad choice.

 

[Sum Guy]

I think stock vs stock at exact same in game settings is just as important if not more so than overclocked. Not every one over clocks. I used to overclock, but not anymore since I have messed up so many times. It's just not worth the headache. Tweaking the game settings alone is enough work.

 

[captaincranky]

Apologies if this a bit off topic.
I'm trying to glean from all of this data a good performance graphics card for a home built PC (in planning).
I want something that will perform well without having to overclock to be able run most Steam games.
Trying of course to keep the budget in mind.

Keep in mind I know nothing whatsoever about gaming or, for that matter, Steam itself.

I would guess, the something in the realm of a GTX-1060 would max everything out at 1080p resolution, and ostensibly do 1440p, were you to dial some settings back a bit.

Keep in mind one of the most popular cards on Steam, is the aging GTX-750 ti, and people are even running Intel IGP.

If you want bragging rights, by all means buy the step up GTX 1070, but IM(but uninformed)HO, a 1060 card should do every thing all but a true fanatic should need.

Interestingly enough, Nvidia's newest entry level cards, (GTX-1050, GTX 1050 ti, or GTX-1060) aren't being mentioned as of yet. That may simply be because the percentages of these cards is lower than the threshold of the survey: https://www.techspot.com/news/63497-steam-hardware-survey-gtx-970-most-popular-gpu.html

(Now see, you should get answers, if only for the fact some people might ring in just to say I haven't a clue what I'm talking about).

With all that said, you can, and should, start a thread in either "Build a PC", or "Graphics" sub forums. Our topics tend to derail easily enough, without provocation by someone with an actual question.

 

[ddferrari]

Honestly this article should just be called "Why 2016 was the Most Boring Year in Graphics History"


^That's what I got from this. After all if you have a 980 Ti or Fury from bloody 2015, 2016 brought near zero performance increases.

Unless you threw away $1200 on a Titan lol

How are you arriving at that conclusion? The 1080 beat the oc'd 980 Ti quite handily on most of the titles:
11 fps - Far Cry P
14 fps - COD
15 fps - Mirror's Edge
15 fps - TC Division
17 fps - Battlefield

While the 1080 doesn't oc as well as the 980 Ti, most reports show it'll do about an extra 10%. 15-20 fps is hardly "near zero performance increases".

 

[ddferrari]

It's always impressive to me watching how well AMD cards have aged these past few years. Remember when the 980ti was always a better pick? Based on these graphs though, I'd say they are in a dead heat.

Makes me excited for vega.

All it took was a year and a half and a new generation of cards that outperform both at a vastly lower price...

Define "vastly". 1070s start at $400 typically on newegg, and go up from there. At their peak, the fury x and 980ti were $650 cards. The fury X slots in along the 980ti, a card it used to loose to, and now performs as well as nvidia's second best card (excluding the stupid price titan).

So a year and a half later, the same performance still costs over $400. Sounds like the fury x held it's place pretty well. It's been pretty good for a halo card. It's not a true stand in for a proper polaris or vega based 490, of course, but given amd's position., I'm amazed at how well it has aged compared to, say, the 780ti.

That works out to be about a 40% reduction in price, which is very significant. How many other things can you buy that are 40% cheaper than they were 18 months ago?

 

[CaptainTom]

How are you arriving at that conclusion? The 1080 beat the oc'd 980 Ti quite handily on most of the titles:
11 fps - Far Cry P
14 fps - COD
15 fps - Mirror's Edge
15 fps - TC Division
17 fps - Battlefield

While the 1080 doesn't oc as well as the 980 Ti, most reports show it'll do about an extra 10%. 15-20 fps is hardly "near zero performance increases".

Lol call me crazy, but I don't see a 20% performance increase + a price hike as a big deal.

I think a lot of people around here need a refresh of how things were even just 4 years ago. 7970 v 680 was intense, followed by a Titan v 290X, and then the surprising performance of the 980 and R9 Nano.

This truly is pathetic relatively speaking. Sorry but if you can turn down 1 (usually useless) setting and get a similar framerate - your new card isn't an upgrade.

 

[xJunkSciencex]

I was really looking to see if you would have posted something about the 780ti also. I know that my 780ti on a certain bench mark site out performed the the 970gtx and the 1060gtx. I was wondering what is your take about buying a second one used for two-hundred dollars and Sli them?

 

[ddferrari]

Lol call me crazy, but I don't see a 20% performance increase + a price hike as a big deal.

I think a lot of people around here need a refresh of how things were even just 4 years ago. 7970 v 680 was intense, followed by a Titan v 290X, and then the surprising performance of the 980 and R9 Nano.

This truly is pathetic relatively speaking. Sorry but if you can turn down 1 (usually useless) setting and get a similar framerate - your new card isn't an upgrade.

Price hike? The 980 Ti retailed at launch for $649; the 1080 non-FE was $599.

Here's my refresh of how things were from 4 years ago: I paid $730 for a GTX 670 SLI setup- a killer combo back then. Their combined performance today is comparable to the $250 GTX 1060, and they only have 2GB vram.

The $380 1070 beats the $1100 Titan X Maxwell from just the previous generation! There's absolutely nothing pathetic about that.