|
Hace posted:Some games it does! those are badly made games that would bottleneck anything but the newest cpus
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I have a chance to straight trade my R9-290 for a GTX 970, do I want to do this? When I bought it about 1.5 years ago, 970s were ~$330 and this 290 was $210. I'm assuming that this will be a performance upgrade, but you guys have been circlejerking how good Hawaii is the last couple pages and talking about AMD cards aging more gracefully in general. Also the whole "3.5GB" thing happened. At the end of the day, a 970 is still a faster GPU, right? If it's a reference 290, trade it. Otherwise I'd hang onto it especially if you have a good warranty on it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 06:26
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I have a chance to straight trade my R9-290 for a GTX 970, do I want to do this? When I bought it about 1.5 years ago, 970s were ~$330 and this 290 was $210. I'm assuming that this will be a performance upgrade, but you guys have been circlejerking how good Hawaii is the last couple pages and talking about AMD cards aging more gracefully in general. Also the whole "3.5GB" thing happened. At the end of the day, a 970 is still a faster GPU, right? If it's a blower one trade it, if it's an aftermarket one that gets good clocks keep it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
quote:Don't buy/trade/use reference blower coolers
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
I'm not sure where to post this, but I thought booth babes weren't a thing anymore? https://twitter.com/Brinno_Global/status/737583100796887040
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I'm not sure where to post this, but I thought booth babes weren't a thing anymore? Maybe not in the US but china
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
snuff posted:Maybe not in the US but Taiwan
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
hey laowei, yīgè Zhōngguó 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:those are badly made games that would bottleneck anything but the newest cpus OK?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Hubis posted:This isn't true in most cases -- Amdahl's Law applies to serial workloads, not parallel ones. The real equation is "T_frame = MAX(T_gpu + T_cpu) + T_serial", where T_serial should be 0 for a well-designed engine. Thanks for the Amdahl's Law post. I really wanted to dispute it earlier in the thread but I just don't know enough about it/don't quite understand the math behind it enough to make sweeping generalizations.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:If it's a blower one trade it, if it's an aftermarket one that gets good clocks keep it. It's an MSI Twin Frozr 290, but tops out somewhere around the 1100 mhz range. The 970 is a really nice one too, i could have sworn that the 970 was faster but I guess I'm remembering wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
EVGA has some new cable management thing with details later today: 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Details? I think the picture says it all, really.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Nice, would work a lot better with modern cable management
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Ninkobei posted:Thanks for the Amdahl's Law post. I really wanted to dispute it earlier in the thread but I just don't know enough about it/don't quite understand the math behind it enough to make sweeping generalizations. It is pretty simple -- it's basically just diminishing returns. IF your workload comprises several stages/categories of work (T_1 thru T_n) then the proportion each group contribute is T_x/(T_1 + ... + T_n). You want to optimize by focusing on the biggest buckets; however, as you make one stage faster, it's contribution to the total time reduce faster than the total time itself: T_x decreases faster than (T_1+...+T_n). The counterpart for parallel workloads is the fact that optimizing the slowest parallel component only improves things up to the point where it passes she second slowest component. Likewise, for mixed parallel/serial workloads, making the parallel component faster and faster becomes less appealing if there is a second stage afterwards that is not being accelerated.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:EVGA has some new cable management thing with details later today: They can't just put the plugs there in the first place? 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah what the gently caress, that looks awful.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:ha loving ha people are intent on a monopoly. and those people's names were Advanced Micro Devices.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Bleh Maestro posted:They can't just put the plugs there in the first place? Long graphics cards often push the boundaries of cases. Putting the power plugs there just makes it worse.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Phanteks water cooling block for 1080's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnKtUSj_Ro
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Long graphics cards often push the boundaries of cases. Putting the power plugs there just makes it worse. That may be true but look at how much the 1080 sells for - its multiple times the price of even good cases. I wouldn't have a gram of sympathy for the 1080 early adopters running into case problems like you describe. Get a new loving case since you can apparently afford it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Any case worth it's salt will have plenty of room for a card.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:That may be true but look at how much the 1080 sells for - its multiple times the price of even good cases. I wouldn't have a gram of sympathy for the 1080 early adopters running into case problems like you describe. Get a new loving case since you can apparently afford it. That's a real dumb argument.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Any case worth it's salt will have plenty of room for a card. There's no reason you couldn't put a set of the $0.02 connectors in both positions, but i imagine idiots would try to plug all of them in or something. KakerMix posted:and those people's names were Advanced Micro Devices. Yeah dude. I mean I recognize my own bias here, but the idea that the current market situation is somehow the consumer's fault for not buying AMD GPUs on principle or something is just plain silly. Even if you make some kind of moral consideration to promote a healthy market when you're buying $500+ worth of luxury electronics, there's a very good argument that AMD continuing to limp along making mediocre GPUs is sort of a worst case scenario for the consumer. At least if they imploded all that IP might find its way into the hands of people who could put forward some kind of interesting competition. But I still <3 you Xthetenth 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
 For comparisons sake the 390 is 5.1 TF and 390X is 5.9 TF.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
repiv posted:
why are they compairing to 970/980s? is it gonna be the same price as firesale 980s?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:That may be true but look at how much the 1080 sells for - its multiple times the price of even good cases. I wouldn't have a gram of sympathy for the 1080 early adopters running into case problems like you describe. Get a new loving case since you can apparently afford it. There are plenty of really good itx cases that can bump into video card size issues.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Smithereens posted:why are they compairing to 970/980s? is it gonna be the same price as firesale 980s? Likely yeah. 380(X) competed against 960/950. So performing and priced a bracket below the 1070 is just right. But lol everyone in that market bought a 960, one of the least compelling cards in recent memory until its price dropped. Hopefully they'll get mobile sales and a decent bit of interest and make back market share there. Honestly their total failure in mobile is where criticisms are 100% valid. You'd think it was an AMD card from its state at release, but instead it sold like hotcakes. It's not that the market bought 970s that's really got me bitter, it's that they bought 2 GB 960s.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Hubis posted:There's no reason you couldn't put a set of the $0.02 connectors in both positions, but i imagine idiots would try to plug all of them in or something. Another option would be to put the connectors at the end of the card recessed and angled upwards, so the cables would not poke out much from the card.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:There are plenty of really good itx cases that can bump into video card size issues. Hell, a friend of mine can barely fit his Gigabyte G1 cards with their triple-fan coolers in his Antec 900, which is an enormous case. Fixed-position hard drive bays often conflict with long GPUs.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Another option would be to put the connectors at the end of the card recessed and angled upwards, so the cables would not poke out much from the card. The Asus and Zotac 1080 PCBs are designed like that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Likely yeah. 380(X) competed against 960/950. Haha no it didn't. It was a year and a half late to the market, that's why everyone short on money bought a 960. The only alternative was the 2GB harvested Tonga.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Haha no it didn't. It was a year and a half late to the market, that's why everyone short on money bought a 960. Eh, I'd argue that at the time the alternatives often chosen were the old 7950 and 7970 wearing their new (old) 280 and 280X monikers. The 285/380 was just not quite enough. The 380X when it finally hit, was (even though it was only a small-ish boost over the 380), especially as it came with 4GB as a baseline. But yeah, it came late. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Haha no it didn't. It was a year and a half late to the market, that's why everyone short on money bought a 960. Bracketing wise they were positioned right against each other and I'm using that as a shorthand for positioning in the stack. If we're going back to the 960's launch then there's the 285 and 280(X) already. Hilariously the 280(X) was the only one of that bunch that didn't have only 2 GB memory, and was probably the most compelling of the bunch then. Agree that AMD refreshed their lineup late though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, this is the caveat, because you can be CPU bottlenecked at 25% utilization. And it's not really a binary thing,T(frame) = T(GPU) + T(CPU) so making either the GPU or the CPU faster will always have some impact on framerate. What people perceive as a "bottleneck" is when (say) T(GPU) gets to be like 10 times as big as T(CPU) and even if you double CPU performance (cutting T(CPU) in half) it only makes like a 5% difference in overall frametime. Thats the thing that people have to look for when they are looking for a game that is Single Core CPU Bottlenecked. When you look at your task manger, you may only see that the cpu is 25% utilized (essentially 100% CPU on a single core if you have a i5 or any quad with HT off. On a i7 with HT, it can show as much less). An OC can improve that headroom a good bit depending on the chip (Like a 2500K for sure) but if you are on a good modern chip around the 3.5-4.5Ghz range, you are going to be slightly at the mercy of crappy game code. With a 6600/6700K skylake, you can see a lot of newer games that are essentially CPU bottlenecked not only by CPU core speeds, but now memory speeds are actually coming into play. DDR3 1600/1866 just isn't good enough for high FPS gaming today. Still though, if you get a 1070/1080 and have a 2500K, you should still be able to enjoy a good visual FPS bump coming from something pre 900/290 series for sure, if anything with a CPU bottleneck though, if you have a lot of GPU headroom, you can usually turn up setting until you can have a GPU bottleneck once again with things like DSR, etc. Also while that 480 slide doesn't compare to the newest Nvidia chips, being that the X80 series for AMD is the more "Midrange" cards now, I look forward to seeing if they have a X90(X) series coming down the line or if they are really stuck/sticking with the midrange market at this point. They need to be ~$300 sure, but if it can kick a 980 around that isn't terrible I guess. Still would like to see something that can play around in the 1070 range from them but so does everyone else. Also joking aside, are VIA/S3 still around even? Also looking at the Guru3D writeup of the 1070, it looks like it is neck and neck with a Titan X/980Ti so outside of the CPU they were using doing a lot better on the Physics test, even OC'ed it is slower than my 980Ti OCed by a hair. So if you have a 980Ti, get a 1080 or wait for the Ti. Do not spend the money on a 1070 unless you are coming from a 970 or slower card. It's a good card, but they really did just slot it perfectly at the 980Ti/Titan X level. EdEddnEddy fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Inno3D posted a thing If this is the target, it sounds like the "value for money" sweet spot will be: 1080 ->GTX1060 1440 ->GTX1070 4k ->GTX1080
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Also while that 480 slide doesn't compare to the newest Nvidia chips, being that the X80 series for AMD is the more "Midrange" cards now, I look forward to seeing if they have a X90(X) series coming down the line or if they are really stuck/sticking with the midrange market at this point. They need to be ~$300 sure, but if it can kick a 980 around that isn't terrible I guess. Still would like to see something that can play around in the 1070 range from them but so does everyone else. 300$ for an 8GB 970 clone? Hell naw after those 1070 charts. 250$ would be pushing it already.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:300$ for an 8GB 970 clone? Hell naw after those 1070 charts. 250$ would be pushing it already. Yeah, there's no way they could manage to sell an appreciable number of 970 competitors with the 1070 sitting at $380 and the 970 itself already slipping below $300. Name-recognition is working against them, after all, so they're gonna lose any "close" match up at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:300$ for an 8GB 970 clone? Hell naw after those 1070 charts. 250$ would be pushing it already. That's what the Radeon R9 390 is already. It's priced the same as the 970, has 8GiB VRAM, and compares favourably in most tests. Another card at $300 with around the same performance would be an absolute waste of time, even if it did use a lot less power. However, at $200 (I agree that $250 would be too high), such a card becomes a compelling prospect, and would make the 380(X) and 960 immediately obsolete. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 20:30 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Lockback posted:Inno3D posted a thing Beyond the (obviously true) statement that the GTX 1080 is the fastest card out right now (except maybe Fury Pro Duo?) and that there will be a card that slots in below the 1070, I wouldn't put too much faith in this. The AIDA64 people have already confirmed that GP102 is on the way, which sounds like a Titan and a 1080 Ti to me. Plus they confirm a GP106, GP107 (mobile), and GP108 (no idea what this might be). So I really doubt they will be running the 960 and 950 in the long term too. Think "statement of facts on the ground in May 2016" rather than "roadmap". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:37 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:31
|
|
