Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Ryzen + RX580 8GB for 144hz Gaming, Final Thoughts before purchasing


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1 TadMonty

TadMonty

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:39 AM

Posted 08 May 2017 - 07:11 PM

Have you read the sidebar and rules? (Please do)

Yes.

What is your intended use for this build? The more details the better.

144hz Gaming, high-Ultra settings, 60fps+, single monitor.

Mainly future-proofing for about 3-4 years.

Potential Streaming of 720 quality, but thats iffy but I do think the Ryzen5 1600 is enough

If gaming, what kind of performance are you looking for? (Screen resolution, framerate, game settings)

Same as above, main games are PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds and LoL. Will be getting Destiny 2 and some various FPS games in the future I am sure.

What is your budget (ballpark is okay)?

$800-900, less is better. Stuck between 580, 8GB and 1070

In what country are you purchasing your parts?

US

Post a draft of your potential build here (specific parts please). Consider formatting your parts list. Don't ask to be spoonfed a build (read the rules!).

 

 CPU AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor $218.55 @ OutletPC 

CPU Cooler Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler Purchased For $0.00

Motherboard MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard $107.99 @ SuperBiiz

Memory G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $119.88 @ OutletPC

Storage PNY - CS1311 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive $89.99 @ B&H

Video Card MSI - Radeon RX 580 8GB GAMING X Video Card $244.99 @ SuperBiiz

Case Cooler Master - HAF 932 Advanced ATX Full Tower Case Purchased For $0.00

Power Supply Cooler Master - Silent Pro M 600W 80+ Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply Purchased For $0.00

 Total $781.40   Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-08 11:46 EDT-0400  

 

Provide any additional details you wish below.

I feel that my build is solid for what I want, minus the GPU. 580 8GB is a solid unit I am just unsure if I should spend the extra $100 for a 1070 or not.

Is the ram + mobo + cpu all good, no issues I am missing?

I will be purchasing in the coming weeks, just waiting for the Vega drop to see if prices for 580 8GB fall a little. Will be watching for deals over the next 3-4 weeks.

Thanks all!


Edited by TadMonty, 08 May 2017 - 07:12 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:39 PM

Posted 09 May 2017 - 02:28 AM

I would take M.2 SSD, like https://pcpartpicker.com/product/rxPzK8/adata-xpg-sx8000-256gb-m2-2280-solid-state-drive-asx8000np-256gm-c

GPU prices are high and video card is very easy to replace so I see no reason going for 1070.

Everything else look OK.

#3 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:39 AM

Posted 09 May 2017 - 05:13 AM

If you are willing to wait, AMD's Vega cards should be out soon.  Supposedly, we should be getting more information on them in a week or so.  Vega may compete against the 1070 and put price pressue on Nvidia.


3939.png

 


#4 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,071 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:07:39 AM

Posted 09 May 2017 - 11:38 AM

If you are willing to wait, AMD's Vega cards should be out soon.  Supposedly, we should be getting more information on them in a week or so.  Vega may compete against the 1070 and put price pressue on Nvidia.

 

I hope so. I mean for mid range gamers like myself cards like the RX 480/50 and GTX 1060 are wonderful but its time for AMD to challenge NVIDIA in high end GPU's


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#5 NicoForce

NicoForce

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:39 AM

Posted 13 May 2017 - 09:42 AM

I was going for a pretty similar build with mostly the same purpose.

 

Here's the link to my topic: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/645916/looking-for-gaming-computer-suggestions/

 

If you don't want to look through the post, here's more or less the build I reached (with some help ofc):

 

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor  ($217.88 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($107.89 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Sandisk - X110 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($94.99 @ Amazon) 
Video Card: Gigabyte - Radeon RX 580 4GB Gaming 4G Video Card  ($198.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Total: $960.60
 
I was planning to change the RX 580 into its 8G version; however, I wasn't sure if I should go for the GTX 1070 or a RX 580. I've still got some time so might as well wait for Vega.

Edited by NicoForce, 13 May 2017 - 09:47 AM.


#6 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:39 AM

Posted 15 May 2017 - 06:05 AM

According to news leaks, the Vega cards should start trickling out soon and seem somewhat reasonably priced.


3939.png

 


#7 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 7,015 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:07:39 AM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 05:34 AM

 I mean for mid range gamers like myself cards like the RX 480/50 and GTX 1060 are wonderful but its time for AMD to challenge NVIDIA in high end GPU's

 

 

 

Keep in mind that any AMD's 'victory' will be short lived & will be back in the rear view mirror for another 2-3 years. :lol:

 

NVIDIA has deep pockets & will pull a cat out of the bag, I was (& may still) consider a 1060 Ti, if released, for my AMD build, which is now running a lowly 128 bit GTX 960. On the other hand, they may release their 11xx series early & w/out much announcement (as with the 10xx series), many purchased GTX 970/980 & 980Ti, as well as the 9 series of Titan the prior holiday season at higher pricing, only months later to see the 1070 smack all around at half the cost of a 980 Ti, and the 1080 Ti was King, even over the 9xx series Titan. Even the 6GB 1060 cleanly beat the GTX 980 (non-Ti) in many games/benchmarks, at far less than half the cost. Plus NVIDIA kept a lid on this, there were zero rumors of a new card until 2016, their employees kept the secret to themselves. Otherwise, many wouldn't had purchased the 970/980 series in late 2015.

 

Although I expect a new gen memory (GDDR6) with the GTX 11xx series, and maybe the same with AMD's new offering. While I do expect AMD to challenge, their resources (pockets) aren't as deep as that of NVIDIA, which has dominated the market for some time now (since the 79xx GHz edition), this is where NVIDIA began to separate itself from AMD in the GPU market. 

 

While AMD may very well do well in the CPU market against Intel for a spell or for good, especially considering that Intel has evidently conceded the enthusiast market, which is what drove the corporation to prominence, they've shifted gears towards the non-enthusiast mobile market, kicking those who built the brand to the curb. AMD has a strong chance in this market, especially if they ramp up the heat & stop selling so cheap, from what I've seen, the i7-7700K has dropped in price by over $50 since the Ryzen launch. This is what AMD needs, to get Intel on a bicycle, forcing them to compete or forever concede, with competitive (although not cheap) pricing, they can put Intel in a serious bind. Especially given that Intel has told those with i7-7700 'K' CPU's not to overclock, what type of crap is that? May as well get the 7700 w/out the K & save another $25 or so. The unlocked CPU's means one is supposed to be able to OC, Intel in desperation, is trying to avoid a recall by placing the blame on their customers rather than their engineering design & never ending die shrinking, there'll be a massive class action lawsuit & customers will win huge, a working CPU replacement plus incurred labor costs for the swap, as well as a cash settlement. May take 2-3 years to hammer the details. 

 

Their onboard GPU's are total crap, my now 5 year old AMD Radeon 7770 GHz edition (1GB GDDR5), beats all on Passmark. I'm kind of old school, believe the GPU should be baked into the MB, not into CPU's, the FX line was a shining example of this. While I could had went with the 'FM' MB's, and have PCie 3.0, the CPU's were average at best, so stuck with the FX series, of which my latest can be seen in my sig, bottom link, running at a cool 13C. Don't know why even the many who gave it 5 egg reviews also stated it runs hot. Installing a CPU & applying thermal pate correct, as well as choosing the right CPU cooler, is a work of art, the CPU will run cool. 

 

However, the discrete GPU market is different, even if AMD can best NVIDIA for a few months, it was NVIDIA that took Moore's Law from Intel (now on a bicycle) & ran away with it. Every new release gives a minimum of 30% performance increase, and best of all, using less energy in doing so. :)

 

I just don't see AMD besting NVIDIA as they did with Intel, at least for a long period. Maybe a few months at best, then will be right in the same slot they're now in, competing against 1160 (next gen) cards. However, I do believe competition is good for all, especially end consumers, whichever brand is best, go for it. AMD, who used to be bad with releasing new drivers, is now, just as NVIDIA, is now offering new ones with every new major game. :thumbsup:

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#8 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:39 PM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 08:52 AM

M.2 drives are quite nice for bootup and Windows install time, but the extra $100 (comparing 500 GB M.2 drive vs. 500 GB standard SATA SSD) would indeed be better spent on a better GPU *if primarily interested in gaming* and dealing with a fixed amount of dollars...

 

(Although I am usually the very first to enter online BF1 game, this is essentially useless, as the game waits for all players to join anyway before launching :) )

 

I will link two different cpu comparison links, and let the prospective purchaser objectively choose which cpu/mainboard he/she feels is best. (Most min/max/average gaming framerate graphs do not exactly give substantial credence to recent claims of Ryzen 'smoking the i5 across the board', and, pitted against the 7700K, the results are.... predictable.)

 

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/3

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,5073-4.html

 

Despite the i5's lead in most gaming benchmarks, I personally would not choose it over Ryzen, but would be looking hard at the assorted R5/R7/i7-7700K comparisons; the i5's '4 cores only, non-hyperthreaded' days of leading in assorted gaming benchmarks are numbered, IMO...


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#9 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:39 PM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 09:45 AM

NVIDIA has deep pockets & will pull a cat out of the bag, I was (& may still) consider a 1060 Ti, if released, for my AMD build, which is now running a lowly 128 bit GTX 960. On the other hand, they may release their 11xx series early & w/out much announcement (as with the 10xx series), many purchased GTX 970/980 & 980Ti, as well as the 9 series of Titan the prior holiday season at higher pricing, only months later to see the 1070 smack all around at half the cost of a 980 Ti, and the 1080 Ti was King, even over the 9xx series Titan. Even the 6GB 1060 cleanly beat the GTX 980 (non-Ti) in many games/benchmarks, at far less than half the cost. Plus NVIDIA kept a lid on this, there were zero rumors of a new card until 2016, their employees kept the secret to themselves. Otherwise, many wouldn't had purchased the 970/980 series in late 2015.


That bolded part is mostly BS. Those who bought 970/980 between late 2015 and mid 2016 were just morons. Heck, some people even bought 980 Ti on April 2016. Some examples what I said long before Nvidia launched 1xxx series:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611915/what-should-i-upgrade/#entry3986767
 

Depends on what you mean saying "some time before need to upgrade". Considering that new 14/16nm process gives about 2x power/performance ratio compared to todays 28nm process, AMD or Nvidia have no problem to make card that makes current high end GTX980 lower mid end card very soon. They probably won't make it soon but still. Also considering facts that GTX980 was made for DirectX 11 (and so quite poor support for DirectX 12), it's not good enough for 4K gaming and not good enough for VR use, it's price is very high and offers very little for money. In case you want better (not very much but still) future proof card, consider Radeon R9 390.

2 years ago I bought R9 280 for 20% less than R9 380 cost today (both have about equal performance). So in two years prices have gone up 20%. So it's safe to say that currently every video card over 100$ price offer very poor price/performance ratio. And so waiting is only wise option. But if you want new card now, then that "wise" solution is not option. Your choice.


https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/612056/upgrade-for-sapphire-radeon-r7-265/#entry3986154


Nature is not this time around. We have waited hese 14/16nm cards 4 years now because 20nm parts were cancelled. This 14/16nm manufacturing process is biggest single upgrade ever on GPU's. Also during recent years GPU prices have gone up, not down. Quite funny that very old manufacturing process = higher prices as it gets even more older.


https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/610815/dinosaur-gaming-pc-need-new-one/?view=findpost&p=3978167


It really doesn't matter because 28nm manufacturing tech is 4 years old and not getting any younger. It's quite impossible to recommend 650 dollar video card that is not future proof, architechrurally over 2 years old and uses 4 year old manufacturing process. No matter how long it takes Pascal/Polaris to arrive, 980Ti is still technically and architechturally obsolete card with huge price tag. Of course that applies to every card on market but it's possible to drop huge price tag away so I suggest buying something cheaper and upgrade later. 980Ti will get old quite quickly after all.


My predictions were very accurate.
 

I will link two different cpu comparison links, and let the prospective purchaser objectively choose which cpu/mainboard he/she feels is best. (Most min/max/average gaming framerate graphs do not exactly give substantial credence to recent claims of Ryzen 'smoking the i5 across the board', and, pitted against the 7700K, the results are.... predictable.)
 
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/3
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,5073-4.html
 
Despite the i5's lead in most gaming benchmarks, I personally would not choose it over Ryzen, but would be looking hard at the assorted R5/R7/i7-7700K comparisons; the i5's '4 cores only, non-hyperthreaded' days of leading in assorted gaming benchmarks are numbered, IMO...


Most of games used utilize quite few cores and there is no background software running. Even if we consider gamer would want to stream on good quality while gaming at same time, all quad cores are nearly useless.

Also more cores is always better on near future. That future part is not tested there for obvious reasons.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 30 May 2017 - 09:46 AM.


#10 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:39 PM

Posted 31 May 2017 - 08:28 PM

If you are willing to wait, AMD's Vega cards should be out soon.  Supposedly, we should be getting more information on them in a week or so.  Vega may compete against the 1070 and put price pressue on Nvidia.

 

Current rumor is a 6-8 month slip on desktop Vega.... cannot attest to the rumor's accuracy just yet, as Youtube hardware reviewers sometimes 'speculate'.

 

Disappointing, as competition to the GTX1080/1080Ti would be good for all, with hopefully lower prices across the board. Lack of competition at the high end rarely leads to lower prices, alas....


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#11 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:39 PM

Posted 01 June 2017 - 03:21 AM

Probably in three months, desktop Vega is available. No idea where that 6-8 months comes from.

Lower prices across board are unlike. Generally GPU's cost much more now than years ago.

#12 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 7,015 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:07:39 AM

Posted 01 June 2017 - 06:12 AM

 

NVIDIA has deep pockets & will pull a cat out of the bag, I was (& may still) consider a 1060 Ti, if released, for my AMD build, which is now running a lowly 128 bit GTX 960. On the other hand, they may release their 11xx series early & w/out much announcement (as with the 10xx series), many purchased GTX 970/980 & 980Ti, as well as the 9 series of Titan the prior holiday season at higher pricing, only months later to see the 1070 smack all around at half the cost of a 980 Ti, and the 1080 Ti was King, even over the 9xx series Titan. Even the 6GB 1060 cleanly beat the GTX 980 (non-Ti) in many games/benchmarks, at far less than half the cost. Plus NVIDIA kept a lid on this, there were zero rumors of a new card until 2016, their employees kept the secret to themselves. Otherwise, many wouldn't had purchased the 970/980 series in late 2015.


That bolded part is mostly BS. Those who bought 970/980 between late 2015 and mid 2016 were just morons. Heck, some people even bought 980 Ti on April 2016. Some examples what I said long before Nvidia launched 1xxx series:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611915/what-should-i-upgrade/#entry3986767
 

 

 

 

I'll take a stand & defend myself on this, there were several PC's that I upgraded for others prior to the holiday season 2015, there was no word that NVIDIA would release a $300 GPU (the 6GB 1060) that in many games/benchmarks, would slap a 980 (non-TI) around as though a wet paper sack, let alone the more popular 1080/1080 Ti, and the middle of the pack, yet still quite powerful 8GB GDDR5 1070, the variant that I have & renders 4K flawlessly. Even my 1060's performs well on the monitor (will update my sig with the specs, as I have with this PC, top Speccy link). Back to NVIDIA keeping a lid on this in November 2016, there was no word of a 10 series in the news, or at least not widespread, and I do a lot of reading on new tech, as well as receive the NVIDIA newsletter & have been a longtime Forum member, although rarely post. Had there had been rumors of a lower priced card that would outperform the 970/980, I'd had personally advised those I assist to wait for the GTX 1080 release, the first of the series. 

 

Just like the 9xx series that launched in early 2015, no word, at that time, the 2GB GDDR5 GTX 960 ($200) was considered a lower middle class card, not budget. Today, the GTX 1060 fills the same slot, with pricing for 6GB versions between $249-319, depending on brand. EVGA, being the #1 distributor of NVIDIA cards across the board, has a huge advantage, a loyal fan base which makes NVIDIA that much stronger. :)

 

Anyone who thinks that a Radeon RX 580 can take on the NVIDIA 980 Ti or Titan Xp (a $1,299 card) & come out on top are exactly what you referred to as those who purchased 970/980 cards in late 2015/mid-2016. I agree with your comment in reference to those purchases, why buy the old for more, when the new (& at least 30% more powerful across the board) can be had for far less? A new 9xx anything is now $600 & up, this is for the 960 alone, the 970/980 & 9 series Titan costs even more. 

 

Finally, anyone who feels that NVIDIA will sit back & not fire back are the same, they have lots more on hand cash & resources to stand on the sidelines. AMD had better rejoice that they may have snached the enthusiast CPU market from Intel (who actually told their customers not to OC their 'K' chips). That's pure ignorance at the least, insanity at the worst, for such a statement to be released by Intel. It was they & they only who penny pinched, substituting lower grade thermal paste than we can purchase for $20 (one application), rather than using fluxless solder, the way they built chips for years w/out any troubles. Plus NVIDIA has Intel in their pockets, their graphics are produced by NVIDIA & by Passmark standards, are worse than many performance cards that preceded Windows 7. :lol:

 

I'll agree that the Radeon RX 580 8GB (now the sweet spot for VRAM) will be a good seller & a top line card at release, yet to think that NVIDIA will sit idle on the sidelines & allow AMD to outsell/do them is outright humorous. :hysterical:

 

It's also to be determined how Linux distros will support the card, if like those of today, these users will be in for another long ride of dealing with whatever drivers that the Linux developers can scrape up. We'll see...... :)

 

I do feel that for today, the OP would be better served to drop the extra $100 on the GTX 1070, preferably the EVGA FTW + ACX 3.0 variant. With their cards comes EVGA Precision X, of which it's owners has complete control over their cards, lots of settings to choose from, plus the 1070 is a workhorse in it's on right, otherwise, I'd not had dropped $429 on the card, pricing varies between $409-439 (actually $443.99 today), has held it's value quite well since I purchased it. We get what we pay for & can't say enough positives on this 1070 variant. :)

 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487259

 

Cat


Edited by cat1092, 01 June 2017 - 06:58 AM.

Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#13 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:39 PM

Posted 01 June 2017 - 08:52 AM

I'll take a stand & defend myself on this, there were several PC's that I upgraded for others prior to the holiday season 2015, there was no word that NVIDIA would release a $300 GPU (the 6GB 1060) that in many games/benchmarks, would slap a 980 (non-TI) around as though a wet paper sack, let alone the more popular 1080/1080 Ti, and the middle of the pack, yet still quite powerful 8GB GDDR5 1070, the variant that I have & renders 4K flawlessly. Even my 1060's performs well on the monitor (will update my sig with the specs, as I have with this PC, top Speccy link). Back to NVIDIA keeping a lid on this in November 2016, there was no word of a 10 series in the news, or at least not widespread, and I do a lot of reading on new tech, as well as receive the NVIDIA newsletter & have been a longtime Forum member, although rarely post. Had there had been rumors of a lower priced card that would outperform the 970/980, I'd had personally advised those I assist to wait for the GTX 1080 release, the first of the series.


To be honest, you didn't read enough new tech if those things you said were really total surprises. No offence. This quote summarizes it all:

We have waited hese 14/16nm cards 4 years now because 20nm parts were cancelled. This 14/16nm manufacturing process is biggest single upgrade ever on GPU's.


Brief history about that. 28nm GPU's launched late 2011 and were available March 2012. Sometime around 2014 there was supposed to be 20nm GPU's available from TSMC or GlobalFoundries, or both. Things went badly, TSMC's process was unsuitable for GPU's and Globalfoundries 20nm process was more or less totally cancelled. Both TSMC and Globalfoundries concentrated on next process, "16nm" for TSMC and "14nm" for Globalfoundries.

OK, let's consider situation on mid 2015, Nvidia launches GTX980Ti. At that time:

- GTX980Ti was using year and half year old architechture
- GTX980Ti was made using almost 4 year old manufacturing process
- Next manufacturing process ("14/16nm") should come "around one year or so" and that process change would be biggest single upgrade ever on GPU tech.

Now, for that GTX1060 part:

there was no word that NVIDIA would release a $300 GPU (the 6GB 1060) that in many games/benchmarks, would slap a 980 (non-TI) around as though a wet paper sack


My previous quote answers this:

Considering that new 14/16nm process gives about 2x power/performance ratio compared to todays 28nm process, AMD or Nvidia have no problem to make card that makes current high end GTX980 lower mid end card very soon.


Reason why this was inevitable is competition. If Nvidia just tells that "OK, we have new 16nm process ready but we rather sell these old 28nm products", AMD have no problem getting whole GPU market as their 14nm GPU's easily trash every 28nm GPU Nvidia can offer. And vice versa. AMD must offer 14nm GPU's or Nvidia grabs whole market.

As you can see, things are not so hard. If you look my quotes, I correctly predicted almost everything right long before 14/16nm products were available. I was also right when I told buying GTX980Ti would be waste of money.

Just like the 9xx series that launched in early 2015, no word, at that time, the 2GB GDDR5 GTX 960 ($200) was considered a lower middle class card, not budget. Today, the GTX 1060 fills the same slot, with pricing for 6GB versions between $249-319, depending on brand. EVGA, being the #1 distributor of NVIDIA cards across the board, has a huge advantage, a loyal fan base which makes NVIDIA that much stronger. :)


Reason for no word was that GTX900-series was even supposed to be launched. Maxwell cards were supposed to be 20nm tech products, not 28nm. Nvidia then converted Maxwells to 28nm. And as I said at that time, GTX970 was not good buy as it lacked features for future and was made using antique 28nm process.
 

Anyone who thinks that a Radeon RX 580 can take on the NVIDIA 980 Ti or Titan Xp (a $1,299 card) & come out on top are exactly what you referred to as those who purchased 970/980 cards in late 2015/mid-2016. I agree with your comment in reference to those purchases, why buy the old for more, when the new (& at least 30% more powerful across the board) can be had for far less? A new 9xx anything is now $600 & up, this is for the 960 alone, the 970/980 & 9 series Titan costs even more.


Exactly. And as stated above, that wasn't too hard to predict.
 

Finally, anyone who feels that NVIDIA will sit back & not fire back are the same, they have lots more on hand cash & resources to stand on the sidelines. AMD had better rejoice that they may have snached the enthusiast CPU market from Intel (who actually told their customers not to OC their 'K' chips). That's pure ignorance at the least, insanity at the worst, for such a statement to be released by Intel. It was they & they only who penny pinched, substituting lower grade thermal paste than we can purchase for $20 (one application), rather than using fluxless solder, the way they built chips for years w/out any troubles. Plus NVIDIA has Intel in their pockets, their graphics are produced by NVIDIA & by Passmark standards, are worse than many performance cards that preceded Windows 7. :lol:
 
I'll agree that the Radeon RX 580 8GB (now the sweet spot for VRAM) will be a good seller & a top line card at release, yet to think that NVIDIA will sit idle on the sidelines & allow AMD to outsell/do them is outright humorous. :hysterical:
 
It's also to be determined how Linux distros will support the card, if like those of today, these users will be in for another long ride of dealing with whatever drivers that the Linux developers can scrape up. We'll see...... :)
 
I do feel that for today, the OP would be better served to drop the extra $100 on the GTX 1070, preferably the EVGA FTW + ACX 3.0 variant. With their cards comes EVGA Precision X, of which it's owners has complete control over their cards, lots of settings to choose from, plus the 1070 is a workhorse in it's on right, otherwise, I'd not had dropped $429 on the card, pricing varies between $409-439 (actually $443.99 today), has held it's value quite well since I purchased it. We get what we pay for & can't say enough positives on this 1070 variant. :)
 
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487259
 
Cat


There are still many people that buy Intel, no matter how bad Intel's products really are. That explains why Intel can do crap with paste.

Problem with GTX1070 and every Nvidia cards is that they are not future proof. As we have seen, AMD cards hold much better on long term. Main reason I haven't bought Nvidia card for years.

#14 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:39 PM

Posted 02 June 2017 - 05:23 AM

 

NVIDIA has deep pockets & will pull a cat out of the bag, I was (& may still) consider a 1060 Ti, if released, for my AMD build, which is now running a lowly 128 bit GTX 960. On the other hand, they may release their 11xx series early & w/out much announcement (as with the 10xx series), many purchased GTX 970/980 & 980Ti, as well as the 9 series of Titan the prior holiday season at higher pricing, only months later to see the 1070 smack all around at half the cost of a 980 Ti, and the 1080 Ti was King, even over the 9xx series Titan. Even the 6GB 1060 cleanly beat the GTX 980 (non-Ti) in many games/benchmarks, at far less than half the cost. Plus NVIDIA kept a lid on this, there were zero rumors of a new card until 2016, their employees kept the secret to themselves. Otherwise, many wouldn't had purchased the 970/980 series in late 2015.


That bolded part is mostly BS. Those who bought 970/980 between late 2015 and mid 2016 were just morons. Heck, some people even bought 980 Ti on April 2016. Some examples what I said long before Nvidia launched 1xxx series:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611915/what-should-i-upgrade/#entry3986767
 

Depends on what you mean saying "some time before need to upgrade". Considering that new 14/16nm process gives about 2x power/performance ratio compared to todays 28nm process, AMD or Nvidia have no problem to make card that makes current high end GTX980 lower mid end card very soon. They probably won't make it soon but still. Also considering facts that GTX980 was made for DirectX 11 (and so quite poor support for DirectX 12), it's not good enough for 4K gaming and not good enough for VR use, it's price is very high and offers very little for money. In case you want better (not very much but still) future proof card, consider Radeon R9 390.

2 years ago I bought R9 280 for 20% less than R9 380 cost today (both have about equal performance). So in two years prices have gone up 20%. So it's safe to say that currently every video card over 100$ price offer very poor price/performance ratio. And so waiting is only wise option. But if you want new card now, then that "wise" solution is not option. Your choice.


https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/612056/upgrade-for-sapphire-radeon-r7-265/#entry3986154


Nature is not this time around. We have waited hese 14/16nm cards 4 years now because 20nm parts were cancelled. This 14/16nm manufacturing process is biggest single upgrade ever on GPU's. Also during recent years GPU prices have gone up, not down. Quite funny that very old manufacturing process = higher prices as it gets even more older.


https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/610815/dinosaur-gaming-pc-need-new-one/?view=findpost&p=3978167


It really doesn't matter because 28nm manufacturing tech is 4 years old and not getting any younger. It's quite impossible to recommend 650 dollar video card that is not future proof, architechrurally over 2 years old and uses 4 year old manufacturing process. No matter how long it takes Pascal/Polaris to arrive, 980Ti is still technically and architechturally obsolete card with huge price tag. Of course that applies to every card on market but it's possible to drop huge price tag away so I suggest buying something cheaper and upgrade later. 980Ti will get old quite quickly after all.


My predictions were very accurate.
 

I will link two different cpu comparison links, and let the prospective purchaser objectively choose which cpu/mainboard he/she feels is best. (Most min/max/average gaming framerate graphs do not exactly give substantial credence to recent claims of Ryzen 'smoking the i5 across the board', and, pitted against the 7700K, the results are.... predictable.)
 
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/3
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,5073-4.html
 
Despite the i5's lead in most gaming benchmarks, I personally would not choose it over Ryzen, but would be looking hard at the assorted R5/R7/i7-7700K comparisons; the i5's '4 cores only, non-hyperthreaded' days of leading in assorted gaming benchmarks are numbered, IMO...


Most of games used utilize quite few cores and there is no background software running. Even if we consider gamer would want to stream on good quality while gaming at same time, all quad cores are nearly useless.

Also more cores is always better on near future. That future part is not tested there for obvious reasons.

 

So, 'all quad cores (admittedly, a quad core/8 thread) are useless', yet, somehow the 7700K outperform every 6 and 8+ core cpu in 95% of all games....

 

If folks intend to rip blue rays, encode, bitcoin, and livestream their gaming, there might indeed be a case for Ryzen, which admittedly is performing almost as well as stock clocked 7600K at games now....

 

It is, however, slower than the 'useless' quad core 7700K at ....well, every single game.

 

Fascinating, ....but true.

 

Trivia question: are you still actually attempting to represent that mud-caked cpu photo you posted earlier as an actual delidded Intel processor? (That's genuinely pretty laughable, if so....; it was funny, however, I'll give you that! )


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#15 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:39 PM

Posted 02 June 2017 - 02:26 PM

So, 'all quad cores (admittedly, a quad core/8 thread) are useless', yet, somehow the 7700K outperform every 6 and 8+ core cpu in 95% of all games benchmarks....


Fixed.
 

If folks intend to rip blue rays, encode, bitcoin, and livestream their gaming, there might indeed be a case for Ryzen, which admittedly is performing almost as well as stock clocked 7600K at games now....
 
It is, however, slower than the 'useless' quad core 7700K at ....well, every single game.

Fascinating, ....but true.


Not games but benchmarks. Quite many thought that Ryzen ran Battlefield 1 smoother than i7-7700K, despite benchmarks saying 7700K is faster. Benchmarks are not real gaming as responsivity is taken out of question.

Once again example I wrote before. Imagine monitor with 5 second input lag, I have seen one. If you run benchmarks, it makes no difference if input lag is 5 seconds or there is no input lag. Try gaming and it really makes difference.

This responsivity is reason why I considered (and still consider) Athlon64 X2 better than Core 2. IMC makes huge difference on smoothness.
 
 

Trivia question: are you still actually attempting to represent that mud-caked cpu photo you posted earlier as an actual delidded Intel processor? (That's genuinely pretty laughable, if so....; it was funny, however, I'll give you that! )



I didn't say it was actual photo. But that's pretty good showing that something is wrong. Really is.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 02 June 2017 - 02:31 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users