480 vs 1060 vs 1070

S

Singularity_Survivor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
212
If all three max 1080/1440p gameplay at 60fps, then why pay more? Seems the 1070 is the odd man out here. It's not robust enough for 4K, and costs roughly double a 480. That $180 difference can be used for so many other things......

If the 1060 matches the 480 in price and performance, then a strong argument can be made for the 1060.
 
#1 there is no 1060 announcement. #2 Nvidia will never charge $199 for the 1060 GTX they always overcharge.

#3 there has been no word on the release date of the 1060 GTX.
 
why is this even in the amd section? whats it have to do with the upcoming 480? not to mention its no where near double the performance
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
If all three max 1080/1440p gameplay at 60fps, then why pay more? Seems the 1070 is the odd man out here. It's not robust enough for 4K, and costs roughly double a 480. That $180 difference can be used for so many other things......

If the 1060 matches the 480 in price and performance, then a strong argument can be made for the 1060.
Click to expand...

As is always the case, the card that an individual purchases will come down to their budget, the games they play, their performance target, and even their individual brand loyalty. The 480 is on par with or slightly faster than the GTX 970, a card that I own and it cannot max out all current games at 1080p60. The 480 likely can't either. And just as the 480 compares favorably to the 970, the 1070 compares similarly to the 980ti (maybe not faster to the same degree). That should be enough for most users, but ever more demanding games will come out. When the GTX 970 came out, most called it a solid 1440p card. Now, most call it a 1080p card.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
As is always the case, the card that an individual purchases will come down to their budget, the games they play, their performance target, and even their individual brand loyalty. The 480 is on par with or slightly faster than the GTX 970, a card that I own and it cannot max out all current games at 1080p60. The 480 likely can't either. And just as the 480 compares favorably to the 970, the 1070 compares similarly to the 980ti (maybe not faster to the same degree). That should be enough for most users, but ever more demanding games will come out. When the GTX 970 came out, most called it a solid 1440p card. Now, most call it a 1080p card.
Click to expand...

I'm running Fallout 4 at Ultra settings on a 970 FTW at 144mHz, 1440p no issues.
 
Rustynuts said:
I'm running Fallout 4 at Ultra settings on a 970 FTW at 144mHz, 1440p no issues.
Click to expand...
upload_2016-6-4_13-9-32.png


Granted this is a 980 OC and it is no where near 144fps. So you got some proof of ULTRA all the way with a 970 @144hz
 
Daniel_Chang said:
but ever more demanding games will come out. When the GTX 970 came out, most called it a solid 1440p card. Now, most call it a 1080p card.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. Even though all 3 would be fairly comparable right now at 1080/1440p60, the extra cost of the 1070 would be justified to future proof for the next year or two of new games.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
When the GTX 970 came out, most called it a solid 1440p card. Now, most call it a 1080p card.
Click to expand...

Before they found it doesn't have 4GB of usable VRAM! :D

I have flat out 4GB but GDDR5 just doesn't have the bandwidth to push these massive textures games are starting to push out. 4k texturing wrecks this 290x, even at 1080p, lot more going on with games these days regardless of monitor resolution.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
As is always the case, the card that an individual purchases will come down to their budget, the games they play, their performance target, and even their individual brand loyalty. The 480 is on par with or slightly faster than the GTX 970, a card that I own and it cannot max out all current games at 1080p60. The 480 likely can't either. And just as the 480 compares favorably to the 970, the 1070 compares similarly to the 980ti (maybe not faster to the same degree). That should be enough for most users, but ever more demanding games will come out. When the GTX 970 came out, most called it a solid 1440p card. Now, most call it a 1080p card.
Click to expand...
So it seems that have tested an 480 lol
 
first off we dont even have benchmarks for the 480/1060 so its hard to say anything about what it can/cant do.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Before they found it doesn't have 4GB of usable VRAM! :D

I have flat out 4GB but GDDR5 just doesn't have the bandwidth to push these massive textures games are starting to push out. 4k texturing wrecks this 290x, even at 1080p, lot more going on with games these days regardless of monitor resolution.
Click to expand...
Textures have nearly zero impact on performance if you have enough vram so what the heck do you mean by saying GDDR5 does not have the bandwidth for massive textures?
 
misterbobby said:
Textures have nearly zero impact on performance if you have enough vram so what the heck do you mean by saying GDDR5 does not have the bandwidth for massive textures?
Click to expand...

For example, with HBM, the Fury X can make up for it with raw bandwidth often times. Been shown time and again, may not be popular opinion here but it does it. But my card simply doesn't have that bandwidth. if I hit my VRAM limit FPS plummets, if I had much faster VRAM, it would solve this issue. Of course, so would more VRAM :p

I was more stating that 4GB isn't enough for these 4k textures being rolled out unless you got something like HBM bandwidth to back it up. Which makes the 3.75GB usable on the 970 even worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
misterbobby said:
Textures have nearly zero impact on performance if you have enough vram so what the heck do you mean by saying GDDR5 does not have the bandwidth for massive textures?
Click to expand...
As texture size/resolution increase, cache hits decrease increasing the need for more bandwidth to go retrieve the data again and again. Cutting texture size in half won't have a linear relationship with bandwidth consumed.
 
The elephant in the room people need to consider is the PS4 NEO, what that will do for 1080p requirements, and what means for the RX 480 as a 1080p card.

At the moment NEO's GPU is speculated to basically be a lower clocked RX 480.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
limitedaccess said:
The elephant in the room people need to consider is the PS4 NEO, what that will do for 1080p requirements, and what means for the RX 480 as a 1080p card.
Click to expand...


Are you meaning in terms of 'the minimum floor for PC gaming has been raised'?

Do you mind elaborating on this a little? Interested to hear what you think on this.
 
As hardware moves forward so does software, this is why cards that were "1440p" so to speak at launch aren't anymore.

If PS4 Neo gains solid adoption and developer support then the bar effectively gets raised for a console quality experience. You then have to factor in that people (well this audience) will typically be considering a console+ (certainly if maxed out at 60fps as this thread is stating) experience and the inherent efficiency differences. Pitcairn (well not exactly, but close enough) powers the PS4 but what most people on here consider as a 1080p PC graphics card on the AMD side all use Hawaii.

But then again maybe PS4 Neo support isn't all that great. Maybe the hardware only gets leveraged to insure 1080p60 on the console. Who knows, but hardware demands going up should be a consideration.
 
That is one hell of a 970 if it can do Fallout 4 at Ultra on 1440p while running on idle mode... Just imagine what it could do at full power mode, you can basically run Skynet on that thing.

On a more serious note, if PS4 Neo would effectively 'raise the bar' at 1080p, wouldn't that cause a huge backlash amongst the base PS4 crowds, as it would inevitably segregate PS4 into "PS4 Neo masterrace" and "PS4 Vanilla peasants"?
 
chenw said:
That is one hell of a 970 if it can do Fallout 4 at Ultra on 1440p while running on idle mode... Just imagine what it could do at full power mode, you can basically run Skynet on that thing.

On a more serious note, if PS4 Neo would effectively 'raise the bar' at 1080p, wouldn't that cause a huge backlash amongst the base PS4 crowds, as it would inevitably segregate PS4 into "PS4 Neo masterrace" and "PS4 Vanilla peasants"?
Click to expand...

I have a ps4 not to mad about ps4 neo. I think to hate a company trying to bring a better product few years after release of original is kinda stupid. If sony is trying to bring a better gaming experience to consoles. I am all for it. It makes gaming quality better as a whole. No hard feelings here. Fuckin tired of waiting 10 years for consoles to get upgraded to be honest I am sure alot of us agree here that gaming industry gets held back because of it on PC.
 
chenw said:
That is one hell of a 970 if it can do Fallout 4 at Ultra on 1440p while running on idle mode... Just imagine what it could do at full power mode, you can basically run Skynet on that thing.

On a more serious note, if PS4 Neo would effectively 'raise the bar' at 1080p, wouldn't that cause a huge backlash amongst the base PS4 crowds, as it would inevitably segregate PS4 into "PS4 Neo masterrace" and "PS4 Vanilla peasants"?
Click to expand...

PS4 owners won't be one homogeneous group, so I'd think there would be different opinions to it. Some might not care (or even can tell the difference), some might hate it (something is better), some might hardcore support it (or really anything Sony) does. To varying degrees in between.

Keep in mind many PS4 titles do not even run at 1080p30 currently. The "NEO" mode being mentioned at the moment could simply be bringing up resolution and frame rates for a lot of titles.

On the other hand if developers really decide to leverage the added hardware for more fidelity then this would dramatically push up 1080p hardware requirements on the PC as a knock on effect. As suddenly you are looking at something like Hawaii performance (current estimate) being the base console version, and PC hardware will have to be much stronger to accommodate how people want a higher resolution, higher fps, additional graphics, and platform efficiency differences. Much like how you need something much stronger than the PS4's hardware to actually "max" 1080p PC gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top