Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by Gatecrasher3000, Apr 27, 2017.
I'm on a 1060 and I'm still skipping until 7nm, so yeah, you have company!
I most likely will until decent reasonable HDR GSync monitors come around or when Nvidia gets their head out of their ass followed by removing foot in mouth in supporting an open Adaptive Sync standard (a.k.a FreeSync).
Honestly it's just too much money. I'm pretty comfy middle class enthusiast, I can spend $500 on a gpu, in between the $500's getting spent on my other handful of hobbies.
You start getting in the $700+ range for one component, it's just too much. I've bought a number of cool old cars for less than that. I mean, I bought a geforce 256 on release way back when, I still have a Quake hat, I'm down, but damn guys lol.
I bought a cheap 4K TV that makes a pretty passable monitor not long ago, mostly for work/productivity, and that pushed me to buy the cheapest 1080 I could find recently
which was still too much money for too little performance. I'm not buying jack else for a long, long time gpu wise. If I start having that much trouble driving stuff at at least medium at 4K I'll buy a lower resolution
display before I spend more money on a GPU. Noooo thank you.
Traded cash and goods for a 1080ti to replace my 980ti.
I've always been a high end GPU guy when it called for it (going from 1440p to 3840x1600 was the next calling), but $700 is my limit. Price/performance ratio is far off
ugh, still struggling to find a 1080ti for under $1000
You aren't looking very hard.
our sub 1k cards are the zotacs and gigabytes, Good PCB, like EVGA, Asus and MSI are not budging in price.
Dude, Zotac's AMP! Omega and Extreme are serious cards.
I just sold a STRIX 1080ti for $850 CAD
Also, I did have a 1080 ZOTAC AMP! Extreme, beast of a card. though it is huge.
2 Gigabyte cards, both under $1k
Quick question guys.
What's the most useful thing for me to right now:
I got a 1080 from Palit Jestream and I want to upgrade but honestly, the 2080 ti is too expensive..
So I was thinking:
- a 1080ti from Aorus or EVGA
- a Titan XP
Which one for a 1440p / 144hz daily gaming use?
Wrong thread man. Check out the GPU section.
Welcome to the forum.
Oh god I'm so sorry...
Did not mean to do something wrong.
thanks for the heads up
If you feel like the 1080 is almost where you want to be but ~25% more fps would get you there then upgrade. Personally the performance increase isn't enough for me to justify the upgrade. The only significant upgrade available is the overpriced RTX 2080ti.
Seconded; it would be hard to recommend upgrading from a 1070 or better unless a real performance gap was affecting gameplay. Which could happen!
It's a lot of expense for not a lot of gain; you're better off dropping some settings if you need faster framerates and waiting.
I have had nothing but issue with Zotac in the past. Ill never touch it again. That and the AMP has one of the worst performing coolers available. Its the whipping card of Gamers Nexus.
I cant pick and choose any card anyways. I am size restricted and after a specific PCB, either the EVGA icx or MSI gaming/ Asus Strix. Im also super fucking anal on noise.
I am in no rush though. I havent been grabbed by any games in awhile.
Is it the AMP or AMP! EXtreme? 2 very different coolers
Also I ahd the regular 1080, maybe it wasn't as demanding, but it ran very cool.
3440x1440 / 120Hz, 5960X, 32GB, 1080 Ti gamer here - it has been a sweet setup but I'm an ARK player so 2080 Ti is coming whenever NVIDIA gets shipping. i9 9900K is likely my next step - been a while since I've built a new box.
Thinking of picking up a 4 month old 1070 Ti for about $320... Either that or wait for 7nm NAVI. Prices of Turing too rich for me.
I'm actually happy with the 970 but the upgrade itch is there
Grabbed a 1080 back in November before the GPU prices went all crazy for a while. Everything I play still runs nice so I'll probably wait a generation.
That's a good price for a very good jump in performance. I'd snap one up at that price just to have one if I saw it.
[not really, but I'd certainly be thinking about it!]
I'm thinking of waiting for next year.
If AMD can give me 1080 performance for the same 300$ at lower power consumption, I'll give them my money.
If NV can do it better, no problem with them as well.
I'm just on a pleb 1080p setup anyway.
I was going to get a discounted 1080ti to replace my 980ti, but ended up with a 2080 Founders Edition.
It’s fast but overpriced. The Cooler looks and feels like a work of art though, and it fits in my NCASE M1.
With an 8086K at 5 GHz all cores, and 32GB of DDR4-3200, I’m getting between 135 to 150fps average in BF1, Sinai, at 1440p Ultra. Actually I locked it to 120FPS and it rarely drops below that. My 980ti, overclocked to 1.45GHZ, averaged about 90 FPS under the same settings.
I have a 1070 (1440p) and the only cards I would upgrade to are the 1080Ti or the 2080Ti...2080Ti is too expensive...if the 1080Ti drops under $500 I will bite (mainly for Metro Exodus)
just bought a waterblocked Titan XP (2017 edition) so im with ya on this... Gonna be a huge upgrade to my 980ti for sure. Just waiting for 9900k and z390 to come out, then i can play again
Going to be rocking my two EVGA GTX 970 SSC's in SLI at 1440p until the next series.
Unless I come across a killer deal.
Eh, still using R9 290 from 2014. Was looking for 1070 Ti, but prices are stupid.
You believe all that marketing BS from Nvidia dream on, what performance that you are talk about RT in games? AMDs Fury Xs were the first 4k gaming cards to be release before Nvidia.
The 1080Ti was the first '4k gaming card'. AMD still hasn't caught up.
What are you on about?, It was AMD Fury X used of high-bandwidth memory, making it the first graphics card to adopt HBM before Nvidia, Nvidia’s did not embrace similar technology until 2016 at the earliest, when its Pascal GPUs launch, AMD Started in 1969 before Nvidia in 1993 history
And it has been one of their worst mistakes
Not only were the AMD cards hotter, louder, and slower, they were also more expensive due to that miscalculation!
I'm not trying to pick sides but that isn't exactly how it works.
ATi started in 1985 and was then bought by AMD in 2006. Prior to that, AMD didn't even have their feet wet in the GPU world. It would also take a few years to wrinkle things out with acquisition of ATi before AMD could really make their big moves.
If anything, one can argue that AMD (GPU wise) didn't started til 2006 or 2009-2010 whenever the acquisition was completed and all previous projects of ATi were over.
I could be off a bit since I do recall the HD4000 series was pretty competitive and came around mid 2008.
I am not a fan of any GPU never want to be, but I do have a NVidia card and I don't take on all their Marketing BS over the years too.
And I don't know what you're talking about. It's hardware, it serves a purpose or it doesn't.
and what AMD did to ATI that's another topic
Not to Nvidia it doesn't it's now too much marketing BS coming from dirty tricks , IMO
That's fine but I just pointing out that using their founded years to support your argument was a bit invalided.
I just nabbed an EVGA 1080Ti FTW3 Hybrid for $525 shipped.
You need to look harder.
I didn't want to go into all the details over this history I just want to make a point and move on that I was making at the time but lots of ATI people got axed, especially after AMD messed up the quad core processor launch also AMD bought ATI because the deal with NVidia fell apart clash of egos.
Which has fuckall to do with the discussion at hand because...?
None of that is relevant at all other than it took a few additional years for AMD to make their big moves in the GPU market (hence my earlier post).
It seems though you were debating about IdiotInCharge's post about "AMD still hasn't caught up" and for reasons unknown, you choose to use their founded years as some sort of metric in your rebuttal.
Anything AMD had prior to ATI acquisition in 2006 is pretty much meaningless in the argument of AMD vs Nvidia performance or who is ahead.
If you think having some sort of seniority is valid, then nvidia would have seniority over AMD in the GPU market.