Just settle for the 1060 or spend 120$ more and get the 1070, but it's for 1080p?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Subzerok11

Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
550
and no I'm not getting a 144 monitor either. Am I pushing it here, should I settle for the 1060 cause 1070 is overkill for 1080p ? By the way how's my specs for 1070 would I bottleneck anything ? My PSU is only 550 but was told my many it's a high quality PSU. I'm coming from a 660 by the way.

EVGA SCC ACX 3.0 for 284$ at Newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487275



Evga SC ACX 3.0 for 424$ after 20$ rebate it's 404$ at Newegg now

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814487248
 
Last edited:
Subzerok11 said:
and no I'm not getting a 144 monitor either. Am I pushing it here, should I settle for the 1060 cause 1070 is overkill for 1080p ? By the way how's my specs for 1070 would I bottleneck anything ? My PSU is only 550 but was told my many it's a high quality PSU. I'm coming from a 660 by the way.

EVGA SCC ACX 3.0 for 284$ at Newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487275



Evga SC ACX 3.0 for 424$ after 20$ rebate it's 404$ at Newegg now

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814487248
Click to expand...

What's your upgrade cycle length? 2 years?

I'd say go for the cheapest 1070 you can find, it'll be miles better than the 1060.

Currently the Gigabyte G1 and the MSI Armor are up for $400, and I'd much rather take those than EVGA SC.

Or you can get the 1070 Mini for only $360, which is much, much better value than the rest of the SKUs. Sure you'll probably hit power and thermal limits if you want to hit over 2GHz core clock, but it'll still wipe the floor with the 1060 at stock.
 
I have a 980ti, which is equivalent to a 1070. I think it's perfect for gaming at 1080p on ultra and higher levels of AA. Even then, things like modded fallout 4 get below 60 fps often. Overwatch on highest settings runs at around 100fps. Haven't tried any of the new and more demanding games (like the new-ish deus ex). IMO, if you can afford it - buy the 1070. You will have better performance right away and will have better performance in the future. If you don't want all the settings at max, then maybe the 1060 will be enough.
 
A 1060 is not going to cut it if you want to crank the settings and get 60 fps. At the same time you are in for a reality check if you think your 2500k and 8gb of system are not going to be an issue in some games.

And I dont see why some people keep worrying about "overkill for 1080p". You can simply use DSR to run higher resolutions.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on what you can afford. I would recommend a 1070 even with a 1080p monitor. You may get a higher res monitor in the future - as in your current one breaks or you see a good benefit in getting one. The 1070, just another open option can be SLI at a later date. 8gb of memory should pretty much ensure you will be able to run everything maxed with add-on's etc. VR - the 1070 kicks the 1060 butt there (just another option you might want to take in the future).

Another option is if you want to save money - RX 480 like the Asus one reviewed here. It has 8gb of memory and could be CFX but so far sucks in VR (which you may not ever do but is a good consideration).

Depends how much you want to spend - for virtually the same performance with some pos and neg - the RX 480 could be bought cheaper. If you have the bucks, which maybe really the cheaper route overall since the viability of the card is greater is to get the 1070.

My vote would be the 1070.
 
I add another vote for the 1070. Think of the 1070 as the 970.
 
Depends on what you play. I pay mostly older games at 1080p, newest thing I have is Skyrim I think, and the 1060 6gb runs that with high rez textures, etc, no problem. If you play the newest games available, get a 1070...or a console:)

Also, you can get a 1060 6gb used for 200 USD or less on here if you are patient.
 
trandoanhung1991 said:
Terrible advice. You're not gonna get by with just 4GB VRAM right now, much less in the next year or two.
Click to expand...


Fail

Read up on how HBM works

Better yet. Take a look at how a pair of Fury X with their 4gb of HBM VRAM did against a pair of Titans with their 12GB of VRAM at a triple 4K setup of 11,520 x 2160.

And stop spreading bullcrap.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html


I was just played like 12 hours of Shadow of Mordor at 50-70FPS on high settings on a single Fury X at 7560x1440. (Minimum FPS in benchmark mode was 41fps at 7560x1440) and beat the game after adding a second Fury X card which pretty much pinned the game at 75fps. (My HP Omen 32" monitors max.)

This on a i7 4770k with 16gb ram

You think the card can't handle 1920x1080?

Go get a clue.

IMG_1144.JPG
 
Last edited:
trandoanhung1991 said:
Terrible advice. You're not gonna get by with just 4GB VRAM right now, much less in the next year or two.
Click to expand...

Getting by just fine with two 970's and 3.5GB of VRAM (and you do *not* want to force the system to use that last .5GB!). Of course, I'm running 1440p 144Hz, and routinely turn settings down in exchange for higher framerates, so I'm not regularly close to running out of VRAM.

I will say that if it's economical to get >4GB, do it, and that stretching for a 1070 with 8GB of VRAM is the best advice for purchasing today.
 
Archaea said:
Fail

Read up on how HBM works

Better yet. Take a look at how a pair of Fury X with their 4gb of HBM VRAM did against a pair of Titans with their 12GB of VRAM at a triple 4K setup of 11,520 x 2160.

And stop spreading bullcrap.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html


I was just played like 12 hours of Shadow of Mordor at 50-70FPS on high settings on a single Fury X at 7560x1440. (Minimum FPS in benchmark mode was 41fps at 7560x1440) and beat the game after adding a second Fury X card which pretty much pinned the game at 75fps. (My HP Omen 32" monitors max.)

This on a i7 4770k with 16gb ram

You think the card can't handle 1920x1080?

Go get a clue.
Click to expand...

You should be the one getting a clue.

Dishonoured 2, GTX 970, RX480 and GTX 1060 is faster than Fury X at 1080p:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Dishonored-2-Spiel-54640/Specials/Patch-13-Benchmark-Test-1214990/

Watch Dogs 2, RX480 and GTX 1060 both are faster than Fury X at 1080p:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch-Dogs-2-Spiel-55550/Specials/Test-Review-Benchmark-1214553/

CoD: Infinite Warfare, RX480 and both GTX 1060s are faster than Fury X at 1080p:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...591/Specials/Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1212463/

perfrel_1920_1080.png


On average the Fury is 6% faster than the 1060 6GB in the latest benchmarks by TPU, though I'm not sure whether they actually retest or not.

You can get a 6GB 1060 for as low as $240. Sure it's 6% slower in older games, but it has 2GB extra VRAM which will make it last much further, as well as continuing to get priority driver optimizations compared to Fury. Oh and it overclocks really well, which means it'll possibly end up faster than the Fury once both are overclocked.

2GB extra VRAM, similar performance, similar price, much cooler, quieter and smaller, more overclocking headroom, better future game support.

So again, terrible advice. Throwing a link that's over a year old proves nothing.
 
It proves VRAM isn't the issue you state it is. Because the Fury X with 4 GB of HBM ram is beating a 12GB Titan in many of these games at an absolutely massive resolution. 12x the original posters 1080p needs.

You can say it's such that crossfire works better than SLI. But that isn't really the point is it? The point is the massive resolution isn't really limiting the AMD card as you suggest since crossfire still only uses 4GB.

Given the fact the benchmarks are a year old lends more favor to the AMD selection since AMD cards generally improve by greater percentages than nvidia on their older cards.

You hand selected three benchmarks in new, possibly/likely unoptimized games. I could select a lot more than three particular games to prove the Fury is a stronger card than a 1060. In fact you yourself pointed out the Fury is the faster card overall when many games are taken into account. The fact is if you crank the res to 1440p or 4K that gap in performance grows toward the Fury. So it's a faster card overall now, it's a faster card generally for dx12 and certainly vulcan -thus it has more legs for the future --- and it will support the future as a crossfire setup a couple years down the road if desired.

The only feather in your hat is that the 1060 uses less power. Okay I concede. The 1060 uses less power and is slower. Yippie!


Let's check back in a year and see who's right.

OP might also prefer AMD as an option because of cheaper and wider availability freesync displays too. (5:1 models available and generally $200-300 cheaper for the same display with freesync as opposed to gsync) He can do what he wants, he solicited opinions. I offered mine, you countered bluntly with a nonsense post. I have challenged bluntly as well.
 
Last edited:
misterbobby said:
A 1060 is not going to cut it if you want to crank the settings and get 60 fps. At the same time you are in for a reality check if you think your 2500k and 8gb of system are not going to be an issue in some games.

And I dont see why some people keep worrying about "overkill for 1080p". You can simply use DSR to run higher resolutions.
Click to expand...


Reality check ? are we really going there pal ? It's known that 2500K OC'ed is still a very capable cpu and 8GB of ram is still plenty. I know a lot of elitist like to think that the new standard is 16GB but it's not really necessary yet and I don't want to hear that crap where someone needs to have 50 web pages up and a game at the same time BS, these people are not the average user.
 
Last edited:
Subzerok11 said:
Reality check ? are we really going there pal ? It's known that 2500K OC'ed is still a very capable cpu and 8GB of ram is still plenty. I know a lot of people like to think that the new standard is 16GB but it's not really necessary yet, I still play at 1080p.
Click to expand...
I said for some games and that is indeed true and you deluding yourself does not change anything. Just Cause 3 and Batman Arkham Knight will stutter a bit with only 8 GB of ram but runs smooth on 12 GB or more and any gamer not living under a rock knows this.

And I guess I will copy and paste this for you from another thread but makes sense here since you "think" a 2500k is not a limitation. I am sure you will have all kinds of excuses which is what people like you do to justify your position that your old hardware is not a limitation.

In Mafia 3 I get 25% better average and 43% better minimums with HT on than with it off. This was tested with FRAPS just driving a loop with zero action going on so as to be repeatable. And even though the fps numbers look ok with HT off the actual game plays like jittery ♥♥♥♥ as the cpu is pegged basically the whole time. it is perfectly smooth with HT on though. You would have to have the 2500k oced even higher to match the oced 4770k without HT or it would be even worse. Bottom line is Mafia 3 needs an i7.


4770k @ 4.3 with HT on

Min, Max, Avg
70, 94, 81.966


4770k @ 4.3 with HT off

Min, Max, Avg
49, 83, 66.119



And how about Watch Dogs 2? The 6600k is getting 59 fps average and 47 minimum yet the 6700k is destroying the 6600k getting 90 fps average and 74 minimum. And look down at the 2500k shitting itself. They even said in the video it was stuttering on the 2500k. Bottom line is Watch Dogs 2 needs an i7 too.

free uploader
 
Subzerok11 said:
Reality check ? are we really going there pal ? It's known that 2500K OC'ed is still a very capable cpu and 8GB of ram is still plenty. I know a lot of elitist like to think that the new standard is 16GB but it's not really necessary yet and I don't want to hear that crap where someone needs to have 50 web pages up and a game at the same time BS, these people are not the average user.
Click to expand...

I'm in pretty much the same boat you are. Same CPU with more memory (but that's more for development purposes and running VMs). I'm in the market for a new GPU and looking at cards in the $200-300 range for 1080p gaming. I agree completely that the only thing I need to upgrade is the GPU for gaming at that resolution. My 750 is a bit slower than your 660 and while it is passable there are some games out now where it is an issue (Doom is one on particular that I own).

I've decided that if I go with an nvidia card it will either be a 1070 or a 980 Ti, but I'd rather buy an AMD solution this time. The reason is because I tend to go a while between upgrades (obviously lol) and the reality is AMD supports their hardware longer and provides far better returns in terms of driver upgrades. So I'm leaning toward an RX 480 8GB, but may go with an older model like a Fury X. I'm still pondering.
 
misterbobby said:
I said for some games and that is indeed true and you deluding yourself does not change anything. Just Cause 3 and Batman Arkham Knight will stutter a bit with only 8 GB of ram but runs smooth on 12 GB or more and any gamer not living under a rock knows this.

And I guess I will copy and paste this for you from another thread but makes sense here since you "think" a 2500k is not a limitation. I am sure you will have all kinds of excuses which is what people like you do to justify your position that your old hardware is not a limitation.

In Mafia 3 I get 25% better average and 43% better minimums with HT on than with it off. This was tested with FRAPS just driving a loop with zero action going on so as to be repeatable. And even though the fps numbers look ok with HT off the actual game plays like jittery ♥♥♥♥ as the cpu is pegged basically the whole time. it is perfectly smooth with HT on though. You would have to have the 2500k oced even higher to match the oced 4770k without HT or it would be even worse. Bottom line is Mafia 3 needs an i7.


4770k @ 4.3 with HT on

Min, Max, Avg
70, 94, 81.966


4770k @ 4.3 with HT off

Min, Max, Avg
49, 83, 66.119



And how about Watch Dogs 2? The 6600k is getting 59 fps average and 47 minimum yet the 6700k is destroying the 6600k getting 90 fps average and 74 minimum. And look down at the 2500k shitting itself. They even said in the video it was stuttering on the 2500k. Bottom line is Watch Dogs 2 needs an i7 too.

free uploader
Click to expand...


I find your position on Mafia 3 to be indefensible. This is a game that shipped at a locked 30fps, and even with an uncapped frame limit looks like crap compared to other recent AAA titles. So showing an increase in minimum frames from 47 to 70 is hardly compelling evidence that more than a quad is required. If you absolutely need a solid 60 frames then it will be fine to drop some settings down. The result won't be any worse, comparatively... it will still look like crap.

As far as Watch Dogs 2, that's an incredibly lazy console port with a horrible lack of optimization... no surprise, as that's exactly how Watch Dogs is as well. Despite that, good frame rates are still quite achievable with a 2500k at 1080p -
 
The predictable excuses have started. People like you will claim whatever you want and then when proven wrong pull excuse after excuse out of your ass. There are more games that I could list and show examples of but it will not matter to Someone Like You. I won't even bother replying to you yet again as you are nothing but a waste to deal with. Just keep living in your fantasy land where a 2500k and 8 gigs of RAM will never be a limitation on any game.
 
If you can wait a little bit longer, I'd actually advise saving up more money, and then upgrade when Ryzen drops.

By the time Ryzen drops, which is expected to be the 2nd half of this year, we'll probably start seeing Vega as well as Pascal refreshes. Either way around that time both CPU and GPU prices will start to drop pretty quickly. If you're budget strapped I think that's the best route to go.

No doubt your 2500K, even at that clock speed, is going to be a major bottleneck on a 1070, and probably on the 1060 as well. 8GB of RAM is just not good enough these days, unfortunately.
 
Obviously if you can swing it, go for the 1070.

That being said, I just upgraded from a GT 640 to the 3GB 1060 and it is very very impressive. Amazing at how much better a gen 10 "entry level" card is.

I also have a limited power supply, which lends itself to something like the 1060.

Just using 1080p at the moment but have a 1440p inbound so I can't wait to see how it goes!
 
misterbobby said:
The predictable excuses have started. People like you will claim whatever you want and then when proven wrong pull excuse after excuse out of your ass. There are more games that I could list and show examples of but it will not matter to Someone Like You. I won't even bother replying to you yet again as you are nothing but a waste to deal with. Just keep living in your fantasy land where a 2500k and 8 gigs of RAM will never be a limitation on any game.
Click to expand...


I looked at your examples and the games that are being benched are at ultra high settings, of coarse your going to to need a current highend rig $$$$. Were you under the impression that I wanted to play at ultra high settings @ 60FPS in newer games ? I've built many PC's over the years and I never spent more then 200-250$ for a video card. I don't know what I was thinking this week spending 400$ on one component. I've come to my to senses and will go with the 1060. I want to play games at 1080p with med-high settings and in 45-60fps is fine with me. I've always aimed for these settings. I once bought the second best gpu on the market years ago and tried the same dam games on ultra high settings and compared them to high settings the diff was negligible and totally not worth it, I returned that sucker to the store and I got my money back asap. I've had my 660 for 4 years and and got my moneys worth. But I draw the line when medium-high settings and dips below 40fps.

I'll be honest your the type of PC gamer that irks me, you make it hard for new guys to get into PC gaming and wonder why they buy a console instead. It's like if they don't buy and upgrade every year and not spend 400-500$ on a gpu alone, elitists types like you call them peasants. There's no balance with your types and playing a little under 60fps is sacrilege. I know for a fact that my OC'ed 2500k with 8GB of ram and if I get a 1060 I will be able to use my rig for another 4 years no problem. Then I'll do a full new build then. Look I'm sure your just trying to help but I hope you can see my point.

I checked Steam and some AAA titles and if I get a 1060 I totally exceed the recommended specs for probably 98% of games out their. A couple of titles recommend a a slightly better cpu then mine, but mine is OC'ed nicely and should make up for it I'm sure. Also I couldn't find a game that needed more then 8GB of ram for recommended. Many newer games I easily exceed recommended. So I know I'm good.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
Doom
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
Far Cry 4
DARK SOULS™ III
Fallout 4
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt






trandoanhung1991 said:
If you can wait a little bit longer, I'd actually advise saving up more money, and then upgrade when Ryzen drops.

By the time Ryzen drops, which is expected to be the 2nd half of this year, we'll probably start seeing Vega as well as Pascal refreshes. Either way around that time both CPU and GPU prices will start to drop pretty quickly. If you're budget strapped I think that's the best route to go.

No doubt your 2500K, even at that clock speed, is going to be a major bottleneck on a 1070, and probably on the 1060 as well. 8GB of RAM is just not good enough these days, unfortunately.
Click to expand...


Man get a clue, google "would a 2500k bottleneck 1070" the answer is no. But it doesn't matter I'm getting the 1060 will match up with what I got better.
 
I think you made a good choice. Like I said- it's amazing what the current generation of cards can do. You can't just look at the specs and compare straight a cross to your old one- the technology is sooo much better now and these things are so much more efficient than ever.

Let us know what you think of it!
 
Subzerok11 said:
I looked at your examples and the games that are being benched are at ultra high settings, of coarse your going to to need a current highend rig $$$$. Were you under the impression that I wanted to play at ultra high settings @ 60FPS in newer games ? I've built many PC's over the years and I never spent more then 200-250$ for a video card. I don't know what I was thinking this week spending 400$ on one component. I've come to my to senses and will go with the 1060. I want to play games at 1080p with med-high settings and in 45-60fps is fine with me. I've always aimed for these settings. I once bought the second best gpu on the market years ago and tried the same dam games on ultra high settings and compared them to high settings the diff was negligible and totally not worth it, I returned that sucker to the store and I got my money back asap. I've had my 660 for 4 years and and got my moneys worth. But I draw the line when medium-high settings and dips below 40fps.

I'll be honest your the type of PC gamer that irks me, you make it hard for new guys to get into PC gaming and wonder why they buy a console instead. It's like if they don't buy and upgrade every year and not spend 400-500$ on a gpu alone, elitists types like you call them peasants. There's no balance with your types and playing a little under 60fps is sacrilege. I know for a fact that my OC'ed 2500k with 8GB of ram and if I get a 1060 I will be able to use my rig for another 4 years no problem. Then I'll do a full new build then. Look I'm sure your just trying to help but I hope you can see my point.

I checked Steam and some AAA titles and if I get a 1060 I totally exceed the recommended specs for probably 98% of games out their. A couple of titles recommend a a slightly better cpu then mine, but mine is OC'ed nicely and should make up for it I'm sure. Also I couldn't find a game that needed more then 8GB of ram for recommended. Many newer games I easily exceed recommended. So I know I'm good.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
Doom
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
Far Cry 4
DARK SOULS™ III
Fallout 4
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt









Man get a clue, google "would a 2500k bottleneck 1070" the answer is no. But it doesn't matter I'm getting the 1060 will match up with what I got better.
Click to expand...
Most settings impact the gpu not cpu so turning settings down is not always going to help if you are cpu limited. And your cpu is 6 years old so one is talking about constantly "upgrading every year." I simply was saying that in some games your 2500k and 8gb of ram will be limitation and that is fact whether you want to accept it or not. You do not have to google anything as I gave two clear examples of a 2500k being an issue and also listed two other games that will have issues with only 8 gb of ram. And that is not just a compromise on framerates as those games will have some stuttering. And there are plenty of other games I could test and show you or link to benchmarks by why bother? I should know better by now that people that have made their mind up will just make excuses as they do not want hear anything different than what they believe.

That said the 1060 was clearly the better choice based on your pc and your needs.
 
I can also say why do I have discussion with someone like you that has 1080GTX and 32GB of ram. Yes you showed me examples but the settings were at Ultra High I don't ever play newer games at Ultra High, I thought I made that clear earlier. Mafia 3 is a know game that runs like crap on PC if you don't a super high end rig, don't worry if I decide to play that game I'll get it on my PS4 which I keep for exclusives but will make a exception this time. When I get my 1060 and a game runs like crap and I'm within the recommended specs then the Devs lied about the requirements and I won't play their crappy unoptimized game. If I can't play any said game at 1080p with decent settings with my system then there a big problem somewhere.
 
Subzerok11 said:
I can also say why do I have discussion with someone like you that has 1080GTX and 32GB of ram. Yes you showed me examples but the settings were at Ultra High I don't ever play newer games at Ultra High, I thought I made that clear earlier. Mafia 3 is a know game that runs like crap on PC if you don't a super high end rig, don't worry if I decide to play that game I'll get it on my PS4 which I keep for exclusives but will make a exception this time. When I get my 1060 and a game runs like crap and I'm within the recommended specs then the Devs lied about the requirements and I won't play their crappy unoptimized game. If I can't play any said game at 1080p with decent settings with my system then there a big problem somewhere.
Click to expand...
And I clearly said right there in front of you that most settings impact the gpu not the cpu so stop acting like I am the one not paying attention. Have fun picking only the games you feel are "optimized".
 
Subzerok11 said:
I looked at your examples and the games that are being benched are at ultra high settings, of coarse your going to to need a current highend rig $$$$. Were you under the impression that I wanted to play at ultra high settings @ 60FPS in newer games ? I've built many PC's over the years and I never spent more then 200-250$ for a video card. I don't know what I was thinking this week spending 400$ on one component. I've come to my to senses and will go with the 1060. I want to play games at 1080p with med-high settings and in 45-60fps is fine with me. I've always aimed for these settings. I once bought the second best gpu on the market years ago and tried the same dam games on ultra high settings and compared them to high settings the diff was negligible and totally not worth it, I returned that sucker to the store and I got my money back asap. I've had my 660 for 4 years and and got my moneys worth. But I draw the line when medium-high settings and dips below 40fps.

I'll be honest your the type of PC gamer that irks me, you make it hard for new guys to get into PC gaming and wonder why they buy a console instead. It's like if they don't buy and upgrade every year and not spend 400-500$ on a gpu alone, elitists types like you call them peasants. There's no balance with your types and playing a little under 60fps is sacrilege. I know for a fact that my OC'ed 2500k with 8GB of ram and if I get a 1060 I will be able to use my rig for another 4 years no problem. Then I'll do a full new build then. Look I'm sure your just trying to help but I hope you can see my point.

I checked Steam and some AAA titles and if I get a 1060 I totally exceed the recommended specs for probably 98% of games out their. A couple of titles recommend a a slightly better cpu then mine, but mine is OC'ed nicely and should make up for it I'm sure. Also I couldn't find a game that needed more then 8GB of ram for recommended. Many newer games I easily exceed recommended. So I know I'm good.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
Doom
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
Far Cry 4
DARK SOULS™ III
Fallout 4
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt









Man get a clue, google "would a 2500k bottleneck 1070" the answer is no. But it doesn't matter I'm getting the 1060 will match up with what I got better.
Click to expand...
HardOCP is not for average users while I believe it could be helpful for them as well. If you said what you said to begin with I would have told you to get a 470 - really if medium settings is OK with you, I think you over bought with the 1060. Yes your I5 is probably the best and longest viable gaming CPU ever made and I see no issue with that and what you state as good gaming for you.

If you want to max out as much as possible for 3-4 years I would say the 1070 the best answer but to read minds I cannot and you don't see the higher settings as beneficial so not sure why you even started this thread. It's like you already knew the answer to what you were going to get.
 
misterbobby said:
And I clearly said right there in front of you that most settings impact the gpu not the cpu so stop acting like I am the one not paying attention. Have fun picking only the games you feel are "optimized".
Click to expand...

Duh I know that settings impact mostly gpu and not the cpu, so why then are you making a big deal about my cpu then. Don't worry I'll have fun playing 99% of the games out there with no problems.
 
misterbobby said:
A 1060 is not going to cut it if you want to crank the settings and get 60 fps. At the same time you are in for a reality check if you think your 2500k and 8gb of system are not going to be an issue in some games.

And I dont see why some people keep worrying about "overkill for 1080p". You can simply use DSR to run higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

I have a I7 4770 (non-K), 16-Gigs memory and a Zotac GTX 1060 AMP Extreme and I have ZERO problems with 60+ FPS at 1080p with max everything.
 
STrooperTK421 said:
Bullshit.

I have a I7 4770 (non-K), 16-Gigs memory and a Zotac GTX 1060 AMP Extreme and I have ZERO problems with 60+ FPS at 1080p with max everything.
Click to expand...
What kind of asinine reply is that? Are you really stupid enough to claim a 1060 can max every setting in every game and always maintain 60 fps or better? Damn at the level of ignorance around here.
 
noko said:
HardOCP is not for average users while I believe it could be helpful for them as well. If you said what you said to begin with I would have told you to get a 470 - really if medium settings is OK with you, I think you over bought with the 1060. Yes your I5 is probably the best and longest viable gaming CPU ever made and I see no issue with that and what you state as good gaming for you.

If you want to max out as much as possible for 3-4 years I would say the 1070 the best answer but to read minds I cannot and you don't see the higher settings as beneficial so not sure why you even started this thread. It's like you already knew the answer to what you were going to get.
Click to expand...


Well I really thought of getting the 1070 and didn't know if would be overkill. But after this thread I realized that 1060 was just fine. So in the end it did help decide. Your right though I need to remember these types of forums cater to the enthusiast and not your average gamer. I'm a big gamer but I don't want to spend to much on hardware. I want a PC that's just a little better then the current console gen.
 
misterbobby said:
What kind of asinine reply is that? Are you really stupid enough to claim a 1060 can max every setting in every game and always maintain 60 fps or better? Damn at the level of ignorance around here.
Click to expand...


LOL, well it's very possible all the games all the way up to and from 2-3 years ago. But definitely not new games like GTAV and Watch dogs 2/Fallout 4 just to name a few. Also there's enough ignorance to go around. I wish I could lock this thread.
 
Subzerok11 said:
LOL, well it's very possible all the games all the way up to and from 2-3 years ago. But definitely not new games like GTAV and Watch dogs 2/Fallout 4 just to name a few. Also there's enough ignorance to go around. I wish I could lock this thread, calm down everybody.
Click to expand...
A 1060 is a really strong card but for him to say "bullshit" and claim to crank EVERY setting in every game and keep 60 fps is laughable. With just a few settings turned down in those really demanding games then sure. People think or claim they are running max settings all the time when in most cases they are not. The presets in many if not most games are not max. For example the very high preset in Rise of the Tomb Raider leaves several settings that are not maxed and can bring down the framerate big time. Just like those two really demanding settings in Gears of War 4. And that is not even getting into the demanding types of AA which surely he cant be including in his "MAX EVERYTHING" claim.
 
misterbobby said:
A 1060 is a really strong card but for him to say "bullshit" and claim to crank EVERY setting in every game and keep 60 fps is laughable. With just a few settings turned down in those really demanding games then sure. People think or claim they are running max settings all the time when in most cases they are not. The presets in many if not most games are not max. For example the very high preset in Rise of the Tomb Raider leaves several settings that are not maxed and can bring down the framerate big time. Just like those two really demanding settings in Gears of War 4. And that is not even getting into the demanding types of AA which surely he cant be including in his "MAX EVERYTHING" claim.
Click to expand...
I recently got Asus 1060 Dual 6GB and i'm really happy with it. I had before R9 280X and for me with slight quality tweaking it works very well in 4K. I've connected it to 4k samsung TV.
Of course i don't use AA in 4K
 
Do not get any Fury cards as that is a bad suggestion IMO, better off with the 480 than that these days as its performance is so hit and miss, and the 480 is not in the performance you want so comes back to 1070 IMO, hold off if you can until 1080ti is unvieled because if lucky we might see a slight price correction-lowering for the 1070 and also 1080.

This is what I said in another thread about Fiji and Hawaii with some modern games:
CSI_PC said:
Hmm I really am not convinced by the argument because now their architecture is evolving more we are now seeing the same issues on AMD as we did with Nvidia in terms of older designs.
PCGamesHardware is one of the few that uses a lot of generations of cards to review new games, and quite a few of the latest has hit Fiji and Hawaii hard....
In an earlier post-thread I commented about this in the past:

They also do not use canned benchmark capture measurement-results.

To list some.
Dishonored 2 okish with Polaris but dire with Fiji and Hawaii even after patches: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Dishonored-2-Spiel-54640/Specials/Patch-13-Benchmark-Test-1214990/
Watch Dogs 2, again Polaris pretty much matching Pascal but Fiji and Hawaii failing performance: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch-Dogs-2-Spiel-55550/Specials/Test-Review-Benchmark-1214553/
Call of Duty Infinite Warfare, same again: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...591/Specials/Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1212463/
Forza Horizon 3 Fiji and Hawaii behind 470: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Forza.../Specials/Benchmarks-Test-DirextX-12-1208835/

So it can be hit and miss now for Fiji and Hawaii as I agree there are games they do well and others such as these examples they suffer compared to Polaris; this issue goes beyond tessellation or the Primitive Discard Accelerator (although more could be focused towards this at the cost of earlier hardware).
Cheers
Click to expand...

Cheers
 
Subzerok11 said:
Reality check ? are we really going there pal ? It's known that 2500K OC'ed is still a very capable cpu and 8GB of ram is still plenty. I know a lot of elitist like to think that the new standard is 16GB but it's not really necessary yet and I don't want to hear that crap where someone needs to have 50 web pages up and a game at the same time BS, these people are not the average user.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the 2500K is a bottleneck in some modern games when they were tested with 1070/1080, especially more so when looking at frame latency-frame behaviour over time/the 1% and 0.1% performance rather than just average FPS.

Here is a possible alternative approach but has a higher outlay longer term.
For now buy a 480 or 1060 and with the intention of replacing it with the 'Volta 1070' that may come out by Q4, also once Rizen launches look to either upgrade the 2600K to that AMD CPU or a more recent hyperthreading Skylake/Kabylake.
Then keep the 480 or 1060 as an emergency card if the primary replacement one fails.

But I appreciate time and price are a very big factor and this suggestion is way beyond what you asked.
Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top