Literally just bought a fucking 980 TI 2 weeks ago. Fortunately, I bought it at a brick and mortar store so I can still return it for a store credit.
Is it worth the hype? I have like a week or so to return it but that means I'll go without any vidya until I'm able to buy a 1080...
You have to put it in the oven to fix it.
>>337064258
wait the benchmarks everyone keeps repeating it's faster than a 980ti and 980 sli. speed=/=power
wait for benchmarks to see if there's a real difference between a 980ti and 1080
>>337064365
What, the 1080?
>>337064597
People are already saying that the benchmarks for Doom are unreal.
I just checked my receipt, I actually only have 5 days to decide if I can return this shit or not. Fuck, the past month flew by.
WHAT DO?!?!?
>>337064597
it runs the new doom at 150-200 fps, unless the 980ti is pulling the same numbers there's no point waiting
>>337064859
Fuck so I have to return this thing don't I?
That's what I was afraid of. That means I have to go 3+ weeks of no vidya....
>>337064597
>return your card
>check the benchmarks
>buy the best card
can't you wait 2 weeks without playing minecraft
>>337064859
it runs doom at 150-200 fps but on a fuck overclock 1080 runnig at 2400mhz
and the stock boost frequency is 1700mhz
>>337065053
simple answer is no. complicated answer is no.
>>337064258
A logical man would:
- Return it, since it is now obsolete
- Wait for specs of the supposedly great new card
- Wait for news of hardware problems
- Wait for a GTX 980TI discount, before buying an SLI motherboard
- NEVER install new drivers
>>337065430
so just pray for not being cucked by nvidia
>>337065430
this is why you get a 3ds
>>337064258
you never, ever buy a high-end card at the end of a generation, period. take it back and get credit with no consideration given to the next generation: you simply don't do what you did.
It's like paying full price for a 2016 car when a 2017 car is about to come to the lot. What do you think happens to the price of the 2016 car when the 2017 arrives?
>>337065743
rizes for being vintage?
>>337064258
havnt played vidya in 6 months, you aren't missing much.
What are you going to be doing vidya-wise that justifies what the 1080 assumes to be selling? Do you ever go past anything in the 2560x1440 ballpark? Do you like to downsample? Are you future-proofing for VR? There's a good chance that the next wave of cards aren't going to be radically-different from the current high-end options like the 980 and Fury family
They also seem to be going for the crazy bandwidth marketing hook, so this is probably for enjoyable single-card 4k, since VR doesn't seem to be an issue for current high-end cards, and probably won't be for a while, at least until the next major revision for any given headset
Just hold onto it, there's guaranteed to be a crazy-ass markup and nonexistent supplies due to the gaymer rush and frothing demand, current high-end cards should hold their own for a long time
>>337065743
It was supposed to be a better clocked version...it's the newest one by gigabyte.
I know it was dumb but I wasn't willing to wait an unknown amount of time till they released new cards. I was in a position where I had to get one then and there, and at the time we had no clue when the 1080 was going to be announced...it could have been the end of the summer for all we knew.
>>337065539
>- NEVER install new drivers
Why? What do new drivers do?
>>337066523
>It was supposed to be a better clocked version...it's the newest one by gigabyte.
doesn't matter whatsoever, you don't buy high end cards at the end of a generational cycle. you never ever buy high end ANYTHING at the end of a generational cycle
just sit on that credit or preorder, 1070 will annihilate 980 anyway
>>337064258
>he fell for nVidia hoax.
Latest games will run like dog shit.Even on your overpriced GPU's.
Enjoy your broken games/delays.
>>337064258
You should definitely return it and get something else.
The 1080 is good but when you consider its a die shrink the gains arent actually that massive. Flagship AMD card will probably be superior, esp in DX12. Then Nvidia will release the 1080ti to fight back so thats what to look out for.
>>337066863
>The 1080 is good but when you consider its a die shrink the gains arent actually that massive
nope, outright lie.
this is one of the relatively fastest hardware generations of all time. the numbers are crushing.
AMD won't be able to keep up in the enthusiast market and DX12 will never matter, vulkan is out now and devs do not want to side with MS who is actively trying to kill pc gaming with UWE.
>>337066970
20%-30% with overclock is not that great dude.
Theres going to be a lot of buyers remorse just like when the 980 got cucked.
Nvidia never puts all their eggs on the first card to market.
you have a 980 ti.
you'll be fine either way.
>>337066238
I was going to get a new monitor soon so this only justifies maybe getting a 2560x1440 to go with a 1080..
Would an i5 4690k at 4GHz bottleneck a 1080?
>>337067336
Except it's not 20-30% it's more like 70%?
>>337067480
This pretty much. It's going to be like 10 years before a game comes out that you can't max with a 980 Ti.
>>337067680
yes you need a minimum of 3 i5s to avoid bottlenecking this gpu
>>337067680
tell me how a cpu bottlenecks a gpu
or optionally explain to me what your question meant
>>337067680
All CPUs bottleneck current GPUs, but it won't be an issue.
Just know that 1080 is complete overkill for literally anything but 4k, 144hz or VR.
>>337068267
>All CPUs bottleneck current GPUs
tell me how that is true
i want you to explain what that means since you typed it and hit post
>>337068267
>Just know that 1080 is complete overkill for literally anything but 4k, 144hz or VR
i guarantee there are games a 1080 won't be able to max at 1080p and maintain a constant 60 fps.
>>337068462
poor optimization is a factor you control for when making those types of statements.
>>337068462
That's the fault of the games, not the hardware. a GTX 460 should be able to max all current games.
>>337068267
All CPUs bottleneck current GPUs
u high, kid?
>>337065743
>nvidia
>drops prices
Don't listen to this guy op. He sounds like one of those guys who is always going to wait for the newest card but never actually buys one.
I would return it, wait for real numerical benchmarks (not graphs that has the y axis labeled as "power") and get what works the best for what you need
>>337068385
>>337068692
Google is your friend.
I need to get a new GPU so I can play DaS3.
What's a good cheap one under $200?
>>337069009
>I would return it, wait for real numerical benchmarks (not graphs that has the y axis labeled as "power")
if you actually knew how to digest the numbers you'd realize that the real *hardware numbers* are infinitely more important than *benchmarks* which are for *stupid people* who *don't understand hardware*
benchmarks conflate hardware performance with game code performance. ALL YOU NEED is the hardware numbers. The number of shaders, the fill rate, texture rate, bandwidths etc etc etc.
if you cannot digest and interpret those numbers, do not give video card advice.
>>337069074
geforce 960 maxes it out.
1060(?) won't be out for close to a year so there is no danger buying a 960 now.
>>337069056
Yeah and Google tells me there are very few cpu bottlenecked games. Nearly every game that has some sort of bottleneck is almost always gpu bottlenecked.
>>337064258
Do some research next time faglord
>tfw bought a 980 a year ago
i-it's still going to l-last me quite a long time, r-right bros?
>>337069074
Don't be a retard and buy the 1070.
There's your answer.
>>337069859
Yes, it's still a top card only really bested by Nvidia flagships like Titan X and 980ti. The AMD equivalents (Fury/Fury X) are more powerful but can't OC for dog shit as well as being >amd.
OC it when it starts slowing down but as long as those consoles exist you likely won't need an upgrade for a while. At least not for another GPU generation or 2.
>>337069859
Yes. It'll be years before a game can't be maxed by a 980 (disregarding ass optimization).
>>337069859
It's still one of the strongest cards around. Unless you're rocking a 960 you likely won't need an upgrade any time soon.
>>337069872
my 3.1 GHz CPU would be too much of a bottleneck for me to bother wanting a 1070, that's why I'm staying cheap. Might spend big when I buy a new PC in like 2 years.
>>337069980
>Yes, it's still a top card only really bested by Nvidia flagships like Titan X and 980ti.
the 1070 is significantly faster than the 980
>>337069074
R9 380
You should probably just wait though
>>337069290
thank you
>>337065539
Why don't you want to install the new driver (I'm a newfag so I can't help it)
>>337069859
Same here. I'm probably going to get a 1070 in a year's time though.
>>337070071
>my 3.1 GHz CPU would be too much of a bottleneck for me to bother wanting a 1070
oh god its starting to infect people
theyre starting to repeat stupid shit they dont understand at all!
>>337069859
>use 980
>when it starts showing its age, OC it for a huge boost in performance
>continue using it
980 overclocks like a MOTHERFUCKER. Simply OC it when you feel as if you can't max out games (providing they don't have shit tier optimization which in that case, even 1080/1070s will likely not perform optimally).
>>337070109
1070 isn't out yet, i'm talking about right now and if that anon is gaming at 1080p, why would he upgrade to a 1070?
>>337069859
I got the 980 just a week or so ago and i'm sending it back, getting 200$ back and buying the 1070
>just bought a graphics card
>is it good
Do people seriously do this? I fucking spend days/weeks debating whether or not to spend a hundred bucks but I guess that's my inner jew, though.
>>337070283
i didn't say anything about him upgrading. i corrected your wrong statement. the 1070 is not a flagship card (80 cards are flagship) and is significantly faster than a 980
>>337070193
please, educate me, or show me where I can educate myself on PCs.
>>337070447
The 1070 isn't out yet, nothing I said was wrong.
>>337070071
Nigga you don't just be like "my 3.1 ghz cpu will bottleneck it". Clock speeds aren't universal. Every cpu performs differently when at the same clock speed. An i5 6600k at 4ghz won't perform the same as an i5 4690k at the same clock speed.
>>337070512
it doesn't have to be out to understand how fast it is. once again.
holy shit you "benchmarks" kids that can't analyze a fucking technical whitepaper. we knew how fast these cards were two weeks ago.
>>337070071
>>337070193
>>337070573
Will my 3.5 ghz be good for a 1080/1070...?
>>337070573
ok, I should probably specify that it's an i5 4400
Regarding the cpu shitpostersWill an AMD FX 8350 bottleneck a 1080? I built this pc before I knew about the amd cpu meme but it's served me well on my 760, and I would really rather not spend money replacing it if I don't have to.If the cpu isn't good enough, what's the highest tier gfx I can get without bothering to replace the cpu?
>>337070493
>educate me
tell me why you think your 3.1ghz cpu is a bottleneck. tell me what it would bottleneck, and tell me why it would bottleneck a 1070 or how this would affect your performance.
don't know a good technical explanation for any of these things, right?
then why did you say it in the first place? repeating what someone here told you. People on /v/ don't understand computers dude.
CPU cannot even fucking "bottleneck" GPU anymore because northbridges operate asynchronously these days. The concept is laughable in 2016. It's something I see frequently on /v/: Kids dredging up computer concepts that were relevant in the 90s in order to try to sound knowledgable.
your 3.1ghz cpu isn't going to bottleneck anything, tl;dr.
>>337070174
>>337066558
drivers sometimes fix performance issues and shit like that. They sometimes fuck everything up and cause bluescreens. Most most importantly above all, we're too fucking lazy to install them
>>337064258
>Pushing 4 year old hardware minus the meme70
>memory errors out the ass because win10
>didn't even want win10
>seems like it's about the right time to build a new rig
>willing to wait just a bit longer after the release
>>337070493
http://www.pcgamer.com/computer-hardware-guide-2013/
Learn about the what hardware consists of and its features before you learn about how the hardware affects software.
Current PC is using an AMD FX 6300. I kinda regret not getting Intel cause I hear they're better for games but it's been alright.
Looking to upgrade but I'm stuck with an AM3+ socket. Would it be worth it to spend the additional cash to change my mobo as well? I'm planning on getting an 8350.
>>337070709
you dont buy an absolute powerhouse of one component when the rest of your pc doesnt match.
do you have awesome SSDs? awesome monitors? awesome bookshelf speakers with an audio receiver? awesome keyboard, mouse, desk?
no to any of those things? then why would you buy a 1080? so you can play games at 300 fps instead of 200 fps on your 60hz monitor?
>>337070814
>>337070847
thank you guys so much
>>337070623
>it's still a top card bested by Nvidia flagships like 980ti and Titan X
>"HURR, THERE'S SOME CARDS WITH NVIDIA SHILL BENCHES THAT HAVE YET TO RELEASE THAT ARE APPARENTLY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE POWERFUL"
Go home nvidia shill
it's not
>The GTX 1080 was 13% faster than the GTX 980 Ti and 11% faster than the R9 Fury X at 1920×1080.
>At 2560×1440 and the same preset the GTX 1080 was 9% faster than the GTX 980 Ti and 11% faster than the R9 Fury X.
http://archive.is/eUDcV
>>337070903
it is pretty much never, ever worth upgrading CPU. you are most likely going to get like a 20% performance increase max while investing money that could have paid for most of a new motherboard
>>337070959
Yes. Because that gets me hard.
>>337070709
The AMD 8350 bottlenecks 980s
![1838%20-%20anti-mage%20reaction[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aJfatwL.jpg "1838%20-%20anti-mage%20reaction[1].jpg")
>>337071046
>synthetic benchmarks
laughing reaction image right back atcha
>>337071125
>no reading comprehension
you tried shill
>>337071342
oh, i'm sorry, ashes of singularity is a game?
not only one that nobody has ever heard of, but one that advertises for AMD. ah, the plot thickens
>a...async will really matter guys!! in these games where we paid for it to matter!
>>337070814
Most of this is right but when you say cpus can no longer bottleneck gpus you're not fully correct. A cpu can bottleneck a gpu when in very cpu demanding parts of a game. If the cpu is struggling with drawcalls then the the gpu will be idling more than it should, create a form of bottleneck. This is why nvidia cards always work better with worse cpus compared to amd. Nvidia drivers have much less overhead compared go amd drivers which results in more data transferred per drawcall compared to amd. Lower level api's like mantle, dx12 or vulkan eliminate these overhead problems though.
>>337069215
This nigga here is hilarious! He can read a graph with an x and y axis and now little man thinks he can tak about video card advice.
Give your ipad back to your parents and go to bed squirt
>>337071052
Well I was planning on swapping CPU and GPU (and PSU) which would be like $450. Planning on a 960 or maybe 1060 depending on how cheap it is.
FX 6300 is pretty low bar, but I think what I'll do is buy the GPU and then see how stuff runs before considering changing the CPU.
>>337071463
>A cpu can bottleneck a gpu when in very cpu demanding parts of a game.
for all those super cpu demanding games right now
>>337071440
>don't read the article
>don't know what he's talking about
>still thinks it's somehow a rival company secret conspiracy
it's like the pc market got infected with console-tier brand loyalty
>>337071573
1060 will not be out for a year. they don't come out with the midrange cards at the same time as the flagships
you don't even need a core i5, i3 is fine for most shit. spend more on your motherboard than cpu if you go that route.
>>337071440
it's literally the first DirectX 12 title to launch m8
>>337071782
Well I'd only be swapping mobo if I was switching to Intel. Is that really worth it? Surely an 8350 isn't bad at all.
>>337072016
it's some shit nobody ever heard of, and nobody cares about dx12
dx12 is DOA, microsoft is actively attacking PC gaming with win10 and windows store. Do you think game devs are going to be on the side of lost profits? hilarious.
>>337070709
It's going to run like shit in anything that's CPU heavy. I have an 8350 running at 4.5 GHz paired with a slightly OC'd 390 and my framerates in games like Crysis 3, AC:Syndicate, Dark Souls 3 and Arkham Knight are pretty meh at times where as people with my GPU and Intel CPUs seem to be doing much better. Switching from 1080p to 1440p usually makes 0 difference whatsoever in most games. If you have a miracle chip that you can OC to 5.0+ you might be fine but as it is you may as well just get a 1070 instead and spend the rest on a 6600k and mobo or 4690k and mobo. Then again, DX12 seems to be doing god's work for AMD cpus so who fucking knows at this point.
>>337065734
I was going to make fun of you but then k realized that's all I use my 3ds for anymore
My keyboard shit the bed last week and I spent like 6 days playing 3ds just while the new one came in the mail
>>337070709
Apparently under dx12 these older multi core amd cpu compete with high end intel chips in games. Nvidia have low driver overhead so if you do plan on getting anything to pair with that 8350 I'd say the 1070 or any other nvidia card. I would recommend getting a good aftermarket cooler and overclocking the shit out of that cpu to lessen the chance of cpu bottlenecking in shitty optimized games or very cpu intensive ones like gta 5.
>>337072210
So you think they purposely made the game in a way that doesn't benefit that much from a specific card (that a specific company didn't even announce), while somehow running almost the same with the previous top-tier card
because some sort of AMD secret plot with Microsoft and against the buyers
fucking wow
>>337072274
>390
There's the problem. That driver overhead is killing your performance.
>>337072591
no, i think a clearly amd-leaning site picked a clearly amd-leaning benchmark for an irrelevant game
pretending as if it matters because of dx12 shows you don't understand that dx12 is doa
oh and for the third time this thread: people who can understand technical specs don't need benchmarks to understand how fast a card truly is. benchmarks give you nothing but a warped perspective, ever
>>337072210
>nobody cares about dx12!
>buys latest top gamma graphics card
>>337072737
>benchmarks give you nothing but a warped perspective
>b-but only if it's Nvidia™ and it's bad!
Got a 2500k and literally never intend to go past 1080p, should I buy one of these cards if my current gpu is a 560ti?
No reason not to return it and wait for the 1080 unless you're so autistic that a few weeks without vidya isn't worth it for the extra performance and longevity.
Don't expect any miracles, though. I sincerely doubt the 1080 will on average be even 15% faster at stock than a 980 Ti also at stock in non-VR workloads. I'm looking forward to seeing Crysis 3 4k benchmarks pitting the two because as it is I'm not very impressed with Pascal aside from its efficiency.
I only play console shitports, blizzard toaster garbage and indie stuff.
I dont think I'll have any reason to replace my 290x anytime soon.
>>337071046
DELETE THIS
>>337072737
You mean synthetic benchmarks? Yeah fuck all of them. They never give a good picture of actual performance. Good benchmarks are ones taken based on actually gameplay, so like calculating the average fps after a run through the first mission on gta 5 or something.
Also don't believe these shitters. Stardock (AoS dev) have publicly admitted to only optimizing for GCN and it's compute engines and haven't bothered optimizing for maxwell or kepler. They do get paid by amd after all so it's nothing unexpected.
>>337072210
>microsoft is actively attacking PC gaming with win10 and windows store
That's what people said with Win8. It's the entire reason GabeN started pushing Linux (well, it probably had something to do with steam machines, but I do think he was a bit worried about Win8).
Nothing happened. Microsoft would get so much flak if they started restricting what a user can install on their PC.
>>337073473
Source? I'm pretty sure it was the other way around with AMD optimizing their drivers better for the game before people started benching it.
>>337072737
>only use pc to play games
>game benchmarks don't mean SHIT!
>>337073528
doesn't matter what people said when the situation wasn't the same
they already put a billion dollars into quantum break so it could be probably the most expensive failure of all time. UWE won't last long
any game that has dx12 but not vulkan should go straight into the trash though, if you understand or care ANYTHING about gaming.
