So uh...how long do you guys think we'll have to wait to see the branded models go on sale?
No idea. I was thinking about picking up the FE just so i don't have to wait. I upgraded to 1440p a few weeks ago but i cannot drive current games on my GPU
>>340478657
Better be quick, anon.
If the 1080 FE release is anything to go by, the 1070 FEs are gonna be gone by the afternoon.
tbqh after nivida fucked up 970 I'm no longer confident about their shit unless the community tested it out first.
well the 1080 founders editions released on the 27th and the branded editions are going on sale now so 10 days if we're lucky.
but we're not
>>340479053
They're likely gonna cut it close to the 490x release date, which is definitely bad news.
People considering the 1070 are most likely constrained by budget or are not enthusiasts, and the 490x is pretty competitive with its specs and lower price.
>>340478482
>>340478657
Why would you buy anything but an RX 480 at the end of this month? It's going to end up with 80% of the performance for 50-40% the cost
>>340479352
I'm actually in this conundrum.
I have a gift card right now for $360, and the 490x would leave me enough to finally buy an SSD at a massive discount.
It would also be a massive upgrade from my 750ti.
The 1070, though, I would have to pay 30-50 bucks in taxes.
>>340479352
My woes are that the 480 wont be able to drive most games properly at 1440p. i was considering 2 480 but crossfire does not work well with older games
anyone that buys a FE card should be shot in the head
>>340479824
Just look at 390 and 390X benchmarks man, that's how fast it is, it'll most things at medium-high settings no problem
>being forced to wait to upgrade my GPU
should I go for a 1070 ftw, or just save up and wait for the eventual 1080ti?
only doing 1080 at 60hz at the moment, but would love to upgrade. Currently have a 950 I'm not satisfied with.
>>340481493
1070. The 1080 ti will be a 4k gpu and will be expensive whereas the 1070 is already fairly cheap but has great price/performance and is a 1440p card too so if you ever upgrade that 1080p monitor you'll be perfectly fine.
AMD won
>>340481936
wow, I can get TWO shitty AMD cards for slightly less than a 1070?
THAT'S TWICE THE GRAPHICS!
>>340482095
2 x480 beats a 1080 anon just saying.
And for $200 less. ;)
>>340482227
>crossfire
>ever
>b-b-but it's cheaper!
And you're getting what you're paying for. Have fun beating out nvidia users in a single game nobody in their right mind gives a shit about.
>>340482227
Not him but you have to be a retard to actually believe xfire will scale that well in all other games. I'd like to see 2x480 outperform even a single 1070 in games like witcher 3, rise of the tomb raider or gta 5.
>>340482467
Actually it looks like a pretty fun massive battle game.
Also AMD is probably going to push crossfire harder so they can compete with nvidia on performance
and I remember hearing somewhere, that AMD's solution to powering VR was getting 1 GPU per eye
>>340482621
nobody gives a shit about your VR meme
>>340482729
That'll just be a side effect of AMD pushing for better dual GPU support
How are expensive GPUs like that even worth it these days?
I have a GTX 750 which was released 3 years ago and it still runs everything I've thrown at it so far.
So, which would be the best card for 1080p ultra settings gaming from the 1070 and the 490x?
I mean, they both would be a fucking huge upgrade from my ancient piece of shit card, but I want the best value for my money.
>>340482857
Dual gpu support is a meme and devs are speaking out against it. Idc if it has the potential to run better in dx12, it's still a pain in the ass for devs to optimise for.
>>340482227
LESS PERFORMANCE
TWICE THE POWER
NOW YOU ARE PLAYING WITH THE GIANTS
A ----- M ------- D
>>340482227
>crossfire
>beating anything
shit barely works half the time
>>340483084
I mean, I bought my 750ti for $160-170.
The rx490 is only $200, and completely blows it out of the water (from what we've seen), so for sure that's worth the upgrade.
The 1070 is worth it too, if you have the extra money. It'll hold out longer. It starts at $370?? (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
The 1080 is if you want the ultimate machine and 1440p performance. It's also pretty pricey.
>>340483371
*rx490 is $300
>>340483191
And that's where we see those AMD's master plan videos come in
if AMD convinces the console manufacturers to do a dual GPU, or more likely a Dual APU system when 14nm ones become available, they'll automatically have better dual GPU support
>>340483254
the 490 is rumored to be a 90W average power draw card, the AMD slide mentioned better efficiency
>>340478881
same, and also my Radeon 9800 Pro. i'm much happier with my 750Ti that works well at a great price point. i'll wait and see if the 480 delivers then i'll probably snag one of those.
>>340483636
Nigga the RX 480, yes 480, has a 150w tdp and the 490 is predicted to be way less power efficient.
>>340483853
I meant the 480 obviously, AMD is probably bullshitting, but the slide does say the dual set up has better efficiency
>>340479651
Where do you get off on taking about 490x of nothing was announced yet?
>>340483529
No, just no. This will NEVER happen. First of all its all such wild speculation by adored tv that he's become a laughing stock now, there's even a screencap of a tweet by one of these devs who make exclusives for Sony saying adored tv is crazy with his predictions and that he doesn't have the slightest idea of how the industry will move forward.
Secondly, the console refresh will be out next year and that'll add another 4 years to single gpu consoles so there is no chance of this happened for at least 5 years and by that time it'll be too late for amd to try and push this on the industry. If they want to dominate the industry and own the devs they'd have to put this dual gpu shit out right now to shake up nvidia. In 5 years nvidia will have Gameworks v3 and even more devs in their pocket which will ruin any chances of amd shaking up the industry with multi gpu consoles or desktop gpus.
Thirdly running 2 gpus is much, much harder to run than a single gpu. The console cpus can barely handle the power of the shitty gpus they have now and you really think sony and ms will pay more for a more beefy cpu just because amd want them to because of >muh masterplan? They'll tell amd to fuck off. Even an i5 which is a beast of a cpu can't run xfire and cf properly in all titles, especially in cpu intensive titles so a shit tier console cpu has even less chance.
There are more points which adored tv doesn't go into but I chat be bothered to write them again. I'm sure you can find several forum pages proving him wrong.
>>340485143
Next year the consoles will all have Zen APUs in them removing or diminishing any CPU bottleneck they may have currently
>>340485362
Nigga zen is calculated to be at sandy bridge levels of performance based on the charts they've provided. Even an i5 2500k, even though a good cpu, gets cpu bottlenecked in cpu intensive games running only a single gpu, pic related it's amds driver overhead compared paired with a cpu intensive scene.
IF the consoles used zen cpus first of all it'll be the absolute lowest end offering amd produce to save cost and secondly it'll be under clocked to give even worse performance in an xfire or sli setup.
None of this matter anyway after its pretty much confirmed via multiple sources that the console refreshes are going to be using slightly overclocked models of the same cpu they're using now. If they used a zen cpu then all older games won't work on the new consoles because the cpu architecture will be different.
>>340486148
You don't need a very fast CPU to hit 60fps in most games, that's why the consoles can hit 60fps more often than they hit 1080p
and Zen is going to be on par with devil's canyon most likely, skylake/broadwell at best
>>340486148
I'm pretty sure no actual person runs a 2500k with a 390 level GPU
In this actual realistic benchmark, the GPUs are tied in performance effectively. Not counting the nvidia optimization nor the OC on the 970 in your image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHhPOvlnLGM
>>340486370
It's not about being "fast" it's about the core strength of the cpu. Take an fx 8350 for example, it can overclock to 5ghz which is damn fast but the cores are so weak that it can be outperformed in cpu intensive operations by a measly i3. The cpu in the consoles are so weak that they're more of a bottleneck than the gpu hence why in cpu intensive games like gta 5 or hitman even the ps4 with is much superior gpu to the xbox one gets brought to a similar level of performance as the xbox one.
>>340486669
>I'm pretty sure no actual person runs a 2500k with a 390 level GPU
>In this actual realistic benchmark
Are you high? An i7 4790k is one of the highest end cpu you can buy and according to the steam hardware survey the most popular cpu is probably 5x weaker than a i5 2500k, so you're right in that respect, they pair up their 390s with worse cpus.
![pH[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iWEIS9E.jpg "pH[1].jpg")