Is it worth to spend $200 for two years of 60fps gaming?
OR should people just play using mid settings forever?
>>343815019
I haven't kept up with PC upgrades for several years. The 480 would let me play the games from the past few years that I haven't been able to play, plus everything for the next to years, according to you. Seems like a good deal for me, although I'm sure it isn't right for everyone.
Most people turn down their settings or put up with lower framerates, anon.
For the price it can't be beat. Simple as that. Can't even get a used 970 for $200.
>>343816515
Personally I'd buy a 1060 over RX 480
>>343815019
i like how you can clearly see the nvidia gimping drivers in that graph
>>343816285
>next to years
*two years
>>343816665
are there benchmarks of non reference designs of 1060's and 480's?
i wouldn't touch any of both in reference design with a 10 foot pole
>>343815019
>buying RX 480 today is gonna be outated in 2 years
>Is it worth to spend $200 for two years of 60fps gaming?
No, you should buy a card that won't be outdated in two years.Good luck with that.
>>343816515
Integrated graphics beats it in price/performance.
>>343816665
A 1060 is just going to be a rebranded 970.
>>343816848
>are there benchmarks of non reference designs of 1060's and 480's?
What you mean?
>>343815019
>RX 480 is gonna be outdated in 2 years
From my own experience, I have to disagree. I've been using a 1gb 6870 for about 4 years now and the only game that's had real performance issues is Dark Souls 3, and I was still able to finish it even with performance issues in some areas.
It's served me very well. so if I was to buy another video card it would definitely be a x80 tier AMD card.
>>343817079
reference cards are always shit and that usually shows in benchmarks, either due to poor cooling, shitty clocking, or terrible design decisions (example: rx480 use of 6 pin pcie power connector instead of 8 pin which is used on non reference cards)
>>343816958
Is there a $200 or less integrated graphics solution that provides better performance?
Nothing provides equivalent performance for the same or lesser price. An APU can run games for a lot less money, but that's like saying a cardboard box has better price/performance than a pair of boots. Just because it can be used as footwear for cheap doesn't mean it's worth doing.
>>343815019
You kidding me right now?
Yes.
I spend 4 times that for 144 fps.
>>343817216
Wait for the non reference 480
>>343816963
GTX 970 is better than RX 480
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZYHx_tad3U
Skip to 7 minutes
>>343817336
>I want the best performance
1080
>I want the best price/performance
Integrated
>I want a faulty card that isn't PCI-E compliant
480
>>343817470
Of course. I've heard nothing but bad things about reference cards and never owned one, can't imagine I'd start now. How many people even buy reference cards? Is there any point other than having the product sooner?
>>343816515
Yeah, I don't even really care about awesome graphics. I mean, I appreciate them if I can get them, but I mostly just want to play current games at a good FPS, so the 480 looks perfect for me.
>>343817336
>cardboard box has better price/performance than a pair of boots. Just because it can be used as footwear for cheap doesn't mean it's worth doing.
I like the 480 is like cardboard analogy, thanks.
>>343817573
>integrated
Your ignorance is showing.
If you're really wanting to get maximum performance for your money, get a used card on your local buy/sell/trade or craigslist. GTX 680's go for under 80$. I have no idea why you'd recommend integrated for anything.
>>343815019
What I need is an Nvidia card that can do asynchronous computing, I.E DX12. I am under the impression this year's GPU will under perform by late 2017.
>>343817889
that's the problem with PC gaming... if microsoft can sell their Scorpio for less than 450 dollars I don't see any reason to buy 1070 or 1080
>>343816958
There's a ton of games that straight up won't play with integrated graphics, you can't be this delusional
>>343815019
I just need something to carry me on max 1080p till 4k single card is viable. Two-three years is probably enough
>>343818412
Doesn't change that statement. You can't beat free with your CPU.
>>343815019
I have a 550 Watt PSU and I cannot go higher because I cannot afford the next tier of UPS, I sit on a 1200va protection.
What is the best card for a 550 PSU? I read the 1070 is the most efficient GPU in the market. I don't like how the 970 lists 500w as a minimum. I get mixed results using Power calculators, Asus being the fucking worst, and while I do only have one hard drive, and one disc reader, I do have 8 USB ports and about 6 fans not counting my two cpu fans.
>>343818517
>doesn't change the statement
It does. Free and failing to be able to play the game at all isn't better than paying for a card that can actually play the game. You could argue they're equal, but it's definitely not better.
>>343815019
If you're not a total scrub you will not go for reference garbage, so more like $250+ for 8gb version. Although I'm not really sure mid tier card even needs 8gb
>>343818690
Maybe GTX 960 or wait to see the results of 1060
>>343815019
Aren't all cards outdated after 2 years? It's the real problem with PC gaming.
>>343819173
The problem with PC gaming is developers using their 30,000K computers to push graphics to extreme limits which they know less than 0,5% of people will be able to achieve
>>343819173
Any card you buy now will still play games fine in two years. It's just that people think anything less than ultra everything is somehow unacceptable.
Honestly I can barely even see a difference with most of these settings, and certainly not one that's worth the hundreds of dollars people often spend on it.
>>343819292
Nah the problem is said studios (UBISOFT) doing console games. Pc ports do not get enough support because "pc gamers can buy better hardware anyhow".
That was a quote form ubisoft by the way.
>>343819292
>the problem with PC gaming
Actually isn't a problem because graphical settings exist. 1GB graphics cards are just now becoming obsolete with new games at 720p (dark souls 3 being a big one), and this is happening at the point that 4GB cards are becoming the norm even at the 150$ price point.
Big budget games with industry pushing tech (like Witcher 3 for example) are still playing at 720p mid settings on mid range cards from several generations ago.
>>343819763
every company just throw graphic options in their pc ports because they suppose you have a $600 video card
Their principle is "Most users will play with graphics on low to get decenet FPS"
EVERY COMPANY is like this including Jewsoft
>>343819780
The companies upgrade their equipment every 2 years
Dark Souls IV won't play in your $500 GPU in the same way III played.
>>343820102
>Dark Souls IV won't play in your $500 GPU in the same way III played.
It runs on my mid-range card from several generations ago well enough to finish the game, that's more than enough for me.
