1080 or 1080Ti 1440p.

[mingsoup]

I am looking to upgrade my GPU from a r9 290 for a bit of extra headroom.
I don't plan on touching 4k any time soon, at least I don't think so?

1080 or 1080Ti or should I just google it.

I suppose is the extra 200$ now worth it if I'm actually more buying 1440p headroom versus buying it directly for 4k.

 

[tg2708]

1080 ti if you can spare the extra cash. Quite a few games nowadays are coded poorly so no matter how much power a card may have it still won't be enough to drive at max a few months or a year from now (depends on desired settings though).

 

[ddogg]

1080 Ti for sure if you can stretch your budget and plan to keep it a while. I can max out everything at 1440p ultrawide including AA and still get close to 100fps.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[richaron]

1080 Ti for sure if you can stretch your budget and plan to keep it a while. I can max out everything at 1440p ultrawide including AA and still get close to 100fps.

So you can max out everything at a higher resolution than OP, maybe at a higher refresh rate that OP's monitor, and you still suggest a 1080Ti?

OP: Firstly "future proofing" GPU purchases is false economy. It's much smarter to buy something "good enough" now, and by the time you need more power you can buy another newer card in the future with the money you save.

Secondly, depending on your monitor and CPU, a 1080Ti might be much more powerful than necessary even for "max" game settings. And obsessively needing to run games at "max" settings is a bit narrow minded, these "max" settings are completely arbitrary and there's nothing wrong with lowering a couple of settings to improve performance.

Thirdly, you are asking advice in a forum full of self-described "enthusiasts". Many of these people think to be an enthusiast you need to buy the most powerful hardware available, and that's the advice they will give you. They are often wrong.

 

[ddogg]

So you can max out everything at a higher resolution than OP, maybe at a higher refresh rate that OP's monitor, and you still suggest a 1080Ti?

OP: Firstly "future proofing" GPU purchases is false economy. It's much smarter to buy something "good enough" now, and by the time you need more power you can buy another newer card in the future with the money you save.

Secondly, depending on your monitor and CPU, a 1080Ti might be much more powerful than necessary even for "max" game settings. And obsessively needing to run games at "max" settings is a bit narrow minded, these "max" settings are completely arbitrary and there's nothing wrong with lowering a couple of settings to improve performance.

Thirdly, you are asking advice in a forum full of self-described "enthusiasts". Many of these people think to be an enthusiast you need to buy the most powerful hardware available, and that's the advice they will give you. They are often wrong.

I'm well aware there is no such thing as "future proof". Most people who buy Ti cards upgrade to the next Ti which takes 1.5 years or so. In that period of time more demanding games come along that would eventually require you to start lowering settings so you pick the most powerful GPU you can buy now. The Ti is an amazing card for 1440p or 1440p ultrawide and if the OP can afford it why not recommend it? By your logic, even a 980 Ti is "good enough" for 1440p.

 

[bystander36]

That's where knowing more about the OP matters. There are many people who feel they "need" to max out settings, and others who only want mostly high/ultra. Some "need" 144 FPS (not even possible much of the time), and others who are happy with 30 FPS.

What the OP finds good enough is going to change the proper response.

 

[mingsoup]

I think I might just hang out with a 1080 for now.
The Ti is puported so much! for 4k. I have no use for 4k now.
The 150$ now will buy me less net performance than 150$ spend on newer technology or smaller process nodes.

Back and forth.

 

[2is]

1080 will do just fine
1080Ti will do better then just fine

 

[Capt Caveman]

Newegg has the MSI 1080 Ti Armor for $639 - http://www.ebay.com/itm/MSI-GeForce...80-TI-ARMOR-11G-OC-11GB-352-Bit-/382016280684

 

[Jackie60]

If you have been using the 290 so long I would wait a month or two if you possibly can to see what AMDs Vega brings. We should have more news very soon but either way you will probably get 20% more performance for the same money very soon.

 

[Valantar]

I think I might just hang out with a 1080 for now.
The Ti is puported so much! for 4k. I have no use for 4k now.
The 150$ now will buy me less net performance than 150$ spend on newer technology or smaller process nodes.

Back and forth.

How often do you upgrade your GPU? Judging from your 290, not that often. As such, I'd argue for the Ti if you can afford it. $/FPS at 1440p and above, it's actually not bad value at all when compared to the 1080 (although compared to the 1070 this difference widens noticeably). The comparisons I've seen put the 1080 at ~9% higher FPS/dollar at 1440p, and ~4% at 4K. As such, the 1080Ti is good value for a high end offering, and should last you for quite a few years as long as you're comfortable stepping down quality settings somewhat in two or three years.

Still, the 1080 is a very good GPU too. I'd say you can't go wrong either way. Although waiting for Vega might of course be smart.

 

[OatisCampbell]

If you have been using the 290 so long I would wait a month or two if you possibly can to see what AMDs Vega brings. We should have more news very soon but either way you will probably get 20% more performance for the same money very soon.

You think AMD is going to launch a card with 20% more performance than their competition for the same price as their competition?

1. Unless you just broke NDA and are about to be fired or blacklisted, you don't "know" this. I hope you're right if I'm being selfish, but....
2. AMD has been losing money, they need some high margin parts. If they have something that beats 1080ti by 20% they should charge $1300 for it. If they have something that beats 1080 by 20% they should charge $599.99 for it.

At least to start. AMD doesn't have the brand power NV does these days after recent minor misteps ( the blower 290s, the OCd out of box but still slower Fury Xs, the power draw issue on Polaris) but they pretty much HAVE to enter the market with Vega priced as a premium product to earn cash and not become the Kia of the GPU world.

In my opinion anyway.

On the OP, all the benches I've seen have 1080 killing 25X14 so I would the that would be more than enough. If you have a 60Hz 1440p I might even go 1070.

 

[Valantar]

On the OP, all the benches I've seen have 1080 killing 25X14 so I would the that would be more than enough. If you have a 60Hz 1440p I might even go 1070.

That is true, but with the 1070 that would lead to a relatively short GPU lifespan. After all, the 1070 is only a little faster than the 980Ti and Fury X, which are both still very good for 1440p, but won't be in a year or two. Of course, dialing down settings to High instead of Ultra and/or dialing down a few key performance drains per game will stretch the usable life of the GPU significantly.

As for the Vega stuff, you're right that we don't know where it will land, but it's likely AMD will price it "competitively" due to the long time since Pascal launched. Of course, this might mean that your 20% better than 1080 for $599 estimate is right - but that would again mean that Vega is pretty much a dud. Honestly, I would be surprised if it didn't match the Ti. But again, this is conjecture and guesswork. We'll see in a couple of months.

 

[OatisCampbell]

That is true, but with the 1070 that would lead to a relatively short GPU lifespan. After all, the 1070 is only a little faster than the 980Ti and Fury X, which are both still very good for 1440p, but won't be in a year or two. Of course, dialing down settings to High instead of Ultra and/or dialing down a few key performance drains per game will stretch the usable life of the GPU significantly.

As for the Vega stuff, you're right that we don't know where it will land, but it's likely AMD will price it "competitively" due to the long time since Pascal launched. Of course, this might mean that your 20% better than 1080 for $599 estimate is right - but that would again mean that Vega is pretty much a dud. Honestly, I would be surprised if it didn't match the Ti. But again, this is conjecture and guesswork. We'll see in a couple of months.

I can't consider Vega a "dud" if it matches 1080ti on price and performance. I couldn't consider it a "victory" either as NV has been selling that for a year, but AMD just doesn't have their resources. Cash is king in most manufacturing, buys competitive advantage.

The only way AMD was going to curb stomp NV is if they have an engineer that came up with something that revolutionizes the industry, and how often does that kind of lightning strike in the world?

 

[richaron]

*Snip*

1080 Ti was released a month or two ago, not a Year. And it was also priced lower than most expected. Which, if history is anything to go by, gives us some idea about the price and/or performance of Vega.

I see you made a strawman argument by arguing against AMD being able to "curb stomp" nV. Congratulations on arguing against something nobody thinks will happen... Although if you look at the current CPU situation you can see it's possible to gain back mind share and market share without having to "curb stomp" anything, nor need anything comparable to a "lightning strike".

 

[Valantar]

1080 Ti was released a month or two ago, not a Year. And it was also priced lower than most expected. Which, if history is anything to go by, gives us some idea about the price and/or performance of Vega.

I see you made a strawman argument by arguing against AMD being able to "curb stomp" nV. Congratulations on arguing against something nobody thinks will happen... Although if you look at the current CPU situation you can see it's possible to gain back mind share and market share without having to "curb stomp" anything, nor need anything comparable to a "lightning strike".

Perhaps he's thinking of one of those gentle, friendly, jokey curb-stompings? Or those nice, not-at-all deadly lightning strikes that are really just a friendly pat on the back?

Yeah, straw man argumentation is good in that it catches fire and burns down easily, at least.

 

[OatisCampbell]

1080 Ti was released a month or two ago, not a Year. And it was also priced lower than most expected. Which, if history is anything to go by, gives us some idea about the price and/or performance of Vega.

I see you made a strawman argument by arguing against AMD being able to "curb stomp" nV. Congratulations on arguing against something nobody thinks will happen... Although if you look at the current CPU situation you can see it's possible to gain back mind share and market share without having to "curb stomp" anything, nor need anything comparable to a "lightning strike".

A. I meant NV has been selling that level of performance (1080ti) for about a year by the time Vega launches as Titan Pascal and 1080ti are pretty much the same. I was just trying to say I personally would not consider that level of performance delivered about a year later a " dud" or failure. Its a lot of performance and definitely still an engineering triumph even if a year late.
B. No straw man, the person I was responding to said "20% more performance" . If 20% more than 1080ti is coming in June or July, that is "curb stomping" NV.
I know NV has that workstation pascal card that puts out that kind of performance, but nothing in consumer realm.

 

[crisium]

There's a Vega rumour thread for that. Sufficient to say, waiting for Vega is an option but the only thing we can really say is that we will know more within a week (Computex), though how much we will truly find out is unknown, including release date.

Looking at OP's last post, it's possible he just got a 1080 already though. Not a poor choice for QHD.

 

[Jackie60]

You think AMD is going to launch a card with 20% more performance than their competition for the same price as their competition?

1. Unless you just broke NDA and are about to be fired or blacklisted, you don't "know" this. I hope you're right if I'm being selfish, but....
2. AMD has been losing money, they need some high margin parts. If they have something that beats 1080ti by 20% they should charge $1300 for it. If they have something that beats 1080 by 20% they should charge $599.99 for it.

At least to start. AMD doesn't have the brand power NV does these days after recent minor misteps ( the blower 290s, the OCd out of box but still slower Fury Xs, the power draw issue on Polaris) but they pretty much HAVE to enter the market with Vega priced as a premium product to earn cash and not become the Kia of the GPU world.

In my opinion anyway.

On the OP, all the benches I've seen have 1080 killing 25X14 so I would the that would be more than enough. If you have a 60Hz 1440p I might even go 1070.

 

[Jackie60]

Let's see in 6 weeks!

 

[Mopetar]

I'd go with a Ti if only because I don't think the 1080 is a good value. Either a 1070 is sufficient at lower cost or the Ti offers a big performance bump for not too much more money.

Waiting for Vega might not be a bad idea though. Even if doesn't beat the Ti, it will probably lead to price cuts for the 1080.

 

[Malogeek]

I'd go with a Ti if only because I don't think the 1080 is a good value. Either a 1070 is sufficient at lower cost or the Ti offers a big performance bump for not too much more money.

What a really weird statement. The 1080 sold bucket loads at $700 but now it's not good value at $500. And $200 difference between 1080 and ti isn't exactly a small difference.

 

[2is]

1080 Ti was released a month or two ago, not a Year. And it was also priced lower than most expected. Which, if history is anything to go by, gives us some idea about the price and/or performance of Vega.

I see you made a strawman argument by arguing against AMD being able to "curb stomp" nV. Congratulations on arguing against something nobody thinks will happen... Although if you look at the current CPU situation you can see it's possible to gain back mind share and market share without having to "curb stomp" anything, nor need anything comparable to a "lightning strike".

History? If history is anything to go by, AMD will not be competitive in the high end. I hope I'm wrong, but if we are letting history dictate our speculation, that's what it suggests.

In fact, when has AMD ever released a high end product that's 20% faster for the same price?

 

[mingsoup]

Not that it matters at all.
I ended up going with 1070.
I'm not really all that hardcore. High in a couple years is fine, if I don't just upgrade again then.
My idea was that I'm not hardcore now and my money will buy me more performance/$ at a later date anyway.
Thanks for all the great ideas (and the people throwing 1070 in suggestions)

 

[Arachnotronic]

I am looking to upgrade my GPU from a r9 290 for a bit of extra headroom.
I don't plan on touching 4k any time soon, at least I don't think so?

1080 or 1080Ti or should I just google it.

I suppose is the extra 200$ now worth it if I'm actually more buying 1440p headroom versus buying it directly for 4k.

1080 if you are running a 60Hz monitor, 1080 Ti if you are running a 144Hz+ monitor.