Currently, have a R 290 with an i7 3770k to go with an Overlord 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor that's D-DVI only.
What would you recommend as an upgrade?
290 to 480?
He was point out that your post made no sense, as all custom AMD cards include DVI as well. I don't see why they won't next generation as well.
He could upgrade for Fury if he wants for under $300, could be a big upgrade depending on what settings / resolution. It was for me @ 3440x1440. He is 1440p so could be worth it as well.
For this game not worth it though as 290 performs very well, even though Fury would be ~35% faster.
Here are some new benchmarks:
https://uk.hardware.info/reviews/70...ds-testresultaten-wqhd-2560x1440-+-frametimes
Currently, have a R 290 with an i7 3770k to go with an Overlord 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor that's D-DVI only.
What would you recommend as an upgrade?
Why would one need the displayport to DVI cable? The Nitro has a DVI output on it already.I wouldn't upgrade yet, R9 290 to GTX1070 is not worth it for BF1 even for 2560x1440.
But the following Sapphire has a nice perf/$
Sapphire Fury at $309,99 + 10% off w/ promo code EMCFEFT22, ends 10/20 = $280
+
Display Port to DVD-D cable = $12
Total = $292
Edit: As you said, R9 290 will be ok at 1440p Medium. Customizing the settings more and im sure you can even use Ultra Textures if you lower other settings.
Why would one need the displayport to DVI cable? The Nitro has a DVI output on it already.
Although, that's not an upgrade I would make, even for that price.
I wouldn't upgrade yet, R9 290 to GTX1070 is not worth it for BF1 even for 2560x1440.
But the following Sapphire has a nice perf/$
Sapphire Fury at $309,99 + 10% off w/ promo code EMCFEFT22, ends 10/20 = $280
+
Display Port to DVD-D cable = $12
Total = $280
Edit: As you said, R9 290 will be ok at 1440p Medium. Customizing the settings more and im sure you can even use Ultra Textures if you lower other settings.
Edit 2: no DP to DVI needed
You could have made similar statements about DX9, 10 and 11. Even though they were not lower-level APIs, early AAA titles using these APIs often had inferior performance for little to no gains in visual IQ compared to the preceding API. You cannot go into space or start driving F1 without hard work and practice. No one said optimizing for DX12 was going to be easy. You could have said we don't need quad-core CPUs in an era when C2D ruled the PC landscape. No one said optimizing for 4-10 cores is easy either.
The DX12 hate is illogical. If developers don't start working with DX12 through practice and learn from their mistakes, how do you expect them to ever produce better optimized DX12 games over DX11 games? There are plenty of DX12 games already that show a huge draw call overhead bottleneck that's lifted when switching from DX11 to DX12. Total War Warhammer is a decent example of what's possible.
Doom shows that it's possible to optimize various generations of AMD/NV GPU hardware to perform better with a lower-level API than DX11 can manage. So what makes you think DX12 will not show similar improvements over the next 2-4 years? Programmers have to start from somewhere. Don't worry, your next Volta GPU should have even more potent Async compute and dynamic scheduling capability than Paxwell does. Why stand in the way of progress?
The irony of it all is that certain posters have been pushing 6-10 core underutilized and largely overpriced Broadwell-E CPUs, have been hyping Skylake-X to the moon and downplaying Zen, but then the same posters downplay DX12?! You you do realize it's largely because of DX11 and its inability to allow for better CPU multi threading that a 6-12 core Skylake-X will be no faster in games than a 4-core 7700K @ 4.8Ghz+? DX11 is also the reason AMD/NV's idle GPU resources are simply wasted because DX11 was never designed to perform graphics+compute queues concurrently.
PCGH.de put up their benchmarks for multiplayer. GTX 1060 is ahead of the RX 480 by a significant amount. They also confirm that the 373.06 drivers aren't BF1 optimized. I think they will wait for NVidia to release them before they do the DX12 benches..
PCGH.de put up their benchmarks for multiplayer. GTX 1060 is ahead of the RX 480 by a significant amount. They also confirm that the 373.06 drivers aren't BF1 optimized. I think they will wait for NVidia to release them before they do the DX12 benches..
PCGH.de put up their benchmarks for multiplayer. GTX 1060 is ahead of the RX 480 by a significant amount. They also confirm that the 373.06 drivers aren't BF1 optimized. I think they will wait for NVidia to release them before they do the DX12 benches..
Thanks! I know you guys don't think it's a worthy upgrade but if I were to sell my R9 290, the cost to upgrade isn't that expensive and would give me a decent boost in the game.
edit - found it on Jet.com for $270(15% off for being first time buyer) - https://jet.com/product/SAPPHIRE-NI...-UEFI-Video-/b0659152e7304698acf69fe9a120f808
Well if AMD was knocked for years for not having release day ready drivers then why should nVidia get a pass? Don't people constantly remind the forums that nVidia has vastly more resources to pay their driver teams? If so, why do Radeons usually perform great on release day under DX 12 but Geforce cards don't? I think the real FUD is that nv still has better drivers, same FUD that drove Richt out of Georgia and gave you a coach that loses to Vandy... Vandy, man. Same type of ignoranceFigured as much. Those spreading FUD about NV driver team not being able to do much to improve DX12 performance just weren't being realistic.
PCGH.de put up their benchmarks for multiplayer. GTX 1060 is ahead of the RX 480 by a significant amount. They also confirm that the 373.06 drivers aren't BF1 optimized. I think they will wait for NVidia to release them before they do the DX12 benches..
Well if AMD was knocked for years for not having release day ready drivers then why should nVidia get a pass? Don't people constantly remind the forums that nVidia has vastly more resources to pay their driver teams? If so, why do Radeons usually perform great on release day under DX 12 but Geforce cards don't? I think the real FUD is that nv still has better drivers, same FUD that drove Richt out of Georgia and gave you a coach that loses to Vandy... Vandy, man. Same type of ignorance
People were actually saying there would be little to no improvement going forward from DX12 titles with NV drivers. That is just silly. Of course NV will improve on them.
PCGH.de put up their benchmarks for multiplayer. GTX 1060 is ahead of the RX 480 by a significant amount. They also confirm that the 373.06 drivers aren't BF1 optimized. I think they will wait for NVidia to release them before they do the DX12 benches..
PCGH said:Hi, I didn't benchmark DX12 (yet) because both on Nvida and AMD performance by and large is worse (at least in MP) and the (CPU-)frametimes spike. Also, both AMD and Nvidia are working on new drivers (and will hopefully fix some issues I reported) and with some certainty, the day-0-version of BF1 will get patched soon. So I actually did test the best mode possible - which is still DX11, regardless of AMD or Nvidia. I'm pretty sure, that's going to get better soon. Anyhow, if I had benchmarked DX12, I would probably have to bench it (and DX11 on top of that) yet again in the coming days, because new patches, new drivers, new performance...
Harware.info said:It surprised us that DirectX 11 performance was better on average, especially where you would not expect it. DirectX 12 was supposed to decrease CPU-overhead on lower resolution and therefore improve performance. It is not clear why DirectX 12 performs less well in Battlefield 1. DirectX 12 may enable better and more demanding visual effects.
So GTX 1060 ahead of RX 480 without optimized DX12 drivers and Only DX11? That's unexpected after the first wave of tests.
GTX 1060 ahead of RX 480 without optimized drivers?
This is DX-11, just pointing out.
Edit: Kepler totally destroyed by both AMD GCN and NVIDIA Maxwell/Pascal.
Worth taking a look at GTX 770 vs RX 460, especially at 1080p