For 1080p60: Nvidia 1060/70 or rx480?

[Mopetar]

Within the context of the discussion in this thread, the 1070 is not really worth ~$150 more than a 1060 6gb or 4808gb, correct?

Yes, despite what all these people think, it's a waste of $150 if you've got 60 Hz monitors and are willing to game at High, which is going to have upwards of 50% better FPS with little to no discernible quality difference. Seriously watch, the video unseenmorbidity linked above, particularly around the 3 minute mark. Medium gets twice the framerate, while looking 90% as good and only when pausing and actively looking for differences is it easy to spot them.

Gamersnexus typically lists the 1% and .1% low framerates, so their 1070 review is particular telling: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2453-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-founders-edition-review?showall=1

In the 6 games they have 1%/.1% lows for, in only 1 game does the 1070 dip below 60 FPS, and that's for under 1% of all frames. Meanwhile, the other 99% of the time it's overkill. And once again, this is on the highest settings.

Also keep in mind this is the Founders Edition version of the card with no OC at all, so this is the worst-case performance. Buying a third party card, you could expect to add about 5-10% on average to each of those. If you bother to actually look at the numbers, the 1070 is overkill for 1080p60 gaming. Anyone claiming otherwise is not making an argument based on facts.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Let's keep in mind right now, I'm open to everything out there. I have no bias to or against either manufacturer of cards or CPUs. Ryzen is definitely in the running, especially if the 1600x comes in at or under it's $260 MSRP.

The 1080P resolution is the only thing set in stone, as I already have two 24" 1080p monitors.

Though I was going to try and do a color theme build, with white/black components with dim blue LEDs inside a Corsair 460x RGB. I don't think I've seen a white AM4 motherboard yet.


Edit: Oh, oh, I just thought of a good reason to buy a card considered "overkill" for 1080p: DSR. Run a game internally at a higher resolution and then scale it down. It's worked well for some older games on my 970m.

Hex core ryzen might in fact be a very good gaming cpu, but some in these forums insist on recommending Ryzen even before the benchmarks come out. They should be available soon, I would at least wait for benchmarks for the hex core cpus in a variety of games from reputable sites before deciding on a cpu. As for the GPU, I actually prefer the 1060 because I value efficiency, but at current prices, the 480 is usually a better buy. Even a 470 should be adequate for 1080p and might be a good choice if you can find one on sale for less than 150.00. Use the money you save for a better cpu or to upgrade in a couple of years when the new cards come out.

 

[Raduque]

Calling a 470 adequate for 1080p seems a bit off to me. I could say my GTX970m is still adequate for 1080p, as long I throw every setting to medium or low and turn off AA.

I want to run Highish settings with AA at 60fps. If a 480 is good for 1080p, a 1060 that's more powerful than the 480 should be the better buy at around $10-11 more.

 

[Red Hawk]

When are you planning to buy? NVidia is going to release an updated version of the 1060 with faster memory clocks and AMD is releasing a 580 in the near future so you may want to hold off for a few more weeks.

A GTX 1070 is going to be overkill for 1080p60, so it comes down to the 480/1060 which trade blows and come out roughly even on average. If you plan on keeping the card for a long while, the 480 might be a better buy just because it tends to do better in DX12 which will only become more prevalent and important in the future. Otherwise, whichever you can find a good deal for is probably the best.

Mass Effect Andromeda just came out and neither the 480 nor the 1060 can hit an average 60 FPS at 1080p. So no, the 1070 will not be overkill moving forward.

 

[Raduque]

When are you planning to buy?

I forgot I didn't answer this question.

I'm not buying all at once. I'll be buying the case, ram, storage, psu all first. The CPU and motherboard after that and the GPU last.

 

[IEC]

A RX470 4GB would match OP's desired high-ish settings at 1080p60 for as low as $110 AR.
A RX480 4GB would match high+ settings at 1080p60 for as low as $150 AR. You can usually run a mix of high/ultra settings.

Turning down 1-2 settings in some games can massively improve FPS. e.g. ME Andromeda:

Paying over triple a RX470 or over double a RX480 to get a 1070 is a poor value at 1080p60, especially when OP is budget constrained. If he buys a $370 GPU now but skimps and gets a 4c/4t CPU, he'll need to upgrade his whole platform again within a year or two.

It would also be better to wait and see how the Ryzen 1600/X processors perform as AM4/Ryzen is here to stay through at least 2020 with at least one confirmed new generation of chips to come (Zen 2), while Z170/Z270 is a dead-end platform. If the 1600/X is competitive, he not only is future-proofed with 6c/12t, he can pocket even more savings by getting a RX470/480 and be able to upgrade to a new mid-range card with better than 1070 performance in a year or two.

 

[Raduque]

My budget is around $250 for the GPU.

Since I want a white card to match my overall color theme. Like the Asus Dual 1060 6gb.

 

[Red Hawk]

A RX470 4GB would match OP's desired high-ish settings at 1080p60 for as low as $110 AR.
A RX480 4GB would match high+ settings at 1080p60 for as low as $150 AR. You can usually run a mix of high/ultra settings.

Turning down 1-2 settings in some games can massively improve FPS. e.g. ME Andromeda:

Paying over triple a RX470 or over double a RX480 to get a 1070 is a poor value at 1080p60, especially when OP is budget constrained. If he buys a $370 GPU now but skimps and gets a 4c/4t CPU, he'll need to upgrade his whole platform again within a year or two.

It would also be better to wait and see how the Ryzen 1600/X processors perform as AM4/Ryzen is here to stay through at least 2020 with at least one confirmed new generation of chips to come (Zen 2), while Z170/Z270 is a dead-end platform. If the 1600/X is competitive, he not only is future-proofed with 6c/12t, he can pocket even more savings by getting a RX470/480 and be able to upgrade to a new mid-range card with better than 1070 performance in a year or two.

You can always turn settings down. You can definitely play at 1080p60 with the 480/1060, but if you have to turn settings down to do so, then the card above them isn't overkill.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I'd go for the 1070 if you can afford it, I don't consider it overkill at 1080p, especially since there are several games at least which even now can dip easily bellow 60fps and some even run at 40 average fps on max settings and using quality AA.

Heck even AC:Black flag would dip to 50fps in some areas on a 1060 6gb.

Yah, but here's the thing. You're wrong.

 

[Raduque]

Yah, but here's the thing. You're wrong.

OK, so way back when I started PC gaming, if a card couldn't stay at 60fps when running max settings in a game, it was considered underpowered, and you needed to move up to a faster card.

But now, if the next level card up doesn't struggle it's "overkill"?

 

[Mopetar]

Mass Effect Andromeda just came out and neither the 480 nor the 1060 can hit an average 60 FPS at 1080p. So no, the 1070 will not be overkill moving forward.

What site are you getting benchmarks from?

Here's the gamersnexus benchmark which suggest it does fine: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2859-mass-effect-andromeda-gpu-benchmark-fps-frametimes. Tom's also has good results, although not quite as good: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-andromeda-performance-review,4996-3.html. I looked around at a few others, and the worst I could find was PC gamer, but they had the 480 ahead of the 1060 unlike every other review so I'm not quite sure what they were doing.

 

[guachi]

I'd get a 480 (or 580) and a Freesync monitor because Freesync (and Gsync) are awesome but Freesync is much cheaper.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

OK, so way back when I started PC gaming, if a card couldn't stay at 60fps when running max settings in a game, it was considered underpowered, and you needed to move up to a faster card.

But now, if the next level card up doesn't struggle it's "overkill"?

Watch the video. That was back when max settings meant something. Today that is the equivalent of high settings, at best.

You don't absurd amounts of aa, tessellation, shadows, post processing, etc.. that is ultra. Totally unnecessary. Besides most games get 60 at ultra with the 480.

ps: i5 in 2017 = nope.jpg

 

[Raduque]

I didn't say ultra settings. Ultra settings would be nice, but I said high. Depending on the game, a 1060 can struggle at high settings.

 

[Wall Street]

I am also also thinking about getting one of these cards or the upcoming Vega 1070 competitor. I think that a lot of people are missing the reason why you should consider a 1070 class card. You can show all of the benchmarks in the world, but can't show what future games will be like. You see the reviews where some games today are below 60 FPS - how long do you plan to keep this card? I think that the value of getting the better card while still at 1080p is that games 2-3 years out will all be quite slow on the 1060 or RX 480 and require you to sacrifice settings that will make a difference. It has happened many times before with cards that were perfect for 1080p vs. overkill. For example the GTX 460 vs. 470, GTX 660 vs. 670, GTX 960 vs. 970, HD 5770 vs. HD 5850, HD 7870 vs. HD 7970, etc. Obviously video cards don't last forever, but buying the 'overkill' card gets you both the best settings right now and gets you an extra generation of cards at the back end before they are just too slow to do anything. I am currently using a HD 7970 which some people bought as a 1440p card when it was released, but now isn't even up to 1080p high settings in all games.

 

[Red Hawk]

What site are you getting benchmarks from?

Here's the gamersnexus benchmark which suggest it does fine: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2859-mass-effect-andromeda-gpu-benchmark-fps-frametimes. Tom's also has good results, although not quite as good: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-andromeda-performance-review,4996-3.html. I looked around at a few others, and the worst I could find was PC gamer, but they had the 480 ahead of the 1060 unlike every other review so I'm not quite sure what they were doing.

Digital Foundry.

GamersNexus tested on the Nexus space station, which, while a fairly dense area, isn't very large and has no combat involved. Digital Foundry tested on the first combat mission, where frame rate is more crucial to the experience. They found the 1060 and 480 couldn't even keep a flat 60 FPS on the high settings -- to ensure a constant 60 FPS they had to tweak some settings to medium.

 

[PhonakV30]

I Think you should get a card with 8GB.it doesn't matter Nvidia or AMD.Look at this:

It's already started.game will be going to eat up all 8GB.Sooner or later.

 

[Bacon1]

I Think you should get a card with 8GB.it doesn't matter Nvidia or AMD.Look at this:

It's already started.game will be going to eat up all 8GB.Sooner or later.

Just because it allocates the space doesn't mean it needs it. I mean look at the graphs, 1080p is using less than 4k for both.

 

[2is]

Just because it allocates the space doesn't mean it needs it. I mean look at the graphs, 1080p is using less than 4k for both.

Thing is, it allocates it for a reason and the problem is, you have no idea when it will need to access which assets. Example, Black Ops 3 at Extra uses all 6GB on my 980Ti at 1440p. My fps is good at around 100 but every so often, there is a split second hitch. This split second hitch never happens if I change the Texture resolution down to Very High from Extra, which, not coincidentally also only allocates 4.5-5GB vram.

Now as far as the topic of which card... All the cards suggested will provide good performance at 1080p. The question is how good do you want it and how much do you want to spend. If you want to be able to max your games out for at least the next couple years, the 1070 is a good choice.

But with nVidia dropping new Pascal cards left and right, and Vega on the horizon, and since we are talking 1080p here, a $150 RX480 makes a lot of sense.

 

[A_Skywalker]

I use RX 480, bought mainly because I know I will be able to use it after 3 years. It will have more longetivity.

Or at least thats what I expect, noone knows what will happen but I based my opinion like this because 480 is better in DX 12 games.

 

[ConsoleLover]

What site are you getting benchmarks from?

Here's the gamersnexus benchmark which suggest it does fine: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2859-mass-effect-andromeda-gpu-benchmark-fps-frametimes. Tom's also has good results, although not quite as good: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-andromeda-performance-review,4996-3.html. I looked around at a few others, and the worst I could find was PC gamer, but they had the 480 ahead of the 1060 unlike every other review so I'm not quite sure what they were doing.

The "geniuses" at pcgamer used adaptive scaling which lowered the resolution on the 480 cards compared to the 1060, thus ending up being over 10fps faster, 3-4fps faster on max settings, when in reality in ALL other benches its about 5-6fps slower.

Yah, but here's the thing. You're wrong.

So according to you "genius", NO games dips bellow 60fps at 1080p? Are you living under a rock? Just recently Mass Effect Andromeda, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Watch Dogs 2, Deus EX, AC: Syndicate, Unity and even Black Flag dip bellow 60 often. Even Crysis 3 dips bellow 60fps in some areas, especially vegetation dense areas, it can even drop to 30fps on a GTX 1060 6gb. I've played just recently and benched some of it, all these games absolutely dip bellow 60fps.

If you want the best gaming experience at 1080p and MAX detail, you need to go with the 1070, if you don't mind lowering some settings, then a 1060 or 480 is perfectly fine, just don't expect 60fps smooth gameplay at max settings on all games, its impossible!

Thing is, it allocates it for a reason and the problem is, you have no idea when it will need to access which assets. Example, Black Ops 3 at Extra uses all 6GB on my 980Ti at 1440p. My fps is good at around 100 but every so often, there is a split second hitch. This split second hitch never happens if I change the Texture resolution down to Very High from Extra, which, not coincidentally also only allocates 4.5-5GB vram.

Now as far as the topic of which card... All the cards suggested will provide good performance at 1080p. The question is how good do you want it and how much do you want to spend. If you want to be able to max your games out for at least the next couple years, the 1070 is a good choice.

But with nVidia dropping new Pascal cards left and right, and Vega on the horizon, and since we are talking 1080p here, a $150 RX480 makes a lot of sense.

It really depends though, if the core is the bottleneck, which it most often is then the memory doesn't really matter. It would be less than 1% percent when the memory is the bottleneck, as opposed to the core.

Therefore when looking at memory size, you need to be looking at how fast the core is, you can have 480 or 1060 with 12gb vram, it will be useless. 8GB is the safer option on the 480, but in most games, in most cases the core will be the bottleneck first, before the memory, so ultimately in the large majority of cases it doesn't matter than it has more memory!

 

[2is]

Yes, it depends... no, it's not just 1%

Texture resolution only has a moderate impact on GPU load but a huge demand on vram. It's arguably the single most significant setting for IQ. When I had my SLI 680's I was vram limited in almost every situation.

I do agree that 4gb is enough at 1080p for it not to be the bottleneck in the majority of situations today, which is why that's the route I took with my 480. That said, if that was going in my primary gaming machine I may have went with an 8gb card.

 

[Mopetar]

The "geniuses" at pcgamer used adaptive scaling which lowered the resolution on the 480 cards compared to the 1060, thus ending up being over 10fps faster, 3-4fps faster on max settings, when in reality in ALL other benches its about 5-6fps slower.

Why would they even do something like that, even if making it clear that it was being done?

So according to you "genius", NO games dips bellow 60fps at 1080p? Are you living under a rock?

No, but the argument is that the dip either isn't that bad (a few FPS) or an extremely limited amount of the time (fewer than 1-5% of frames) that it's not useful. Also, it's pretty easy to alleviate the problem by turning down one or more settings that don't provide a noticeable visual improvement.

If you want the best gaming experience at 1080p and MAX detail, you need to go with the 1070, if you don't mind lowering some settings, then a 1060 or 480 is perfectly fine, just don't expect 60fps smooth gameplay at max settings on all games, its impossible!

The problem with this argument is that you can't know if the 1070 will be sufficient in the future either. Maybe you really needed a 1080 to do 1080p60 at max settings because future games really stepped up the requirements due to consoles being more powerful. If you're really uncertain, it's better to take IEC's advice and get a card like the 470 which is the best price/performance you can get and take the ~$250 saved over a 1070 and upgrade in 2 years.

Also, I'd argue that with Volta looking to be a big architectural shift for NVidia, that the 1070 is a terrible value proposition for a long term card. NVidia already has a bit of a reputation for not caring about drivers for older hardware, and this will become even more true if Volta is their baseline for DX12/Vulkan and anything before that doesn't get a lot of love or optimization for future titles.

 

[Bacon1]

IEC's advice and get a card like the 470 which is the best price/performance you can get and take the ~$250 saved over a 1070 and upgrade in 2 years.

Ding ding ding.

In 2 generations the *60 tier will be as fast/faster than the current *80.

It makes way more sense to save money and upgrade often than to try to keep your card for many years.

 

[crisium]

Overkill does not exist, mainly due to exceptions and future releases.

What does is exist is determining the best balance for your money. You're likely to upgrade your GPU before CPU. I caution against an i5 because of this. Depending on how often you upgrade, a CPU can take 3+ GPU cycles. Many are still on 2011 era Sandybridge. Some games, especially multiplayer, really prefer i7 with the extra threads.

On average, i5 + 1070 will demolish i7 + 480/1060 performance. Don't get me wrong. But in a couple years you may upgrade the GPU again to something much faster than even the 1070 and the i7 will make it shine. It's a good fundamental investment, imo.