Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[selni]

For 1080p gaming, the common performance GPUs are 3/4GB. A developer is going to look at hardware surveys and see a ton of older high performance cards: 780/Ti, 970, 980, 7970/280X, 290/X, their games has to run well on these GPUs.

Now, that's not going to stop NV partnering with a game studio to add an exclusive setting, like Mirror's Edge, for 8GB GPUs. So this is a factor.

Prior to this, I would have said 4GB is enough for 1080p gaming for the next few years. But seeing NV's tactic with Mirror's Edge, I have to say go for 8GB. Since Pascal is so similar to Maxwell, the best way to obsolete it is via vram requirements. Special modes for 8GB cards. Bye bye 960, 970, 980 and 980Ti. Better upgrade to the 1070 8GB. It's a clever tactic too.

It's really not because no one will buy your game unless it's insanely hyped up and people upgrade for it or runs on older hardware. That inevitably means there's lower settings that will work on 4GB (and 2GB for that matter) cards. If the setting that requires 8GB doesn't actually look any different it's not much of an incentive to upgrade. If it does you've done something useful with the extra VRAM and that's hardly a bad thing.

 

[crisium]

For 1080p gaming, the common performance GPUs are 3/4GB. A developer is going to look at hardware surveys and see a ton of older high performance cards: 780/Ti, 970, 980, 7970/280X, 290/X, their games has to run well on these GPUs.

Now, that's not going to stop NV partnering with a game studio to add an exclusive setting, like Mirror's Edge, for 8GB GPUs. So this is a factor.

Prior to this, I would have said 4GB is enough for 1080p gaming for the next few years. But seeing NV's tactic with Mirror's Edge, I have to say go for 8GB. Since Pascal is so similar to Maxwell, the best way to obsolete it is via vram requirements. Special modes for 8GB cards. Bye bye 960, 970, 980 and 980Ti. Better upgrade to the 1070 8GB. It's a clever tactic too.

Yeah, Gameworks is going to consistently use more than 4GB and more than 6GB at Max settings whenever possible. Since nearly all benchmarks only show Max, this will be their way to push Pascal. Good news is that the 2nd highest setting looks almost as good most of the time, and as you said there are so many 4GB and under cards still in the wild (and future, i.e. I'd expect GTX 1050 to be 4GB) that 4GB will be fine for "High" for a while, even if "Ultra" will be out of reach for GW games and some neutral games.

But if it is $30 difference, I don't see why you wouldn't go 8GB unless your budget it really tight. Not the end of the world to dial back a texture setting, but neither is $30.

 

[torlen11cc]

I think 4GB of VRAM is more than enough for the most games. ROFTR and Mirror's Edge are the only games that consumed more than 4GB of VRAM on 1080P.

 

[antihelten]

I think 4GB of VRAM is more than enough for the most games. ROFTR and Mirror's Edge are the only games that consumed more than 4GB of VRAM on 1080P.

Mirror's edge works just fine with 4GB of VRAM at 1080P (plenty of people with 970s running at hyper settings and 60+ FPS).

 

[Yakk]

So last year the fashion was adding more smoke until it hid big parts of the screen. Now it's more blurry sections?

... keep going backwards.

 

[Stuka87]

I've seen this exact, identical conversation play out for the last 15 years and its amazing people still fight over it. How does a FuryX w/ 4GB performing equal to a 980ti @ 4K NOT convince you that 4GB's enough for 1080P for the next few years to come?

Technically the Fury can use more than 4GB. It swaps between system memory and its own. This is why when some new games ship that have high vram requirements, the Fury often performs worse than 390X, until a driver update comes out that then pushes the performance way up. Because AMD is having to make changes for that specific game to use the memory sharing.

AMD talked about this during the launch last year, that this is how they were going to get around only having 4GB of RAM.

 

[psolord]

Technically the Fury can use more than 4GB. It swaps between system memory and its own. This is why when some new games ship that have high vram requirements, the Fury often performs worse than 390X, until a driver update comes out that then pushes the performance way up. Because AMD is having to make changes for that specific game to use the memory sharing.

AMD talked about this during the launch last year, that this is how they were going to get around only having 4GB of RAM.

Don't all cards do that?

 

[Mopetar]

Mirror's edge works just fine with 4GB of VRAM at 1080P (plenty of people with 970s running at hyper settings and 60+ FPS).

Don't you mean it works fine with 3.5 GB of VRAM?

 

[96Firebird]

Don't all cards do that?

Yes, that is how all video cards operate. That is why swapping data that is required for the next frame through the PCI-E lane and into/out of system memory is bad. It causes drastic slowdowns and performance tanks.

AMD has said they can alleviate this through drivers, but I think that has more to do with prioritizing what goes into VRAM and what can stay in system memory for the next couple frames.

 

[Bacon1]

Mirror's edge works just fine with 4GB of VRAM at 1080P (plenty of people with 970s running at hyper settings and 60+ FPS).

Are you sure they are actually running hyper? Turning off the auto-ram adjustment toggle button?

 

[Thinker_145]

Wrong.

1440p, TPU's charts.

A 980Ti is 61 -> 73, or ~20% faster than a 390X.

The 1070 is ~ 980Ti, this is over 22 games benchmark. Not a small cherry pick handful.

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-22-games-tested-at-1080p-1440p/

Edit: Since some of you may fail to grasp the point. If RX 480 is even 390X + 10%, it's very close to a 980Ti and thus, a 1070.

Like I said wait for TPU review and here you go.

The 1070 is 40% faster than 390X and 50% faster than 390 at 1080p. The 480 certainly has it's work cut out to make the 1070 less appealing.

 

[USER8000]

Like I said wait for TPU review and here you go.

The 1070 is 40% faster than 390X and 50% faster than 390 at 1080p. The 480 certainly has it's work cut out to make the 1070 less appealing.

From the Techpowerup review:

AMD's upcoming Polaris cards will be nowhere near the GTX 1070 in terms of performance. Rather, expect RX 480 to perform about 20-30% slower. But AMD's $199 pricing for the 480 could stir things up, so if you don't need a new card immediately, maybe wait a few weeks and see how things pan out, which would also allow you to see how the custom GTX 1070 designs by board partners turn out.

You seem really desperate to keep posting in a Polaris 10 thread about how great value the GTX1070 is - not even Techpowerup agrees with you.

From what Techpowerup says the GTX1070 does not really look that appealing,if it is only 20% to 30% slower for a significantly lower price,and even on a large UK tech forum like OcUK,people are not happy at the current pricing which is over £360,ie,massively higher than a GTX970 or R9 390.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think 4GB of VRAM is more than enough for the most games.

Right now. The trend is not looking good though thanks to console influence.

 

[Thinker_145]

From the Techpowerup review:



You seem really desperate to keep posting in a Polaris 10 thread about how great value the GTX1070 is - not even Techpowerup agrees with you.

From what Techpowerup says the GTX1070 does not really look that appealing,if it is only 20% to 30% slower for a significantly lower price,and even on a large UK tech forum like OcUK,people are not happy at the current pricing which is over £360,ie,massively higher than a GTX970 or R9 390.

lol nobody is desperate. Someone claimed the 1070 was only 20% faster than 390X, I just posted to show how horribly wrong that was.

I don't give a damn about techpowerup opinions, they have the best objective numbers in the business and that's what matters. And for the nineteenth time the 8GB 480X won't be $200.

I am an AMD user currently so nice try at portraying me as a fanboy.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[USER8000]

lol nobody is desperate. Someone claimed the 1070 was only 20% faster than 390X, I just posted to show how horribly wrong that was.

I don't give a damn about techpowerup opinions, they have the best objective numbers in the business and that's what matters. And for the nineteenth time the 8GB 480X won't be $200.

I am an AMD user currently so nice try at portraying me as a fanboy.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

But you are coming across with literally every post trying to make the RX480 look rubbish and to pump up the GTX1070 in a Polaris thread. I might be more understanding if this was a Pascal related thread.

Techpowerup basically has hinted the RX480 is between R9 390X and Fury level performance now.

Not even on a large tech forum like OcUK,are people finding the GTX1070 great value - I know many who are so annoyed that they are just going to wait and see what the RX480 brings to the table,just to see if it even drops prices a bit and those include people who favour Nvidia too.

If the RX480 is only 20% to 30% slower than a GTX1070,for £130 to £150 less then at that point,I don't know how you can say a GTX1070 is really that great for the money.

The cheapest one I have seen on OcUK is £365,and even at 50% faster than a GTX970 according to Techpowerup that is barely the same price/performance as a GTX970,and worse than a £230 to £240 R9 390.

Even if an RX480 comes in at R9 390X to Fury level performance at a £230,which at 20% to 30% lower than a GTX1070 will place it at,it still is 18% to 31% faster than a GTX970 for the same price.

That is going by the figures in the graph you linked to.

If the cheapest 8GB models end up closer to £200,then it makes the GTX1070 look very overpriced.

 

[Bacon1]

But you are coming across with literally every post trying to make the RX480 look rubbish and to pump up the GTX1070 in a Polaris thread. I might be more understanding if this was a Pascal related thread.

Techpowerup basically has hinted the RX480 is between R9 390X and Fury level performance now.

Not even on a large tech forum like OcUK,are people finding the GTX1070 great value - I know many who are so annoyed that they are just going to wait and see what the RX480 brings to the table,just to see if it even drops prices a bit and those include people who favour Nvidia too.

If the RX480 is only 20% to 30% slower than a GTX1070,for £130 to £150 less then at that point,I don't know how you can say a GTX1070 is really that great for the money.

The cheapest one I have seen on OcUK is £365,and even at 50% faster than a GTX970 according to Techpowerup that is barely the same price/performance as a GTX970,and worse than a £230 to £240 R9 390.

Even if an RX480 comes in at R9 390X to Fury level performance at a £230,which at 20% to 30% lower than a GTX1070 will place it at,it still is 18% to 31% faster than a GTX970 for the same price.

That is going by the figures in the graph you linked to.

If the cheapest 8GB models end up closer to £200,then it makes the GTX1070 look very overpriced.

Hell the 390 is already better price/perf than 1070 so Polaris dropping its price by 1/3 and increasing performance as well means it will be way better price/perf over 1070.

 

[USER8000]

Hell the 390 is already better price/perf than 1070 so Polaris dropping its price by 1/3 and increasing performance as well means it will be way better price/perf over 1070.

The problem is that it only needs to match the GTX970 or R9 390 pricing to seem better value than a GTX1070 in performance per pound.

 

[RussianSensation]

The 1070 is 40% faster than 390X and 50% faster than 390 at 1080p. The 480 certainly has it's work cut out to make the 1070 less appealing.

1. Did you actually bother looking at FPS, instead of only at % numbers? I am sure Big Pascal will be 50-70% faster on top of GTX1070 for 1080p, does it make it a better videocard for 1080p 60hz gaming?

Per Sweclockers, the average FPS for an R9 390 (not 390X/Nano) is 64 fps at 1080p, but it's 98 fps for a GTX1070.
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22153-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070/5#content

You keep focusing on % charts and ignoring FPS averages. Both must be taken into context for mainstream/performance gamers. Sure the 1070 is by far the superior videocard to RX 480 but what difference does it make to a 22-24" peasant 1080p 60Hz PC gamer when the 1070 costs $380+.

It's easily possible now to buy a $90-100 23" 1080p IPS monitor and $200 32" 1080p LED HDTV. By now, many PC gamers are starting to realize that to take advantage of higher end $400+ videocards, we MUST move to 1440p 60-144Hz. 1920x1080 is the standard of 15+ years ago. It's outdated but people still keep clinging to it, desperately trying ot justify a $400 videocard to pair with their POS TN/IPS 22-24" 1080p monitor. In 3 years from now, a 1440p 144Hz will still be awesome but a GTX1070 will be outdated as far as tech at $400 goes.

2. Way to ignore how almost no one cross-shops $199-249 videocards with $379-449 ones. An after-market R9 290 ~ 290X. That means for most of 2015, we had $180-200 960 2GB losing to a $250-280 after-market R9 290 by 56% at 1080p and by 69% at 1440p.

3. Those numbers you see in TPU or any other major site, 99% of PC gamers will never see. The vast majority of PC gamers shopping for $200-250 GPUs do not have i7 4790K or i7 6700K. This is key because GTX1070 is 100% CPU limited at 1080p gaming without those CPUs.
http://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/te...pamieci_ram_wybrac_do_intel_skylake?page=0,11

TPU uses a 4.5Ghz 6700K.

In the real world where people are using i3/i5 and stock i7s, GTX1070's lead over RX480 will shrink at 1080p.

4. By the time GTX1070 level card is worth buying for 1080p 60Hz gaming, an RX480 user can just sell his card for $100, pocket the difference from not spending it on a 1070 and buy a better videocard. We've seen this scenario play out already for decades.

GTX1070 is a perfect 1440p 60Hz videocard. From the Sweclockers review, average FPS for 1070 at 1440p is 67 and it achieved 75 fps average once overclocked. No one stops anyone from buying a GTX1070 for 1080p 60Hz gaming if you MUST require 60 fps minimums in all games, but for the average PC gamer with i3/i5/FX, stock i7s that are aiming at 60 fps averages, GTX1070 is a waste of $ for the peasant 1080p resolution on budget 22-24" 1080p monitors.

The problem is that it only needs to match the GTX970 or R9 390 pricing to seem better value than a GTX1070 in performance per pound.

Even if the higher end card scales linearly or even exponentially with price/performance, it doesn't make it a winner for 1080p 60Hz gaming. Look at the actual FPS numbers R9 390X produces and GTX1070 produces.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1070_gaming_x_review,13.html

Until RX480 vs. GTX1070 debates started, almost NO ONE on these forums would recommend a GTX980Ti/Titan X or Fury X for 1080p 60Hz gaming. Such an idea would be laughed. All of a sudden because 980Ti's performance is now more affordable, Titan X is now a 1080p 60Hz videocard but a month ago it was a 1440p videocard? :sneaky:

 

[happy medium]

By the time GTX1070 level card is worth buying for 1080p 60Hz gaming, an RX480 user can just sell his card for $100

I think its that time.......or close enough?

Tom clancy the division 82 fps.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_review,21.html

 

[antihelten]

Are you sure they are actually running hyper? Turning off the auto-ram adjustment toggle button?

Well they said they were running Hyper, so I choose to believe them. Whether or not they turned off the GPU memory restriction I have no idea.

 

[HannooFX]

1. Did you actually bother looking at FPS, instead of only at % numbers? I am sure Big Pascal will be 50-70% faster on top of GTX1070 for 1080p, does it make it a better videocard for 1080p 60hz gaming?

Per Sweclockers, the average FPS for an R9 390 (not 390X/Nano) is 64 fps at 1080p, but it's 98 fps for a GTX1070.
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22153-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070/5#content

You keep focusing on % charts and ignoring FPS averages. Both must be taken into context for mainstream/performance gamers. Sure the 1070 is by far the superior videocard to RX 480 but what difference does it make to a 22-24" peasant 1080p 60Hz PC gamer when the 1070 costs $380+.

It's easily possible now to buy a $90-100 23" 1080p IPS monitor and $200 32" 1080p LED HDTV. By now, many PC gamers are starting to realize that to take advantage of higher end $400+ videocards, we MUST move to 1440p 60-144Hz. 1920x1080 is the standard of 15+ years ago. It's outdated but people still keep clinging to it, desperately trying ot justify a $400 videocard to pair with their POS TN/IPS 22-24" 1080p monitor. In 3 years from now, a 1440p 144Hz will still be awesome but a GTX1070 will be outdated as far as tech at $400 goes.

2. Way to ignore how almost no one cross-shops $199-249 videocards with $379-449 ones. An after-market R9 290 ~ 290X. That means for most of 2015, we had $180-200 960 2GB losing to a $250-280 after-market R9 290 by 56% at 1080p and by 69% at 1440p.

3. Those numbers you see in TPU or any other major site, 99% of PC gamers will never see. The vast majority of PC gamers shopping for $200-250 GPUs do not have i7 4790K or i7 6700K. This is key because GTX1070 is 100% CPU limited at 1080p gaming without those CPUs.
http://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/te...pamieci_ram_wybrac_do_intel_skylake?page=0,11

TPU uses a 4.5Ghz 6700K.

In the real world where people are using i3/i5 and stock i7s, GTX1070's lead over RX480 will shrink at 1080p.

4. By the time GTX1070 level card is worth buying for 1080p 60Hz gaming, an RX480 user can just sell his card for $100, pocket the difference from not spending it on a 1070 and buy a better videocard. We've seen this scenario play out already for decades.

GTX1070 is a perfect 1440p 60Hz videocard. From the Sweclockers review, average FPS for 1070 at 1440p is 67 and it achieved 75 fps average once overclocked. No one stops anyone from buying a GTX1070 for 1080p 60Hz gaming if you MUST require 60 fps minimums in all games, but for the average PC gamer with i3/i5/FX, stock i7s that are aiming at 60 fps averages, GTX1070 is a waste of $ for the peasant 1080p resolution on budget 22-24" 1080p monitors.

Excellent explanation.

 

[RussianSensation]

I think its that time.......or close enough?

Who plays Crysis 3 anymore?

390X is almost at 60 fps average in Hitman.

You should be the last one promoting a $380-450 GTX1070 over a $200-250 RX 480 considering you bought an inferior but cheaper GTX960 over the R9 380X/280X/290. You think people on this forum cannot see your hypocrisy? Last generation you dismissed faster NV cards stating that your 960 was fast enough and you can just turn down some settings but now you are cherry-picking the most demanding games maxed out to show us how spending $380-450 for an i3/i5/FX user is now worth it for 1080p 60Hz gaming? D:

Remember how in 2015 I told you 960 users will waste $180-200 on that card and then spend another $200-250 on a next gen mainstream card that's barely faster than an 2015 $249 after-market 290? The judgement day has come, but now are deflating by promoting $380-400 1070 over a $200-250 RX 480/GTX1060. Fact is someone who listened to my advice and bought an R9 290 wouldn't even need to buy any of these cards in the first place. Last year you bought a 960 because it was "fast enough" but now a card with 390X level of performance that smashes your 960 is not worth buying at $200-250, let's all just waste $380-400 for 1080p 60Hz gaming on a 1070? Please.

 

[happy medium]

Who plays Crysis 3 anymore?

[/IMG]

I added some more games for you / see edit.

And I'm in the middle of Crysis 3.
Crysis 4 coming soon.....

And you said it these games are old but @ 1080p are still pushing the 1070.You made my point.

I'd admit its a little overkill but Fury x performance/1070 performance is a year old.
I'm sure battlefield 5 or crisis 4 will be good @ 1080p with a 1070.

but this is a 480 thread.....whats the 480 have to do with a performance card like a 1070? compare it to a 240$ 390AR and a free game or the 199$ 290.

 

[Thinker_145]

I think its that time.......or close enough?

Tom clancy the division 82 fps.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_review,21.html

lol I was going to post that. The 1070 is already barely getting 60FPS in a few games and yet it's overkill for the "obsolete" 1080p gaming lol what a joke. If 1080p gaming is outdated then so is single GPU PC gaming lol.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[xthetenth]

If you consider spending literally twice the money just so you don't have to do any settings tweaking a cool and good idea, then you're clearly price inelastic and should be buying a 1080 to match your XB271HU.