By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should I get the RX Vega 64 or GTX 1080?

Azzanation on 11 August 2017
malistix1985 said:
Azzanation said:

I never said 4k at 60 frames. I said that pushes this card to its limits. Playing Witcher 3 on max settings at 4k with 50 to 55 frames is not pushing this card or do i think many would care. 

1080 is a beast of a card and is well supported with Nvidea updates.

nier automata, watch dogs 2, some other games don't even run properly on my system. Sure the 1080 can do some 4k gaming on decent settings but on the witcher 4 you proberbly also have to turn down some settings to get a real solid framerate, same for gears of war and stuff, Even I made some compromizes on the witcher, getting around 70fps but you always need to count for the lowest frames not the average, when you go for 50-55 but have dips under 50 its going to be noticable, unless you have a Gsync display, that would help a lot.

Either way for this topic deff 1080 and deff at least 1440p resolution, else its kind of a waste, unless you just want to go for the high frames.

I havnt tried Nier or Watch Dogs 2. I do know i play all my games in 4k without any problems at there best settings. In saying they i dont use a Frame metre on my screen to know how well its running the games. I can just tell with how it feels. I saw the Frames on Witcher 3 which was 54 -60 and Doom which ran at a solid 59-60 99% of the time.

I also have my GPU paired up with an i770k so if your running the same CPU it will be interesting to know.

(I also swap AA with Vsync) i hate AA, it blurs the image.. id rather the crispier look with Vsync on of course. That might play a better toll with my framerate aswell.



Around the Network
Chazore on 11 August 2017
Pemalite said:
Chazore said:

Again I am aware of the test results, but unfortunetley the results don't always 100% pan out like they do on a console, such is the nature of PC gaming. What works in your rig for 1440p/1080p will not always work for someone else. My 980 should have been more than enough for GTA 5, as the same should have been for my i5-4670k, yet they were not able to give me a decent and constant 60fps with GTA V and that wasn't with everything maxed either at 1080p and I know I'm not one in 7 billion on this rock that would have experienced that either (because you know not everyone within PC gaming ahs the likes of a 980 either).

I know of the mining situation, but that is only a temporary issue and not one that will be around for years at a time, thus the 1070 as you put it would be the defacto buy, just do what the average person would do and wait, it won't kill you.

So it's not really a need then, it's a factual illusion that I bought the 1080ti for my monitor and needs?, because that's honestly how that sentence is going. I've watched the benchmarks for multiple takes on the i7-6700k being paired with a 1080 at 1440p max settings for various games and I wasn't too happy with how far the frame dips had gone (because a 1080 is more than enough right?, so who's fault is it for the stupidly low eprformance dips, the devs?), which is why I went for the 1080ti, because I wanted to avoid said dips.

You are basing everything around something that is ancedotal. I cannot possibly adhere to such things.

How does this respond to the multiple parts I was talking about above?.

The results you post aren't the same for eevryone either. What is a 1% min to 100% max is different for everyone, I know because I've compared my results from GTA V as an example with some of the 1440p benches and they aren't the same, not even close within the same tenth of the min/max number.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Pemalite on 11 August 2017
Chazore said:
Pemalite said:

You are basing everything around something that is ancedotal. I cannot possibly adhere to such things.

How does this respond to the multiple parts I was talking about above?.

The results you post aren't the same for eevryone either. What is a 1% min to 100% max is different for everyone, I know because I've compared my results from GTA V as an example with some of the 1440p benches and they aren't the same, not even close within the same tenth of the min/max number.

At 1440P. A Geforce 980 is not enough to retain 60fps in GTA5 anyway.
For 1080P it is more than sufficient.

And the benchmarks are an accurate reflection of what you can achieve, if the rest of your hardware is up to scratch that is.
Ivy Bridge is old. Let alone an i5 Ivy Bridge chip. That's not the benchmarks at fault.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

NobleTeam360 on 12 August 2017

1080



nanorazor on 12 August 2017

Waiting for Volta next year.



Around the Network
Chazore on 12 August 2017
Pemalite said:

At 1440P. A Geforce 980 is not enough to retain 60fps in GTA5 anyway.
For 1080P it is more than sufficient.

And the benchmarks are an accurate reflection of what you can achieve, if the rest of your hardware is up to scratch that is.
Ivy Bridge is old. Let alone an i5 Ivy Bridge chip. That's not the benchmarks at fault.

I wasn't using my 980 at 1440p at the time. I also have a 1080p 60hz monitor which I was running GTA 5 with at the time. It was not sufficient for 1080p, not with the 980 paired with the i5 4670k with 8gb DDR3.

 

The rest of my hardware is more than up to par with the new build, yet it won't always be the same as the benchmarks, because my build isn't exactly the same as theirs and even then it won't always be the same in exact results either. Btw I'm not just talking about an old i5 and a 980, I'm not using those parts anymore, I'm sporting an i7-6700k and a 1080ti for 1440p atm, so I've had and seen two sets of results at 1080p and 1440p to match them up against the benchmarks. I'm not someone that just maxes for no reason, I've tested all the settings back and forth, windows, bordlerless, full screen etc. I do like trying to see how my new/old builds stack up against the benches, to try to prove how "accurate" they are.

Ultimate thing about PC gaming is, results are not always the same, a console benchmark?, that will be due to all of them being built under a single specification. PC benchmarks are a "maybe", not a "definitely".



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Pemalite on 13 August 2017
Chazore said:

I wasn't using my 980 at 1440p at the time. I also have a 1080p 60hz monitor which I was running GTA 5 with at the time. It was not sufficient for 1080p, not with the 980 paired with the i5 4670k with 8gb DDR3.

Then something was wrong with your rig.
Ancedotal evidence isn't sufficient evidence.

 

 

 

 



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

OTBWY on 13 August 2017

I have a 6700k and a GTX 1080, so obviously I recommend that. I also have a Asus ROG Swift PG279Q Gaming Monitor giving me 165hz, G-sync goodness at 2560 x 1440.



Chazore on 13 August 2017
Pemalite said:

Then something was wrong with your rig.
Ancedotal evidence isn't sufficient evidence.

Nothign was wrong with my rig when it came to other games though.

 

Yes, evidence from the benches on those sites are hardly reliable.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Pemalite on 13 August 2017
Chazore said:
Pemalite said:

Then something was wrong with your rig.
Ancedotal evidence isn't sufficient evidence.

Nothign was wrong with my rig when it came to other games though.

 

Yes, evidence from the benches on those sites are hardly reliable.

They are certainly reliable. *face palm*
This is why people believe the earth is flat in 2017. :P



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--