Upgrading from a 290X

[IEC]

Sapphire Nitro Fury owner here. I run 3440x1440 @ 75Hz and it's definitely an option, especially if you have Freesync.

If you plan to replace with Vega like I do the 4GB VRAM is never going to be an issue.

1070 isn't a bad option either if you plan to hold for 1-2 years.

 

[Head1985]

I'd go for the 1080 if you have the money, probably wait a little bit and see if the prices fall, otherwise just dish out the cash and get the 1080. The 1070 is just not in a good price/performance slot, its way too slow compared to the 1080 and still costs quite a lot.

Alternatively I'd wait for AMD to release Vega in January on a paper launch and wait for availability in February.

Yeah 1080 is 25-35% faster at same clock in most games..It cost 30-50% more depends where you live.Not better price/performance, but its close and those 20 FPS more in 1440P is big difference.

its like upgrade from 1080 to TITANXP.

 

[Carfax83]

He is asking for our opinions on 1440p gaming. I'm running 3440 x 1440 vs 2560x1440 so 33% higher and doing well with a single fury.

And as I said before, what does,"doing well" mean? It's a subjective term. If you want to convince me, you'll have to give me hard numbers. I'm pretty sure that you're not maxing out the latest AAA titles at 3440x1440 and getting 60 FPS for example, so you're obviously going to make some sacrifices in IQ or frame rate.

You forgot to point out that the 980 Ti Gaming is 2% faster than the 1070 Gaming. It all comes down to price. Cheapest 1070 is $400, 30% more expensive than the Fury Nitro.

GTX 980 Ti is not a recommended buy over the GTX 1070 for me. It might be slightly faster in DX11, but falls behind noticeably with DX12 and Vulkan whilst lacking some of the nice features of Pascal like full HEVC decoding support, concurrent asynchronous compute etcetera... As for price, the aftermarket 1070 is about 30% faster than the Fury plus it has double the VRAM, so 30% more expensive might be justifiable.

It makes sense to buy a cheaper custom 980 Ti over 1070 unless you believe that either DX12 will take over or Nvidia will stop supporting Maxwell. Do you believe those will happen?

I believe that Pascal has much better support for DX12 and Vulkan than the GTX 980 Ti, so that's what I would recommend as the technological trend is heading towards low level APIs for gaming..

 

[Maverick177]

@Carfax83

" technological trend is heading towards low level APIs for gaming.."

Well OP should have even more reasons to buy Fury or FuryX.

 

[Carfax83]

@Carfax83

" technological trend is heading towards low level APIs for gaming.."

Well OP should have even more reasons to buy Fury or FuryX.

This would be true if Fury or FuryX was dominating DX12 and Vulkan, but they aren't. Pascal is ahead by a significant margin. Take a look at Ashes of the Singularity for instance, which is currently the best programmed DX12 title out there:

 

[Maverick177]

Where are the rest of the DX12 benchmarks? Would you mind posting a benchmark of SEVERAL other DX12 games?

 

[Thinker_145]

So 3GB GTX 1060 is a terrible buy but people should totally be buying the 4GB Fury cards? lol the logic of this forum.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Thinker_145]

I have been playing games with Intel HD graphics and I have been doing well. This is undisputable proof that Intel HD graphics is all you need.

Sent from my HTC One M9


Trolling is not allowed
Markfw900
Anandtech Super Moderator

 

[nurturedhate]

So 3GB GTX 1060 is a terrible buy but people should totally be buying the 4GB Fury cards? lol the logic of this forum.

Sent from my HTC One M9

Agreed. The OP specifically mentions keeping the card for several years. This pretty much rules out 4gb cards at 1440p. The only sane option at this time would be 1070/1080 and even keeping them for a couple of years smells like a bad idea as well but it is what it is. Titan XP at $1200 is asinine and there's really nothing at this moment from AMD sad to say. The only way I'd consider a fury x or a 980ti is if they were under $300 new including tax and then I'd still be ditching it a year from now. Honestly I'd be keeping an eye out on any deals on 1070/1080 between now and Black Friday

 

[Bacon1]

So 3GB GTX 1060 is a terrible buy but people should totally be buying the 4GB Fury cards? lol the logic of this forum.

Sent from my HTC One M9

4GB is what all mid-high end cards last two generations have had minimum of. Its also 25% more ram than 3GB and HBM works much better than GDDR5. You don't see Fury failing @ 4k compared to GDDR5 based cards which tend to lose performance much faster.

I see a Nano 4 FPS slower than a 1070, where is the issue? Or are you trying to compare the $240 reference 480 vs the $300 reference 1060 which have the same FPS?

And as I said before, what does,"doing well" mean? It's a subjective term. If you want to convince me, you'll have to give me hard numbers. I'm pretty sure that you're not maxing out the latest AAA titles at 3440x1440 and getting 60 FPS for example, so you're obviously going to make some sacrifices in IQ or frame rate.

Yes I turn down settings that make almost no IQ gain but have massive FPS hits. "High" vs "Very High" often look identical when playing and you have to tab back and forth between two still pictures to try to find minute differences.

The difference is, you are paying 30% more, but only getting that 30% difference in some games, in others, it's the same or even slower.

Amazing how that 4GB of VRAM isn't limiting it at 4k Ultra 8x TSSAA. That 3GB 780 Ti though? Not doing so well.

 

[Thinker_145]

4GB is what all mid-high end cards last two generations have had minimum of. Its also 25% more ram than 3GB and HBM works much better than GDDR5. You don't see Fury failing @ 4k compared to GDDR5 based cards which tend to lose performance much faster.


I see a Nano 4 FPS slower than a 1070, where is the issue? Or are you trying to compare the $240 reference 480 vs the $300 reference 1060 which have the same FPS?


Yes I turn down settings that make almost no IQ gain but have massive FPS hits. "High" vs "Very High" often look identical when playing and you have to tab back and forth between two still pictures to try to find minute differences.

The difference is, you are paying 30% more, but only getting that 30% difference in some games, in others, it's the same or even slower.

Amazing how that 4GB of VRAM isn't limiting it at 4k Ultra 8x TSSAA. That 3GB 780 Ti though? Not doing so well.

lol you are still living in the world where there is a $60 difference between 480 and 1060? That alone would be enough to not take someone seriously.

So you are gonna use the tired argument of only using current games to predict VRAM requirements?

Different architectures have historically suffered different performance drop at extreme resolutions that has nothing to do with VRAM. That is not going to be any help when a game forces you have to more VRAM like Doom. The fact that the PS4 Pro has so much VRAM is a death sentence for 4GB cards going into the future.

People over estimate how much VRAM higher resolutions need. They need more GPU grunt first and foremost. When a game needs high VRAM it does so at lower resolutions as well.

It has been discussed time and time again on these forums that people who argued for lower VRAM cards have always been wrong. You want to continue to sing their song by all means do so.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Thinker_145]

4GB is actually 33% more than 3GB and yes it is important when comparing a 1060 and 480. However just because 4GB was the norm for mid range cards doesn't mean they will continue to get a pass forever. Every single $250+ card released this gen is 6GB+.

People made so much fuss over the VRAM difference in 390/390X vs 970/980 and rightfully so I may add. But now defending the fury cards so senselessly just makes you look bad.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[PhonakV30]

hmm R9 290X is really decent card.why upgrade? different between GTX1070 and R9 290X is not very much.if you look at Doom , Only 20 fps more ( 126 vs 106).You want to feel huge jump? get GTX1080.

 

[krumme]

hmm R9 290X is really decent card.why upgrade? different between GTX1070 and R9 290X is not very much.if you look at Doom , Only 20 fps more ( 126 vs 106).You want to feel huge jump? get GTX1080.

Imo thats the sad reality. 290x is a damn fast card for the new api games. It might be old and people have the upgrade itch and perhaps they even got the 290x for cheap.

For dx12 vulcan whatever forward the difference of 290x and 1070 is in my world not something you you actually "feel". Its a personal matter but imo its either fork out for the 1080 or better wait for vega 1080ti whatever.

 

[ConsoleLover]

Your entire post is misinformation. The GTX1080'S perf/$ is way lower than 1070 while being about 20% faster. And Vega is launching in H1 2017, not Q1. H1 points to the May/June time frame, not January/February.

AMD themselves said they are targeting a Q1 launch for the desktop parts in TWO of their latest events, with wide availability in Q2. H1 is server parts which AMD specifically said.

 

[Bacon1]

lol you are still living in the world where there is a $60 difference between 480 and 1060? That alone would be enough to not take someone seriously.

No I was pointing out that comparing reference cards isn't showing real world since everyone buys custom ones, glad you agree.

So you are gonna use the tired argument of only using current games to predict VRAM requirements?

Well sadly we can't test future games. But we do know that the limitation hasn't hurt it yet even when doing 4k 4xSSAA 4GB of HBM held upto 12GB of GDDR5. I don't think you can get a more crazy memory hog than that.

game forces you have to more VRAM like Doom

Did you miss doom running @ 4k 8x TSSAA Ultra settings from my post? Still faster than the 1070.

 

[Thinker_145]

No I was pointing out that comparing reference cards isn't showing real world since everyone buys custom ones, glad you agree.



Well sadly we can't test future games. But we do know that the limitation hasn't hurt it yet even when doing 4k 4xSSAA 4GB of HBM held upto 12GB of GDDR5. I don't think you can get a more crazy memory hog than that.



Did you miss doom running @ 4k 8x TSSAA Ultra settings from my post? Still faster than the 1070.

I am talking about Doom nightmare settings which you cannot even select unless you have 5GB vram. Where'd the magical HBM2 ram go then?

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Bacon1]

I am talking about Doom nightmare settings which you cannot even select unless you have 5GB vram. Where'd the magical HBM2 ram go then?

You can force the setting on if you want.

+menu_advanced_AllowAllSettings 1

Which of these two images do you think looks better?

 

[vissarix]

I've moved to a 1440p/60 monitor and I feel I need more GPU muscle to power this in gaming. Which GPU would give me a noticeable bump in performance and last for the next couple of years? 1060, 1070, or 1080?

I'm leaning towards the 1070, do you guys think that's the best choice?

It depends on how much you are willing to spend...a $300 fury doesnt make sense since its just 10-15% faster then the gpu you already have...the gtx1070 is quite faster then the r9 290x and it doesnt cost a fortune...the gtx 1080 would be the best but it costs quite a lot so i would go for a gtx1070 and then upgrade again 2 years from now..

 

[Thinker_145]

You can force the setting on if you want.

+menu_advanced_AllowAllSettings 1

Which of these two images do you think looks better?

So having to hack our way through and how does it perform?

I can't say that as I am out on vacations and only have a smartphone for a few days. You are shifting goal posts now big time.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[zinfamous]

Agreed. The OP specifically mentions keeping the card for several years. This pretty much rules out 4gb cards at 1440p. The only sane option at this time would be 1070/1080 and even keeping them for a couple of years smells like a bad idea as well but it is what it is. Titan XP at $1200 is asinine and there's really nothing at this moment from AMD sad to say. The only way I'd consider a fury x or a 980ti is if they were under $300 new including tax and then I'd still be ditching it a year from now. Honestly I'd be keeping an eye out on any deals on 1070/1080 between now and Black Friday

Well, I default towards more physical memory is always better, but if we were to spend a few moments plowing the thinking of the 3gb/1060 partisans, they argue that "nVidia has superior memory compression", whatever that means, so those cards are more efficient with x-y amount of memory compared to x memory on AMD cards.

So let's stick with that line of reasoning. The Fury cards use 4gb of HBM with what is it, 4096 bit compared to 256/384/512 bit of the cards in direct competition. If we were to agree that the argument for lower physical memory is sufficient in cases where greater bandwidth allows for more efficient texture swapping, thus Ultra texture settings are not an issue on low memory cards, then wouldn't 4gb HBM 4096bit be equal, if not superior, to 6gb cards that only offer 384 bit Bus?

 

[tviceman]

AMD themselves said they are targeting a Q1 launch for the desktop parts in TWO of their latest events, with wide availability in Q2. H1 is server parts which AMD specifically said.

Nope, you're wrong. There is an entire thread In this forum devoted to Vega's release window. It's H1, not Q1.

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics...h1-2017-launch/?set_mobile_full_site_cookie=1

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4zr8co/amd_said_vega_is_coming_in_h1_of_2017_in_a/


http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-mentions-vega-enthusiast-to-be-released-h1-2017.html

 

[nurturedhate]

Well, I default towards more physical memory is always better, but if we were to spend a few moments plowing the thinking of the 3gb/1060 partisans, they argue that "nVidia has superior memory compression", whatever that means, so those cards are more efficient with x-y amount of memory compared to x memory on AMD cards.

So let's stick with that line of reasoning. The Fury cards use 4gb of HBM with what is it, 4096 bit compared to 256/384/512 bit of the cards in direct competition. If we were to agree that the argument for lower physical memory is sufficient in cases where greater bandwidth allows for more efficient texture swapping, thus Ultra texture settings are not an issue on low memory cards, then wouldn't 4gb HBM 4096bit be equal, if not superior, to 6gb cards that only offer 384 bit Bus?

Bandwidth does not equal memory management. Memory management is what we see with Fury/970 and frankly every card. Keeping this within the scope of the OP, they stated they wanted a card to last a couple years. Assuming "a couple" refers to 2+ years that hurts furyx with it's 4gb and 980ti with its eventual keplering, basically they are in similar boats. I would even hazard to guess the furyx would age a hair better than the 980ti. But none of that changes the original parameters of the OP, that is to keep a card longer than 2 years. If AMD had a newer comparable card, Vega, I would lean towards it all things roughly equal seeing as how the recent past has played out. And let's not bring up power consumption differences, people would be far better off changing some light bulbs.

 

[zinfamous]

Bandwidth does not equal memory management. Memory management is what we see with Fury/970 and frankly every card. Keeping this within the scope of the OP, they stated they wanted a card to last a couple years. Assuming "a couple" refers to 2+ years that hurts furyx with it's 4gb and 980ti with its eventual keplering, basically they are in similar boats. I would even hazard to guess the furyx would age a hair better than the 980ti. But none of that changes the original parameters of the OP, that is to keep a card longer than 2 years. If AMD had a newer comparable card, Vega, I would lean towards it all things roughly equal seeing as how the recent past has played out. And let's not bring up power consumption differences, people would be far better off changing some light bulbs.

Ah OK, I was just wondering about that specific parameter as it relates to this argument that I have seen in other threads. I still think 1070 is the best bet for the OP when it comes to what he is looking for (though I imagine that a sub $300 Nitro would be a decent purchase for the next 1-2 years, and should age better if looking at current data comparing those architectures). I'd still be picking up a 1070 if I were in his shoes, one of those reasons actually being that I don't like long cards. 😀

And absolutely agree on power conservation/light bulbs. It's one of the more absurd arguments I've seen around here in an attempt to argue for a metric that really isn't applicable to the type of users that the argument would be aimed at. Swap out two lightbulbs for LEDs inyour house and you already see a greater benefit in annual power savings than you would from a GPU power draw.

 

[frozentundra123456]

4GB is actually 33% more than 3GB and yes it is important when comparing a 1060 and 480. However just because 4GB was the norm for mid range cards doesn't mean they will continue to get a pass forever. Every single $250+ card released this gen is 6GB+.

People made so much fuss over the VRAM difference in 390/390X vs 970/980 and rightfully so I may add. But now defending the fury cards so senselessly just makes you look bad.

Sent from my HTC One M9

Yea, it is unbelievable the venom directed at a 3gb card while a 4gb card is given a free pass, even when in the same performance category, much less when the 4gb card is in a much higher performance class like the Fury X.