Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You think it will help? I am so not qualify to overclock things. How about the heat with all my 10 hours session :D

 

In BoS, it definitely would. (Although the current state of engine optimization would be a major and negative factor in this case, ahem...)

Regarding heat, it depends on how much you'll be able to squeeze from your chip. Once it's stable, it's stable. And efficient air cooling wouldn't be too expensive.

 

As for me, I'm torn... do I sell my 970 now, wait a few months, hope for 1070/1080 prices to stabilize and see what happens with Polaris... ? Or do I stick with my card until the end of the year... ? Help... :(

Edited by Picchio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 see what happens with Polaris... ? Or do I stick with my card until the end of the year... ? Help... :(

Don't AMD and DX9 dosn't like each other, I had the R9 295x2 before and it didn't liked BOS at all. Just to be clear my R9 295X2 was on par with my new GTX 1080 in a lot's of game but BoS.

 

Again it depend of your resolution  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BoS isn't my primary concern (I can only hope for it to move forward from its DX9 architecture, but I'm not tying my choice to that)... as for res, I always downsample...

So what do I do? Hmm...

Edited by Picchio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your res? I play with a friend he have a GTX 980 and he play @ 1080P (full HD) I play 4K with my GTX1080 we're both Ultra setting and when we compare our frame rate he, most of the times beats me especially on the deck.

Edited by ATAG_dB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, I run BoS at 2560x1600, Ultra. Being stable at 60 isn't a necessity for me, what I seek is a newer card that can be better than my 970, especially before its commercial value sinks too deep.

Edited by Picchio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then go for it don't get me wrong, it's the best card on the market, It give me 100+ FPS in GTA V, in DCS on the deck over nevada and over London in CloD, but still struggle to provide stable frame rate in BoS.

 

C'est pour toi, si ton jeu principale est BoS le gain n'est pas assez significatif pour justifiez le prix selon moi  

Edited by ATAG_dB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run at 4K Ultra very well.

Does resolution have anything to do with CPU load? I figure CPU is all physics and drawing objects but resolution is all GPU.

 

Oh and I have a sausage dog too and as near as I can tell he doesn't have any effect on game performance. :-D unless you count me constantly pausing the sim to stop him from chewing up the chair in my gaming room. Which I suppose counts as a substantial drop in FPS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run at 4K Ultra very well.

Does resolution have anything to do with CPU load? I figure CPU is all physics and drawing objects but resolution is all GPU.

 

 

lol They have so much personality don't they :D 

 

I don't know about that maybe it does on BoS. I've change my R9 295x2 because I simply couldn't play BOS more then 30 minutes without getting nauseus before. I now can play 5 hrs straight, so it is a win for me but I was expecting an FPS boost and no shutter that's all. 

 

I mean you have 2 Titan X SLi according to your sigs, to have to run very well, I call that poorly optimized  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter how well 'optimised' BoS is, DX9 is very CPU dependant, if you are running a big graphic card at high settings the CPU must feed it, faster CPU/higher clock rate, better min Frame rate

 

(not quite that simple , but is a correct generalization)  :) BoS in itself,   AI, FM and environment is also very CPU heavy = perfect storm for CPU bound program

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much can I safely overclock my CPU you think? And Dakpilot what is your performance at 4K with your 970? 

Edited by ATAG_dB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 3570k is a fairly old CPU by now, the MB came with software that allows automated overclocking with one key press, my previous computer was not so easy ..lots of googling to do manual overclock etc, but the benefits were clear then with a 1366 socket i7.

 

As for how much you could overclock your current CPU I have no idea, but info is available,  a 4Ghz O/C would be easily achievable, I myself use an H100i cooler and this gives an easy 4.5Ghz 2547 O/C without any heat issues whatsoever, and I live in a fairly hot climate

 

K series CPU are only limited by temps up to about 4.5-5.0 Ghz max, this is what they are designed for and why a premium is paid 

 

On the ground I do not drop below 30 fps and things are pretty much always stutter free, after takeoff it is mostly 60+ fps, but during heavy combat at low level over the city it can also drop to the mid 30's, but remains smooth, this at ultra with 2X AA at 4K non full screen, 120 frame rate limit Vsync off

 

I realise a 970 at 4K is very much at it's performance edge , but get very reasonable results, with my current set up there is a good balance of CPU and GPU, both being the limiting factor pretty much at the same time.

 

Currently with BoS, a GPU upgrade would give Me little performance increase unless I also increased CPU performance as well

 

FPS is not a limiting factor, but having smooth stutter free gameplay is the most important thing 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running BoS with 2x R9 290x and it run perfectly super smooth.. all maxed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 this at ultra with 2X AA at 4K non full screen, 120 frame rate limit Vsync off

 

 

FPS is not a limiting factor, but having smooth stutter free gameplay is the most important thing 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

For me too 45+ stable everiwhere will make me happy, I think my problem is on the CPU thanks I'll check it out thanks. My I ask why not full screen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think it will help? I am so not qualify to overclock things. How about the heat with all my 10 hours session :D

 

Yes you should. I went from 4.0 to 4.7 and it made a huge difference. During stress tests temps go up a bit, but during long sessions of Il-2 this is not really the case. I would not worry about that.

 

Grt M 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but I'm not convinced BOS is more CPU heavy than other games. At 2560x1440 ultra settings on my i5-4670 @ 4.50Ghz and a single 980, I get benchmarking at ~60 FPS near ground in Moscow summer map. GPU load is at near 100%, with all 4 CPU cores working at 40-60%.

 

I figured the bottleneck was the GPU, so I got myself another 980 to run in SLI yesterday. Now I get benchmarkings at ~80 FPS. Both GPU's are working at 50-60%, and CPU is still working at about 50%. To compare, in Fallout 4 both GPUs are working at 95-100%, CPU at 70-90%, and I get FPS from 120-160.

 

So what's keping BOM from performing better? Is it due to poor SL-optimisation, or is it just the coding in general? ATAG_dB, what's the load on your 1080 GPU and CPU in BOS?

 

Of course, 80 FPS is more than playable in a flight sim. But we usually get the performance argument from devs when we ask for more, like longer drawing distance or more AI. I'd wish they gave us an option to "max" things out more. I'm sure there's a lot of players out there with the hardware to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

For me too 45+ stable everiwhere will make me happy, I think my problem is on the CPU thanks I'll check it out thanks. My I ask why not full screen?

 

 

When run in non full screen windows has its own built in form of V sync that prevents screen tearing but not restricted to normal V sync of 60fps

 

by running in non full screen (visually no different in BoS from full screen if native res, or same as desktop res) I get no tearing and limiting FPS to 120 keeps from heavy GPU use (my monitor max is 60hz), if using V sync and frame rate drops below 60 you will most likely only be getting 30 fps regardless of what is shown, I believe a 'feature' of Nvidia Vsync.

 

When running in full screen I have to use Vsync or the screen tearing is very disturbing (can also look like stutter if not moving head), other people may have different experience as screen tearing is sometimes hardware dependant.

 

@ Yeti, if you turned down your 4670K to stock clocks I doubt you would get such FPS, if overclocking improves performance this is a sign of being CPU limited

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran a test a while back with one vs

2x SLI Titan X. At UHD resolution.

In situations of many other aircraft, big fights or ground start with lots of other planes. There was no difference in performance between 1 vs 2 GPUs. Both had the same frame rate regardless.

In a free flight scenario, there was a big improvement adding the second graphics card.

So those results suggest that the CPUs role in drawing objects, running AI and Physics caps your performance in those situations. And where that demand isn't present, the the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

 

It would be an easy test to see how resolution affects frame rate in the CPU dependant scenario. Just run the same track twice and change the resolution in the game 1080p vs 3840x2160 and see what you get. I'll try it myself when I have time.

There's a stock BoS mission "Dive Bombing" where a group of Stukas is all lined up on the runway I used for my CPU-limited test.

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you're right. When I turned down the CPU to 3.4 the FPS dropped to 50, and with both GPUs at about 40% load.

 

So with one 980 the GPU was the bottleneck and with 2 980s the CPU was. Kind of justifies getting a second 980 or a 1080, at least if you're playing at high res.

 

What I don't understand is why the CPU only runs at 50% load. You would think there'd be a way to utilise the CPU better. Other games run at a much higher load. Maybe it's above my tech level to understand...

Edited by 4./JG52_Yeti_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CPU core that handles the draw calls for the GPU/s is maxed/highly used (DX9 i believe only really uses one) the others may be much lower but under utilised, showing a low overall CPU usage such as 50%

 

This can be one reason that boosting clockspeed improves things in DX9 games

 

(not very technical, I know it is much more complicated  ;) but beyond my knowledge)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DX9 time to move from it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DX9 time to move from it.

Yes that would be fair to expect that. I would prefer that instead of new plane myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that the people working on new planes are the same that would work on updating the DX API..but understand that desire

 

New planes are needed to sell, to finance Game engine update though, I guess

 

Last time I checked a GTX 1080 was very nearly US $1000 in my part of the world.... :huh:

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Last time I checked a GTX 1080 was very nearly US $1000 in my part of the world.... :huh:

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Yes that's a pitty, and naive from my part that with it the game be running better    :unsure:  

Edited by ATAG_dB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, for those who cant go for high end stuff there is 1060 coming out right now and it seems that even in low/mid price segment Nvidia outperforms AMD. Only shame that 1060 can't be put in SLI. 

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, for those who cant go for high end stuff there is 1060 coming out right now and it seems that even in low/mid price segment Nvidia dominates AMD. Only shame that 1060 can't be put in SLI. 

 

You will notbe able to buy that thing anytime soon. Nvidia has not enough dies to supply the demand for 1080/1070 GPUs. You really thing they would sacrifice high value parts to bin them down and sell cheap? This vapour product is just a PR stunt to piss on AMDs leg. Parts are listed, but no delivery dates known. Paper launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, man, relax. Its not like I even wanted to buy it now. But regardless, I dont buy Reference (Founders Edition) cards. They have crap coolers and come with least bonuses. I'll probably wait for EVGA 1060 SSC when it gets available or rather when I will have money for it. 

 

And speaking of paper launch. AMD went with RX 480 and its availability is low as well, not to mention that its been a month and it : 

- still doesnt have non reference versions,

- blew up quite few motherboards because someone launched a card with such a major flaw as power consumption issue and forgot to warn customers.

 

I really would like to get positives from AMD but they simply fail to deliver any cards to meet Nvidia offer which gives latter company opportunity to squeeze customers like Ngreedia usually does. AMD also fails at drivers and custom designs yet. I rather keep hopes for new CPUs from AMD rather than GPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD is way ahead in DX12...total war warhammer shows this. So the Nvidia vs. AMD is right now. And AMD is ahead. FYI I have 980ti. Benchmark away I always go with real-world results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read a single review (I've read a least a dozen in the last 2 days) puts the performance of the 480 above the 1060. Not a single one. Besides, not a single flight sim I own uses dx12. At least not yet. And even where the amd 480 gets closer performance to the 1060 under certain settings, it still lags behind it.

 

I can't comment on Warhammer. I don't play it. Hope whatever you go with in either camp meets or exceeds your expectations when you make your next video card investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx 12 wont be the thing for the next 2 years, enough time for Nvidia catch up. That few games can take advantage of it is not enough. Especially when one adds to that factors like temperatures (and culture of work) and energy consumption, in both cases 480 is behind. 

 

Point is that at this range one can choose what he prefers since both products are close, with Nvidia having some advantage but not overwhelming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play at high resolution where AMD is usually a step ahead. So lagging behind is your opinion. Benchmarks and reviews of cards that are a day old and no driver support is no comparison. It depends what you are going for and what resolution you are playing at. Best believe this sim will adopt dx12 or the next IL2 franchise will have it.(not the upcoming Kuban expansion) AMD has been a leader in multi-monitor support as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking about the lower or mid price segment. 1080p and 1440p is standard resolution for this range. 4k is for much different cards like 1070/1080 and R9 Fury X, so I got no idea what resolutions you're talking about. And side note, based on tests I've seen either in Vulkan or OpenGL 1080 at 4k resolution gives twice as much FPS as RX 480, so its more like big "step behind".

 

 

Now how do the GTX 1060 and RX 480 stack up at 1080p? On average the 1060 was 12% faster across the 25 games tested. The only real outliers here include Hitman, Anno 2205, ARMA 3 and surprisingly Battlefield 4. Games where the margins were very close include Black Ops III, Batman, Ashes of the Singularity and The Division. 
Moving to 1440p the big picture doesn’t really change much, the 1060 is still 12% faster than the 480 and we see the same outliers. Compared to the R9 390 the GTX 1060 was on average 10% faster at 1440p and we see the same outliers from the RX 480 comparison.

Source: http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-benchmark-review-25-games-tested/ 

 

 

 

Benchmarks and reviews of cards that are a day old and no driver support is no comparison.

That's why reviewers had those cards for a little longer than one day, and RX 480 is not a day but a month old. Both also have proper drivers, especially the latter one, fixing the issue with power draw from motherboard PCI Ex slot. 

 

 

 

Best believe this sim will adopt dx12 or the next IL2 franchise will have it.

Which is still 2 years ahead. Plenty of time for the things to change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again its making a difference today in gaming...so 2 years is today as most gamers play more than 1 game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiro display tech does not mature on release and you know this...when both cards have non reference versions and the drivers are mature(at least a few months) Then I will give SOME validity to benchmarks.  Again, ahead is your  subjective opinion as you have not tested these cards.  What sights are you referring too, many as I am sure you know will favor one company over the next.  And also the title of the thread is 1080GTX so I guess we are talking all video cards?


for reference Nvidia has released 3 drivers and a hotfix since the release of the 1080gtx.

Edited by 6./ZG1_GrendelsDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies grenades dad. Here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/07/19/nvidia-gtx-1060-review/7

 

Responding on a phone.

 

It does show some improvements in some games. But at the prices you have to wonder if one or two frames per second is worth the extra money. Now you could argue that you can pair the 480s in crossfire, which at least you can do, unlike the 1060s, but then you'd compare that to a single 1070 at less cost... well draw your own conclusions as to which is better bang for the buck for you.

Not trying to argue for one verses the other. Which works best depends on budget, resolution, which multi monitor configuration, etc works best for a person's setup.

Edited by II./JG53_Beazil
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Beazil I just play at resolutions that until the 780 series Nvidia couldnt touch.

 

 

I will not jump on the bandwaggon based on benchmarks as they tend to not tell the whole story when paired with our hardware configs we have at home.  I think its funny when people can tell by a benchmark what is good for your setup.  If you run at 1080/1440 all of those cards will kill this game so its not an issue.  Also 480 compared to 1080?  apples too oranges I would think.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_12_support

Those are not outliers they are DX12 games.

 

This is the future...which is DX12 which sorry to say is NOW not 2 years.  These are programs my son and I will be running.(some we already do)  And since all games we play today run at 60fps...all the extra frames are not important to me and most who game at 60hz.  All I want is the best, and at higher resolution that is now finally Nvidia...But add DX12 and its a different ball game.  I have 2 980tis in my PC and have owned dozens of cards...I stopped purchasing on Benchmark data back when the 6800GT driver updated dominated the scene.  Many oldies might remember that.  My point I guess is lets let this unfold before we start handing out crowns.  Also now would be a good time to buy AMD stock as it has gone from $1.60 to $5.41.(no I dont have any as I am broke due to all the video cards I have bought).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me, I'm torn... do I sell my 970 now, wait a few months, hope for 1070/1080 prices to stabilize and see what happens with Polaris... ? Or do I stick with my card until the end of the year... ? Help... :(

How long you had your 970? I hope long enough. The 1060 has the same performance as your 970. That means at the end your card is around $175 worth with the small advantage over 1060 that the 970 has the SLI ability. However SLI with 970 is a nightmare thanks to Nvidia and his 3.5GB + 0.5 GB idea.

 

The 1080 is heavily overpriced +$300 more to pay. I got my 1070 for $439. I am glad I waited for the new Generation of Graphiccards!

 

Only shame that 1060 can't be put in SLI.

 

Only, is that a joke? The whole card is a huge shame. Cost $279 - $350 where a 1070 cost $439 - $600! Who want a performance same as the 970 that costed before the same price, too? Nobody! The 1060 could be a good card if the performance was between 980 and 980 TI. A Performance between 970 and 980 is a shame. Not worth the money. For $200-$279 its a good value for this card however if you can get over 50% more performance a 1070 for just $439 that kills the 1060 many times.

Edited by Superghostboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, you must have missed quite a bit over the net. With beta drivers and as properly GrendelsDad said on paper release, GTX 1060 outperforms 980 (at least 350$ if not more) in many titles and sometimes Radeon R390 X (still costs over 329$) or in few cases R9 Fury X - Overwatch in 1080p and 1440p, The Division, Hitman, Mirror’s Edge Catalyst, ARMA 3.

 

GTX 1060 vs GTX 980

So how does the 1060 compare to the 980? After all Nvidia promised the power of the GTX 980 for every gamer. Well they look to have delivered on that promise as overall the 1060 was 1% faster. That said for more than half the games tested the 1060 was slower, though in most of those games the margin was 5% or less.
hdgjU2U.png

 Source: http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-benchmark-review-25-games-tested/

 

GTX 960 was a slight increase GTX 770, 1060 offers performance sometimes over or sometimes equal to 980 in most cases while cheaper, cooler and still in default configuration. With overclocked editions that is going change even further. So far it is vastly superior to 970 man. 

 

 

 

 For $200-$279 its a good value for this card however if you can get over 50% more performance a 1070 for just $439 that kills the 1060 many times.

I'm sure its all that easy for everyone to spend money whenever they want ...

In my country 1070 is about 55-66 % more expensive than 1060, while 1060 is about 10-15% more expensive than available RX 480 (though I've found one card even cheaper than some 480s - ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 Turbo actually is cheaper than reference models of 480). With non referential models of 480 there might be no price difference between the two while performance gap exists. If you can, than sure, buy 1070. Or hell, if you can go for new Titan X. But to spend 250$ and 440$ is a big difference. Especially as 1070 was advertised as card with price point below 400 $ for MSRP, have yet to see one ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, you must have missed quite a bit over the net. With beta drivers and as properly GrendelsDad said on paper release, GTX 1060 outperforms 980 (at least 350$ if not more) in many titles and sometimes Radeon R390 X (still costs over 329$) or in few cases R9 Fury X - Overwatch in 1080p and 1440p, The Division, Hitman, Mirror’s Edge Catalyst, ARMA 3.

 Source: http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-benchmark-review-25-games-tested/

 

GTX 960 was a slight increase GTX 770, 1060 offers performance sometimes over or sometimes equal to 980 in most cases while cheaper, cooler and still in default configuration. With overclocked editions that is going change even further. So far it is vastly superior to 970 man. 

 

I'm sure its all that easy for everyone to spend money whenever they want ...

In my country 1070 is about 55-66 % more expensive than 1060, while 1060 is about 10-15% more expensive than available RX 480 (though I've found one card even cheaper than some 480s - ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 Turbo actually is cheaper than reference models of 480). With non referential models of 480 there might be no price difference between the two while performance gap exists. If you can, than sure, buy 1070. Or hell, if you can go for new Titan X. But to spend 250$ and 440$ is a big difference. Especially as 1070 was advertised as card with price point below 400 $ for MSRP, have yet to see one ...

 

You look here for the max possible FPS what is wrong! Do you think a FPS stay everytime on the same value? Never heard about min, avg and max FPS. From these three is min FPS the more important one because min FPS say you if the FPS goes below the locked FPS (VSYNC) or not. 1060 only improve the max FPS compared to 970 and 980. What means 10 FPS more? It means nothing if the price doesn't match the card performance. The 970 was the best card compared to 980 because the 980 was only 10 FPS faster than a 970 but did cost +$200 more. Now comes a 1060 for the same price as the old 970 that close the gap between both cards nothing special......

 

There is a used 970 100x better than a 1060. You get a 970 for around $175 much more cheaper than the 1060 itself and his 10 FPS improvement over the old generation. What means nothing to me because it takes not long where this card will be a bottleneck. Compared to a 1070 where you have a 50% Performance boost over a 970 and cost only +$100 more than a 970 and -$100 cheaper than a 980 costed before. Sounds more perfect that this 1060 bottleneck.

 

Where is the problem to grab a 1070 for 1900 zloty a really great value for this card. A 1060 cost 1200 zloty to a 1070 the difference is only 700 zloty. And the winner is again the 1070. You live inside the EU and you care about the price inside your country?

 

And BTW it seems a 970 and 980 overclocked are still faster than a 1060 overclocked like said!!!!! :big_boss:

post-14161-0-92760700-1469275116_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is obvious that FPS aren't locked at given value but change constantly. I've heard very well about min, avg and max FPS. If you would be so kind and take a look into the link I have posted you would notice that in mentioned titles (Overwatch, The Division, Mirrors Edge, Far Cry Primal, F1 2015, DirT Rally, Battlefield 4, Ashes of Singularity, Rainbow Six Siege, Mad Max, etc both min and average FPS are equal or better for GTX 1060 when compared to 980, for Hitman under Dx 11 and Dx 12 1060 outperforms 980 on average FPS, though margin is not big) Founders 1060 easily competes with 980 and leaves 970 behind. Now there are of course games where 970 comes close and 980 performs better, but its always the same for GPUs - various software reacts differently to new GPUs. 

 

What means 10 FPS more?

You mean at least 10 FPS more at the date of launch with beta drivers along with lower power consumption and over 10 deg cooler core. Also, average consumer does not buy 400+ $ GPU, thats why AMD first focuses on lower to mid price segments since thats where the money are. 

 

The 970 was the best card compared to 980 because the 980 was only 10 FPS faster than a 970 but did cost +$200 more.

Nobody denies that 970 was best choice at the time of its release with great overclocking potential. 

 

There is a used 970 100x better than a 1060.

And probably without a warranty...

 

Sounds more perfect that this 1060 bottleneck.

Sounds more like someone tries to justify spending more than 400 $ on GPU. It's funny that you call a card not yet even fully tested a bottleneck. 

 

Where is the problem to grab a 1070 for 1900 zloty a really great value for this card. A 1060 cost 1200 zloty to a 1070 the difference is only 700 zloty. And the winner is again the 1070. You live inside the EU and you care about the price inside your country?

I'm not sure how it looks in Kaliningrad, but here we have additional taxation over most of the things. Electronics with US prices dont apply here. One has to keep in mind VAT of 20+ % and other possible taxes. 

There is no 1070 for 1900 PLN, cheapest I could find in shop is 2249 PLN. Cheapest on auction portal is 2100 PLN with MSI Aero cooler, quite similar to reference one. 1060 is not really available so prices arent really set, but on average its 1250 to 1400 PLN. 

 

I live in EU and I care about my money spending since I have other expenses. 

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would be so kind and take a look into the link I have posted you would notice that in mentioned titles (Overwatch, The Division, Mirrors Edge, Far Cry Primal, F1 2015, DirT Rally, Battlefield 4, Ashes of Singularity, Rainbow Six Siege, Mad Max, etc both min and average FPS are equal or better for GTX 1060 when compared to 980, for Hitman under Dx 11 and Dx 12 1060 outperforms 980 on average FPS, though margin is not big) Founders 1060 easily competes with 980 and leaves 970 behind. Now there are of course games where 970 comes close and 980 performs better, but its always the same for GPUs - various software reacts differently to new GPUs.

 

 

Somehow this looks not good for the 1060. Nvidia did not lied about the Card Performance that is the same as the 980 but Maxwell scale better with overclocking than Pascal. What gives Maxwell a advantage over Pascal. Price + No better performance + No SLI = Trash

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVZmoYHBkWw

 

You mean at least 10 FPS more at the date of launch with beta drivers along with lower power consumption and over 10 deg cooler core. Also, average consumer does not buy 400+ $ GPU, thats why AMD first focuses on lower to mid price segments since thats where the money are.

 

Drivers are tools to cheat. Now the 970 will not have the special attention from Nivida about his 3.5 GB + 0.5 GB problem where tweaked Drivers are needed what makes the card even more worse. Who cares about the 10 FPS or 10 deg cooler core? We want see Performance for our money, do we. A 10 deg cooler core and less power consuming are side effects. Good to have but not that important. A very good example. The AMD RX 390 had a very similar performance same as the 970 but the power consuming was a lot higher and the price almost the same. More power consuming means more noise. AMD RX390 vs 970 who wins? The 970 is clear the winner same to better performance with less power consuming than the AMD RX390. With the RX480 AMD reduced just the power consuming from his card what is a good way for future cards. The Performance from the RX480 remain the same as RX390 had. A RX390 used is still better than the RX480 if you get this card cheaper than a used 970 or 980. Still a used 970 or 980 remain the used best card ready to be overclocked to surpass the 1060 in everything.......

 

And probably without a warranty...

 

LoL, the price from a 980 dropped to 1060 level and the price from a 970 even below if you worry about warranty. Somebody who look depth into his wallet choose a much cheaper used card sometimes even a used card with warranty . Grab a used 970 or 980 for around $200 + overclock it or buy another 970 or 980 if you have already one for SLI to surpass the 1060 even more thats the way. But nothing surpass the 1070

 

Sounds more like someone tries to justify spending more than 400 $ on GPU. It's funny that you call a card not yet even fully tested a bottleneck.

 

Not it sounds not, I waited for the 1060 to see how this cards performs. First I wanted to go with a 1080 but I have seen this -$300 cheaper card new and with two years warranty where I couldn't hold back to buy this sweet card. Who could not? The 1080 is not that fast. +20-30 FPS more with a 1080 for +$300 just overpriced. A 1060 sound even more worse no performance improvement over the older Generation no SLI Option and this for $300 not with me. The 1060 even more overpriced than the 1080. The 1070 for $439 a perfect price for a perfect card can go with SLI even further if I want. Just +$100 from a 1060 to a 1070 to a +50% better Performance.

 

I call this 1060 a bottleneck card still better than I could call it trash. What sounds even more accurate. Same Performance what the 970 & 980 had + Overclocked even worse than a 980 Overclocked + No SLI + heavily overpriced where a 1070 is just +$100 away + same price level from a 970 where this card was only -10 FPS slower than a +$200 expensive 980 = 1060 bottleneck created just for the trash

 

 

I'm not sure how it looks in Kaliningrad, but here we have additional taxation over most of the things. Electronics with US prices dont apply here. One has to keep in mind VAT of 20+ % and other possible taxes. 

There is no 1070 for 1900 PLN, cheapest I could find in shop is 2249 PLN. Cheapest on auction portal is 2100 PLN with MSI Aero cooler, quite similar to reference one. 1060 is not really available so prices arent really set, but on average its 1250 to 1400 PLN

 

 

You live inside the EU where you are not forced to pay the price inside your country. You have the ability to grab the card somewhere else with no additional cost like tax and you still holding back? Unbelievable for me to understand. I never had a problem with a border that holds me back to grab something cheap. What are tax to me something what me never really bother. To have friends around the world is all what I needed to get this what I need. Thanks to a good friend I get a very good job inside Germany where I stay for a while enjoying the exchange from Euro to Rubel that just boost everything.

I did it not for the money or the exchange I did it because I enjoy it to meet the next challenge even if it's bigger than me to learn something new thats the way how my father taught me. This way I spend my life in different country's learning a lot from them and they from me. 

 

I stay here for a while. I build my new build here in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...