RejZoRSays to a group of people who would buy GeForce just because it's GeForce. And you're expecting them to be rational. Ok...

I don't see any problem if they use presentations to educate people about actual benefits for that extra price. Lets be honest, if card has twice the bus width for $20 and we know AMD is superior when it comes to DX12/Vulkan, this already tells the card will last you a lot longer for tiny extra cost. You have to be a fool not to take it.

$20 can mean a lot to some people, especially outside US.

If you're from Kazahstan maybe. If you're from any western country, bullshit. And if $20 difference is a problem, how on Earth did you buy the PC in the first place?

newtekie1That's a slipper slope. If you're going to save that little bit more and get the extra $30 to get the RX 470, then you might as well go a little further and save another $20 past that and get the GTX 1060. See how that works?

RX470 is actually just $20 more than 1050Ti now. And no, you're equating $40 more to $20 more. If the product can justify that difference, then by all means. I'd easily pay (and I have) even $40 more. But for $20 more, getting a card with twice the bus width and superior DX12/Vulkan support, anytime.

RejZoRIf you're from Kazahstan maybe. If you're from any western country, bullshit. And if $20 difference is a problem, how on Earth did you buy the PC in the first place?

Western maybe, in the east it's a different story. Especially since distributor gouges prices which result in seller also gouging prices. Don't assume everyone is fine with an extra "$20"

newtekie1That's a slipper slope. If you're going to save that little bit more and get the extra $30 to get the RX 470, then you might as well go a little further and save another $20 past that and get the GTX 1060. See how that works?

Wrong. That's a fallacy in this case. It's called dimishing returns. If 20/30 bucks grants you a 50% improvement, but another 20/30 grants you 20% (pulled out of my ass), then clearly it's worth spending the initial 30, but not another 30 on top. And if you're so poor as having to buy these worthless cards, then you also have a maximum dollar cap. The 470 is a clear winner in any situation.

AMD is always competitive at the low end, b/c nvidia overcharges. The dummies will pay it, so don't let yourself be a dummy.

TheGuruStudWrong. That's a fallacy in this case. It's called dimishing returns. If 30 bucks grants you a 50% improvement, but another 20/30 grants you 20% (pulled out of my ass), then clearly it's worth spending the initial 30, but not another 30 on top. Ans if you're so poor as having to buy these worthless cards, then you also have a maximum dollar cap. The 470 is a clear winner in any situation.

This! People don't realize that having twice the bus width for just $20 more is a great deal. I mean, bus width has been the biggest factor for ages and that hasn't really changed. It's a no brainer. I really don't know why on Earth would ANY gamer want to buy a sub 256bit graphic card today.

RX 470 was a bit pointless card when it was released at $179(RX 480 4GB at $199 was no brainer in comparison). Good to see proper price war.

RejZoRRX470 is actually just $20 more than 1050Ti now. And no, you're equating $40 more to $20 more. If the product can justify that difference, then by all means. I'd easily pay (and I have) even $40 more. But for $20 more, getting a card with twice the bus width and superior DX12/Vulkan support, anytime.

Again, twice the bus width means nothing if the performance isn't there, because performance is all that matters. And we are believing AMD's claims on performance, which I won't do because they do nothing but lie about them. The RX470 probably does do better at Vulkan/DX12, I mean the games AMD used for their performance numbers were only using those, so it makes sense. But Vulkan/DX12 are still new. And matter so little to the developers that most new games don't even have them when the game is released. So you have to wait a few weeks after the game is released to enjoy the performance benefits. Meh, I've likely already beat the game by then.

TheGuruStudWrong. That's a fallacy in this case. It's called dimishing returns. If 20/30 bucks grants you a 50% improvement, but another 20/30 grants you 20% (pulled out of my ass), then clearly it's worth spending the initial 30, but not another 30 on top. Ans if you're so poor as having to buy these worthless cards, then you also have a maximum dollar cap. The 470 is a clear winner in any situation.

First of all, we need to really ask if we will be seeing 50% greater performance. I'd like to know where all these people claiming that are getting their numbers. Even if you believe the AMD slides, which I don't because they always over-inflate the performance of their cards, they are only claiming a 30% performance improvement over the 1050Ti. But to believe that, you'd have to believe that the 1050Ti is going to basically perform the same as the GTX960. But I just don't see that happening. Not when we've got stock GTX1060s surpasing GTX980 performance and when you overclock them they are nipping at the heels of the GTX980Ti performance. Compared to the 1060, the 1050Ti looses 40% of the shaders and 33% of the memory bus. There is no way in hell that amounts to an over 50% performance penalty. It's just not going to happen.

Finally, even if you do believe the GTX1050Ti and GTX960 perform exactly the same, so there is a 50% performance improvement by going with the RX470, then there is almost the same performance improvement to jump to the GTX1060 3GB.

RejZoRThis! People don't realize that having twice the bus width for just $20 more is a great deal. I mean, bus width has been the biggest factor for ages and that hasn't really changed. It's a no brainer. I really don't know why on Earth would ANY gamer want to buy a sub 256bit graphic card today.

You keep talking about double the memory bus despite me explaining that is doesn't compare that way between AMD and nVidia. I guess you are one of the ones AMD has fooled with their marketing slides...

Looks like someone is desperate.

newtekie1Again, twice the bus width means nothing if the performance isn't there, because performance is all that matters. And we are believing AMD's claims on performance, which I won't do because they do nothing but lie about them. The RX470 probably does do better at Vulkan/DX12, I mean the games AMD used for their performance numbers were only using those, so it makes sense. But Vulkan/DX12 are still new. And matter so little to the developers that most new games don't even have them when the game is released. So you have to wait a few weeks after the game is released to enjoy the performance benefits. Meh, I've likely already beat the game by then.



First of all, we need to really ask if we will be seeing 50% greater performance. I'd like to know where all these people claiming that are getting their numbers. Even if you believe the AMD slides, which I don't because they always over-inflate the performance of their cards, they are only claiming a 30% performance improvement over the 1050Ti. But to believe that, you'd have to believe that the 1050Ti is going to basically perform the same as the GTX960. But I just don't see that happening. Not when we've got stock GTX1060s surpasing GTX980 performance and when you overclock them they are nipping at the heels of the GTX980Ti performance.



You keep talking about double the memory bus despite me explaining that is doesn't compare that way between AMD and nVidia. I guess you are one of the ones AMD has fooled with their marketing slides...

Yeah, I'm the one who got fooled by AMD slides. While using GeForce and showing you this benchmark:
www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/115/rx-480-dominates-gtx-1060-dx12-battlefield/index.html

Sure it's for RX480, but with RX470 you can expect at least GTX 1060 performance. And EA will use this engine for all games released from now on. What do you make up from that?

And I never said you get twice the performance, I said you get twice the bandwidth. Which we know that always translates to better performance and better longevity. Is that wort $20 more? In my book, absolutely.

RejZoRAnd I never said you get twice the performance, I said you get twice the bandwidth. Which we know that always translates to better performance and better longevity. Is that wort $20 more? In my book, absolutely.

I disagree SO much on this point. @newtekie1 is right. It still depends on the architecture and core count.

eh fawk off AMD
when you fail as offen and as miserably as you do you don't get to talk smack
especially when you are wrong bottom line is : nvidia cards don't have async because they don't need it and it would't offer any more performance if they did

also WTF: trollbait title much ?

EzioAsI disagree SO much on this point. @newtekie1 is right. It still depends on the architecture and core count.

You all behave like RX470 wasn't benchmarked to infinity and it was a slightly gimped RX480. So slightly most said it's better to shell out a bit extra and grab RX480. What does that tell you? Nothing apparently...

TheGuruStudAMD is always competitive at the low end, b/c nvidia overcharges.

If Nvidia overcharges at the low end, why is AMD already lowering prices on cards released like a month ago? Looks to me like AMD were overcharging?

Nvidia are hideously overcharging on the high end, have been for years but the charge very well at the low - mid end.

RejZoRSure it's for RX480, but with RX470 you can expect at least GTX 1060 performance.

Until I see it, I won't believe it. And even still, you're showing me a difference between the RX480 at 82FPS minimum vs the GTX1060 with a 76 FPS minimum and then saying that some how means the RX470 will give GTX1060 performance? No, sorry.

RejZoRAnd EA will use this engine for all games released from now on. What do you make up from that?

Besides BF1, do they have any games even worth mentioning coming out any time soon?

RejZoRAnd I never said you get twice the performance, I said you get twice the bandwidth. Which we know that always translates to better performance and better longevity. Is that wort $20 more? In my book, absolutely.

You haven't been saying twice the bandwidth, you've been saying twice the bus width. And no, bandwidth or bus width, does not always translate to better performance and better longevity. How many times do I have to tell you this? I mean the Fury X had 8 times the bus width of the GTX1080 and very nearly double the memory bandwidth. I've actually got a Fury X laying around, would you trade me a GTX1080 for it? Let's do it. Even if you don't have a GTX1080, just go buy one. I'll trade you this "much better" Fury X, you'll definitely come out ahead in the deal because the Fury X must perform so much better than the GTX1080 with his 8 times bigger memory bus and 2 times more memory bandwidth. Right?!?

Wait wait, I've got a better idea. I've got this R9 290x. It has double the memory bus of the GTX1080. I'll trade you that for a GTX1080. The R9 290x clearly has the upper hand and must perform better than a GTX1080, so you'll definitely be winning on that deal.

A lot of company overcharges when there's no competition. They want to maximize profits while they still have the time and luxury of doing so. When there is a competition, they drop prices.

RejZoRYou all behave like RX470 wasn't benchmarked to infinity and it was a slightly gimped RX480. So slightly most said it's better to shell out a bit extra and grab RX480. What does that tell you? Nothing apparently...

:confused: The point of the argument that you brought up was about the bandwidth (or was it bus width? You keep changing it). I was simply disagreeing with you (totally!) on that point. Why digress it now?

newtekie1Again, twice the bus width means nothing if the performance isn't there, because performance is all that matters. And we are believing AMD's claims on performance, which I won't do because they do nothing but lie about them. The RX470 probably does do better at Vulkan/DX12, I mean the games AMD used for their performance numbers were only using those, so it makes sense. But Vulkan/DX12 are still new. And matter so little to the developers that most new games don't even have them when the game is released. So you have to wait a few weeks after the game is released to enjoy the performance benefits. Meh, I've likely already beat the game by then.



First of all, we need to really ask if we will be seeing 50% greater performance. I'd like to know where all these people claiming that are getting their numbers. Even if you believe the AMD slides, which I don't because they always over-inflate the performance of their cards, they are only claiming a 30% performance improvement over the 1050Ti. But to believe that, you'd have to believe that the 1050Ti is going to basically perform the same as the GTX960. But I just don't see that happening. Not when we've got stock GTX1060s surpasing GTX980 performance and when you overclock them they are nipping at the heels of the GTX980Ti performance. Compared to the 1060, the 1050Ti looses 40% of the shaders and 33% of the memory bus. There is no way in hell that amounts to an over 50% performance penalty. It's just not going to happen.

Finally, even if you do believe the GTX1050Ti and GTX960 perform exactly the same, so there is a 50% performance improvement by going with the RX470, then there is almost the same performance improvement to jump to the GTX1060 3GB.

960 is half the performance of the a 1060 and 1050ti has lower clocks combined with the shit memory...sounds right to me. Unfortunately, almost no one OCs. People buying these don't have a clue. "Casual" (aka non-enthusiast wankers) gamers are infuriating.

EzioAsA lot of company overcharges when there's no competition. They want to maximize profits while they still have the time and luxury of doing so. When there is a competition, they drop prices.



:confused: The point of the argument that you brought up was about the bandwidth (or was it bus width? You keep changing it). I was simply disagreeing with you (totally!) on that point. Why digress it now?

My point was that when you buy RX470 you actually get A LOT of graphic card for only $20 more. Which part of that is not understandable? Just wondering.

the bottom line is : it doesn't matter what the card costs in eastern bumspank what matters is the performance per dollar; that is and will always be the only number you should be concerned with

OneMoarthe bottom line is : it doesn't matter what the card costs in eastern bumspank what matters is the performance per dollar; that is and will always be the only number you should be concerned with

That sounds a little offensive. I thought we were better than that.

this is reality what you need to pay for a particular product is entirely irrelevant: what matters is the cost to benefit ratio
and personally I would't touch either the 960 or 470 with a 10 foot insulted pole

because they are both useless at anything close to 1080p

barely scraping 60fps is not acceptable the closer to the limits you run any bit of hardware the more issues you can expect

nvidia's tech is just superior to AMD's nothing about that has changed

OneMoarthis is reality what you need to pay for a particular product is entirely irrelevant: what matters is the cost to benefit ratio
and personally I would't touch either the 960 or 470 with a 10 foot insulted pole
because they are both useless at anything close to 1080p

I wasn't referring to that...but anyway, I understand your opinion, but it doesn't apply to everyone. You don't want to get a mid-range card? Fine, but for some of us, even mid-range cards are already too expensive and more than good enough. You can't think that everyone is willing or able to shell out "less than $200" for a video card and willing to get higher than 1080p monitor. This is already way off tangent anyway, so I won't bother with the discussion (if it really is one) anymore.

rtwjunkieWhy does there need to be Nvidia people and AMD people? And why is one side always supposedly stupid?

I think this question is harder than the one asked by Freud, "What exactly do women want ??"

TheGuruStud960 is half the performance of the a 1060 and 1050ti has lower clocks combined with the shit memory...sounds right to me. Unfortunately, almost no one OCs. People buying these don't have a clue. "Casual" (aka non-enthusiast wankers) gamers are infuriating.

I know the 960 is half the performance of the 1060, my point is I don't think the 1050Ti will be that slow. AMD's claim is that the 1050Ti will be that slow, but I don't think it will be.

OneMoarbecause they are both useless at anything close to 1080p

The funny thing is, I use my 960 to play games at 1440p all the time. Mainly Fallout 4 right now though.

OneMoarthis is reality what you need to pay for a particular product is entirely irrelevant: what matters is the cost to benefit ratio
and personally I would't touch either the 960 or 470 with a 10 foot insulted pole

because they are both useless at anything close to 1080p

barely scraping 60fps is not acceptable the closer to the limits you run any bit of hardware the more issues you can expect

nvidia's tech is just superior to AMD's nothing about that has changed

Considering RX470 is almost RX480 which is about GTX 980 speeds, I'd greatly disagree with that. These cards aren't meant for Ultra settings anyway, so they have plenty grunt for 1080p at medium or even some high settings.