RX 470 and Q6700 or GTX 1050 Ti and Q6700

[EarthDog]

No thanks. I'd rather understand where you and mussels are getting this information from. I don't want to spread misinformation on the forums so I am asking for a source of your info so I can learn. It's quite contrary to what I've seen... hence why I asked. But if you guys can't support your assertion, I'll keep on keeping on until I see something otherwise.

 

[shork]

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...n-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers.2480806/

 

[Vya Domus]

No thanks. I'd rather understand where you and mussels are getting this information from. I don't want to spread misinformation on the forums so I am asking for a source of your info so I can learn. It's quite contrary to what I've seen... hence why I asked. But if you guys can't support your assertion, I'll keep on keeping on until I see something otherwise.

It's true and yes it's not that big of deal for some people, problem is this issue is observed in frametimes rather that avg framerate so you wont find much information backing this up from benchmarks. But search "AMD dx11 driver overhead" and you will find this explained somewhere. The basic idea is AMD's drivers are single threaded while Nvidia's are multithreaded.

Q6700 still has some power, relevant to a modern i3. especially overclocked they're still better than an AMD FX*

Just not true , let's not say silly things , I get it you guys aren't fond of AMD around here but claiming a CPU with an arhitecture from 2006 is better is just absurd.

 

[Mussels]

No thanks. I'd rather understand where you and mussels are getting this information from. I don't want to spread misinformation on the forums so I am asking for a source of your info so I can learn. It's quite contrary to what I've seen... hence why I asked. But if you guys can't support your assertion, I'll keep on keeping on until I see something otherwise.

a few years of experience and owning lots of hardware. I've got something like 8 gaming systems in the house right now, TPU sigs/specs arent big enough for my hoarding.
Doesnt show up in synthetic benchmarks because they arent where its CPU limited - thats things like single threaded RTS games where the AI is chewing into your CPU (this cant happen in FRAPS, benchies, etc)

People often claim its game engines being Nvidia biased, but if you are CPU limited in a particular title a 'weaker' Nvidia GPU can often give higher framerates because it eases off some of the overheads.


Also this is an english forum, if you force us to rely on google translate you can be punished for bad translations. This one came out about soup and bread, so its considered off topic - stay on topic.

 

[EarthDog]

Thanks mussels! I appreciate the explanation, but really need to see this proven in games with empirical testing. We've seen frame time tests, but that mostly means nothing since the frame times were imperceptible and it didn't translate to fps.

So while the statement may be true, less overhead, it really doesn't seem to matter much at all. At least not enough to suggest a specific brand for a low end gpu.

 

[Mussels]

Thanks mussels! I appreciate the explanation, but really need to see this proven in games with empirical testing. We've seen frame time tests, but that mostly means nothing since the frame times were imperceptible and it didn't translate to fps.

So while the statement may be true, less overhead, it really doesn't seem to matter much at all. At least not enough to suggest a specific brand for a low end gpu.

i tried to start a discussion on this a while back and got nowhere, because i couldnt really word the problem i see.

basically, if we run a benchmark (fraps recording, etc) on different GPU hardware to get 100% identical results, we're still totally ignoring the CPU aspect of it because everything else running at the time during normal gameplay (physics, audio, AI, etc) is all no longer present. That makes things like driver overheads, driver multi threading and similar simply not show up in the commonly used benchmarks.

Even when we have in game benchmarks, people find they have higher FPS than the games themselves for the same reasons - they're scripted to be the same every time, so the load is not indicative of real gameplay.

 

[Komshija]

RX 470 without a single doubt. It's way more powerful than GTX 1050Ti. Your CPU, however, will be the bottleneck in both scenarios.

 

[NooberMcFragbait]

I'm surprised that this hasn't already been mentioned (unless I missed it), but what about G-sync. If your monitor supports G-sync, or if you're willing to go get one, it might tip the scale towards going Nvidia.

Then again, I just found this link regarding AMDs response to GSync:
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...with-a-free-driver-update-nvidia-rebuts-fight

Edit: FYI G-Sync is a technology for matching framerates and monitor refresh rates to eliminate tearing in the image.

Info dump about tearing and V-Sync:
https://hardforum.com/threads/how-vsync-works-and-why-people-loathe-it.928593/

 

[sneekypeet]

Thread cleansed, any more off topic banter or the like will be rewarded.

Also this is an english forum, if you force us to rely on google translate you can be punished for bad translations. This one came out about soup and bread, so its considered off topic - stay on topic.

This, lots of this!

 

[Kanan]

"infinitely"?

20% more like it.

regardless of bottlenecking, i wouldnt recommend buying a cheaper GPU just to avoid it, what about buying the better GPU, then down the road upgrading CPU?that P.O.S. CPU needs to go anyway....upgrading that CPU to a modern CPU would be MUCH closer to an "infinitely" more powerful system

This. Go for the RX 470, it's much more powerful and also upgrade the CPU later, because it's too old and too slow anyway.