[SOLVED] PC Build 2017 under 200000

[kkfroma2j]

Bare hi koi aala kisam kee chawal mare hai bhai aapne. Bohot AMD fanboys deakha par itni delusion aapko to award milna chahia.



Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

All I got out of your post was "AMD, fanboys, delusion and award". So, what you're saying is, and correct if I'm wrong, is that I'm a delusional AMD fanboy? Would that about sum it up?

If that's the case, then you won't mind me calling you a twat who doesn't know what he's talking about. Did you even bother to read all the posts in this thread? If you did, then you would understand that I advocate purchasing from companies that treat their customers with respect. Intel and Nvidia (to a lesser degree) treat their customers like shit.

I've already explained why i think Intel is a dishonest company. You either agree or you don't, that's your prerogative.

If it was AMD that had screwed over Intel, then I would be upset with AMD and would be recommending Intel products. Again there is a caveat here, and that is to buy from the company that hasn't been taking advantage of you, when you can and if their products meet your needs.

I think you don't have the slightest clue what the definition of a 'fanboy' is. Why don't you go educate yourself, that way, you won't look like a total douche...

Now, here is some more homework for you:

7970 vs 670
280(x) vs 770
290(x) vs 780 (even beats the 780ti now)
380(x) vs 960
390(x) vs 970

In all those examples, at release the Nvidia cards were ahead, now the AMD cards are faster.

 

[kkfroma2j]

Bare hi koi aala kisam kee chawal mare hai bhai aapne. Bohot AMD fanboys deakha par itni delusion aapko to award milna chahia.

^
Can someone translate that for me, please?

 

[Silvas]

Bare hi koi aala kisam kee chawal mare hai bhai aapne. Bohot AMD fanboys deakha par itni delusion aapko to award milna chahia.

^
Can someone translate that for me, please?

Calm down mate just chill and ignore him

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[kkfroma2j]

Hehehe good advice...guess I was a bit grumpy....

 

[Thinker]

One chart is Jan 2016 and the other is May 2017. The difference between 390 and 970 remains exactly the same. The 390 gained some in the couple of months after launch but that happens with a lot of AMD cards.

However the 970 is actually still the faster card because it has so much more OC headroom. Reference Nvidia cards are always an under representation of what the average consumer is running since almost no one buys reference. Almost all the third party cards are at least 10-15% faster. Even if you have reference you can overclock it to match the third party cards.

The problem here is that AMD fanboys are totally blowing 5-10% performance gain out of proportion. Your statement on the Fury vs 1070/1080 is what made me not take you seriously and let me put it to you now.

The Fury cards are totally maxed out of the box. So comparing them to reference is even worse. Max OC 1070 vs Max OC Fury is not even a contest. Actually wait a minute is it even true for reference 1070?

We can see in the chart above the 1070 is 12% than Fury X which is supposed to be 10% faster than Fury. Now third party 1070 is supposed to be 10% faster than reference. So basically everything you said is complete hogwash. I really don't need to say anything more.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[alixalman]

I hate go say this but AMD has always let me down. I am not an nvidia fanboy or amd lover. I just prefer reliable tech. Which is nvidia. As a customer nvidia has never disappointed me with customer service.
I owned both 6950 and 7950. I thought they were good value for money but nvidia always has a higher price tag and better performance.
Amd still needs a few years to catchup. Infact whenever amd launches something new. Intel and nvidia pull a rabbit out of the hat.
Your forgetting amd has to compete with two titans. Intel and nvidia.
So if you are tight on budget sure go for amd but if you want performance. Nvidia is way ahead currently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kkfroma2j]

I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. I hate to copy and paste but this guy explains things rather well. Links provided from both the r/AMD and r/Nvidia threads.

Do really AMDs GPUs age better that theirs nVIDIAs counter parts? : nvidia
A discussion on why AMD GPUs age better over time. : Amd

It's a combination of things which makes it complex, not a black or white issue. (Sorry it ended up quite a long post!).

1. AMD's GCN architecture is brute power, very high TFlops but difficult to extract peak performance, especially in DX11 which AMD is running crippled with single-threaded draw call submission. But overtime, there's opportunities for AMD to fine-tune drivers for each specific game to avoid being driver bound. You could say there's more room to grow for AMD GPUs, while NV's GPU are operating close to peak in DX11 already.
2. Console GCN. Optimizations by developers for GCN specific cache, wavefronts and shader efficiency carry through to the PC port. There's good presentations from Game Developers Conferences on this topic. It's going to continue due to PS4 Pro and Scorpio using GCN Polaris.
3. GCN architecture is iterated, evolution rather than revolution. The basic hierarchy remains constant, each SIMD has the same layout of ALUs (Vector and Scalar), each Compute Unit consists of the same layout of SIMDs. The result is that code that's optimized to run on GCN is nearly always (there's exceptions, differences in Tessellation & Async Compute) optimized for all GCN. Thus, the older GCN based cards like the 7970 and 290/X still powers through modern games.
4. DX12 &Vulkan allows developers closer access and importantly, rendering/draw calls can be multi-threaded (Async Compute is another bonus on top). This removes AMD's weakness of single-thread DX11. Thus, as more modern games use these new APIs, the better AMD GPU's look in comparison. Example, a 390X has similar compute performance as a 980Ti in Tflops, and it's only in these new API where AMD's GCN can really hit their peak. Hence, don't be surprised if some of these next-gen API games have AMD GCN cards punching above their weight (390X ~ 980Ti, Fury X ~ 1080 etc).
5. Usually more VRAM. Example, 7970 3GB vs GTX 680 2GB. There's games in recent times where the 2GB is a severe bottleneck and the 7970 3GB auto-wins, irrespective of #1-4. Likewise, 290/X 4GB vs 780/Ti 3GB. This is repeated recently with the 1060 3GB vs 470/480 4GB and 1060 6GB vs 480 8GB. Some posters falsely claimed that 3GB is enough for 1080p gaming but a recent review studying frame times find that to be utterly wrong. 3GB stutters in most modern games even on the 2nd highest settings (not maxed).
6. NV architectures evolve and also has revolutionary changes. Kepler -> Maxwell was a big leap, not only with the tile-based rasterization, but also the SMX layout, CUDA cores per SM went from 196 -> 128. This meant that games optimized for Maxwell's architecture would run un-optimized on Kepler, reducing much of it's shader utilization. It's why the 980, which on release, was only slightly above a 780TI, which was faster than a 970 by ~10%, but over time, we see the 780TI behind the 970 by ~10% or sometimes, even more.
7. Some folks have mentioned driver neglect from NV, that their "Game Ready" drivers only optimize non-legacy GPUs, ie, their latest & greatest. This is not gimping older stuff, that's a incorrect myth, it's more than NV focus optimizations on more recent stuff only.

All of these results in a potential for a big shift in performance over time. The 290X at the start of it's life was 10-15% behind a GTX 780Ti. These days it's very common to see it 10-15% ahead, with outliers much higher. If you read reviews over the years, you would have noticed the GTX 980 made the 290X (even custom models which run at ~390X performance) look like shit, often 20% lead. You would have noticed the 390X vs 980 situation is very different in recent times.

Before some of you accuse me of being an AMD fanboy, let me be clear. I am a fan of my money, it's important to me, how much value I can get out of my hard earned $. I have seen for myself since 2011, how well AMD GPUs aged in comparison with the NV GPUs that I've owned (GTX 670 and 780Ti) as I've multiple rigs for the family. It is this exact reason why I have an RX 480 now and will get Vega for the other rig, instead of going with Pascal.

 

[kkfroma2j]

I can throw some benches at you as well. Though, it really is game dependant. Before you say anything, I know Doom is and AMD optimised game but DX12 and low level APIs is where we are going and this is the brain child of AMD, they knew we were coming here and prepared for it.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[Thinker]

lmao I didn't cherry pick a benchmark I posted the cumulative average at Techpowerup which is pretty much the gold standard to compare GPUs in the PC hardware community. Don't give me any jargon or cherry picked games, if you have the numbers to back up your claims then I am all ears.

 

[Controller]

Maybe in future amd tflops are utilized the same way as their counterparts.

 

[kkfroma2j]

Hehehehe, you're dead right...I did cherry pick those benchmarks and the reasons are three fold.

1. I wanted to get you talking, listening, thinking...you know discussing...with an open mind. This is what rational people do when there are different points of view they talk about it, they listen to other opinions and they should try and dig deeper and try to evaluate and understand their own beliefs...they don't just say "I'm right" and stick there heads in the sand. In this world there are very few absolutes and what you threw down was an absolute belief that Nvidia shits on AMD in every way. I had no choice but to go to the other extreme. 'Shock and awe', if you will...

2. As a consumer, you should't be basing your decisions on what GPU to buy based on benchmarks that have been averaged over multiple games. Why? Because those types of benchmarks are a gross generalisation and it's very rare that you'd play all those games. What one ought to do is look at specific benchmarks for the games that they like to play. If I used your benchmarks I would think that a 1060 was better than a 480. While this may be true if I liked to play The Division, it's certainly not true if Doom was my poison. Its all relative my friend...

3. My point was never AMD is better than Nvidia or vice versa. My point was that AMD GPUs age better than Nvidia's GPUs. I've tried to show why this is so due to the different technologies employed by both companies. The post and links that I quoted explained this rather well. I've always said that out of the box, Nvidia's card are usually faster and if you upgrade you're GPU often, then they are the right choice. That said, if you're budget conscious and don't upgrade very often, then you're getting better value with an AMD option. This again all depends on what games you like to play but in general, AMD's GCN based cards age better...

 

[Thinker]

I never said Nvidia shits over AMD or anything like that. My last card was AMD and it served me really well. I understand the whole longevity argument but it's so grossly exaggerated. When comparing the longevity of a GPU you compare as many games as possible. And I personally play all sorts of games anyways. All the data we have doesn't quite backup the longevity claim as emphatically as AMD fans would like.