GPU Upgrade Time

[Cilraaz]

From a 1070? Not worth it tbh.

Wait for the next gen of cards. This one was basically just the last one with experimental RTX sellotaped to it.

1070 to 2070 Super is a pretty decent upgrade. You do have a point regarding waiting for the 3000 series, though.

Ampere is what real gamers are waiting for, a repeat of the 10 series in price/performance ratio, not this shit.

Shitty attitude and gatekeeping aside, I hadn't thought about the next generation of cards. A 6-8 month wait wouldn't be terrible, I guess.

5700XT is nearly as good as the super for a full $100 less. Is $500 is your budget, I'd say get a premium 5700XT with a good cooler on it and come out below budget.

you can save a little and get a 5700 XT for basically the same performance difference.

I don't have a great history with AMD cards. The last card that I had prior to the 1070 was AMD and my wife's current card is AMD. I haven't had great luck with their drivers or software suite, so I tend to take them out of the running pretty early on.

[Temp name]

or you can save a little and get a 5700 XT for basically the same performance difference.

A 5700xt is 5-10% worse than the 2070 super

[Mashanerz]

I don't have a great history with AMD cards. The last card that I had prior to the 1070 was AMD and my wife's current card is AMD. I haven't had great luck with their drivers or software suite, so I tend to take them out of the running pretty early on.

AMD is pretty great, but if you're used to Nvidia is absolutely feels like a step down.

- - - Updated - - -

A 5700xt is 5-10% worse than the 2070 super

is that 1 or 2 frames difference?

For reference: https://www.techspot.com/review/1902...adeon-5700-xt/

[Cilraaz]

AMD is pretty great, but if you're used to Nvidia is absolutely feels like a step down.

I'm usually pretty platform agnostic, just going with whatever hits the performance or price/performance goal that I'm aiming for. I've just been having a bitch of a time with the wife's computer lately. Every time I update drivers, the AMD Experience Program or whatever it's called refuses to let her PC sleep until I disable it. Their software suite is fairly horrendous. To be fair, stability has been good, but that's probably because my wife's using a 7 year old card (7870 XT).

I did just check, though, and they released a new package today that includes an updated software suite. So maybe this new one won't be awful.

[Voidwielder]

I have 1070 Ti manually OCd and it runs my 144Hz/4k in most games near ultra. Something else is wrong if 1070 can't satisfy your demands.

And wait for next-gen 20xx is shit in terms of performance/price.

[StovnZJ]

Well, I've been running on my GTX 1070 for 3 years now, so I think it's time for an upgrade. I have a budget of around $500, with a little wiggle room. I was mainly looking at the 2070 Super. Specifically, I was looking at the Gigabyte Gaming OC, Gigabyte Windforce OC, or EVGA XC Ultra Gaming. The reason I listed both of the Gigabyte models is that I wasn't sure if Gigabyte binned the Gaming OC cards. I manually overclock my GPU, so the factory overclock isn't overly important to me. If the chip is better, though, that would be important to me.

So, I was curious which of the three you would suggest... or if you'd suggest anything else in my price range.

Edit: The 1070 is easily the loudest part of my system currently. Any input on noise of these (or any other suggested) cards is appreciated.

I highly recommend the Palit RTX 2070 SUPER Jet stream. Palit is a very reputable company in Europe but is now finally purchase-able in american and canada. Its a fucking CHONKER of a card.. its huge.. its cooling is insane and I can get an extra 100mhz on the core clock and 1500mhz on the Vmem and it only hits 60 degrees on full load while overclocked. Its an amazing card and beats out basically all other 2070 supers. Its even $200+ less than the Rog strix 2070 super and performs much better with way better temps. Would 100% recommend.

[Kagthul]

Small upgrade? The 2070S is just barely slower than a 1080ti...n which *crushes* a 1070.

- - - Updated - - -

I have 1070 Ti manually OCd and it runs my 144Hz/4k in most games near ultra. Something else is wrong if 1070 can't satisfy your demands.

And wait for next-gen 20xx is shit in terms of performance/price.

No it doesn't. Just stop lying. I've got a 1080ti FTW3, and 4K/144hz is a pipe dream.

- - - Updated - - -

is that 1 or 2 frames difference?

For reference: https://www.techspot.com/review/1902...adeon-5700-xt/

Depending on the game, resolution and settings... as many as 10.

And possibly the difference between "always above 60" and "not always above 60".

- - - Updated - - -

Is this some joke?

Your post is, yes.

I mean, go ahead, upgrade to a shitty 20 series, but it most certainly seems like you're completely unaware of what's going on in hardware world and don't quite seem to understand that the 20 series is a complete fuckup.

No it isn't. It was a naming-convention shift that illiterates didn't comprehend.

Ampere is what real gamers are waiting for, a repeat of the 10 series in price/performance ratio, not this shit.


2070 super... fuck outta here ������

Price/performance in each product segment was unchanged or lower going from 1000 series to the 16/20 series.

They simply changed the way the product stack was arranged, with an announcement well ahead of time that that is what they were doing, and people just ignored it, because they were dumb, i guess.

The stack used to be (since they went to calling the cards "GTX", as a prefix, not a suffix), roughly, top down:

Titan
X80Ti
X80
X70
X60
X50
X30

Occasionally they'd throw in a -Ti or (now) Super variant of one of those segments, but they were basically static since the switch in Nomenclature to the GTX prefix.

Basically

Halo Product (Titan)
Expensive Enthusiast (X80Ti)
Enthusiast (X80)
High End (X70)
Midrange (X60)
Budget (X50)
Office/Media (X30; sometimes, no product was offered in this category, see the gap between the 730 and the 1030, for instance).

The problem is people didn't pay attention during the 9-series when nVidia announced (on stage, no less) that Titan would soon be leaving the consumer product stack and going into its own product stack between the consumer stack and the professional stack.

So, when that came true (during the transition to the 20 series), every schlub YouTuber and Internet BoardWarrior cried tears of blood that "nVidia RAISED MUH PRICEZ FOR NO REEZIN".

Except they didn't.

With Titan removed, the consumer stack became:

X80Ti (Halo product)
X80 (Expensive Enthusiast)
X70 (Enthusiast)
X60 (High End)
LowerNumber X60 (Midrange)
LowerNumber X50 (Budget)

If you look at the cards priced against their actual replacements, they were the same price or cheaper and offered better performance across the board.

2080Ti was 1100$ (same as Titan-p) and outperformed it. Though in both cases, no cards were available at MSRP, and both cards realistically retailed for 1200.
2080 was 700$ (same as the 1080Ti), and outperformed it.
2070 was ~500 (CHEAPER than the 1080), and outperformed it.
2060 was ~350 (about the same as the 1070), and outperformed it.
1660 was ~225 (about the same as the 1060) and outperformed it.
1650 was ~180 (about the same as the 1050), and performed about the same.

Now, if you want to get on nVidia for having a confusing-as-fuck product naming scheme, and not being more clear about how the stack was re-arranged.. those are both totally legitimate complaints.


And theyre even worse now that the SUPER cards are mucking up the stack even more. Again, legit complaint.

But the claim that "nVidia just raised prices" was bunk from day 1. Prices stayed flat at each product segment. Performance went up.

Now, performance didnt go up by 30% like it did from the 700 to 900 series and from the 900 series to 1000 series....

But thats because there was no die shrink (which accounted for the performance uplift in the 900 series over the 700 series), and there was no die shrink + new architecture (which was the reason the 1000 series outperformed the 900 series by so much).

Prior to the giant leaps between the 700 and 900 series and the 900 series and 1000 series, a 10-15% performance uplift between generations was the norm.

We've simply gone back to that. 30-40% performance leaps every generation were not EVER going to be sustainable.

- - - Updated - - -

But to Cilraz:

At this date, unless you need the performance right now, i'd wait.

nVidia will probably soft-debut the 3000 series/Ampere cards in the spring (with an actual hardware launch in late spring/early summer), and AMD is supposed to be debuting "Big Navi" early next year (Feb/early March) to compete at the high end.

If it performs as well as the 5700XT does for its size/power, then it should be competitive.

That being said, if a ~35% performance uplift is good enough for you, the B-line 2080 is a good price.

[Temp name]

I have 1070 Ti manually OCd and it runs my 144Hz/4k in most games near ultra. Something else is wrong if 1070 can't satisfy your demands.

Maybe in casual games, but not in modern AAA titles. You're looking at a 2080ti for a chance at that.

[StovnZJ]

Maybe in casual games, but not in modern AAA titles. You're looking at a 2080ti for a chance at that.

Yeah I have an 8700k OC at 5.1ghz, and a 2070 super jetstream with 100 mhz extra on the core clock and 1500 on the vmem and I dont even get that.. I can get 2k at 144hz, but not on all games.

[moremana]

I have 1070 Ti manually OCd and it runs my 144Hz/4k in most games near ultra. Something else is wrong if 1070 can't satisfy your demands.

And wait for next-gen 20xx is shit in terms of performance/price.

Yeah OK ....

Ill just leave this for you.

[Mashanerz]

Maybe in casual games, but not in modern AAA titles. You're looking at a 2080ti for a chance at that.

That's the thing that makes this upgrade seem like a waste, $500 isn't going to get you a 2080 ti, and everything in the $500 range isn't a big enough difference (for me ) to justify an upgrade from a 1070. I mean, being completely realistic, 144hz @ 4k? Even a 2080 ti can't do that for a AAA game.

- - - Updated - - -

Depending on the game, resolution and settings... as many as 10.

And possibly the difference between "always above 60" and "not always above 60".

Depending on the game and resolution, the 5700 XT out performs the 2070 super....I even provided a source detailing that....

[Ahovv]

Is it even possible to get an upgrade to a 1070 for $500?

I wouldn't think it's worth getting anything under a 2080 super and that's going for like $750 last I checked. If you upgrade to something like a 2070 super then you're spending $500+ for a small upgrade, or you can save a little and get a 5700 XT for basically the same performance difference.

lol what, the 5700xt is a significant upgrade and you can find it for less than $400

If 1440p is your goal, you can't really make do with a 1070 unless you want to lower a bunch of settings in each game, which would defeat the purpose really.

- - - Updated - - -

I have 1070 Ti manually OCd and it runs my 144Hz/4k in most games near ultra. Something else is wrong if 1070 can't satisfy your demands.

And wait for next-gen 20xx is shit in terms of performance/price.

Yeah maybe in league of legends. You're full of shit if you're trying to say a 1070 ti runs AAA games at 4k60. Now if you told me "console framerates" then sure, I would believe 4k 30 fps.

I have a 1080 fully overclocked past 2GHZ and no, even it cannot handle 4k ultra 60 fps. Any quick look at benchmarks would make this obvious that you're lying.

[Mashanerz]

lol what, the 5700xt is a significant upgrade and you can find it for less than $400

If 1440p is your goal, you can't really make do with a 1070 unless you want to lower a bunch of settings in each game, which would defeat the purpose really.

The 1070 can handle 1440p pretty comfortably as long as you're not trying for ultra settings @ 144hz, same with the 5700 XT.

The 5700 XT is a better card than the 1070.

All that aside though, neither the 1070 or the 5700 XT are going to give you 1440p @ 144Hz on any recent AAA titles, so is it worth it spend $400+ dollars on an upgrade that still doesn't meet the requirements?

I'm not going to tell someone exactly how to spend their money, but if was me, I'd either look at spending more and getting a 2080 super or I'd wait a bit until a card exists in the $500 price range that can do what I'm looking for which is stated to be 1440p @ 144hz.

[Cilraaz]

At this date, unless you need the performance right now, i'd wait.

nVidia will probably soft-debut the 3000 series/Ampere cards in the spring (with an actual hardware launch in late spring/early summer), and AMD is supposed to be debuting "Big Navi" early next year (Feb/early March) to compete at the high end.

If it performs as well as the 5700XT does for its size/power, then it should be competitive.

That being said, if a ~35% performance uplift is good enough for you, the B-line 2080 is a good price.

The whole thing became an option as my wife offered me a Christmas gift that was going to run about $500 and I suggested a video card instead, since I spend more time at the computer than anything else. So it's not like I've been spending my time worrying about bad performance or anything.

In FFXIV, I can usually maintain 1440/60 without a problem (usually hang around 85-90 fps with shaders, 100-ish without). I was just hoping to max out FFXIV and the non-MMO titles that I play from time to time, like GTAV. In WoW, I get more dips, but that is more than likely CPU related, considering most of my (albeit limited) WoW time is also streamed.

For my WoW/stream performance, I'd probably get a bit of a boost by delidding my 8700k and trying to crank it up to 5.0 or 5.1. I have the stuff to do it. I've just been too damn lazy to get around to it.

At this point, I'm thinking waiting for the next generation would be the better "future proofing" option, even though "future proof" doesn't actually exist. Hopping in at the start of a generation is probably a better idea than hopping in at the tail end of one. Plus, even a next gen AMD card should be stronger than a current gen Nvidia card... so that should open more options. Looks like I'm waiting until early/mid-2020, unless I run across a rather insane deal of some variety.

Thanks everyone for your input. Feel free to keep discussing if you wish, as I'll still be reading.

[mujin73]

If your new 1440p 144hz monitor have freesync , go 5700xt .
If G sync compatible get 2070s. <3

[Donatello Trumpi]

No it isn't. It was a naming-convention shift that illiterates didn't comprehend.


Price/performance in each product segment was unchanged or lower going from 1000 series to the 16/20 series.

They simply changed the way the product stack was arranged, with an announcement well ahead of time that that is what they were doing, and people just ignored it, because they were dumb, i guess.

The stack used to be (since they went to calling the cards "GTX", as a prefix, not a suffix), roughly, top down:

Titan
X80Ti
X80
X70
X60
X50
X30

Occasionally they'd throw in a -Ti or (now) Super variant of one of those segments, but they were basically static since the switch in Nomenclature to the GTX prefix.

Basically

Halo Product (Titan)
Expensive Enthusiast (X80Ti)
Enthusiast (X80)
High End (X70)
Midrange (X60)
Budget (X50)
Office/Media (X30; sometimes, no product was offered in this category, see the gap between the 730 and the 1030, for instance).

The problem is people didn't pay attention during the 9-series when nVidia announced (on stage, no less) that Titan would soon be leaving the consumer product stack and going into its own product stack between the consumer stack and the professional stack.

So, when that came true (during the transition to the 20 series), every schlub YouTuber and Internet BoardWarrior cried tears of blood that "nVidia RAISED MUH PRICEZ FOR NO REEZIN".

Except they didn't.

With Titan removed, the consumer stack became:

X80Ti (Halo product)
X80 (Expensive Enthusiast)
X70 (Enthusiast)
X60 (High End)
LowerNumber X60 (Midrange)
LowerNumber X50 (Budget)

Sorry but you are spouting corporate apologetic crap.
According to you, the 2080 is the successor (replacement) of the 1080 TI.


The 2080 has fewer cuda cores, 3 gb less ram and a smaller memory interface than the 1080 TI.
Wow, almost like the 2080 is the successor of the 1080 and not 1080 ti if you are not blinded by nvidias marketing BS.


Nvidia is greedy enough, you dont have to excuse and cheerlead them on top.

[Kagthul]

Sorry but you are spouting corporate apologetic crap.
According to you, the 2080 is the successor (replacement) of the 1080 TI.

Because it is.

The 2080 has fewer cuda cores, 3 gb less ram and a smaller memory interface than the 1080 TI.
Wow, almost like the 2080 is the successor of the 1080 and not 1080 ti if you are not blinded by nvidias marketing BS.

Which would matter if it didnt outperform the 1080Ti anyway. (Which it does) Specs are irrelevant to the product stack. A lot of times, a product's "replacement" might not even perform better. (AHEM, Radeon 7870HD, repurposed 3 times.. RX 480, 580, 590....) In this case, however, it DID outperform the 1080Ti at launch, just not by as much as you wanted it to. The SUPER is even faster.

Not that it really matters, though. It IS the replacement in the Product stack. Just because a product replaces another doesn't mean its going to be superior (at all) or much superior (if it is). Again, see the extensive re-branding of the 7870 all the way through the 390, and the re-badging of the 480.

Or the 1650 basically being a miniscule upgrade over the 1050. Etc.

I mean, whenever you have something remotely like a real point to make, get back to us.

Nvidia is greedy enough, you dont have to excuse and cheerlead them on top.

I'm not. If you had ever bothered to read any of my posts, im not a fan of any company. I'm a fan of price/performance. I would love for AMD to get the fucking lead out and actually have a card at the top end of the stacks. Im a big fan of the 5700 and 5700XT, as they perform quite well and are priced right.

I also dont like it when people are just fucking wrong and cant admit it.

nVidia changed the product stack. They announced that they would be doing so TWO YEARS before they did it.

The fact you dont like it doesn't change the truth. THe fact that the replacements in some segments weren't giant improvements is not relevant.

What matters is that the products in each segment launched within the same price ranges as previous products in that segment. The basic prices (fluctuating slightly up and down with costs) for each product segment in nVidia's stack haven't changed in over 7 years.

[Babadoo]

Literally new 3000 geforce series in 6 months. You would be the biggest loser in the world if you upgrade now.

[Donatello Trumpi]

Because it is.



Which would matter if it didnt outperform the 1080Ti anyway. (Which it does) Specs are irrelevant to the product stack. A lot of times, a product's "replacement" might not even perform better. (AHEM, Radeon 7870HD, repurposed 3 times.. RX 480, 580, 590....) In this case, however, it DID outperform the 1080Ti at launch, just not by as much as you wanted it to. The SUPER is even faster.

Not that it really matters, though. It IS the replacement in the Product stack. Just because a product replaces another doesn't mean its going to be superior (at all) or much superior (if it is). Again, see the extensive re-branding of the 7870 all the way through the 390, and the re-badging of the 480.

Or the 1650 basically being a miniscule upgrade over the 1050. Etc.

I mean, whenever you have something remotely like a real point to make, get back to us.



I'm not. If you had ever bothered to read any of my posts, im not a fan of any company. I'm a fan of price/performance. I would love for AMD to get the fucking lead out and actually have a card at the top end of the stacks. Im a big fan of the 5700 and 5700XT, as they perform quite well and are priced right.

I also dont like it when people are just fucking wrong and cant admit it.

nVidia changed the product stack. They announced that they would be doing so TWO YEARS before they did it.

The fact you dont like it doesn't change the truth. THe fact that the replacements in some segments weren't giant improvements is not relevant.

What matters is that the products in each segment launched within the same price ranges as previous products in that segment. The basic prices (fluctuating slightly up and down with costs) for each product segment in nVidia's stack haven't changed in over 7 years.

Do you really believe, if Nvidia had kept the previous naming-convention that they would have released the currents spec 2080 as 2080 ti?
You cant be that naive.

The shitstorm would have been immense, the card declared a sidegrade at best and a failure. Rightfully so.

[Temp name]

Because it is.



Which would matter if it didnt outperform the 1080Ti anyway. (Which it does) Specs are irrelevant to the product stack. A lot of times, a product's "replacement" might not even perform better. (AHEM, Radeon 7870HD, repurposed 3 times.. RX 480, 580, 590....) In this case, however, it DID outperform the 1080Ti at launch, just not by as much as you wanted it to. The SUPER is even faster.

Not that it really matters, though. It IS the replacement in the Product stack. Just because a product replaces another doesn't mean its going to be superior (at all) or much superior (if it is). Again, see the extensive re-branding of the 7870 all the way through the 390, and the re-badging of the 480.

Or the 1650 basically being a miniscule upgrade over the 1050. Etc.

I mean, whenever you have something remotely like a real point to make, get back to us.



I'm not. If you had ever bothered to read any of my posts, im not a fan of any company. I'm a fan of price/performance. I would love for AMD to get the fucking lead out and actually have a card at the top end of the stacks. Im a big fan of the 5700 and 5700XT, as they perform quite well and are priced right.

I also dont like it when people are just fucking wrong and cant admit it.

nVidia changed the product stack. They announced that they would be doing so TWO YEARS before they did it.

The fact you dont like it doesn't change the truth. THe fact that the replacements in some segments weren't giant improvements is not relevant.

What matters is that the products in each segment launched within the same price ranges as previous products in that segment. The basic prices (fluctuating slightly up and down with costs) for each product segment in nVidia's stack haven't changed in over 7 years.

By the way, your entire argument is that they removed the TITAN from the product stack, so that's why they shifted up..
Can I introduce you to the Titan RTX? Which proves that, no, they didn't change the product stack, they just shifted the prices because they're Nvidia and they can.