It's a wash, really. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2476143



3% is almost "margin of error" kinda. Neither here nor there.

Reference 1070 vs custom 980Ti?

TO be fair, have to try it with both as reference. I linked the Anandtech OCed versions of both in reference form, and they're just 3% apart.

1070 you mean.

For the 980Ti, it's a clearance sale, meaning most likely less than 10 units, once sold, it's gone forever. Resellers here dont hold stocks anymore than 10. Only new stock, with preorder deposits paid for, then only they bring in larger numbers.

I'm all too familiar with how resellers and distributors here work. They never stock high end stuff unless there's demand.

I rather look at it from what performance I can get now, rather in the next 2 years. Game engines gets more complex as we move into the future and that comes with performance penalties. Performance drops are inevitable even with driver optimization: the hardware spec is static but the needs is evolving/increasing. Unless you're willing to chase specs and upgrade every year, there's reasonable expectations that one day in the future a game will come that you can never play at your set resolution and settings anymore. When it comes to 980Ti vs 1070, you're buying more time for that scenario with the 1070.

July 19 onwards.

If Chiphell is anything reliable to go with:

Release Titan Pascal, AMD counters with whatever big chip Vega they can muster, and Nvidia return fire with 1080Ti. Every base covered. Done and done.

PSA for those planning to buy Zotac 980Ti AMP! Edition that's on sale now.

https://zerothguardian.wordpress.com/2015/0...mp-extreme-gpu/

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/46...if_you_plan_on/

But this issue is on the AMP! Extreme model, not the AMP! Omega model that is on sale. Unless they share the same problem across all AMP! lineup.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Jul 8 2016, 05:10 PM

Heheh, the definition of "milking" here is used very loosely.

He can still sell off his 1080 for Titan Pascal or 1080Ti and top up a little bit more from the sale he made from the 1080. A new user gets an affordable 1080, and he gets a Titan Pascal or 1080Ti, both win-win?

Different person has different interpretation of how he should progress in his GPU purchases. For example, Person A stuck to their GPUs over 4-5 generations before upgrading, perhaps he games on simple, non-demanding games like CS:GO. Person B play modern games on Ultra setting and am not willing to compromise on that, hence necessitating the faster upgrade turnaround. To Person A, Person B is being "milked" for what he is, but Person A has low tolerances to shitty graphics compared to Person B. Person B cant stand 800x600 on low, so he chose faster upgrade, and to him, it's normal. Sure, Person B loses some money due to the topup he needs to do to get to the next highest end, but it's a need he feels that he can afford to do so. Person A could never afforded such GPU progression upgrades, hence the "milking it" impression to Person A?

Different strokes for different folks. Some dont take gaming as priority and can tolerate graphics downgrade as long as can still play, or dont play demanding games. Others had higher standard and tolerance level.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Jul 8 2016, 05:37 PM

Are you sure you're not be using Pascal's other features as well? Simulteneous Multi-Projection for multi-monitor gaming is the only other reason left here but if you dont care about that either then the option is open. I rather be on the more updated side IF the price is the same between the two, but if there are price differences, only you can decide if it is worth it or not.

No worries. Everyone has their priorities. I don't mind taking a bus to KL, you probably prefer a car. I won't be saying that your car is milking you. Priorities. Everyone have them. Only different priorities for different people.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Jul 8 2016, 07:32 PM

Performance either must be significantly awesome or significantly crappy if he had taken this much effort doing this

4K will never be mature according to some people because game engine requirements constant evolving towards higher requirement. That's their excuse of not going 4K. Unless games stop looking prettier, and GPU technology catches up that with 4K at <insert your favorite framerate here>, they will never "mature" according to them. That keeps them from upgrading and staying at 1080p at the highest framerates, 144fps, 165fps, 200fps without upgrading resolution.

I was the first to bring in the Asus PQ321Q 4K60 monitor in3 years ago, and even on Crysis 3, with GPU processing power at that time (playing in tri-SLI Titan), Crysis 3 in 4K is playable, and viable. Only not at constant 60fps, it's hovering at 45-50fps with AA off because at 4K, pixel density is so high, AA isnt required. Some people over-inflate the necessity of AA at 4K, because they' used to the experience playing at 1080p without AA and it's hideous.That's because pixel size is larger in lower resolution, and without AA, it is hideous.

So "maturity" here depends on the level of acceptance one has at what he perceive as playable 4K, and hence a purchase of 4K monitor. It was "mature" enough for a demanding user like me 3 years ago, and it is certainly more than mature now. I even played my games on a 55" 4KTV, and still AA isn't necessary to enjoy 4K gaming. I suspect it is more a reason of "bank account maturity" than "4K maturity".

What does the speed of the internet has to do with gaming in 4K? Streaming Netflix in 4K I can understand.

that's why AMD and Nvidia gives you Freesync and G-Sync. Only extreme framerate hunters use the excuse of high framerate to stick with 1080p at the moment, that also, playing them with tearings galore, coz enabling V-Sync introduces input lag, and that is even worse than low framerate to them.

You see, whatever game you play right now, has assets buried in that game that looks incredible in 4K. You download 7GB, I download same size. You play in 1080p, I play in 4K. Your download size isnt smaller just because you play in 1080p nor does it affect your gaming in whatever resolution you choose. Your internet problem has nothing to do with what resolution you play: your internet problem has everything to do with whether you can download and play games at all or not.

Playing in higher resolution depends on the performance of your rig, not its internet speed. You play what game, tell me? DOTA? CS:GO? You think the games like these matters ah in 4K or 1080p if your internet is shitty? At least you still can look at much better and detailed assets in 4K than in 1080, when you play offline.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Jul 9 2016, 03:54 PM

You cant encourage people to play at higher resolution when they have one significant entry barrier they cannot cross no matter how much they wanna play at 1440p and beyond, or in VR: price. Gaming with OLeD screens isnt viable at the moment, no matter how mesmerizingly beautiful they look, again because of their price. VR with lower FOV is again, due to price constraints. The narrower it look, the cheaper it gets.


Well, if they can "sense" smoother framerate at higher refresh rates, I find it hard to believe they cannot see tearing at that resolution either. In fact, it'll get so bad that it'll look more like flickering because of the higher refresh rate than at lower framerate where the effect is visible but happening at a much larger frame interval.

Dont listen to the FUD this guy is spreading. Just because OLED has the word organic at the front, it's a plant life. You're "dull and dim" yourself, "dull and dim" is the after effect of old plasma panels, not OLED. OLEDs are prone to burn-in, which by internally recycling the pixels without dimming, has been proven to prevent burn-in on quality OLED panels.

I hear Aloe Vera treat "burns" very well.