Ok... I'm currently deciding between those two GPUs and it's a very hard decision actually... I heard great things about both cards and they both cost about the same. The GTX has a faster chip but the RX has 2 more GB of VRAM with a greater bandwidth which in my mind makes the RX perform better but I could be wrong of course... I actually think that either of those cards are too powerful for the CPU I don't care for: 4K, Overclocking, running multiple Monitors at once The rest of my system: CPU: Intel Xeon E5 1620 Quad-Core @ 3.60 Ghz RAM: 16GB DDR3 1866MHz EEC unbuffered (if that makes a difference) OS: Windows 7 Pro 64 bit (no plans to upgrade to 10) HDD: WD Blue 500GB (I plan on upgrading to a SSD) PSU: Delta Electronics 600W I want nobody to bitch over other people's opinion, ok?
You have what is essentially a Sandy Bridge i7 for your CPU. Either will do fine, but the RX480 is slightly cheaper if you're on a budget. Due to driver scaling, the 480 no longer falls as far behind the GTX 1060 as it once did. I'd go for the RX 480, but steer clear of the Gigabyte version of the card. Those a pure 100% home grown junk. The MSI Gaming X variant will do you nicely.
It's either the ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 AMP! Edition (got good reviews, although more expensive) or the PowerColor Radeon RX 480 Red Dragon (got good reviews, you get Civilization VI free with it )
I had the same tough choice, but went with the rx480, i'm very happy with it, I can't say what's better since iv'e only tried one of the two, I can only say i'm happy with my 480 an example for performance I can give you is Forza Horizon 3, 1080p resolution, maxed out. the only lag I ever get is drops to around 40 or so fps in one part of the city. Gta V plays maxed, no lag I can remember at the moment. and of course BeamNG is smooth as silk
Trust me, I would've bought the game a long time ago if it wasn't so expensive --- Post updated --- So it practically doesn't do anything for the famerate at 1080p?
not unless you're planning to run the stuff the 480 doesnt have the grunt to run, its a card with more VRAM than it even needs and by the time games need that much at 1080p, they'll have such a graphical fidelity that the 480 cant keep up anyway --- Post updated --- VRAM doesnt help draw images faster, its just a place to store the image as it draws it. Having more than it needs has no benefit and doesnt boost framerate. 1080p wont even fill a 4gb VRAM card
good point and now the 1060's are cheaper than most 480's so id go for that and am going for that in my next build
3gb 1060s are cheaper than 480s, but 3gb 1060s have less cores and are clocked slower so are less powerful than 480s anyway, theyre more like a 1050TiTi
If the extra VRAM of the RX doesn't cut it I think I'm going with the 1060 6gb based on it's higher clockspeed and better driver support... Or do Nvidia cards have better driver support? I keep hearing that but I don't know if it's actually true, what I do know is that many games feature Geforce exclusive effects....
I'd disagree with that, as when I was shopping for a GPU, the 3GB outperformed the 480 too. It is slightly less powerful than the 6GB version but not by much.
go with the 1060 6gb - it is the better choice. ive had a lot of amd graphics cards over the years and only had problems. bad drivers and terrible frame-timing meant that even games runnig at 60+ fps seemed to stutter sometimes. im looking into buying a 1070 soon but the 1060 is easily fast enough for 1080p. hope you make the right choice
AMD has really improved their drivers, and "frame-timing" sounds like a very specific issue to you. My friend has a Sapphire RX 480 8GB and I'm jealous of the performance, it's a bit faster than a GTX 970 and so far very reliable. I would agree if this was 2014 and you were talking about an R9 290 but that isn't the case.
the issue is not raw performance but framerate stability. just google frame-timing and you will find that it is not at all specific but rather an issue amd has had for a long time. frame time means the time it takes to render the next frame - and when one frame takes a lot longer to load than the previous one you will have noticable lag even when running at 60 fps or more. generally nvidia seems to have more stable frame times compared to amd.
Umm, no. That's a product of both high frame rates and the way V-sync handles itself when turned on. It's also tied in with monitor refresh rates, it has almost nothing to do with the card powering it.
no offense but it seems you have no idea what you are talking about. please use google and search for "frame timing" or "frame latency". im sure you will learn something new. it has nothing to do with vsync or monitor refresh rates. vsync may help with this problem if you are constantly way above 60 fps but usually there is no connection. to help you understand, qote from reddit user shorty_06 on this topic: "Frametime is arguable more important than framerate. Framerate tells you how many frames are rendered within a second, whereas frametime tells you how long each frame takes to render. For an extreme example, say your GPU takes 0.9 seconds to render a single frame then quickly renders 59 frames in 0.1 seconds. You would see horrible stuttering, yet framerate would be showing a solid 60. However, monitoring the frametime would allow you to see this. So frametime basically shows you how consistent timing is between frames......"
I've had an amd card before, and it had great drivers and no stuttering. I don't think YOU know what you're talking about.
