What's new

Question HELP

H

hdhd

Newbie
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
35
Sin$
0
HOW DO I BUILD A PC QUICK HOW EASY IS IT, AND 1070 OR 480?

I5-6600K VS I7-6700K

1070 DUAL SLI OR SINGLE 1080


HELPPP 
help me man quick
 
Prefix_NA

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Mythical Veteran Legendary Veteran Fabled Veteran
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Points
530
Sin$
7
Fury over the 480 & 1070.

Dual Fury if you don't mind a few problems with CF.


You listed no budget or what you are using it for so we cannot decide if you need the i5 or i7.
 
MajorrKeyy

MajorrKeyy

The Key is to have every Key.
Messages
16
Reaction score
15
Points
45
Sin$
7
Single 1080, dual 1070's won't get you that much better performance than a 1080, and will cost a lot more.
 
Sanctorum

Sanctorum

Banned
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
683
Points
240
Sin$
0
Single 1080, dual 1070's won't get you that much better performance than a 1080, and will cost a lot more.
That's not even remotely true. A single GTX 1070 performs almost on par with a GTX 1080 for significantly less. SLI GTX 1070s can be had for as little as $750, whereas people are paying $650-$700 for a single 1080. SLI GTX 1070s is a far superior option.

OP- No one is going to write out how to build a PC for you. Go watch YouTube video's or something, there's hundreds of tutorials and guides online. It's incredibly easy. You could honestly build a PC without watching or reading any tutorials but watching a video first will help, and probably make it a lot quicker. The 6700k is better than the 6600k, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Better single GPU is easier, but SLI 1070s will destroy a single 1080 for the most part. That being said, a 1080Ti or Vega equivalent should release soon that should perform about the same as SLI 1070s for about the same price, and would be a wiser option. GTX 1080s are a rip off, not worth the premium over the 1070. GTX 1070 destroys the RX 480 and R9 Fury. The GTX 1070 out-performs the Fury X, so the Fury isn't even in the same league. SLI 480s will perform similarly to a single GTX 1070. All this being said, we can't actually help you with a system without a budget.
 
Prefix_NA

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Mythical Veteran Legendary Veteran Fabled Veteran
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Points
530
Sin$
7
The 1070 does not "destroy the fury" its slightly faster for twice the price while losing in many titles & having far worse image quality in the games that it "wins on" and recommending SLI 1070 over CF Fury is insane.

While SLI 1070 is better than 1080 its not a good option over the Fury

Fury cost = $250 x2 = 500
1070 = $350 x2 = 700


Its objective fact the Fury is the best card for cf/sli right now & its also the best bang for your buck of all high end cards.

Reason why not getting a Fury over the 1070 is a bad idea.

Nvidia's dual card scenario's are not viable. They have weak scaling due to a system that wasn't designed for Dual cards.

Last gen even the 2 gen old 290X in CF was beating SLI 980's in every single title despite being much weaker single card due to AMD's superior scaling

AMD has better future proofing support with better DX12/Vulkan support & longer driver support

AMD has faster memory bandwidth which is more important on dual GPU's.

AMD uses XDMA having much faster Bandwidth than SLI bridges & lower latency
Nvidia has no hardware scheduler on their cards causing more CPU latency which is amplified in dual cards
AMD has a better solution to reduce microstuttering with adaptive sync where AMD does have Freesync which works on any Monitor even ones not listed as Freesync through a quick driver tweak while Gsync monitors cost hundreds extra


Especially when people have i5's instead of i7's higher end Nvidia cards cause huge cpu latency problems compared to AMD. This is due to Nvidia offloading the scheduling to the CPU and this is the biggest reason AMD is used in consoles. Nvidia doesn't work well on lower CPU's and even high end CPU's have issues from top end Nvidia cards and this problem is getting worse as GPU's power increase faster than CPU's.
 
Sanctorum

Sanctorum

Banned
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
683
Points
240
Sin$
0
The 1070 does not "destroy the fury" its slightly faster for twice the price while losing in many titles & having far worse image quality in the games that it "wins on" and recommending SLI 1070 over CF Fury is insane.
It's not "slightly faster" and it's not "twice the price". GTX 1070s can be had for $350-$380, a Fury is $260 at the absolute lowest, most of them are around $300 though.

Prefix_NA said:
Its objective fact the Fury is the best card for cf/sli right now & its also the best bang for your buck of all high end cards.
You clearly don't understand what the word "objective" means lmao.

Prefix_NA said:
Nvidia's dual card scenario's are not viable. They have weak scaling due to a system that wasn't designed for Dual cards.
Yes, they are viable. No, the don't have weak scaling. Funny how a dude with no experience is trying to argue.

Prefix_NA said:
Last gen even the 2 gen old 290X in CF was beating SLI 980's in every single title despite being much weaker single card due to AMD's superior scaling
This is just a blatant lie. XFire 290x did not beat GTX 980 in every title. 290x was a direct competitor for the GTX 780Ti, and then the GTX 980 so XFire 290x performing better than GTX 980 in some cases is not surprising. Just like R9 390 XFire performing better than SLI GTX 970 in some cases not being surprising.

Prefix_NA said:
AMD has better future proofing support with better DX12/Vulkan support & longer driver support
This is a lie. Unless you have a crystall ball and can see in to the future, in which case, prove it.

Prefix_NA said:
AMD has faster memory bandwidth which is more important on dual GPU's.
AMD uses XDMA having much faster Bandwidth than SLI bridges & lower latency
Nvidia has no hardware scheduler on their cards causing more CPU latency which is amplified in dual cards
This is all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is actual performance numbers.

Prefix_NA said:
AMD has a better solution to reduce microstuttering with adaptive sync where AMD does have Freesync which works on any Monitor even ones not listed as Freesync through a quick driver tweak while Gsync monitors cost hundreds extra
This is 100% not true. G-Sync is objectively better than Freesync, so AMD do not have a "better solution" whatsoever. G-Sync is a ridiculous extra cost, yes, but it's better than Freesync.

You can see from any review/benchmark that a single GTX 1070 is going to out-perform a single R9 Fury by like 20-30% for the most part, with some exceptions. Also, from actual experience and what I've heard from other people with experience, AMD multi-GPU set ups have more bugs. I have ran two crossfire set-ups and two SLI set-ups in the last couple of years, I had the most issues with XFire 7950's. Not a huge problem, just more weird random glitches and stuff. Not that I'm recommending SLI GTX 1070s anyway. In fact, I recommended waiting for a 1080Ti or Vega equivalent, but SLI 1070s is undoubtedly better than XFire R9 Fury's, there's no argument about it.
 
Prefix_NA

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Mythical Veteran Legendary Veteran Fabled Veteran
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Points
530
Sin$
7
It's not "slightly faster" and it's not "twice the price". GTX 1070s can be had for $350-$380, a Fury is $260 at the absolute lowest, most of them are around $300 though.

$240 right now on Newegg its been below 300 for months
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202186&cm_re=Fury-_-14-202-186-_-Product

You clearly don't understand what the word "objective" means lmao.


Yes, they are viable. No, the don't have weak scaling. Funny how a dude with no experience is trying to argue.
Yes they do we have gone over this multiple times Nvidia has **** GPU scaling and its 2 reasons

1) The CPU overhead for nvidia gets terrible on high end GPU's
2) The GPU's still use out dated dual card method using SLI bridges

This is just a blatant lie. XFire 290x did not beat GTX 980 in every title. 290x was a direct competitor for the GTX 780Ti, and then the GTX 980 so XFire 290x performing better than GTX 980 in some cases is not surprising. Just like R9 390 XFire performing better than SLI GTX 970 in some cases not being surprising.

X0VUw0a.png


XpobRmh.png


VMGSFQu.png



All 3 of these were known as games which had best sli/cf scaling at the time.

Oh and AMD has done 4 huge driver overhauls since improving the FPS greatly. And how pathetic is that that the 290X was so much weaker and half the price but dual 290X bested the SLI 980's?


This is a lie. Unless you have a crystall ball and can see in to the future, in which case, prove it.


This is all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is actual performance numbers.

YiIBXLx.png



Agreed.

This is 100% not true. G-Sync is objectively better than Freesync, so AMD do not have a "better solution" whatsoever. G-Sync is a ridiculous extra cost, yes, but it's better than Freesync.

Actually its objectively worse it has innate latency over Freesync & retarded DRM with actually 0 change in the technology. Its literally freesync with a DRM box. Nvidia actually uses Freesync on their laptop line working the exact same as their Gsync with 0 changes.

You can make the argument that many high end Nvidia panels are cherrypicked (They license A+ stock batches from some panel manufacturers) to overclock a bit higher than many of the freesync versions you have a little bit of a point on some of these but for people not buying monitors costing over 1k usd this isn't a factor.

Now when Gsync & Freesync first Launched Gsync had an edge with borderless window support & LFC now thats no longer true both have support for Borderless window & LFC.

And Freesync does not cost ANYTHING AT ALL.

Not only is Freesync no additional cost buy you can even hack support for monitors that have no freesync support natively.

You can see from any review/benchmark that a single GTX 1070 is going to out-perform a single R9 Fury by like 20-30% for the most part, with some exceptions. Also, from actual experience and what I've heard from other people with experience, AMD multi-GPU set ups have more bugs. I have ran two crossfire set-ups and two SLI set-ups in the last couple of years, I had the most issues with XFire 7950's. Not a huge problem, just more weird random glitches and stuff. Not that I'm recommending SLI GTX 1070s anyway. In fact, I recommended waiting for a 1080Ti or Vega equivalent, but SLI 1070s is undoubtedly better than XFire R9 Fury's, there's no argument about it.


The 7950 had no XDMA it used the same method as nvidia which is **** and out dated its also a card from 2011 & the driver has been fixed as well I assume this was before the Frame Pacing Driver? Back on the 600 Nvidia series & 7000 AMD series there were many issues on CF/SLI and CF was probably worse at the time. Right now my friends 7850's work perfectly fine for him but he used to have huge issues before the Frame Pacing Driver update.

GCN 1.1's adding XDMA revolutionized dual card solutions. It even lead to what DX12/Vulkan use on the explicit multi adapter.


He actually bought 770's back in the day when his 770's are giving him problems I think he sold 1 of them and just threw his other 1 in storage and went back to his old 7850's due to driver bugs.

Right now AMD has no 1080 Ti Equivilent so Nvidia atleast has a spot in the Enthusiast grade market up there. But the 1070, 1060 & 1050 are **** cards at **** prices.


AMD got hit with a huge fail from HBM 2 with the same issue they have from HBM 1 worse yields than expected forcing them to either delay or chose weird ram limits (They already designed the interposer to work dual link with 8 HBM gen 1 chips called 4 hi-hi but then the price of the interposer + HBM yields were causing too many problems so it got scrapped.)


The Interposer research will pay out in future years when AMD puts dual GPU dies on a single interposer but right now they ****ed themselves for all the lost sales of not having a flagship ready by xmas.
 
Sanctorum

Sanctorum

Banned
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
683
Points
240
Sin$
0
That's $260, then shipping, so I was spot on, $260 at least.

Prefix_NA said:
Yes they do we have gone over this multiple times Nvidia has **** GPU scaling and its 2 reasons

1) The CPU overhead for nvidia gets terrible on high end GPU's
2) The GPU's still use out dated dual card method using SLI bridges
No, you've claimed NVidia has bad scaling but you have no experience or proof of this.

Prefix_NA said:
All 3 of these were known as games which had best sli/cf scaling at the time.

Oh and AMD has done 4 huge driver overhauls since improving the FPS greatly. And how pathetic is that that the 290X was so much weaker and half the price but dual 290X bested the SLI 980's?
Are you dyslexic? How is that "every single title"? You claimed "Last gen even the 2 gen old 290X in CF was beating SLI 980's in every single title" and that's a blatant lie. I'm not even arguing for the GTX 980, it was a ****** over-priced GPU, but SLI 980s 100% out-performed XFire 290x's in many cases, look at GTA V. I'm certain the single 290x should not be performing that bad compared to 970/980. The 290x should be performing at least on par with the GTX 970 for the most part. Also, take a look at the SoM benchmarks you're using as your argument, the XFire 290x have terrible min FPS. 9/10 times AMD GPUs have worse stuttering(due to worse low FPS performance), and weird glitches, as I said.

Prefix_NA said:
~SNIP DX12 chart~
Agreed.
Why are you posting this yet again? No one cares? And that's not performance numbers by any means lmfao. You 100% can not say that AMD is more future proof. The only way you can say that is if you can guarantee that every single game that ever releases from now on out utilises Async compute. In which case, sure, AMD is more future proof. However, there are plenty of DX12 titles that won't utilise Async compute heavily and favour AMD GPUs. RotTR as a perfect example of a DX12 title that favours NVidia hardware, despite your claims of AMD being the only way to go for DX12 because obviously NVidia GPUs will just not work in DX12 titles, right? Or what about the Vulkan title, the Talos Principle, where NVidia beat AMD?



Prefix_NA said:
Actually its objectively worse it has innate latency over Freesync & retarded DRM with actually 0 change in the technology. Its literally freesync with a DRM box. Nvidia actually uses Freesync on their laptop line working the exact same as their Gsync with 0 changes.

You can make the argument that many high end Nvidia panels are cherrypicked (They license A+ stock batches from some panel manufacturers) to overclock a bit higher than many of the freesync versions you have a little bit of a point on some of these but for people not buying monitors costing over 1k usd this isn't a factor.

Now when Gsync & Freesync first Launched Gsync had an edge with borderless window support & LFC now thats no longer true both have support for Borderless window & LFC.

And Freesync does not cost ANYTHING AT ALL.

Not only is Freesync no additional cost buy you can even hack support for monitors that have no freesync support natively.
This argument is entirely pointless because I never disputed any of this, simply said that G-Sync is objectively better, but it's still incredibly expensive. AFAIK, from the last time I actually looked at G-Sync, it was better than Freesync. Freesync is not a good enough reason for a huge performance drop though. You wouldn't buy an R9 Fury that performs up to 30% worse than a GTX 1070, just because it has Freesync, that would be stupid. If Freesync is that important to you, wait for Vega.

Prefix_NA said:
The 7950 had no XDMA it used the same method as nvidia which is **** and out dated its also a card from 2011 & the driver has been fixed as well I assume this was before the Frame Pacing Driver? Back on the 600 Nvidia series & 7000 AMD series there were many issues on CF/SLI and CF was probably worse at the time. Right now my friends 7850's work perfectly fine for him but he used to have huge issues before the Frame Pacing Driver update.
Nah, the 7950s worked fine, mostly, I had one or two major issues over the time I had them, but I mean I had stupid little glitches with Windows and stuff. Just things that I can't really explain that didn't really have any negative effects, just weird bugs. I've ran XFire HD7950s, XFire HD7870's(I think, might have been 7850s), SLI GTX 770s, and SLI GTX 970s. From my experience, the AMD cards had more weird bugs. It wasn't a huge issue, but it was there. Also the AMD cards had more stuttering, for sure. I have a friend with XFire 390s that also has really bad stuttering in certain games, like GTA V.

GCN 1.1's adding XDMA revolutionized dual card solutions. It even lead to what DX12/Vulkan use on the explicit multi adapter.

Prefix_NA said:
Right now AMD has no 1080 Ti Equivilent so Nvidia atleast has a spot in the Enthusiast grade market up there. But the 1070, 1060 & 1050 are **** cards at **** prices.
Claiming that the 1070 is **** is ridiculous because it cause huge price drops for the Fury and Fury X. The GTX 1070 released for $400 and out-performed the then $600+ Fury X. The GTX 1070 is a great card. GTX 1060 not so much anymore, it was better than the 480 but driver updates seem to have closed the gap mostly. The RX 480 gets destroyed in GTA V by the GTX 1060 though, so for anyone that plays a lot of GTA V, the 1060 is a great card, and it's MUCH wiser than any similarly priced AMD GPU. The GTX 1050 is meh, but so is the RX 460, they're entry level cards. A GTX 1050 for $100-$110 isn't actually that bad.
 
Prefix_NA

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Mythical Veteran Legendary Veteran Fabled Veteran
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Points
530
Sin$
7

I linked benches in that post you quoted.

Its 260 with $20 giftcard bonus when you buy & 5-7 day shipping free on it if you add to your cart and click the free/cheap shipping.

The Fury was under $450 well before the 1070 released and was $500-525 at launch the Fury X was $650 at launch it dropped pretty big when the 480 came.

The Fury X & 980ti were never good buys last gen due to the 390 crossfire being so much more affordable & better.


The 1060 cost the same as the Fury recommending it is the most retarded thing u can do.


Whats funny though is all the ethrium miners buying 480 for the performance pet watt (best mining card per watt stock) would actually be better off with undervolting a Fury non X. And so would gamers while the only selling point the 480 has over the Fury is HEVC encoding which isn't that needed on a big card like the Fury but is nice on cards like the 460.
 
Sanctorum

Sanctorum

Banned
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
683
Points
240
Sin$
0
I linked benches in that post you quoted.
Yes, but you claimed that XFire 290x out-performed SLI 980s in "every single title" and then posted 3 benchmarks. That's not valid proof and XFire 290x does not out-perform SLI 980s in every situation. I've already said the 980 was a terrible card though.

Prefix_NA said:
Its 260 with $20 giftcard bonus when you buy & 5-7 day shipping free on it if you add to your cart and click the free/cheap shipping.
It's $260 with a $20 rebate. You still pay $260. It's a negligible difference, I'm just saying that XFire Fury's would cost you $500+ at least and you could get SLI 1070s for $700-750. I wouldn't recommend either though. Waiting for Vega or a 1080Ti would be wiser. SLI 1070s is as close as you'll logically get to that right now though.

Prefix_NA said:
The Fury was under $450 well before the 1070 released and was $500-525 at launch the Fury X was $650 at launch it dropped pretty big when the 480 came.
I never mentioned Fury pricing and I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that the launch of the GTX 1070 caused significant price drops for the Fury and Fury X. $150+ for the Fury and $200+ for the Fury X. That's like a 30% price decrease.

The Fury X & 980ti were never good buys last gen due to the 390 crossfire being so much more affordable & better.


Prefix_NA said:
The 1060 cost the same as the Fury recommending it is the most retarded thing u can do.
I never recommended a GTX 1060. The GTX 1060 destroys both the Fury and 480 in GTA V though. That was all I said.
 
Prefix_NA

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Mythical Veteran Legendary Veteran Fabled Veteran
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Points
530
Sin$
7
Yes, but you claimed that XFire 290x out-performed SLI 980s in "every single title" and then posted 3 benchmarks. That's not valid proof and XFire 290x does not out-perform SLI 980s in every situation. I've already said the 980 was a terrible card though.

Doesn't matter about the 980 specifically its about Nvidia's pathetic GPU scaling the 290X was much worse for crossfire than cards like the 390/480 due to lower bandwidth and the 980

At the time of that bench TPU had the 980 at 23.5% stronger card but still lost in dual card configs thats ****ing pathetic GPU scaling if you ask me.


Now I am not recommend anyone buy the 290X even at the 980 time I would have said CF 390's.

And these are benches on like top tier overclocked i7's. People on lower end CPU's and especially lower threaded CPU's like i5's have even worse performance on Nvidia compared to AMD.

Nvidia uses the CPU to schedule tasks while AMD has hardware scheduler on the chip. Nvidia has a pretty good software scheduler but it still has alot of CPU overhead on higher end cards.

The higher you go with the Nvidia GPU the worse the same CPU gets.

AMD's CPU overhead is pretty much same on any AMD card and on any CPU.


I never mentioned Fury pricing and I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that the launch of the GTX 1070 caused significant price drops for the Fury and Fury X. $150+ for the Fury and $200+ for the Fury X. That's like a 30% price decrease.
Except it didn't the 1070 came out after the Fury was already under $300 like just after the 1080 launched and 480 specs were officially announced it was dropping.[/quote]

When or why a price drop happened is irreverent and it dropped around 1080 release not the 1070. When the 1070 dropped it was already a pathetically **** card for the price compared to other cards hell as soon as it released the 980ti was going for like 350-400 as well while the 1070 was still costing over $500

I never recommended a GTX 1060. The GTX 1060 destroys both the Fury and 480 in GTA V though. That was all I said.

I linked you benchmarks disproving this in the past multiple times. Yes GTA V is heavily favored to Nvidia except this didn't even matter when your talking about a card thats 20% stronger.

All you do is make up lies claiming Nvidia cards are so much better while never having any evidence for your claim.

Except even on old AMD drivers and using reference Fury the Fury beat the 1060 how is this destroying?

Crimson Relive updates gave huge performance in CPU heavy games like GTA V as well and those are not in this bench below but TPU stopped benching normal Fury.

gtav_1920_1080.png

gtav_2560_1440.png




This is the same argument as the Adobe Premier yes Adobe Premier heavily favors Nvidia that doesn't mean AMD will lose in rendering though. While apps that have good support fully for OpenCL and **** Sony the 7970 even beats the Titan X
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom
Login
Register