970sli vs 390x Crossfire vs RX480 CrossFire @ 4k
- Thread starter MitchMuiz
- Start date
4k needs more than 4G VRAM in some games , go for 8G VRAM Card . from those 3 cards , I would suggest the RX480 8G CF . for the lower power needed and HDMI 2.0 support .
but the GTX 1070 , is the better option if you ask me . within the same price range.
but the GTX 1070 , is the better option if you ask me . within the same price range.
KoopaCreeper
Reputable
- Dec 22, 2014
- 418
- 0
- 4,960
GTX 970 and 4GB RX 480 are out of the question for 4K. Not enough VRAM for high detail settings.
R9 390X is slightly faster than RX 480 but not significantly so. RX 480 uses far less power and is cheaper. The 8GB versions of both would be adequate.
Unless you already own one of these cards, a single GTX 1080 would be the best option for 4K.
R9 390X is slightly faster than RX 480 but not significantly so. RX 480 uses far less power and is cheaper. The 8GB versions of both would be adequate.
Unless you already own one of these cards, a single GTX 1080 would be the best option for 4K.
KoopaCreeper
Reputable
- Dec 22, 2014
- 418
- 0
- 4,960
One RX 480 is significantly slower than the GTX 1070 at 4K. In Crossfire-optimized games, 2 RX 480s would probably be faster, but like you say, if you got one GTX 1070 now, you could add another down the road. For non-optimized games the GTX 1070 is faster.
- Nov 23, 2014
- 159
- 0
- 10,690
Thanks!
Should I get:
https://www.afuture.nl/product/5210459/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1070-windforce-oc-8gb-gddr5 ? (GigaByte Windforce OC) ?
or
https://www.afuture.nl/product/5187583/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1070-g1-gaming-8gb-gddr5 ? (GigaByte G1 Gaming) ?
or
https://www.afuture.nl/product/5187391/xpertvision-geforce-gtx-1070-gamerock-8gb-gddr5 (XpertVision Gainward) ?
or
https://www.afuture.nl/product/5187454/galax-geforce-gtx-1070-exoc-8gb-gddr5 (GALAX) ?
or
https://www.afuture.nl/product/5187594/asus-geforce-gtx-1070-founders-edition-8gb-gddr5 (Reference)
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,567
- 13
- 85,015
GTX1070 hands down IMO.
The most important point is that many games do NOT support multi-GPU and that appears to be a more COMMON thing for newer games in the short term. We will eventually switch to SFR so GPU's can work on the same frame but that's going to be a few years before it becomes common.
*A GTX1070 is about 50% faster on average than an RX-480.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/23.html
Even when Crossfire works you can have issues like stutter. It sometimes works well but not enough to recommend due to the lack of support and issues in other games.
(I can't recommend GTX900 and earlier NVidia cards at all due to lack of asynchronous support hardware. NVidia and AMD now have slightly different methods but NVidia does have Dynamic load balancing and preemption etc. I think the asynch compute question is relatively minor for the newer cards compared to other decisions. AMD probably has the edge (i.e. Polaris vs Pascal) but it likely will amount to only a few percentage points difference on average, and there are other factors which can move the relative performance.
4K:
Even if I had a 4K monitor I would almost never run a game at 4K. I'd use 2560x1440. There are far better way to use the processing and memory than increasing the resolution above 2560x1440. Any game has an optimum balance of resolution, anti-aliasing, shadows etc and running 4K is rarely the optimal decision.
The most important point is that many games do NOT support multi-GPU and that appears to be a more COMMON thing for newer games in the short term. We will eventually switch to SFR so GPU's can work on the same frame but that's going to be a few years before it becomes common.
*A GTX1070 is about 50% faster on average than an RX-480.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/23.html
Even when Crossfire works you can have issues like stutter. It sometimes works well but not enough to recommend due to the lack of support and issues in other games.
(I can't recommend GTX900 and earlier NVidia cards at all due to lack of asynchronous support hardware. NVidia and AMD now have slightly different methods but NVidia does have Dynamic load balancing and preemption etc. I think the asynch compute question is relatively minor for the newer cards compared to other decisions. AMD probably has the edge (i.e. Polaris vs Pascal) but it likely will amount to only a few percentage points difference on average, and there are other factors which can move the relative performance.
4K:
Even if I had a 4K monitor I would almost never run a game at 4K. I'd use 2560x1440. There are far better way to use the processing and memory than increasing the resolution above 2560x1440. Any game has an optimum balance of resolution, anti-aliasing, shadows etc and running 4K is rarely the optimal decision.
KoopaCreeper
Reputable
- Dec 22, 2014
- 418
- 0
- 4,960
I would recommend either of the Gigabyte cards. One has a better cooler but is also more expensive - that's your choice.
Compuser10165
Honorable
- Sep 12, 2015
- 1,020
- 1
- 11,965
The RX 480 is not a gpu intended for gaming at 4K resolution and performs significantly worse than the gtx 1070. In terms of comparison with last gen, the RX 480 is around a gtx 970-980 in performance (depending on the title) and a gtx 1070 is more like a gtx 1070/Gtx Titan X. However, no single gpu currently on the market is powerful enough to drive 4k ultra settings in demanding titles just yet (not even a gtx 1080). My prediction is that the upcoming Titan X (2016 model) and the possible gtx 1080 ti will get close but still not able to maintain 60 fps in all titles at 4K (titles like witcher 3, the division etc.). I suggest going for 1440p now (maybe above 60hz) a waiting on affordable gpu solution that game well at ultra at 4K in aaa titles (my guess is two gens from now (I am not talking about the flagship cards) ).
I suggest getting an RX 480 (if using 1080p@60hz maybe even 1440p@60hz) or a gtx 1070 (if using 1080p@60/144hz or 1440p@60hz).
4K is still not affordable right now and should only be approached with flagship or close to flagship gpu's in demanding titles in my opinion, and right now, not even those are enough in some cases.
If you absolutely want 4K now, I suggest a gtx 1070. You can add another one later if it's worth it or invest into a more powerful one (but on the next generation, not this one). You can also wait for the gtx 1080 ti.
KoopaCreeper
Reputable
- Dec 22, 2014
- 418
- 0
- 4,960
Either is fine. Skylake is slightly faster but neither CPU would hold your system back for 4K gaming.
Compuser10165
Honorable
- Sep 12, 2015
- 1,020
- 1
- 11,965
I personally recommend the i5 6600k from the two, for reasons other have stated above (better performing, newer tech (Z170 chipset has more features), etc.).
However, If you plan to sli/xfire, I recommend getting an i7 as it is better suited for either sli/crossfire or a future more powerful gpu (even a 6 core one, but a i7 6700k is fine).
Also, If you plan on getting a gtx 1070, I would recommend the gigabyte G1 you posted (or an MSI Gaming X), as both are very good quality implementations. But I would wait for prices to drop a bit towards the msrp.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram