Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
chuckula wrote:AMD might be better served by releasing a fully-enabled Polaris 11 die for cheap. It won'd beat the 1050Ti outright, but it could close the gap in a more economical manner.
derFunkenstein wrote:There's also a $170 RX 470 that would be an awful tempting upgrade. For $30 more than that Zotac, you can have 35-50% better performance at 1080p.
DPete27 wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:There's also a $170 RX 470 that would be an awful tempting upgrade. For $30 more than that Zotac, you can have 35-50% better performance at 1080p.
And for only $5 more than that, you can get a 4GB RX 480 using the current $25 off purchase of >$200 promo on newegg.
CScottG wrote:1050 - good deal at its base-price.
1050Ti - not so much value on offer.
derFunkenstein wrote:There's also a $170 RX 470 that would be an awful tempting upgrade. For $30 more than that Zotac, you can have 35-50% better performance at 1080p.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product
I.S.T. wrote:sometimes you really can't spend that extra 30 bucks because you're just barely affording the extra purchase.
Losergamer04 wrote:Historical, that would likely favor Nvidia.
JustAnEngineer wrote:If you're on a budget, the exorbitant price of NVidia's proprietary G-Sync ($175+ more than similar monitors with VESA standard adaptive sync aka AMD's FreeSync) is a huge strike against using an NVidia graphics card. These low-to-mid range graphics cards benefit more from adaptive sync more than expensive high-end graphics cards do. The cheapest G-Sync monitor on the market (AOC G2460PG) is $382. The similar AOC G2460PF with FreeSync is just $200. With an extra $182 in your pocket, you can upgrade other components to provide a more enjoyable gaming experience.
Noinoi wrote:However, I do have to wonder: I don't think most people are going to just get an adaptive sync monitor of any sort when they're buying a $100-150 video card. If you're getting these video cards, they might probably prefer to just drop settings and/or resolution.
I suppose you can say that the thing goes both ways. Interesting things... honestly though, from a $100-150 video card, if you're adding about $70-80 to the budget, you basically get another tier of video card - ~470/1060 3GB tier, I believe. Basically we have to weight adaptive sync vs graphical power enough to make performance mostly a non-issue. These monitors probably don't make too much sense when the video cards are already value-minded and the person playing with it either doesn't almost game exclusively or is likely to play only not-as-demanding titles.
Losergamer04 wrote:My theory is that people buying these very budget CPUs (x4, FX, i3, etc.) would be better served with an Nvidia card because the CPU can feed it better than an AMD card. It has little to do with the card itself. I agree, AMD makes a fine card, but their drivers have had a lot of overhead. I'm hoping that has changed and maybe TR can investigate.
JustAnEngineer wrote:If you're on a budget, the exorbitant price of NVidia's proprietary G-Sync ($175+ more than similar monitors with VESA standard adaptive sync aka AMD's FreeSync) is a huge strike against using an NVidia graphics card. These low-to-mid range graphics cards benefit more from adaptive sync more than expensive high-end graphics cards do. The cheapest G-Sync monitor on the market (AOC G2460PG) is $382. The similar AOC G2460PF with FreeSync is just $200. With an extra $182 in your pocket, you can upgrade other components to provide a more enjoyable gaming experience.
DPete27 wrote:@ Topinio and Noinoi - You assume all consumers buying GPUs already have monitors?