Help me understand benchmarks please, trying to decide between RX 480 or GTX 1070.

[drwhykk]

Hi!

I'm trying to make sense of all the benchmark information and what numbers to look at when making a decision as to the better buy for the next year or two.

What's my goal?

To play triple A titles on Ultra settings for a year or two for the first time in my life.

What's my hardware and resolution?

CPU: i7-4790
GPU: R9 280 (Non-X)
M1:1650 x 1050
M2:1920 x 1080

What this is not.

This is not a "GTX 1070 is better then RX 480" discussion. I'm here to learn and do a sensible cost analysis as to which is better for my situation. Can I afford either? Yes. Do I want the better one straight out? Not necessarily, the 1070 will take a toll on my bank account, the RX 480 won't so much.

Benchmarks and Background info:

When I look at the benchmarks released today for a game like Witcher 3 @ 1080p it says:

RX 480 = 65FPS (AVG)
GTX 1070 = 83 FPS (AVG)

Then when I read the conclusions it speaks highly of both as being cards for the next few years for optimal PC gaming.

What confuses me:

Isn't the optimal frame rate for any game 60 FPS?
If so, wouldn't a game like Witcher 3 which has been out for sometime only getting 53fps on the RX 480 mean that it will struggle with newer titles in coming months/year?

Which numbers do I need to look at to make a proper analysis?
How do I know if a card with 50 or 90 FPS will perform well down the road?
How much of a difference in FPS is there from year to year?
What's a proper FPS number to shoot for on Ultra settings?

Final facts:

No intention of upgrading monitors or doing Virtual reality.
Am willing to upgrade 8GB RAM to 16GB RAM if needed.


Thanks!

 

[Hlsgsz]

To play triple A titles on Ultra settings for a year or two for the first time in my life.

Then the answer is easy: GTX 1070.

 

[timeconsumer]

60FPS is optimal if you have a 60Hz monitor. Some people have monitors that can handle 144 FPS.
Every game is different. Some run better on Nvidia, some better on AMD. Look at lots of games.
Don't just look at average framerates, look at minimum/maximum framerates. You don't want a card that will spike frames.
Look at how it performs in 1080p only. Which one performs best at 4k will not matter to you if you never intend to upgrade your monitor.

Also keep in mind that if you plan to buy a just released card there can sometimes be hiccups with driver issues, poor reference design (loud, hot) etc.

Disclaimer, I haven't bothered to read the new benchmarks on the RX 480 yet, so I can't give you an answer to your questions, only an answer on what to look for in your research.

 

[drwhykk]

60FPS is optimal if you have a 60Hz monitor. Some people have monitors that can handle 144 FPS.
Every game is different. Some run better on Nvidia, some better on AMD. Look at lots of games.
Don't just look at average framerates, look at minimum/maximum framerates. You don't want a card that will spike frames.
Look at how it performs in 1080p only. Which one performs best at 4k will not matter to you if you never intend to upgrade your monitor.

Also keep in mind that if you plan to buy a just released card there can sometimes be hiccups with driver issues, poor reference design (loud, hot) etc.

Disclaimer, I haven't bothered to read the new benchmarks on the RX 480 yet, so I can't give you an answer to your questions, only an answer on what to look for in your research.

No worries, thats what I'm looking for. Although I did make a mistake, apparently the high number was AVERAGE fps and low number was the lowest it dipped not the maximum and average.

How does this impact what you said about frame rate jumping? Because reading it properly now it says the average FPS for witcher 3 on ultra is around 65 and the lowest 54, is that a significant dip?

 

[timeconsumer]

No, 54 minimum with a 64 average is pretty smooth. If it dropped below 30 I'd be concerned. If it dropped below 10 I'd consider it a failure. Often you can find benchmarks on youtube with videos on the play and line graphs of the framerates, it's easier to visualize like that.

 

[geofelt]

GTX 970 is two tiers higher on tom's graphics hierarchy chart:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
They do not recommend an upgrade unless the new card is at least three tiers higher.
You may be disappointed if you do not see big improvements.
Considering that the RX-480 is comparable in performance to the GTX970 should give you pause.

OTOH, GTX970 is considered to play most games well at 1080P.

I tend to not look at average or even minimum fps statistics.
I look at how often there are long frame times which can be annoying.
If the recent RX480 benchmarks, I saw only one such test, and the RX-480 had a few more long frame times than the GTX970.
Is that important in the long run? probably not as drivers get better.

If you will forever play at 1080P, then the RX-480 should do.
But, since you are asking about the GTX1070 and that is within your budget, I suggest you buy the GTX1070.
You may well want to game at 1440P in the future.
And... If you do not buy the stronger GTX1070, you will forever wonder if you should have.

 

[Hlsgsz]

All such frame dips would be mitigated if you had a FreeSync/G-Sync monitor. But i guess if you did, you wouldn't be asking between the 1070 and 480 as each tech is exclusive to AMD/Nvidia.