Options of graphics card for computer build

[toxin9]

Hey everyone. I have a friend that wants to build a new computer. The key aspect is future proofing-hoping to makensure one that will last for 6 or 7 years. Because of that I decided it was best for him to get skylake for the chipset. In the end it came down to 2 options. What's better: to get the i5-6600k with an EVGA 980 for a graphics card or the i7-6700k with a msi 970. This computer is mainly for gaming. What should I do?
Thanks!

 

[anti-duck]

Neither of those graphics cards are going to last more than a couple of years considering the shift to low level API's, I wouldn't recommend anyone purchase a graphics card right now, especially an Nvidia graphics card.

Both AMD and Nvidia are set to release new video cards within the next few months.

 

[Zerk2012]

I would get the i7 and GTX 970 if your using a 1080p monitor. The video card will need to be upgraded a time or two during the life of the processor anyhow to keep up with the gaming demands.
New cards are coming out toward the end of the year not next couple months like people will tell you they have been no working cards seen.

 

[toxin9]

His computer doesn't work anymore. I don't think he wants one that will be able to run games in 1080p for the next 7 years for 60fps. I think he wants one that will be able to run current games at the highest performance he can afford so it wouldn't suck as much 5 years into the future. Do you really think it's worth waiting 6 months for the next gen? Keep in mind his computer is barely functional with blue screens on a daily basis

 

[Joshua_32]

Ignore the first comment, waiting is stupid. As for the cards.. Neither - I'd grab an AMD (390X or fury X)over a Nvidia card at the moment, as AMD is FAR more future proof.

 

[toxin9]

Ignore the first comment, waiting is stupid. As for the cards.. Neither - I'd grab an AMD (390X or fury X)over a Nvidia card at the moment, as AMD is FAR more future proof.

really? how is it more future proof? looking at a few comparisons between the 980 and the 390x i see that the 980 is slightly Superior in performance.

 

[anti-duck]

His computer doesn't work anymore. I don't think he wants one that will be able to run games in 1080p for the next 7 years for 60fps. I think he wants one that will be able to run current games at the highest performance he can afford so it wouldn't suck as much 5 years into the future. Do you really think it's worth waiting 6 months for the next gen? Keep in mind his computer is barely functional with blue screens on a daily basis

Usually I wouldn't recommend waiting, as obviously you could be waiting exponentially for the next big thing, in this case, I would recommend waiting because of the big shift to a smaller node and hardware based asynchronous compute on Nvidia cards, AMD already have hardware based asynchronous compute so if you do choose to get a video card right now, I would recommend going with AMD, it's probably not going to be 6 months for AMD to release Polaris though, more like June, not sure about Nvidia's Pascal.

 

[toxin9]

but the 390x is not as good as the 980

 

[RobCrezz]

Go for the i7 with 970, but be aware it would need to upgrade the graphics card in a few years time, the rest of the system should still be fine.

 

[anti-duck]

Yeah, the GTX 980 does beat the 390X right now in serial API's, but we're moving to low level API's where asynchronous compute will matter. Out of video cards currently on the market, AMD cards are more future proof than the Nvidia equivalent; sure a 970 or 980 will do and still be good a few years down the line, but a 390 or 390X should outperform them in games that are well optimised for asynchronous compute.

I don't really get the rationale behind anyone recommending a 970 right now when the 390 is already on par, but will gain a lead. Asynchronous compute just gives a developer more options and used properly, we'll see a 390 beating the GTX 980.

 

[RobCrezz]

Yeah, the GTX 980 does beat the 390X right now in serial API's, but we're moving to low level API's where asynchronous compute will matter. Out of video cards currently on the market, AMD cards are more future proof than the Nvidia equivalent; sure a 970 or 980 will do and still be good a few years down the line, but a 390 or 390X should outperform them in games that are well optimised for asynchronous compute.

I don't really get the rationale behind anyone recommending a 970 right now when the 390 is already on par, but will gain a lead. Asynchronous compute just gives a developer more options and used properly, we'll see a 390 beating the GTX 980.

Please stop spreading this like it is fact.

We do not have enough DX12 games to make statements like that.

Looking at the Tomb raider DX12 benchmarks, the Nvidia cards are doing well.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/03/28/rise_tomb_raider_dx11_vs_dx12_review/7#.Vx9v2vkrKHs

980 ti still top of the board.

DX12 will likely be just like DX11 - some games will favor AMD, some will favor Nvidia.

 

[anti-duck]

It is a fact that AMD has had ACE since the HD 7000 series whilst Nvidia haven't even bothered with a software implementation for parralelism like they said they would. When you have card A that can perform tasks asynchronously and then card B that can't, which card gives the developers more options, A or B? It's not rocket science.

 

[RobCrezz]

It is a fact that AMD has had ACE since the HD 7000 series whilst Nvidia haven't even bothered with a software implementation for parralelism like they said they would. When you have card A that can perform tasks asynchronously and then card B that can't, which card gives the developers more options, A or B? It's not rocket science.

So that is the only way to get good performance in DX12?

I guess you know better than Nvidia :lol:

 

[anti-duck]

Nice obfuscation. No, it obviously isn't the only way, but it is a way to leverage extra performance. Nvidia didn't lie about Maxwell's support for async because async is completely irrelevant.

 

[RobCrezz]

Also, Maxwell is capable of Async compute, to say that it isnt is a myth. Maybe you need to do more research before you give expert advice on the subject.

 

[anti-duck]

Not true parallelism, they use context switching to emulate async but never actually do compute and graphics work in parallel. A Titan X becomes overloaded beyond 32 simultaneous command lists, the Fury X can do upto 128.

Hyper-Q was/is amazing in current serial API's, but won't quite cut it compared to compute engines. Nvidia aren't redundantly banging a few compute engines on Pascal.

 

[Epicness937]

there is not to great of a chance yo have 60fps in games at 1080p for 7 years maybe a 980ti could do it i dont know i 970 wont nor a 980 i think for 7 years the only options are a titan x 980 ti or something like a 295x2 or titan z which even then my not do it

 

[Joshua_32]

Also, Maxwell is capable of Async compute, to say that it isnt is a myth. Maybe you need to do more research before you give expert advice on the subject.

If that's true why does the 390 DESTORY the 970 in DX12 titles (Double FPS)

 

[toxin9]

well i'm still confused :/ how confident are you that the 390x will be better than the 980?

 

[anti-duck]

To chime in again, the 390 doesn't destroy the GTX 970 in DirectX 12 from most of what we've seen so far, though it does have the potential to. The thing about low level API's is that they give a lot more control to the developer in terms of memory management, compute etc... Over provisioning in DirectX 12 could cause a loss in performance, it needs to be tuned right, which is why I have a problem with someone recommending a 970 over a 390, there's absolutely no reason to go for a 970 unless you really need that efficiency.

Async is being used as a marketing term by Nvidia, they know what customer's expect when they hear 'async', they technically do async, but not parallel compute and graphics on the GPU.

I'll explain why AMD has the potential to destroy an equivalent Maxwell card. In current serial API's, there is what you could call an 'API bottleneck' where shaders are under utilised. AMD solved this by chucking more cores at the problem, whilst Maxwell has less more powerful cores than Kepler which Hyper-Q does a good job of keeping busy.

Currently, an R9 390 at ~70% utilisation keeps up with a GTX 970 at closer to 100% utilisation, what do you think is going to happen when the R9 390 is at closer to 100% utilisation? An R9 390 is de facto more future proof.

I should add that I don't have so much of a problem with the GTX 980; if it's 10% faster now than the 390X, but DirectX 12 gives a 10% performance boost to the GTX 980, whilst boosting the R9 390X by 15%, then the GTX 980 is still faster, it's the recommendation of a GTX 970 that I have a problem with. The GTX 980 would be a decent buy right now, the 390X a better buy in my opinion, but the GTX 970 literally doesn't make any sense long term.

 

[toxin9]

but the question isn't a 970 against the 390x- in that case the 390x wins. but against the 980? the 980 is much more powerful. are you sure that it's better to get the 390x over the 980? P.S: what's serial API?

 

[anti-duck]

but the question isn't a 970 against the 390x- in that case the 390x wins. but against the 980? the 980 is much more powerful. are you sure that it's better to get the 390x over the 980? P.S: what's serial API?

Yeah, people were recommending you get a GTX 970 and I'm just explaining why that's not really the best choice. I would say the 390X is going to come out on top, we're going to have GCN (HD 7000 series, R9 200 series and R9 300 series), Polaris (R9 400 series) and Pascal (GTX 1000 series), all with compute engines on the GPU die... and then Maxwell (GTX 750 and GTX 900 series) without, developers will start developing with that in mind.

A serial API is an API (i.e - Direct X 11, OpenGL 4.5) that does everything in serial. Think of it like a pipeline where serial would be one pipe and parallel would be multiple pipes.

 

[hang-the-9]

His computer doesn't work anymore. I don't think he wants one that will be able to run games in 1080p for the next 7 years for 60fps. I think he wants one that will be able to run current games at the highest performance he can afford so it wouldn't suck as much 5 years into the future. Do you really think it's worth waiting 6 months for the next gen? Keep in mind his computer is barely functional with blue screens on a daily basis

There is almost no way to know what you need in the next few years, much less 7. Only way to maximize your chances now is to get two 980 Ti cards, or get one and get a second on in a few years when prices go down. And a top end CPU to go with it like that i7.

Just because the system crashes does not mean it needs to be replaced, what was done to fix it? Re-installing Windows can fix many issues.

 

[toxin9]

he needs to upgrade now. trust me the computer is unusable. the question is do i get an i7 with the 970 or an i5 with the 980. or the 390x... he can't get a 980ti they're too expensive. and again, he doesn't want a computer that will be able to have top performance 5 years from now, he wants the best one he can get right now so 5 years from now he'll still be able to run games- not max specs but still run them

 

[hang-the-9]

he needs to upgrade now. trust me the computer is unusable. the question is do i get an i7 with the 970 or an i5 with the 980. or the 390x... he can't get a 980ti they're too expensive. and again, he doesn't want a computer that will be able to have top performance 5 years from now, he wants the best one he can get right now so 5 years from now he'll still be able to run games- not max specs but still run them

I'd go with a good overclockable i5 CPU and a faster video card in that case. It really depends on the games though, and it's tough to know what new engine will be out in the future and if it will want a fast CPU or not.