Which Graphic Card is Futureproof? Both From NVIDIA and AMD? and Greater in Performance?

[bp8401363]

Thank
you in advance

 

[dingo07]

Nothing is "Futureproof"

At best, you'll get roughly 3-5 years out of the best GPU available today

 

[meat_loaf]

Thank
you in advance

There is nothing futureproof when we are talking about GPU. Every year either AMD and Nvidia comes out with newer cards or a redesigned version of its existing series for better performance through efficiency.

The general upgrade path for most gpu is usually 3 yrs if its at high end like R9 280. If you mid range cards, then it wont last very long, at most 2 yrs and it won't run newer games high settings.

 

[17seconds]

The most "future proof" cards out right now are the Maxwell 2 cards, GTX 980/970/960. They are the only cards that can do the full DirectX 12.1 feature set at the hardware level. All other recent video cards can only do DirectX 12.0 and only via a software implementation. DirectX 12.1 adds more intensive raster processes that require specific hardware to run.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091.html

 

[Snookslayer]

"2-3 years"? Jeesh cards hold up better than that. The HD 6870 I bought four years ago for $180 can still play every game on the market. Probably will for the next couple years. Not all games at Ultra, but medium at worst. BF3 for instance I get great fps with ultra except AA. BF4 I do fine with high settings and no AA.

I kinda wish there were games my old card couldn't play to help me justify the $350+ I plan on spending in the near future. The possibility of getting a 1440p monitor really justifies it, but definitely not poor settings or terrible fps on my current 1080.

 

[meat_loaf]

The most "future proof" cards out right now are the Maxwell 2 cards, GTX 980/970/960. They are the only cards that can do the full DirectX 12.1 feature set at the hardware level. All other recent video cards can only do DirectX 12.0 and only via a software implementation. DirectX 12.1 adds more intensive raster processes that require specific hardware to run.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091.html

"2-3 years"? Jeesh cards hold up better than that. The HD 6870 I bought four years ago for $180 can still play every game on the market. Probably will for the next couple years. Not all games at Ultra, but medium at worst. BF3 for instance I get great fps with ultra except AA. BF4 I do fine with high settings and no AA.

I kinda wish there were games my old card couldn't play to help me justify the $350+ I plan on spending in the near future. The possibility of getting a 1440p monitor really justifies it, but definitely not poor settings or terrible fps on my current 1080.

HD 6870 is crap at playing games. I had one and upgraded to R9 270. HD 6870 can't even run witcher 2 at 30+ fps. om medium settings, and I got that card in 2011 Summer and upgraded it to R9 270 in Jan 2014. It can't really hold up against new games especially when mantle isn't available to HD 6800.

 

[meat_loaf]

The most "future proof" cards out right now are the Maxwell 2 cards, GTX 980/970/960. They are the only cards that can do the full DirectX 12.1 feature set at the hardware level. All other recent video cards can only do DirectX 12.0 and only via a software implementation. DirectX 12.1 adds more intensive raster processes that require specific hardware to run.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091.html

Not for long when R9 300 comes out in June. So essentially even "future proof now" will be obsolete when GPU's are coming out like every half a year. You just gotta pick the card that bests fits what you want.

 

[Vici0us]

R9 295X2 is probably your best option price/performance ratio.

 

[chenw]

295x is great on paper, but unfortunately Xfire profiles is currently lacking from AMD (their last driver update was in December). nVidia often updates SLI profiles before the games are released, most of the time soon after. Current Xfire profile backlog is pretty long (EG FC4 and AC:U, released in Nov, haven't gotten them).

 

[17seconds]

R9 295X2 is probably your best option price/performance ratio.

Quote:
"Here is the big problem with the AMD Radeon R9 295X2 video card, it relies on CrossFire profiles to function and scale well in games. If there are no profiles for CrossFire in said game, you will not have CrossFire support. You can try to turn on the option to force CrossFire on games that have no profile, but it may not work, and if it does, there could be bugs. Even then, it won't be as efficient as AMD optimized profiles in drivers for new games.

AMD has been behind recently on providing CrossFire driver profiles for new games. The latest driver from AMD was released in early December of 2014. It is now mid-March 2015 and no new driver yet. That means all games released between then and now have had no optimized CrossFire driver profiles. Far Cry 4, which has been out since November of 2014 still has no CrossFire support. Dying Light, a new game, also has no CrossFire support officially.

It is this that makes the AMD Radeon R9 295X an unappealing product. When profiles are working right though, it can be a fast video card. In this evaluation we showed four games that CrossFire will work on, though in a roundabout way for Dying Light."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/16/asus_rog_poseidon_gtx_980_platinum_vs_amd_r9_295x2/8#.VQpiC-lFCUk


Quote:
"That situation is put into stark contrast when we look at what’s happening with AMD’s driver development as of late. Not only has it been nearly four months since their last revision – which is an eternity in the PC gaming space- but the new release they gave us in time for the TITAN X review leaves much to be desired as well. At 1440P it performed admirably (albeit with the Metro: Last Light problems remaining unresolved months after they first reared up) but 4K compatibility was a hit and miss affair at best. Crossfire profiles were either broken, missing or under-performing in Metro: Last Light, Hitman Absolution, Dying Light and Far Cry 4. That’s four out of the nine games we included in this review and that poor showing ultimately pushed down the card’s 4K framerates. With that taken into account the R9 295X2 is simply not a viable alternative to the $999 TITAN X at this time, even at its current price of $699."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/68992-nvidia-titan-x-performance-review-17.html

 

[Snookslayer]

HD 6870 is crap at playing games.

Solid 50 fps on BF3 with ultra settings (no AA) ain't "crap." And I don't even overclock.

I understand you wanting to justify all the money you blew on a new great card, but no need to outright lie.

 

[meat_loaf]

HD 6870 is crap at playing games.

Solid 50 fps on BF3 with ultra settings (no AA) ain't "crap." And I don't even overclock.

I understand you wanting to justify all the money you blew on a new great card, but no need to outright lie.

Dude, are you for real? You're practically lying to yourself when you said it ran BF3 ultra at 50fps. Look at tomshardware benhcmarks for HD 6870 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-7.html. It only got 42 fps at high settings. If you're going to BS at least be credible at it.

Stop overselling it. And no, R9 270 isn't expensive. Considering i only paid $200 for it during the bitcoin hype and 270 is still selling close to the price I paid for.

 

[meat_loaf]

R9 295X2 is probably your best option price/performance ratio.

Quote:
"Here is the big problem with the AMD Radeon R9 295X2 video card, it relies on CrossFire profiles to function and scale well in games. If there are no profiles for CrossFire in said game, you will not have CrossFire support. You can try to turn on the option to force CrossFire on games that have no profile, but it may not work, and if it does, there could be bugs. Even then, it won't be as efficient as AMD optimized profiles in drivers for new games.

AMD has been behind recently on providing CrossFire driver profiles for new games. The latest driver from AMD was released in early December of 2014. It is now mid-March 2015 and no new driver yet. That means all games released between then and now have had no optimized CrossFire driver profiles. Far Cry 4, which has been out since November of 2014 still has no CrossFire support. Dying Light, a new game, also has no CrossFire support officially.

It is this that makes the AMD Radeon R9 295X an unappealing product. When profiles are working right though, it can be a fast video card. In this evaluation we showed four games that CrossFire will work on, though in a roundabout way for Dying Light."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/16/asus_rog_poseidon_gtx_980_platinum_vs_amd_r9_295x2/8#.VQpiC-lFCUk


Quote:
"That situation is put into stark contrast when we look at what’s happening with AMD’s driver development as of late. Not only has it been nearly four months since their last revision – which is an eternity in the PC gaming space- but the new release they gave us in time for the TITAN X review leaves much to be desired as well. At 1440P it performed admirably (albeit with the Metro: Last Light problems remaining unresolved months after they first reared up) but 4K compatibility was a hit and miss affair at best. Crossfire profiles were either broken, missing or under-performing in Metro: Last Light, Hitman Absolution, Dying Light and Far Cry 4. That’s four out of the nine games we included in this review and that poor showing ultimately pushed down the card’s 4K framerates. With that taken into account the R9 295X2 is simply not a viable alternative to the $999 TITAN X at this time, even at its current price of $699."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/68992-nvidia-titan-x-performance-review-17.html

The games you mentioned here are more Nvidia title games. Metro Last Light, Far Cry 4, Dying Light, all of these are Nvidia titles. Mind you Dying Light was created using broken ass Gameworks. Even nvidia's own card struggles to run it smooth enough at high resolutions.

 

[chenw]

While that is true, I don't think nVidia struggles with AMD favored games. Yes, they may perform worse, but still generally are playable.

 

[meat_loaf]

While that is true, I don't think nVidia struggles with AMD favored games. Yes, they may perform worse, but still generally are playable.

AMD made games generally run well with both brand of GPUs mostly because AMD don't put a noose on the developers with AMD's own propriatery stuff like Mantle. But Nvidia is the reverse. Physx (Agiea) was intentially bought out by nvidia so that they can cripple ATI when it comes to physx games. But hardly any developers use it anyways since physx is even worse than DX API. Gameworks is even worse. Nvidia pays developers to use it because it cripples games.

 

[chenw]

Hmm... I thought it was completely the other way round, people had to pay to use GameWorks...

 

[Snookslayer]

You're practically lying to yourself when you said it ran BF3 ultra at 50fps. Look at tomshardware benhcmarks for HD 6870 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-7.html. It only got 42 fps at high settings.

You do realize how much fps difference turning off AA makes, yes?

 

[meat_loaf]

Hmm... I thought it was completely the other way round, people had to pay to use GameWorks...

You're practically lying to yourself when you said it ran BF3 ultra at 50fps. Look at tomshardware benhcmarks for HD 6870 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-7.html. It only got 42 fps at high settings.

You do realize how much fps difference turning off AA makes, yes?

Depends on what kind of AA. MSAA slightly more performance impact, FXAA hardly any. Second, as I said I have HD6870, i know how much FPS you get with or without AA. Without AA max average FPS is 48 and lots of explosions will drop it down to 40's. With AA average is 43 fps.

And FYI, i bought my XFX 6870 for $150 while my R9 270 is only $200. And on BF3, everything is maxed out including MSAA. So there really is no argument about the fact why I said 6870 is crappy. You wouldn't be able to even run games like Shadow of Mordor that requires on average 2gb of vram, same with DA:I and many of the current games that are out.

Mind you BF3 is rather old and if that is the only game and other mobas I presume you play, obviously would not see the problem of GPU being the bottleneck.

 

[Snookslayer]

I paid $180 about 4+ years ago. I stand by HD 6870 being a solid card for me all these years, but I will admit it's finally reaching the end of it's "every game" status. Despite handling BF3/4 well, it struggled mightily with Far Cry 4.

I didn't mean anyone should buy one today, obviously.

 

[dingo07]

I'm gonna get me one of these

 

[kingcarlos89]

so is it worth to get the titan-x?

 

[Snookslayer]

I'm gonna get me one of these

I want one. But I'm worried about seeing GTX 970 prices $100+ lower in 3 months or so. You must be rich.



And I'm one cheap miser.

 

[meat_loaf]

so is it worth to get the titan-x?

There is absolutely no point in getting Titan X. Its way overpriced and I doubt it will perform that drastically when newer versions of Nvidia comes out. 980Ti will seem apparent and there is a whiff of news already that there will be a GTX 990.

Besides there is still R9 390X that will come out in June.