With the decent performance uprades compared to last gen's GPUs (GTX 9xx / R9 360, 370, 380), does it make any sense to upgrade to one of those instead of the new ones? (GTX 1060 / Rx 480)?
Usually it's like "nah, don't bother. last gen's still fine", bit at least with the 480 I've seen a lot of "don't bother, even if the 380 is cheaper, just get the 480".
Now that you guys gave me some input, I'd like to specify my question a bit:
Does it make sense to buy GPUs of the last architecture series when the first series using new architecture is available?
the new generations of stuff will always show some improvements but when you look at actual benchmarks you have to assess whether what you currently have is that much worse than what you might upgrade too, if for example its a 10 frame difference I would not bother.. You see more significant generational leaps in tech every 3 to 5 years,
For example Nvidia in their 7xx series maxwell generation 1 cards, improved the maxwell performance for the gen 2 cards and re-released them as 9xx series cards. Pascal however is a different architecture to Maxwell and hence you see what is technically a generational leap not just an enhancement of an existing tech. The same goes for AMD with some products, and again Polaris is a new architecture that should supersede the older one.
However an interesting thing to note is that the R9 series AMD cards did include the ability to work with new technologies and api's as part of their design due to mantle, they are already compliant with vulkan, and support dx12 fully and are based on GCN 1.0 so for AMD Radeon users whether the RX 4xxx series truly justifies spending extra money is questionable if they own an R9 series card. As most industry pundits would suggest waiting for Vega from AMD late next year may be a wiser decision if you currently run an R9 card.
I just went from a 770 to a 1070, and yeah, the generational gap is dramatic, whereas the iterative ones are less "worth it."
I can't speak much for AMD in your case here, out of a lack of knowledge, but for Nvidia, in the same price range ($450 - $500) You can get an "aftermarket" 1070 OR a 980ti, which will have comparable performance. But then there's the Pascal perks, like 2x VR performance and GPU boost 3.0 (EDIT: oh, and power consumption!!!)
Now, when you lower the budget, (and I don't know yours) Things get a bit more interesting A 1060 and a 970 are similar in price as well as of now, but a 1060 is going to be a much better option.
TL:DR performance comparisons are a bit more "apples and oranges" across generational gaps, so for Red or Green, you need to pick some potential GPUs first and then look at the difference. This is because the answer to your initial question, "Does it make sense to get one of the last gen GPUs?" (and does it make sense in a price/performance sense) will sometimes be a big yes and sometimes be a big no.
That was wordy. Sorry. Reply direct if you need clarification!
The rebranding phase was kind of a let-down ("if you already have a xxx or higher, don't bother getting any of the 'new' cards"). Then it made absolutely sense to get the prev. gen (same or very similar performance, lower price). But with the generational leaps it seems to be different.
For the perks of this new architecture generation: I personally - at least as long as it's Windows 10 exclusive and it probably will be forever - I couldn't care less about DX12 support and hope that Vulkan will replace it completely; speaking long-term. The things I care about, though, are lower power consumption, better cooling solutions (lower temps, less noise) and low price / good price to performance ratio.
My budget would (hypothetically speaking) be at around 200€ (that's my personal limit for anything electronics related), which is already a problem since the RX 480 4GB costs ~250€ here. For me that's too much money for something that might need to be replaced in 2 years again (I know, weird since 200€ is fine^^). The 1060 is also above that budget (starts at ~270€; 3GB version not available yet it seems). The 380 would be okay (can get a Nitro OC 4GB for ~190€ on Amazon) but if 60€ more will get me significantly more performance and more time until I "need" to upgrade again I'd go with that.
Thing is when you did that video card upgrade did you also do a motherboard and cpu upgradE? I am curious as to what else is in your rig.
As for @TheDiddilyHorror's question I say wait for the 4K single card that can do max graphics on pretty much everything especially if what you are using right now is fine. Don't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.
I guess 4K won't be an option for the (low) budget-minded PC gamers for still a while.
I had to dial down the settings when the pre-patch for WoW Legion was implemented and even before that my R7 260X couldn't sustain 60fps in the latest expansion (WoD) on high settings. Ultra 60fps @1080p was unreachable and not it's even further away. I also don't plan on upgrading my monitor(s) to 4K panels in the near future either, so a nice, low budget GPU for 1080p is enogh for me. And that's not just for WoW, which isn't really known for graphical beauty. The only games I can run maxed out with almost constant 60fps are from the Darksiders 2 era (at least that's the last one I played). Batman Arkham Origins I have to dial down the settings to get sustained 60fps. It's always the AA that makes the big hit on the fps.
So....I wouldn't say the GPU that I have now "is fine". It get's the job done with older games and certainly better than my i3's iGPU, but other than that....^^
I think it all depends on the price and availability and vendor.
Right now if you're looking at an RX480 I don't think it makes sense to buy one. Not at the prices and scarcity of non reference cards. There are a bunch of R9 390s available right now for $240. That seems to be a much better value if you don't care about power consumption.
nVidia is hard to say. Almost all of their 900 series cards had 4 or less GBs of VRAM and their architecture is poor in DX12 and lacks some Async and other stuff. Plus the inevitable nVidia nerfs will hurt it more. I wouldn't buy any 900 series card from nVidia except a 980 Ti if it could be had for less than a 1070.
Well, I am not liking my 85 C too much that I get from my R9 390 when it is pushed (not even overclocked). So in that sense, the RX 480 is better due to the lower risk of thermal throttling. Of course there is also the GTX 1060, which is just above both of those cards.
Right now if you want to buy new and don't want to upgrade an existing card to SLI/CF: If you want a GTX950 equivalent, well there is nothing newer in that market on the nvidia side. On team red only two chips still make sense: Polaris and Fiji. Everything else is not worth the money anymore.
Each launch will have its benefits, with each level of card performing the same as the one up (or even 2 :o) from the previous generation.
I had this decision recently. I was running with a 780 and thought long over the choice of what to go for. With that in mind I went for 980ti over a 1070. For the 1080p gaming I do the 1070 seemed a bit overkill. Then, of course, Vulkan came out and boosted the AMD cards I hadn't put much thought too.
I had my frames dipping to mid-30's instead of usual 45-50, on Witcher 3 when I was playing the game at 1440p High. And I can feel the heat coming out of my case, and it was all the GPU, the R9 390 is a rebrand of the 290, which is famous for being very hot. My GPU is the MSI card.
Also, I haven't found an incident where the RX 480 (not even the reference card) goes above 80 C at stock, not in a normal sized computer case anyways.
My fans are spinning rather quickly but doesn't cool down., I may try modifying the card to run cooler, but that's pretty risky, I will wait until R9 390 level performance is easier to access (like when an R9 390 get's reduced to an RX 660 or something like that) before I modify the card.
