im really glad this is getting voted hot man. the new GPUs are overpriced junk in my opinion. nvidia have seen a milk cow and they are milking it, amd are obviously happy with their share of the console market. and i know peeps will get annoyed and be all like "yeah man but the 10 series has half the power consumption, new architecture, etc etc" who cares pc gaming is about big, beasting psu's, gpu's, cpu's, and looking freaking awesome. so heat added bro. ( one too many guiness tonight, so sorry for the essay...essay.) :smiley::wink: happy friday deal hunters.

im really glad this is getting voted hot man. the new GPUs are overpriced junk in my opinion. nvidia have seen a milk cow and they are milking it, amd are obviously happy with their share of the console market. and i know peeps will get annoyed and be all like "yeah man but the 10 series has half the power consumption, new architecture, etc etc" who cares pc gaming is about big, beasting psu's, gpu's, cpu's, and looking freaking awesome. so heat added bro. ( one too many guiness tonight, so sorry for the essay...essay.) :smiley::wink: happy friday deal hunters.

Yeah, but if you were the market leader why would you encourage developers to use a-sync. It's a good thing but arguably helps AMD more than themselves, especially with legacy cards. It's like handing your rival the ace of spades.

A few breakout games will eventually force their hand.

i think also with vulcan becoming a more popular api that amd are kinda waiting for the right moment to strike.....or not. i dunno but this is a beasting gpu. hahaha

i think i agree dude but .....i am extremely wasted right now ao every likelihood i will wake up tomoz n be lik ...WTF? hope i dont get banned from hukd for being a steamin fanny pack hahaha. regardles of mental mantle and vague vilcan. this card is bitchin. now ladies n gents i must go to bed and imagine a world where i actaually know wtf im talking aboot. good night all. if its not a deal....its ****!

Nvidia cards will use Vulcan too. Given time, I expect both sides will benefit equally and so nvidia is likely to still be ahead.

It IS a bit of a beast...but it it worth the extra £50 over the more modern gtx 1060? I would've seriously considered that if it was £250, hopefully it drops more soon for us bargain hunters :sunglasses:

No my cup of tea, but voted hot, as it is cheaper price for this GPU.

I'm sure anyone already looking for this will already know, but just incase no Hdmi 2.0 = 4k 30fps (so any future proofing of Vulkan goes a miss)

Options are buy a dp - hdmi adaptor or play at qhd. If your looking for qhd / 144hz you may be tempted.

My opinion is this is overpriced still. The RX 480 / GTX 1060 manage qhd. The market still needs to be fleshed out with the other models, this will take time.

All cards seems to be gimped in one dorm or another (intentionally)

Price is much more in line with how the market has shifted in the last month.
With factory settings I doubt you will get a better value card at the price.
If you over clock then a GTX 1060 OC is only about 5% slower than a Fury OC but the good ones aren't much less than this. As usual with AMD this would consume about 80W more.
For an AMD fan this may be too tempting! :innocent:

It doesn't appear to be an issue yet but if one is looking at 3 years down the line who knows! More likely to gain versus Nvidia with DX12 titles in the future and it's well ahead of an RX 480 so still seems a good gamble.

Both AMD and Nvidias new cards have great price per performance margins.

Makes no sense. It's not really significantly faster than a stock GTX1060. Let alone one of the partner OC versions that can be had for £50 less than this and have 2GB more VRAM, and have a TDP 150w less!

Do you have some links to the stutter on many pcs? I'm seriously considering a 1060, I read a fair few respected forums, hardware review sites and some great hardware podcasts, I have never heard them mention any serious stutter on many pcs.

I hope you can post some real evidence to this issue you detailed.

Not seen any reports of significant stutter.

It's also strange if there was you think it would take months and months to fix. Nvidia update their drivers monthly for their newest cards. GTX1070 has been out just over a month and it's already had 3 WHQL driver revisions, GTX1080 4 revisions since it launched 2 months ago....

I would buy the card that is at least as fast on most titles with more memory, uses A LOT less power and costs £50 less. You?

If he was being genuinely helpful then surely you post a link to the problem so I would ignore it as yet another random web post.

I have not used a 1060 and never used a fury but I did have 970 strix overclocked (faster than a stock 1060) and currently use a Fury X (a little faster than a Fury) and can say for sure the 970 comes nowhere near the performance of the Fury x at high res (I game 3440x1440).

So I imagine the same will apply for 1060 v Fury.

If you want to play dx11 games at 1080p for the next couple of years then you may as well get a 1060. Otherwise you would be crazy not to go for the fury for only a little more. For a decent 1060 your looking around £280.

Yeah my fault for skimping (typing on mobile)

I was referring to people who will be connecting to 4k tvs, hence adaptor. The Fury will undoubtedly be better, I always suspected they intentionally left out hdmi2.0 to make the new gen more appealing. Can't be true as the amount of sales this cost them last gen?

DP has always been a superior standard for computers and anybody that's buying a 4K TV to run games probably isn't "serious" anyway given the latency of most of the early 4K TV's.

I personally wouldn't be put off by the lack of 2.0 HDMI, but can only really speak for myself.

I still think 4K gaming is a concept right now, until 120hz OLED gaming is possible on a single card, I'll bite.

2K still the best option IMO and the 980 and Fury still do this very very well.

I'm still torn between:

1. 8GB Nitro+ 480 OC - £250
2. 4GB Nitro 480 - £200
3. 4GB XFX 480 Reference - £182
4. 4GB Nitro Fury - £299

I'm still only 1080p gaming on a 4GB 290, which plays everything I throw at it, but it's pretty inefficient and could easily replace my central heating (they run happily at 90-95deg!). Part of my reasoning would therefore be heat and power efficiency - I'm freesync so Nvidia is out.

Benchmarks seem to suggest OC is lowish at 10% across any Polaris and that there's no real difference (meaningful) across reference or not, or 4GB/8GB across target resolution of 1080p.

I question the longevity of the Polaris range with Vega on the horizon and persistent rumours of AMD releasing multi-GPU HBM2 cards in 2017.

Arghhhhhh!

All I know since going from a loyal amd fanboy and switch to nvidia, I have far less issues, and I have a cars that apparently is terrible because of the 3
5gb of ram from 4, but I would buy nvidia again, just seems to work better , I've been buying amd since ATI rage pro days until I bought a Maxwell card and never looked back.

Personally i'd go for the 1060 over this!

I have the XFX vision of this Card brought from OCuK clearance Sale around 250 had a look and was just damaged box works perfect so was lucky :smiley:

Running this card with 4770k and 16GB ram on a 1440P screen
Rust fully maxed 70-90FPS
Overwatch fully maxed 70fps *note have it capped*
Big upgrade from my AMD 380

I get a locked 60 fps on probably 95% of games I play at the minute but only because I lower graphics settings if need be to achieve a 60fps lock with no or minimal dips. Realistically if you want to play real graphic intensive games maxed out on ultra at 3440x1440 you need 2 Fury X's in crossfire but I find games still look great at this res with 1 Fury X even with slightly lowered settings.

Recent games I have been playing...

Battlefield 1 beta (high preset) 60fps

Doom (high preset) 60fps

GTA V (mixture of medium and ultra) 60 fps

Metro 2033 (mixture of medium and ultra) 60 fps

Project Cars (mixture of low and high) 55 - 60 fps but looks worse because of some dodgy frame times since the VR update.

ROTR (bad performance no matter what unless I turn off shadows, can only recommend 1080p Ultra with this card unfortunately)

Total War Warhammer (mixture of medium and high) 60fps during battles, 45 - 55 fps during campaign map.

Witcher 3 (mix of medium and ultra) 60fps

Compared to the 970 strix, that card could not even run 2560x1080 decently. Not used a 1070 yet and no idea of its performance at 1440p ultrawide but at that price its definitely worth a look if your OK with Nvidia's extreme planned obsolescence business model.

​Cool thanks for the update. At the moment I'm using a R9 280 and it's great at 2560x1080 but on a 3440x1440 monitor you can notice the upscale in games like rise of the tomb raider. In optimised games like gta v I'm getting an average of 50 fps at 3440x1440 with everything on high except grass. Similar situation in payday 2, wwe 2k16 (60 fps), fifa 15 battlefield 4 and a few others.

The GTX 1070 is a beast at 3440x1440 from the benchmarks I've seen. Getting 60 FPS in latest games with high settings and average 45 fps on ultra or maximum settings in games like witcher 3.

Currently you can get one for £379 as mentioned before but only thing concerning me is how the drivers will mature in the future like 4 years down the line. Nvidia track record with the 780ti is a great example.

Where as AMD GPUs from older generations are still great performers. Problem is AMD haven't given a answer to the GTX 1070 but a RX 490 listed was leaked. I'm hoping it's not a dual GPU as crossfire support is terrible.

Ordered one today, here tomorrow.

If anybody is after a R9 290 drop me a PM. Great for mining/gaming.

Perspective, go check benchs for 290 reference (or 390 and minus 5%), versus Fury Nitro.

In most titles you're talking 10-30fps. That's the difference between playing a game within freesync range at high resolutions, or not, including 4k.

Right now I'm on 1080p but am looking for a 1440p freesync monitor which will effectively buy me another 2 years of gaming - for £150/£180 upgrade cost, that's decent value in my eyes.

DX12/Vulkan should give it a bump further and with Vega rumoured to be using HBM2 I'm hoping that further driver optimisation in favour of the crazy bus capacity will again shove it in the back.

Other reasons are the 290 hits 95 deg (which it's designed to do), blower is loud, uses more electricity... Nitro runs -96mv at a slight OC happily, room is cooler, GPU and VRM is nice and cool, happy days!

Nvidia (how are your shares?), I'd want need to spend more on the card for a top tier one, a premium on g-sync and still get worse DX12/Vulkan performance. Only real benefit is the greater power efficiency. Pointless.

1070 would be a better card, but more than I'm willing to spend given monitor refresh, lack of stock and ludicrous pricing.