安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
From those two, the GTX1080 is the better card. Better overall gaming performance, and Nvidia usually have better optimisation as well. Problem is, GPU prices are being gouged to a ridiculous degree across Europe and the Americas with no relief in sight. And the GXT1080 itself is nearing the end of production run, it'll be replaced by something new and probably a lot better when Volta launches in a couple of months.
I would wait.
End of production life - original postt edited for clarity
And no, itt's nowhere near the end of it's practical life. I fully expect there'll be some kicking around in 2025 and still probably doing a good job.
There are rumurs of Nvidia saying something about the next gen GPU sometime in April/May and from there is would likely be 2h to 4Q of 2018 before anything releases. This is if Nvidia thinks it's a good time to go into competition with it's own products.
We don't even have a clue if Volta will even come to consumer GPUs.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/
No. AMD doesn't have anywhere near the development budget of Nvidia and their priorities are differentt. And besides, they've just lost their top GPU R&D engineer.
AMD have historically suffered from lack of driver support. Nvidia have the resources to re-optimize their cards for every major new game release, and I know from experience that those patches can make a hell of a difference. Most games are also optimized from launch for Nvidia cards, while AMD support is somewhat patchy. There are games where AMD cards absolutely shine and can even outperform Nvidia, but they're very rare.
And that's a problem because AMD rely on software support to compete with high-end Nvidia models. They don't have the raw firepower, so normally they rely on clever API tricks. But since API support is limited the regular 1080 will usually outperform the Vega. Easily. And the 1080Ti will simply outclass it.
To actually benefit from your 240Hz monitor you need to hit and sustain 240 FPS. That isn't going to happen. At best a 1080 will give you FPS in the high 100s - I usually get 90 to 140 playing at 1440P resolution.
Vsync isn't an option because it would lock your FPS at 60. Nvidia come with FastSync and Adaptive Sync, they're effective but imperfect solutions and you may still get some tearing. The only way to totally eliminate tearing with an Nvidia card is using a Gsync monitor.
It is locking frame rate to 4,16ms refresh rate intervals and its multipliers.
Playing is tearless but this may cause stutter.
a 56 is also around the same performance because amd bottlenecks,
If rumors are right, amd gave up primitive shaders being retroactive, so that means only games going forward will use them, anything already out is likely to not get patched to take advantage of it.
If you can hold out, wait till farcry 5 comes out, as it looks to be a game that uses everything amd has been making, so you will see if its worth going amd or not best here.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2992/radeon-rx-vega-64-liquid-cooling
It's a nice card IMO, just on the pretty inefficient side, and very hard to find.
I would honestly skip this cycle, as by the time venders ramp up new gpus/refreshses will happen and there might be a priceing reset for lauch