Poll: Do you think AMD will be able to compete with Nvidia again during the next few years?

[LoadsaMoney]

^ I can't see them supporting Vega Specific features, when the games a Nvidia.

 

[Gregster]

Lol this line of defence has already been used in the other thread. I’m not saying one is worse than the other. I focus on Nvidia because this is the GPU section of the forum.

Oh and I own a GTX 1080.

What made you go for the 1080? Genuine question.

 

[4K8KW10]

^ I can't see them supporting Vega Specific features, when the games a Nvidia.

Nvidia solution :"No problem,just cut those unseen objects and textures in distance and we are good to go."

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/amd_obliterates_nvidia_in_early_battlefield_5_benchmarks/1

 

[humbug]

AMD obliterates Nvidia in early Battlefield 5 benchmarks https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/amd_obliterates_nvidia_in_early_battlefield_5_benchmarks/1

""During his testing, Battlefield 5 was played at Ultra settings using ASUS ROG Strix RX 580 and GTX 1060 graphics cards at resolutions of 1080p and 1440p. Under DirectX 11 the game ran at an average of 45FPS on Nvidia's GTX 1060 and 68FPS on AMD's RX 580. Minimum framerates also presented a larger gap, with minimum framerates dropping to 34FPS on Nvidia's GTX 1060 while AMD's RX 580 had a minimum of 56.

Moving into DirectX 12 the performance gap widened, with the average and minimum framerates of Nvidia's GTX 1060 dropping to 41 and 29 FPS respectively, while AMD's RX 580 maintained the same average framerate and achieved a higher minimum framerate of 59FPS. Under DirectX 12 AMD's RX 580 offered a minimum framerate that was 2x higher than its Nvidia counterpart.""

So:
Battlefield 5 @ Ultra settings, 1440p and DX11
ASUS ROG Strix 580 - 68 FPS (average) / 56 FPS (minimum)
nVidia GTX 1060 - 45 FPS (average) / 34 FPS (minimum)

Battelefield 5 @ Ultra settings, 1440p and DX12
ASUS ROG Strix 580 - 68 FPS (average) / 59 FPS (minimum)
nVidia GTX 1060 - 41 FPS (average) / 29 FPS (minimum)

68 vs 56 = 20%, the difference between a GTX 1060 and a 1070 is 35%, so that would put the RX 580 closer to the 1070 than the 1060.

 

[4K8KW10]

68 vs 45 = 51%
68 vs 41 = 65.8%
59 vs 29 = >100%

Even 1070 probably will come short of these RX 580 results, more likely GTX 1080 would be similar in performance.

 

[humbug]

68 vs 45 = 51%
68 vs 41 = 65.8%
59 vs 29 = >100%

Even 1070 probably will come short of these RX 580 results, more likely GTX 1080 would be similar in performance.

Oh... yeah i misread that... it is 68 vs 45.

 

[bru]

AMD obliterates Nvidia in early Battlefield 5 benchmarks https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/amd_obliterates_nvidia_in_early_battlefield_5_benchmarks/1

""During his testing, Battlefield 5 was played at Ultra settings using ASUS ROG Strix RX 580 and GTX 1060 graphics cards at resolutions of 1080p and 1440p. Under DirectX 11 the game ran at an average of 45FPS on Nvidia's GTX 1060 and 68FPS on AMD's RX 580. Minimum framerates also presented a larger gap, with minimum framerates dropping to 34FPS on Nvidia's GTX 1060 while AMD's RX 580 had a minimum of 56.

Moving into DirectX 12 the performance gap widened, with the average and minimum framerates of Nvidia's GTX 1060 dropping to 41 and 29 FPS respectively, while AMD's RX 580 maintained the same average framerate and achieved a higher minimum framerate of 59FPS. Under DirectX 12 AMD's RX 580 offered a minimum framerate that was 2x higher than its Nvidia counterpart.""

So:
Battlefield 5 @ Ultra settings, 1440p and DX11
ASUS ROG Strix 580 - 68 FPS (average) / 56 FPS (minimum)
nVidia GTX 1060 - 45 FPS (average) / 34 FPS (minimum)

Battelefield 5 @ Ultra settings, 1440p and DX12
ASUS ROG Strix 580 - 68 FPS (average) / 59 FPS (minimum)
nVidia GTX 1060 - 41 FPS (average) / 29 FPS (minimum)

Certainly looks like a good result for AMD there at the moment, it will be interesting to see if NVidia can claw back some of that performance difference.

 

[4K8KW10]

Certainly looks like a good result for AMD there at the moment, it will be interesting to see if NVidia can claw back some of that performance difference.

But how? By removing parts of the textures and objects, thus effectively cheating? You know less objects to be rendered and displayed, the higher the framerate.
10% less textures, 10% higher performance.

For me, it would be much more interesting to see a technical explanation as to why the results in BFV are these good for the RX 580, while in some other titles it shows much worse results relative to the 1060.
Also, why AMD calls it RX 580. One would assume it is a direct competitor to 1080.

screengrab

 

[Satchfanuk]

Certainly looks like a good result for AMD there at the moment, it will be interesting to see if NVidia can claw back some of that performance difference.

Of course they can claw it back, they will just pressure the dev to gimp the game on AMD hardware

 

[opethdisciple]

I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gaming ecosystem which has been nudged in the direction of Nvdia over the last 5+ years.

Also I bet DX12 is being held back by Nvidia. Which would give AMD an advantage as of right now. I bet as soon as Nvidia launch a native DX12 card we will start seeing proper DX12 utilisation in games.

Which might actually give Nvidia a problem as Ryzen will look increasingly good and AMD will have more money to compete on both fronts.

A bit like with Ryzen vs Intel. Where the reason why most games are frequency over cores is because of Intel's dominance in the market over the last decade and keeping the mainstream on 4/8 threads or lower.

 

[shankly1985]

^ I can't see them supporting Vega Specific features, when the games a Nvidia.

Why not? AMD is already firmly coded inside the Frostbite engine. Its no surprise to me that AMD is already showing good performance in BF5.

 

[cainer]

Voted "No, NVIDIA have too much of a lead to overcome"

AMD are just too far behind imo, id love to see them pull a rabbit out of their arse though, as long as its at a decent price...

 

[shankly1985]

Voted "No, NVIDIA have too much of a lead to overcome"

AMD are just too far behind imo, id love to see them pull a rabbit out of their arse though, as long as its at a decent price...

I not disagreeing with you! But am sure the same was said about Intel vs AMD couple years ago.
In tech anything is possible! AMD just need to release a decent GPU and they right back in the mix of things. The hardware though isn't AMDs biggest issue its mind share! Even if AMD released tomorrow a kick arse GPU smashing the 1080Ti people will still find away to tell people to buy a Ti!

I still see this every day when people asking about Ryzen vs Intel.

 

[TheRealDeal]

I not disagreeing with you! But am sure the same was said about Intel vs AMD couple years ago.
In tech anything is possible! AMD just need to release a decent GPU and they right back in the mix of things. The hardware though isn't AMDs biggest issue its mind share! Even if AMD released tomorrow a kick arse GPU smashing the 1080Ti people will still find away to tell people to buy a Ti!

I still see this every day when people asking about Ryzen vs Intel.

That in a nutshell apart from funds is AMD's biggest hurdle. They can't just equal Nvidia they need to be faster and cheaper compared to Nvidia. With Ryzen doing so well it might have a knock on effect as to how people perceive AMD products on both fronts. Nvidia have also had some bad press as of late so if AMD can deliver they stand a chance. They need to find a way around Nvidia effects in games as well as in some games Nvidia dominate due to there built in features. So in all things are stacked against them atm but i can see them coming back with a great product if priced aggressively.

 

[bru]

I not disagreeing with you! But am sure the same was said about Intel vs AMD couple years ago.
In tech anything is possible! AMD just need to release a decent GPU and they right back in the mix of things. The hardware though isn't AMDs biggest issue its mind share! Even if AMD released tomorrow a kick arse GPU smashing the 1080Ti people will still find away to tell people to buy a Ti!

I still see this every day when people asking about Ryzen vs Intel.

You are quite right, it is all about mindshare and yes in tech anything is indeed possible.

But how? By removing parts of the textures and objects, thus effectively cheating? You know less objects to be rendered and displayed, the higher the framerate.
10% less textures, 10% higher performance.

Optimisations probably, I would be very surprised if NVidia have done much optimisation in this title as of yet.
even if they have it would seem they need to do more, without cheating of course.

For me, it would be much more interesting to see a technical explanation as to why the results in BFV are these good for the RX 580, while in some other titles it shows much worse results relative to the 1060.
Also, why AMD calls it RX 580. One would assume it is a direct competitor to 1080.

I agree it would be lovely to see something from Dice or AMD on just why the rx580's are doing so well in this title. It would also be nice to see some Vega benches, to see if they also have such good performance.

 

[Gerard]

AMD obliterates Nvidia in early Battlefield 5 benchmarks https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/amd_obliterates_nvidia_in_early_battlefield_5_benchmarks/1

""During his testing, Battlefield 5 was played at Ultra settings using ASUS ROG Strix RX 580 and GTX 1060 graphics cards at resolutions of 1080p and 1440p. Under DirectX 11 the game ran at an average of 45FPS on Nvidia's GTX 1060 and 68FPS on AMD's RX 580. Minimum framerates also presented a larger gap, with minimum framerates dropping to 34FPS on Nvidia's GTX 1060 while AMD's RX 580 had a minimum of 56.

Moving into DirectX 12 the performance gap widened, with the average and minimum framerates of Nvidia's GTX 1060 dropping to 41 and 29 FPS respectively, while AMD's RX 580 maintained the same average framerate and achieved a higher minimum framerate of 59FPS. Under DirectX 12 AMD's RX 580 offered a minimum framerate that was 2x higher than its Nvidia counterpart.""

So:
Battlefield 5 @ Ultra settings, 1440p and DX11
ASUS ROG Strix 580 - 68 FPS (average) / 56 FPS (minimum)
nVidia GTX 1060 - 45 FPS (average) / 34 FPS (minimum)

Battelefield 5 @ Ultra settings, 1440p and DX12
ASUS ROG Strix 580 - 68 FPS (average) / 59 FPS (minimum)
nVidia GTX 1060 - 41 FPS (average) / 29 FPS (minimum)

Performance overall in the alpha was pretty cack, the machine in my sig usually held at 60fps (at 4k) but at times dipped.

dx12 mode again just seems to degrade performance, not even sure why they bother to implement it, was crap in bf1 and so far is crap in this. It just seems to be a check box "feature" they put zero effort into.

 

[Panos]

Certainly looks like a good result for AMD there at the moment, it will be interesting to see if NVidia can claw back some of that performance difference.

Yeah. Nvidia will fix the AMD performance when Gameworks is activated....

 

[Panos]

But how? By removing parts of the textures and objects, thus effectively cheating? You know less objects to be rendered and displayed, the higher the framerate.
10% less textures, 10% higher performance.

For me, it would be much more interesting to see a technical explanation as to why the results in BFV are these good for the RX 580, while in some other titles it shows much worse results relative to the 1060.
Also, why AMD calls it RX 580. One would assume it is a direct competitor to 1080.

I switched last week from 1080Ti to V64. After clearing cache and settings, went to play World of Tanks with everything on max.
My first observation was that all trees and bushes looked thicker, with more foliage to the point it was difficult to aim from, yet very beautiful to look at.
Then on the Overlord map, was stunned to see a big thick black smoke on the horizon, like dozens of oil tankers were on fire literally. While on Paris map, the thousands of small windows mirroring draw my attention for first time because it pop out

I thought probably wrong, went to the laptop (GTX1060 6gb) and run the game with maxed out settings and went to the training mode.
The bushes and trees on same places as above, had half the foliage. While that smoke described above was more likely that someone set a car on fire, not ships burning at the landing of Normandie. As for Paris the mirrors look washed out, not reflecting the light and scene around them.

True the fps on the V64 is less by around 60 (110 over 170-175), but the game details are far better.
Added bonus now, is that I do not have tearing (freesync monitor) half way across the scene. Something that annoyed me with the 1080Ti and the inability to cap the fps in the driver settings.

 

[D.P.]

I switched last week from 1080Ti to V64. After clearing cache and settings, went to play World of Tanks with everything on max.
My first observation was that all trees and bushes looked thicker, with more foliage to the point it was difficult to aim from, yet very beautiful to look at.
Then on the Overlord map, was stunned to see a big thick black smoke on the horizon, like dozens of oil tankers were on fire literally. While on Paris map, the thousands of small windows mirroring draw my attention for first time because it pop out

I thought probably wrong, went to the laptop (GTX1060 6gb) and run the game with maxed out settings and went to the training mode.
The bushes and trees on same places as above, had half the foliage. While that smoke described above was more likely that someone set a car on fire, not ships burning at the landing of Normandie. As for Paris the mirrors look washed out, not reflecting the light and scene around them.

True the fps on the V64 is less by around 60 (110 over 170-175), but the game details are far better.
Added bonus now, is that I do not have tearing (freesync monitor) half way across the scene. Something that annoyed me with the 1080Ti and the inability to cap the fps in the driver settings.

Just sounds like you have some settings worng.

Post some screen shots.

 

[4K8KW10]

I switched last week from 1080Ti to V64. After clearing cache and settings, went to play World of Tanks with everything on max.
My first observation was that all trees and bushes looked thicker, with more foliage to the point it was difficult to aim from, yet very beautiful to look at.
Then on the Overlord map, was stunned to see a big thick black smoke on the horizon, like dozens of oil tankers were on fire literally. While on Paris map, the thousands of small windows mirroring draw my attention for first time because it pop out

I thought probably wrong, went to the laptop (GTX1060 6gb) and run the game with maxed out settings and went to the training mode.
The bushes and trees on same places as above, had half the foliage. While that smoke described above was more likely that someone set a car on fire, not ships burning at the landing of Normandie. As for Paris the mirrors look washed out, not reflecting the light and scene around them.

True the fps on the V64 is less by around 60 (110 over 170-175), but the game details are far better.
Added bonus now, is that I do not have tearing (freesync monitor) half way across the scene. Something that annoyed me with the 1080Ti and the inability to cap the fps in the driver settings.

Thank you for the insight, @Panos, really helpful. I hope more members read this and make conclusions about which purchase is the better.

Now, I think I understand why the RX 580 is so much faster than a 1060 in the beta of Battlefield 5 - both cards have to render the same objects.

Hence that comment under the article itself: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/amd_obliterates_nvidia_in_early_battlefield_5_benchmarks/1