• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Doom Vulkan vs Open GL performance

Kepler NVIDIA hardware getting absolutely murdered by AMD's GCN cards. NVIDIA will finally be seriously challenged if big boy Vega comes within the next 6 months and they still get miniscule gains with Pascal under Vulkan. They have an early warning of what AMD is capable of in the latest API. Now imagine the 480 had double the shaders/bandwidth running Vulkan.
 
RanxZy said:
Kepler NVIDIA hardware getting absolutely murdered by AMD's GCN cards. NVIDIA will finally be seriously challenged if big boy Vega comes within the next 6 months and they still get miniscule gains with Pascal under Vulkan. They have an early warning of what AMD is capable of in the latest API. Now imagine the 480 had double the shaders/bandwidth running Vulkan.
Click to expand...

GTX 980 Ti OC is easily beating Fury X OC in Doom Vulkan. Fury X has 4096 shader, which also has a advantage of async and still getting trumped by a GTX 980 Ti OC.

There is a reason why AMD did not invest on high end market this year and went for mid to low range market.
 
AlamoX said:
ZK0a5LT.jpg

7850(370) beats 780Ti :D
7950 match the original Titan
Click to expand...

Doom112 said:
GTX 980 Ti OC is easily beating Fury X OC in Doom Vulkan. Fury X has 4096 shader, which also has a advantage of async and still getting trumped by a GTX 980 Ti OC.

There is a reason why AMD did not invest on high end market this year and went for mid to low range market.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I mentioned Kepler cards being demolished by GCN cards, particularly ones that were direct competitors like 280x vs 770 and 290x vs 780Ti. If you can't see the potential of a theoretical Vega card with 2x the specs of a 480 then that's up to you. I could just imagine a card like that giving NVIDIA the sweats as the performance increase AMD get in Vulkan is unprecedented.
 
Doom112 said:
GTX 980 Ti OC is easily beating Fury X OC in Doom Vulkan. Fury X has 4096 shader, which also has a advantage of async and still getting trumped by a GTX 980 Ti OC.

There is a reason why AMD did not invest on high end market this year and went for mid to low range market.
Click to expand...

I don't really see 980Ti OC beating Fury X OC in DOOM, difference is just simply too big to be catched. It will be closer though.

AMD's reason is fairly simple. High end card with GDDR5 memory would have been way too inefficient, and there's just simply not enough GDDR5x memory for both parties available. And HBM2 ain't ready yet. If tech allowed earlier, I'm pretty sure we would have had AMD high end cards already aswell.
 
Dygaza said:
I don't really see 980Ti OC beating Fury X OC in DOOM, difference is just simply too big to be catched. It will be closer though.

AMD's reason is fairly simple. High end card with GDDR5 memory would have been way too inefficient, and there's just simply not enough GDDR5x memory for both parties available. And HBM2 ain't ready yet. If tech allowed earlier, I'm pretty sure we would have had AMD high end cards already aswell.
Click to expand...

Each benchmark is done on same settings as Fury X and Radeon Pro duo.
Fury X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfTjDbR7vvI

GTX 980 Ti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mydOD1321Ag


Fury X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJMzoS1ZHI

GTX 980 Ti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNZby5eF2kM

Radeon Pro duo @ 1172/545Mhz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9vUYsS1yNY

GTX 980 Ti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYp1VEOn54

However, Shadow play cause 10% performance hit.
 
RanxZy said:
Kepler NVIDIA hardware getting absolutely murdered by AMD's GCN cards. NVIDIA will finally be seriously challenged if big boy Vega comes within the next 6 months and they still get miniscule gains with Pascal under Vulkan. They have an early warning of what AMD is capable of in the latest API. Now imagine the 480 had double the shaders/bandwidth running Vulkan.
Click to expand...

Not that it looks like they will ever perform that great - Kepler cards currently aren't performing correctly in Vulkan - the drivers that were released right after that test was done would put the 780ti up around where the 280X is but they are still running down on performance even compared to Open GL - looks like 1 or more worker threads are getting bogged down in *something* causing issues.

On paper the 750ti is what 1/3rd the specs of the 780 or something? yet is around only 6% slower or something in that benchmark - though that is partly helped by the more efficient ability to handle some shader stuff in Maxwell over Kepler.
 
Last edited:
Doom112 said:
Each benchmark is done on same settings as Fury X and Radeon Pro duo.
Fury X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfTjDbR7vvI

GTX 980 Ti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mydOD1321Ag

Not even close to Side By Side

Fury X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJMzoS1ZHI

GTX 980 Ti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNZby5eF2kM

Using Action in Window Mode on the FuryX performance loss is around 10/20fps hit when I do that. On Nvidia he using Shadowplay much better recording performance in this situation.

However, Shadow play cause 10% performance hit.
Click to expand...

How Meny Times I need to Say this to you? Too bench a game recording needs to be external Like DF
No HOOKING into that game using Software brings messed up results, No Charts!!!
 
Last edited:
Doom112 said:
Just see the videos ,which i posted.
Click to expand...

Are they all you're own made videos? I can tell you that the Fury results are wrong. In fact I've told you that before and you still post same videos.
I am getting similar fps as the 980ti in that video, sometimes less sometimes more, with a Fury pro. I can also tell it's been hugely oc by comparing with the 1080 videos.
 
Last edited:
Lokken86 said:
Are they all you're own made videos? I can tell you that the Fury results are wrong. In fact I've told you that before and you still post same videos.
I am getting similar fps as the 980ti in that video, sometimes less sometimes more, with a Fury pro. I can also tell it's been hugely oc by comparing with the 1080 videos.
Click to expand...


Whats wrong with an overclock, a TI can easy reach 1400 without breaking a sweat, all day long 24/7. If the poor old Fury cant, tough :p

It's not unfair, its just what superior, non budget hardware is capable of :D.
 
hyperseven said:
Whats wrong with an overclock, a TI can easy reach 1400 without breaking a sweat, all day long 24/7. If the poor old Fury cant, tough :p

It's not unfair, its just what superior, non budget hardware is capable of :D.
Click to expand...

Because he's obviously using a stock Fury gimped by recording software or something. Like I said I get equal or better performance than that anyway. No 980ti has even come close at 4k either. Even at 1400mhz.
 
Such salt when benchmarks do not fit somebodies agenda.

Remember children, the only valid results are those you want to be!
 
hyperseven said:
not obvious, just because it's not the results you want them to be :confused:
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? I got much higher results doing the same thing on the Fury as that FuryX. I also looked at some 4k 980ti results posted yesterday on youtube and got considerably higher performance. That was a 980ti at 1400mhz. I know that because it had msi afterburner in the top corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom