-
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.
GTX 1060 Vs RX 480 - head to head showdown
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,459
- Location
- Planet Earth
Only two of the five heatpipes on the Asus card actually have contact with the GPU:
http://i.imgur.com/JsgarHI.jpg
Two have very little contact at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
It's not what you said at above the graphc, but what you said as your conclusion below the graph. I don't even have a clue how you manage to came to that conclusion "shouldn't people be looking at the lackluster performance of the AMD cards and questioning why the performance is so bad in the first place and even DX12 isn't helping AMD here?", when the graph is showing Nvidia cards lost performance when going from dx11 to dx12, where as AMD did get performance increased in performance in general (not so much for the Fury X, but quite good gain for the 390, which both you and D.P. seem to conveniently ignore).
Last edited:
The overclock they got was without voltage increase apparently.
Is the performance good then? Should I avoid questions like that incase a certain section get upset? I thought we was all grown up here and could debate why the performance was poor but clearly not in your case. I know a Marine and he is hard as nails and I don't have to butter things up when I talk to him. I request a name change for you brother
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
I mean we all know it is not uncommon that there are games that simply works better with Nvidia cards, yet you blame this on AMD for the shortcoming, and deliberately avoid commenting or bring up on the performance drop of Nvidia cards going from dx11 to dx12. What you did was diverting the focus of attention of Nvidia not handling dx12 well toward "The performance of AMD is so bad in the first place". Smokes and mirrors.Is the performance good then? Should I avoid questions like that incase a certain section get upset? I thought we was all grown up here and could debate why the performance was poor but clearly not in your case. I know a Marine and he is hard as nails and I don't have to butter things up when I talk to him. I request a name change for you brother
Bottomline is talk about how crap AMD is all you want, but it doesn't change the fact or it has nothing to do with the fact that dx12 performance for Nvidia is worse than dx11. And why is that? Nope, what ever the reason is, it has nothing to do with Nvidia
Quite a while back (before the launch of the RX480) I made a prediction that the RX480 "may" have weaker Async/dx12 capability at hardware level at certain aspect compare to the 290/390 series due to it being a mid-range design, and if that graph is correct, it could well explain what the RX480 and the Nvidia cards suffer performance drop in dx12 comparing to dx11.
Last edited:
Another article....
Also discussed Here
id Software: Async Compute will be a major factor in all engines across all platforms
It is articles like these that are making me lean more towards buying an AIB 480
Also discussed Here
id Software: Async Compute will be a major factor in all engines across all platforms
It is articles like these that are making me lean more towards buying an AIB 480
Last edited:
I mean we all know it is not uncommon that there are games that simply works better with Nvidia cards, yet you blame this on AMD for the shortcoming, and deliberately avoid commenting or bring up on the performance drop of Nvidia cards going from dx11 to dx12. What you did was diverting the focus of attention of Nvidia not handling dx12 well toward "The performance is so bad in the first place".
Bottomline is talk about how crap AMD is all you want, but it doesn't change the fact or it has nothing to do with the fact that dx12 performance for Nvidia is worse than dx11. And why is that? Nope, what ever the reason is, it has nothing to do with Nvidia
Quite a while back I made a prediction that the RX480 "may" have weaker Async capability at hardware level at certain aspect compare to the 290/390 series due to it being a mid-range design, and that graph is correct, it could well explain what the RX480 and the Nvidia cards suffer performance drop in dx12 comparing to dx11.
What you have done is taken a post from another thread and taken it completely out of context. No idea why you have done this but my response was to people saying "Nvidia only have themselves to blame " and I then go through the math and explain what is what. Pretty much what I am doing here but don't let me stop your over thinking and feel free to see my double hypocritical standards that makes you laugh.
Wise choice, a lot more coming.
Digital Foundry: Can you go into depth on the wins asynchronous compute gave you on the consoles and any differential there between PS4 and Xbox One?
Jean Geffroy: When looking at GPU performance, something that becomes quite obvious right away is that some rendering passes barely use compute units. Shadow map rendering, as an example, is typically bottlenecked by fixed pipeline processing (eg rasterization) and memory bandwidth rather than raw compute performance. This means that when rendering your shadow maps, if nothing is running in parallel, you're effectively wasting a lot of GPU processing power.
Even geometry passes with more intensive shading computations will potentially not be able to consistently max out the compute units for numerous reasons related to the internal graphics pipeline. Whenever this occurs, async compute shaders can leverage those unused compute units for other tasks. This is the approach we took with Doom. Our post-processing and tone-mapping for instance run in parallel with a significant part of the graphics work. This is a good example of a situation where just scheduling your work differently across the graphics and compute queues can result in multi-ms gains.
This is just one example, but generally speaking, async compute is a great tool to get the most out of the GPU. Whenever it is possible to overlap some memory-intensive work with some compute-intensive tasks, there's opportunity for performance gains. We use async compute just the same way on both consoles. There are some hardware differences when it comes to the number of available queues, but with the way we're scheduling our compute tasks, this actually wasn't all that important.
Digital Foundry: Will we see async compute in the PC version via Vulkan?
Billy Khan: Yes, async compute will be extensively used on the PC Vulkan version running on AMD hardware. Vulkan allows us to finally code much more to the ;metal'. The thick driver layer is eliminated with Vulkan, which will give significant performance improvements that were not achievable on OpenGL or DX.
Digital Foundry
Billy Khan: The time is now, really. Doom is already a clear example where async compute, when used properly, can make drastic enhancements to the performance and look of a game. Going forward, compute and async compute will be even more extensively used for idTech6. It is almost certain that more developers will take advantage of compute and async compute as they discover how to effectively use it in their games.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
The big performance increase AMD get over Dx11 with 12, just shows how crap their Dx11 performance is, thats why Nvidias increase isn't as much.
If AMDs Dx11 performance was anywhere near as good as Nvidias, then they to would see hardly any increase with 12.
If AMDs Dx11 performance was anywhere near as good as Nvidias, then they to would see hardly any increase with 12.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Even putting dx12 matter aside, going back the pass examples the chances are the RX480 will catch up with the 1060 even in dx11 in 4-6 months, and by 12 months or the launch of 2060, the 1060 performance for new titles released after that will deteriorate, probably not so much to the extend of people's claim of deliberately cripple performance via driver, but more to do with how majorly Nvidia rely software optimsation to drive performance (since they performance to keep the cost of hardware side lower), and with the software/supporting team moving onto supporting new architecture card, they simply don't have the same level of resource commit to supporting the
older gen cards (considering they are EOL and no longer being sold).
AMD's GCN design on the other hand could be both a blessing and curse; while it doesn't offer benefit of as huge improvement as Nvidia on efficiency side of things due to not huge architecture overhaul, but what people get in return is consistently get more and more performance as they age- as someone said, the 290/390 cards just keeps on giving.
It is also probably one of the reason why AMD have shoot themselves in their own foot as a business; I have owned my 290x for 3 years and 8 months now and its performance is still getting better as we speak, while on the Nvidia side, people probably already gone through a few cards already during the same duration.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
As I mention to Gregster above, and I will repeat again;
Forget about AMD for a minutes, and look at the Nvidia performance difference between dx11 and dx12...not only it has not improved in performance, it GONE DOWN in performance.
Then we had D.P. jumping straight in to put the blame on the developers to make sure no stray bullets hit Nvidia
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
What you did was highlighting how much Nvidia was still faster than AMD, but not why it is performing worse in dx12 than dx11.
Let pretend it is as people say the reason why there's gain on AMD cards on dx12 is down to being crap in dx11, but that still means the dx12 working and allowed AMD card to improve in performance; getting no gain is one thing, but getting lower performance than in dx11, surely there are some issue with dx12 on Nvidia's side no matter how you look at it?
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,675
- Location
- Oxford
Got to agree with Marine here. However you look at it fps per £ there is not much difference between AMD and Nvidia in dx11. Yet AMD gain in DX12 for the same money.
This may be becuase AMD is poor in DX11 and the cards (either due to hardware or drivers) under perform. But for the user it doesn't matter as they get DX11 performance based on price.
I don't think you can make an argument one way or another unless you can some how compare them at a hardware level, which I wouldn't understand anyway.
This may be becuase AMD is poor in DX11 and the cards (either due to hardware or drivers) under perform. But for the user it doesn't matter as they get DX11 performance based on price.
I don't think you can make an argument one way or another unless you can some how compare them at a hardware level, which I wouldn't understand anyway.
Saying it beats a 480 is fine but even then you should specify in dx11 only.
The issue people are having its you is you come out and say things like "it destroys a 480"
That makes you come across as a total fanboi even if you claim you aren't.
People have an issue with me because I didn't say beats? Give over for goodness sake and stop crying.
I would say it looks like 1380 is good on air, 1450 is good on water for the AIB 480 cards. ASUS card seems to be hitting the power throttle early which is a bit weird, need to see more cards.
Struggling to understand what you are saying here but if I understand it correctly, the graphs are questionable regardless of AMD or Nvidia?