GTX 1060 Vs RX 480 - head to head showdown

[Gregster]

Gregster: don't get sucked in dude, its a lonely walk.

I am a Union Rep - I can't help it

 

[Mr Latte]

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.

Hows that accurate, it does not address the supposed benefits of the new API when properly utilised or why Nvidia DX12 performs poorly compared to their DX11. Feel free to if you want but none of the other DX11 fanclub members here have shown a list of games presented at E3 that will be:

• DX11 only
• DX12 specifically developed
• DX11&12 with equal support
• Vulkan

I think that is valid concern for some looking to buy. The way I see it unfolding is quite possibly 3 out of 4 of those scenarios the RX480 could be as fast to the 1060 or possibly the better option than a 1060.

Although it will be interesting to see when BF1 arrives if it is faster in DX12 on AMD to Nvidia with DX11 or DX12.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

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.

By which time new cards will be coming, so it wont matter, and thats the problem, takes AMD far too long to get their performance sorted.

By the time they do sort their performance, everyones already bought a better performing Nvidia card, as no ones going to wait around 6 months for AMD to give them that performance, not when they can get it now from Nvidia, and, its not just the 480s performance that will increase in those 4-6 months, as the 1060s will too.

 

[PhoenixUK]

By which time new cards will be coming, so it wont matter, and thats the problem, takes AMD far too long to get their performance sorted.

By the time they do sort their performance, everyones already bought a better performing Nvidia card, as they ain't going to wait around for months for AMD, if they can get that performance now, from Nvidia, they'll get it now, not wait 6 months for it.

And following this logic, nobody will buy a 1060 because everyone already has a 480 which has been out for a while?

 

[LoadsaMoney]

And following this logic, nobody will buy a 1060 because everyone already has a 480 which has been out for a while?

It hasn't been out that long, and everyones mainly wating for the custom cards, but those are MIA, where as Nvidias 1060 ones aren't, they are here now.

AMD are losing sales now.

 

[Marine-RX179]

By which time new cards will be coming, so it wont matter, and thats the problem, takes AMD far too long to get their performance sorted.

By the time they do sort their performance, everyones already bought a better performing Nvidia card, as no ones going to wait around 6 months for AMD to give them that performance, not when they can get it now from Nvidia, and, its not just the 480s performance that will increase in those 4-6 months, as the 1060s will too.

I love how you deliberately turn my sentence's comma into a full-stop in your quote, and then omitting what I said in the same sentence afterward plus everything I said after

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).

 

[treacle]

And following this logic, nobody will buy a 1060 because everyone already has a 480 which has been out for a while?

Its the partner cards on release day that killed the 480 for me. The only acceptable price for a 480 is the 4GB price if I can flash to 8GB performance. I wanted an AMD card for video playback, but will end up with a 1060.

 

[D.P.]

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

Bit it's true, if a developer can't make their game engineer run as fast as Dx11 when running Dx12 then they have failed to do as good a job as the a nvidia driver team and their dX12 efforts are thus irrelevant.

DX11 scores are the baseline, if a developer can't make Dx12 faster then it mean Nvidia has better developers than th game devs to the extent that nvidia can overcome the API limitations. That makes DX12 a waste of time for developers that don't have the capability to realize significant gains.

DX12 isn't some magic bullet that gives performance increases. For the most part it is a large step back in software development. No where else jnt eh industry will you find programmers excited to get a lower level API, the rest of the I durst you moves to ever higher levels of abstraction. If a programmer cannot exploit the lower level access to hardware, and I don't blame any that can't, then they should stop wasting their time with DX12 code.

 

[Scougar]

Only two of the five heatpipes on the Asus card actually have contact with the GPU:

http://i.imgur.com/JsgarHI.jpg

Spoiler

Two have very little contact at all.

This is SOOOO typical of ASUS. If you can't make direct contact with them all, they need to use a transfer plate.

They have been doing this with the DCII stuff for years, and is the reason the fans are louder than other brands. They just don't care.

 

[humbug]

Bit it's true, if a developer can't make their game engineer run as fast as Dx11 when running Dx12 then they have failed to do as good a job as the a nvidia driver team and their dX12 efforts are thus irrelevant.

DX11 scores are the baseline, if a developer can't make Dx12 faster then it mean Nvidia has better developers than th game devs to the extent that nvidia can overcome the API limitations. That makes DX12 a waste of time for developers that don't have the capability to realize significant gains.

DX12 isn't some magic bullet that gives performance increases. For the most part it is a large step back in software development. No where else jnt eh industry will you find programmers excited to get a lower level API, the rest of the I durst you moves to ever higher levels of abstraction. If a programmer cannot exploit the lower level access to hardware, and I don't blame any that can't, then they should stop wasting their time with DX12 code.

It works well for AMD... right so they should stay away from DX12

 

[Mr Latte]

Not sure if posted in other threads yet or if fake...

Link

 

[treacle]

they seem very close in performance what settings did techpowerup use?

 

[Scougar]

I just don't believe those graphs. The scaling of the overclocks vs the increase just seems really wrong. I.e. too much.

 

[treacle]

This is SOOOO typical of ASUS. If you can't make direct contact with them all, they need to use a transfer plate.

They have been doing this with the DCII stuff for years, and is the reason the fans are louder than other brands. They just don't care.

This happened with an EVGA card years ago the cooler will have been designed for a more powerful card and shouldn't have a negative impact on performance.

 

[humbug]

I just don't believe those graphs. The scaling of the overclocks vs the increase just seems really wrong. I.e. too much.

The reference 480 does throttle a lot so just adding a better cooler would see a significant jump in performance, but yes i agree this looks too good to be true.

 

[Scougar]

The reference 480 does throttle a lot so just adding a better cooler would see a significant jump in performance, but yes i agree this looks too good to be true.

You have to admit, that cooler has to have been a penny pitchers option. Seems so bizarre a choice, with the money on the board they seem to have spent, then tried to claw it back with a terrible cooler.

 

[Orangey]

They had to spend that money on the board.

 

[dessimpson]

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.

In the past 2 years I've owned 2x GTX 970's, 2x MSI 8Gb 290x's, a GTX 980 and two Titan-X's.
I still have the 980 in my spare rig and the two Titan-X's in my main PC. The two 290x's I sold after 8 days of ownership. They were rubbish, and ran straight up to 90 degree's, within 2 minutes of gaming.

I'm no Nvidia fanboy as my previous 3 cards were all AMD but the crap drivers forced me to sell my 7990, which up till then was a great card. It crashed my PC after 10 seconds of startup. The only way to fix it was to roll back to old drivers. Even after 3 driver updates.

 

[imginy]

Haven't read whole thread just first and last page and what a difference it is.

After looking at first page looks like 480 was fail but on them last graphs looks competitive.

 

[Toss3]

Based on the recent reviews of the aib cards - there's no denying that the gtx 1060 wouldn'tbe the better card; it uses less power, which results in less noise, and overclocks higher, which means it will probably perform better or even similarly to the rx 480 in dx 12 games. Given it already has a pretty darn good performance advantage in dx11 I'd say this seals the fate of the rx 480 as the worse card of the two (sadly).