GTX 1060 Vs RX 480 - head to head showdown

[Gregster]

Yes but you are the one who brought up DX11 games, so referring obviously to the strength of the 1060. You also said loads of games are coming.

I ask you again to provide a list

What I see so far is that all Microsoft titles are favouring the 480. They have some superb titles coming including those that perhaps always wanted Forza on PC. Even BF dev stated earlier in the year via twitter going beyond 2016 they would be seeking to adopt DX12.

I am not going to provide a list and you would have to be daft to think that there isn't a big list of DX11 games coming. Even DX12 doesn't have me in anyway thus far impressed and very disappointed. I say again, even AMD's poster child DX12 game Hitman performs better on DX11 over DX12 for AMDMatt, so what does that tell you about the way DX12 is being used?

 

[Gregster]

I would have thought that was more than obvious, do I really need to give you a break down? I'll let the below vid do the explaining.

That guy is biased to the hilt. I am not watching that!

 

[Gregster]

You asked for Evidence, he provided.... So you must only want evidence that supports your view then? come on Greg

No, he is biased and look at anything AMD he does and it is wonderful but anything NVidia and it is bad and that is that.

The guy was sent a 480 from AMD, so let's be fair here at least.

 

[Gregster]

The truth is I do not know what games are coming in DX11 only. It is why I asked. I'm not concerned about Hitman but future titles and those that will fully use DX12 or Vulcan. If that is the future API the industry seems to be moving towards.

Your comment suggested otherwise but now your not willing to back it up...

Neither do I and nice switch to DX11 only You are getting so hung up on DX12 and missing the basics of what has been said.

Answer me this then. AMD work with Square on DX12 and lots of boasting about how good it is but why does DX11 score more frames over DX12 on AMD hardware? This is why I don't get so hung up on DX12 like others do.

 

[Gregster]

I am not out to convince anyone that one is better over the other. I just don't get why some are putting so much stock into DX12, when even on AMD hardware, DX11 is working better. Vulkan is part of FM's Time Spy and I got an 11% uplift from that with Async on as opposed to off, so why won't Pascal see an uplift in other Vulkan games?

People keep ignoring these basics and just keep telling me that in the future, the 480 is the better choice.

 

[Gregster]

But we know that already. In most cases the reference RX 480 is less than 10% slower. The partner aftermarket 480s will probably close that to almost equal performance. But let's say an aftermarket partner 1060 (e.g. MSI Gaming) is still 5-10% faster.

Do you really find this so important as to recommend the 1060 over the 480 for someone who is on a 3-year upgrade cycle? People who will play more DX12/Vulkan games than DX11 games over that period? People who will sell their cards in 2018 when there's very few DX11 titles?

I really don't understand this logic.

You dont take into account that early DX12 titles maybe havn't fully utilised it. Surely it has to take time for the developers to improve as well.

The 1060 seems faster in most DX12 games than the 980. Although in Tomb-Raider it isn't (according to Vortez review). Clearly some DX12 titles work differently than others. Some just dont get why others like yourself hang on to DX11 and downplay future API other than it demonstrates Nvidia's superiority.

Ahhh now we are getting somewhere. Mr Latte is saying now what I have been saying and the fact that devs are just getting to grips with it and this is what I have been saying. Dx12, Vulkan and even Mantle takes time to get right. Give NVidia time and they will get it right, as will devs and that is that. Doom is a massive showcase for AMD and a real selling point for the 480 (they should have used that over the daft AoTS Crossfire example when showcasing the 480.

192 bit memory bus on the 1060 compared to 256 on the 480, 6GB on the 1060 compared to 8GB on the 480 are two very obvious deficiencies.

It makes the 480 much more future proof than the 1060, not withstanding NVidias habit of dropping support for all but the latest generation - and I forgot the multple empty promises that came to 0..

Spot on points that and the extra 2GB of VRAM and a 256 bit bus is indeed a better scenario for future proofing. Don't confuse early optimisations as dropping support though and I did explain it to you earlier.

 

[Gregster]

The message from Nvidia is very clear tbh, with the bus size being smaller than even the GTX760 and memory bandwidth no more than it, plus no support for SLI, Nvidia simple don't want the gaming beyond 1920 res crowd to get a card any lesser than a 1070

But the thing is even for 1920 res gamers, some would want to use DSR or Super-Sampling, and the chop on the bus size and the average memory bandwidth would definitely hurt the performance more when those features are used.

I consider both the 480 and 1060 to be 1080P cards. The 480 has leg room though with being able to go crossfire, so anyone cosidering 1440P and above would be wise to take that into account. I personally would recommend mGPUs though with the current state of play but others who use it might.

 

[Gregster]

Though you explicitly reference Mr Latte, you quoted me as well: far be it from me to put words in anyone's mouth. I'm just quite vocal when it comes to what I think, but that's the end of it. And I do try to read what others provide and understand.

Yer, I was rounding up my point really to both of you and felt it answered both posts.

I also am able to read what others are saying also and Hominid and Marine make very good points regarding bus sizes, VRAM amounts and throw in lack of SLI on the 1080 and a good argument in favour of the 480. I won't be swayed on the future of DX12 though, as nobody knows what is what with either AMD or NVidia as of yet and I certainly wouldn't bank on Pascal not getting any DX12 goodness in the long run, as will AMD.

Right, gotta go to work now and an enjoybale couple of posts and well done to all for the civility and non rude replies

 

[Gregster]

Yes but it just depends how much useful "Async Compute" becomes, sorry but having it on a hardware level is better and that gives at this time AMD an advantage. Their is no way Nvidia will not bring it on a hardware level too at a later time. You cannot rely on the "future driver" argument being something that will balance the issue or expect it to.

Just for a moment stop to think, what if the 480 was the 1080 competitor card with similar speeds. Just how much a difference would we then of seen in DOOM with Vulkan and how it would have had Nvidia rather concerned. It is only one title but still would make a rather large impact.

Doom is also not an AMD showcase title, clearly Nvidia used it at the 1080 launch and to showcase its huge performance and with Vulkan.

Pascal does do ASYNC though at hardware level, it just does it differently to how AMD do it but the same effect is achieved, as can be seen from Time Spy.

 

[Gregster]

There's not really a lot for Nvidia to get 'right' other then Tomb Raider (GNC regresses in this game as well) performance doesn't tank when going to DX12 from DX11 or from Vulkan to OpenGL. To put it another way Nvidia isn't faced with a problem like AMD does when a game comes out with Gameworks and cripples performance.

The only issue I see is if what Pascal cards Nvidia chooses to write Async software paths for, you have 3 cards with three different memory setups I'm not sure if Nvidia will want to invest the resources to program every DX12 game driver for all the Pascal cards.

Post Pascal I wonder if their next generation will feature a hardware Async engine like AMD cards have.

DX12 performance it Tomb Raider for me was very poor and not sure what NVIDIA or devs will need to do regarding memory and something I need to swat up on.

 

[Gregster]

Cut to the chase, it seems you want to make the situation be that Nvidia has no disadvantage and only a matter of time with drivers will bring them level in this regard. Can you just not accept that AMD have perhaps developed a current better solution?

Well cut to the chase, a couple of guys (I think you was one) was stating that future wise, the 480 is a better solution because of DX12 but I have stated that DX12 gives worse performance, even on AMD over DX11 right now, so whilst I firmly believe this will change in the future, I look at the bigger picture. One post says "future wise DX12 is going to be better for AMD" and I don't know if that is right or wrong but now you say that the here and now counts, so I look at DX11 and see that the 1060 is pulling ahead in the majority of games. No idea where or what to see when in one post I am told to look at the future and in another, look at what we have now.

Look at key elements of DX12 and you will see Conservative Rasterisation and Rasterized Ordered Views are in there and will they not be used in the future? If it gives NVIDIA an advantage, do you not think Nvidia will not exploit that?

 

[Gregster]

Is it not just Hitman that has better dx11 performance. I think every other dx12/Vulkan games show gains on Amd. The recent patch to ROTTR has dx12 faster than dx11 now on GCN. Pretty sure those that play Hitman say playing in dx12 is smoother. The bench does show higher fps in dx11but the feel of Dx12 is supposed to be better. I am only going on memory and might be wrong.

I only have GoW remastered to quote the UWP DX12 games and seeing as there is no visual performance differences in those DX12 compared to the x box one, I don't really know what is what in regards to that. DX12 in ROTTR feels just as smooth with DX12 as DX11 for me. Is it just ROTTR that isn't smooth on DX11 or is there other games? DX12 on Hitman is fundamentally broken for now as well and a few crashes for me with some weird errors. If DX12 is bringing performance up for AMD users though, that is a real plus.

 

[Gregster]

I remember posting this and being shouted at as fake and fixed because of the FPS difference.

Now we are seeing the same gains with Vulkan and DX12.

Dont be daft and nobody shouted at you as fake and it was explained to you why performance was far better and that was down to the CPU bottleneck you was getting with DX11 and Mantle relieved that instance and allowed the 290 to work "as it should"

 

[Gregster]

The sheer amount of double-standard is frankly hilarious for some people:

- AMD perform better than Nvidia due to boost from Mantle and does not affect the dx11 performance of Nvidia in anyway: Blame AMD for grimping Nvidia
- AMD get shoved through the GameWorks's black box and performance significantly than the should: All is just, blame AMD for being incompetence, claim it doesn't matter AMD cards perform far worse than they should "as long as it is playable"; when AMD perform better than Nvidia in dx12 (a neutral API): Same people with pitchforks out blaming AMD for grimping Nvidia (ignoring the fact that Nvidia skimped on the hardware that support that aspect of dx12 feature but go with a software approach to cut cost and wave the big "efficiency flag")

Not sure you are reading the same thread as us, or even the same forum. Nobody is whinging about these things you mention except you. All your points in fact have no relevancy in this thread at all. Who has blamed AMD for anything?

 

[Gregster]

Some people seriously see all these threads and discussions in a 'war' perspective. Anybody saying something they dont like or want to hear or against what they think/believe are 'the enemy' and are out to get them and those like themselves. It's all a battleground to them. Over graphics processing units. lol

Yer and sadly it is the way, which is odd. I enjoy hardware regardless of who makes it, albeit I haven't owned an AMD CPU in a desktop for a number of years. I like to think we all enjoy games as well and want the same smooth fluid game play but if I dare say the 1060 is a good card that beats the 480, I am a raging fanboy apparently lol.

 

[Gregster]

So me saying that the graphs are questionable regardless of AMD or Nvidia is me blaming AMD? Seriously come on fella!

 

[Gregster]

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).

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

 

[Gregster]

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.

 

[Gregster]

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.

 

[Gregster]

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?

Struggling to understand what you are saying here but if I understand it correctly, the graphs are questionable regardless of AMD or Nvidia?