Vulkan and DX12 on new GPU'S

[shankly1985]

What are you on about? He never dismissed Forza, he literally told you it's his favourite DX12 title.

Also that video linked is every similar to one that was also in a thread where the majority of people on this forum disagreed with you and in the end you simply disappeared because you couldn't actually justify or back up your statements. As back then you were saying you Needed a $350 to run a $200 GPU well.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18741760

I give up even talking to him now!! he doesn't know what he his even talking about! Hitman 2016 is a 360 game to him LOL
QB looks rubbish to him! LOL pointless even talking to him tbh

 

[Doom112]

What are you on about? He never dismissed Forza, he literally told you it's his favourite DX12 title.

Also that video linked is every similar to one that was also in a thread where people disagreed with you and in the end you simply disappeared because you couldn't actually justify or back up your statements. As back then you were saying you Needed a $350 to run a $200 GPU well.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18741760

Was i wrong? AMD+DX12+Async cannot manage to beat Nvidia on DX11 in this game.

http://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-wa...md-still-cant-match-nvidias-dx11-performance/

It is not me that made the benchmarks or numbers.

 

[Doom112]

I give up even talking to him now!! he doesn't know what he his even talking about! Hitman 2016 is a 360 game to him LOL
QB looks rubbish to him! LOL pointless even talking to him tbh

QB is not rubbish but there are game ,which performance better and looks much better then QB but you will not consider those games due to double standards.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Was i wrong? AMD+DX12+Async cannot manage to beat Nvidia on DX11

http://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-wa...md-still-cant-match-nvidias-dx11-performance/

It is not me that made the benchmarks or numbers.

Deflecting the question and statements once again.

You just said

This another benchmark ,which shows that you do not require a $350 CPU to run a $2xx card.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erAh6EAEu08

Previously you said:

Only some AMD users can justify buying a $350 CPU for a $2xx GPU.

Which is factually wrong, and was pointed out to be wrong so you just disappeared from the thread.

I have no idea what you're on about sometimes and really, there doesn't seem to be much train of thought; as you rarely back up your claims, and always try to deflect questions and statements.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its all excuse making by newish posters who have not seen what has happened in the last 4 years - I have a GTX960 which is increasingly getting thrashed by a R9 380. Instead of highlighting it so Nvidia can probably be forced to try and optimise performance,the excuses makers are all suddenly quiet.

Even if you have a soft spot for Nvidia,people need to be highlighting it just like the GTX970 issues were highlighted and people got $30 back from Nvidia in the US.

People said the HD7870 would last longer than a GTX660 and many said they were fibbing as the GTX660 would be fine. The former were right and I saw it with my mates card,since I had a GTX660.

People said HD7950BE/R9 280 the would last longer than a GTX660TI and many said they were fibbing as the GTX660TI would be fine. The former were right.

People said HD7950BE/R9 280 the would last longer than a GTX760 and many said they were fibbing as the GTX760 would be fine. The former were right.

People said R9 285/R9 380 the would last longer than a GTX960 and many said they were fibbing as the GTX960 would be fine. The former were right.

You see a trend but all of a sudden you see these new posters,trying to say its all fibs,the GTX1060 WON'T do the same thing at all.

Why?? Because Nvidia decided to have a change of heart?? They sell enough cards just on brand strength alone,so why should they care??

All these posters quietly can ignore the last few years since they have plausible deniability when people have discussed these things before.

 

[Doom112]

Deflecting the question and statements once again.

You just said


Previously you said:


Which is factually wrong, and was pointed out to be wrong so you just disappeared from the thread.

I have no idea what you're on about sometimes and really, there doesn't seem to be much train of thought; as you rarely back up your claims, and always try to deflect questions and statements.

Am i wrong?

RX 480 vs GTX 1060 benchmarks on 6700k and AMD 8350.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erAh6EAEu08

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Question, what ever happened to that DOOM Vulkan performance patch NVIDIA promised?

Vukan got added nearly a month ago, and the driver is still MIA.

This is after NVIDIA have been showing off DOOM Vulkan on their cards since GDC.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Question, what ever happened to that DOOM Vulkan performance patch NVIDIA promised?

Vukan got added nearly a month ago, and the driver is still MIA.

This is after NVIDIA have been showing off DOOM Vulkan on their cards since GDC.

Its coming!! Then the blasted GTX2060 will be out.

That is what all the excuses makers said for the GTX960 for the last year and now the GTX1060 is out.

But don't worry those making them biggest "it will be fine" claims only joined two seconds ago,so missed ALL the same discussions we had for the previous sets of cards.

Don't worry,you should only consider performance for the next year,since NOBODY would possibly keep their cards for longer than a year right??

At this rate Nvidia midrange cards should be sold on a subscription basis or rental basis.

Might be cheaper.

I fully expect AMD will follow too at some point - got to keep sales ticking over right??

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Am i wrong?

RX 480 vs GTX 1060 benchmarks on 6700k and AMD 8350.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erAh6EAEu08

Yes you are, you do not need a $350 CPU.

All that shows is something the tech community has known for years since AMD's FX cpus came out. Those cpus have terrible IPC; the few times they are not a bottleneck is when the game is very multi threaded or you up the resolution to be GPU bottlenecked instead.

Once again deflecting your original statements where you said he'd ignore any benchmark that favours NVIDIA; despite him saying Forza is his favourite DX12 title.

 

[Poneros]

Its all excuse making by newish posters who have not seen what has happened in the last 4 years - I have a GTX960 which is increasingly getting thrashed by a R9 380. Instead of highlighting it so Nvidia can probably be forced to try and optimise performance,the excuses makers are all suddenly quiet.

Even if you have a soft spot for Nvidia,people need to be highlighting it just like the GTX970 issues were highlighted and people got $30 back from Nvidia in the US.

People said the HD7870 would last longer than a GTX660 and many said they were fibbing as the GTX660 would be fine. The former were right and I saw it with my mates card,since I had a GTX660.

People said HD7950BE/R9 280 the would last longer than a GTX660TI and many said they were fibbing as the GTX660TI would be fine. The former were right.

People said HD7950BE/R9 280 the would last longer than a GTX760 and many said they were fibbing as the GTX760 would be fine. The former were right.

People said R9 285/R9 380 the would last longer than a GTX960 and many said they were fibbing as the GTX960 would be fine. The former were right.

You see a trend but all of a sudden you see these new posters,trying to say its all fibs,the GTX1060 WON'T do the same thing at all.

Why?? Because Nvidia decided to have a change of heart?? They sell enough cards just on brand strength alone,so why should they care??

All these posters quietly can ignore the last few years since they have plausible deniability when people have discussed these things before.

Absolutely, don't forget the crown in the jewel for this debate: 780 ti vs 290x

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/

And that's not even up-to-date with DX12 & Vulkan results, where Kepler is simply a dead fish by comparison.

 

[Doom112]

Yes you are, you do not need a $350 CPU.

All that shows is something the tech community has known for years since AMD's FX cpus came out. Those cpus have terrible IPC; the few times they are not a bottleneck is when the game is very multi threaded.

Most of the review benchmark RX 480 with more expensive CPU. Some are 5960X, 4930K, 6700K etc. RX 480 is a mid range GPU and their is no person who will buy a RX 480 with a high end CPU.

Most of the people who buy RX 480 are equipped with i7 870, 950, 2500k, 2600k, AMD 8350 etc and if RX 480 cannot perform its full potential with these CPU then it has lost its main purpose.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Most of the review benchmark RX 480 with more expensive CPU. Some are 5960X, 4930K, 6700K etc. RX 480 is a mid range GPU and their is no person who will buy a RX 480 with a high end CPU.

Most of the people who buy RX 480 are equipped with i7 870, 950, 2500k, 2600k, AMD 8350 etc and if RX 480 cannot perform its full potential then it has lost its main purpose.

Reviews are done with those CPUs for one specific reason to showcase the power of the GPU without bottlenecks.

This is done for all GPUs.

Also the 2500 CPUs and onwards will not bottleneck many GPUs, unless you add in multiple powerful cards.

You do also realise that once again your statements are wrong about $350 CPUs. The 2600k cost $317 at launch, and the 2500K $216.

There are many threads like this in this forum

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=29875480#post29875480

Both will not bottleneck any mid range GPU, even now. While the majority of old AMD cpus will cause bottlenecks because they always caused bottlenecks; even when they were released at the time compared to Intel CPUs.

Right now, at the very moment you can buy the i5 6400 for £170, and it won't bottleneck any midrange GPU.

If you have an issue with reviewers using top end CPUs to ignore potential bottlenecks over the myriad of their tests for GPUs, and other computer components you have a go at them.

 

[Nexus18]

AMDdoomed right now:





EDIT:

BTW, isn't rise of the tomb raider in dx 12 mode showing big performance gains for AMD since the latest patch added async where as nvidia aren't gaining as much? Certainly a massive increase for myself with the newest patch

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29757573&postcount=40

Before the async patch, there was hardly any improvement.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

BTW, isn't rise of the tomb raider in dx 12 mode showing big performance gains for AMD since the latest patch added async where as nvidia aren't gaining as much? Certainly a massive increase for myself with the newest patch

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29757573&postcount=40

The increase in the minimum FPS is extreme to say the least, and that's what will result in a far better gaming experience overall.

Looks very good.

 

[Padraig]

Well i would say go NVIDIA if you have the cash for each series but if you dont want to upgrade each time go AMD the 390 is most likely going to outlast the 980ti with the way things are going due to driver support.

 

[Lokken86]

So can I buy tomb raider now and get decent performance? I wasn't impressed at the benchmark thread tbh a Fury got like 37fps at 1080p. That's awful.

 

[Nexus18]

The increase in the minimum FPS is extreme to say the least, and that's what will result in a far better gaming experience overall.

Looks very good.

Yup, give me higher minimums over higher max FPS every day of the week!

Shame the patch came so late though as I had completed it not long after release and don't plan on playing it again any time soon That game was probably the worst game in a long time for me, crash galore and the performance was atrocious no matter what settings I tried, even batman arkham knight on release with a few fixes from kadein @ steam ran better for me!!!

 

[shankly1985]

So can I buy tomb raider now and get decent performance? I wasn't impressed at the benchmark thread tbh a Fury got like 37fps at 1080p. That's awful.

In my testing the benchmark seemed more demanding than the game itself.

 

[Padraig]

So can I buy tomb raider now and get decent performance? I wasn't impressed at the benchmark thread tbh a Fury got like 37fps at 1080p. That's awful.

I have no idea about that game dont play it but that doesnt make sense? does the game have NVIDIA gameworks/hairworks ? disable the nvidia settings if it does and theres no way you should be getting that?

i'll go have a look at that game.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have no idea about that game dont play it but that doesnt make sense? does the game have NVIDIA gameworks/hairworks ? disable the nvidia settings if it does and theres no way you should be getting that?

i'll go have a look at that game.

No it uses Purehair. As usual AMD PR failed miserably since it was a modified version of AMD TressFX since AMD made the code freely available.

Then on their own site Nvidia mocked AMD by saying how great a job CD had done with Purehair even though it was based on AMD tech. OFC,they never mentioned AMD.

Like TressFX,Purehair seems to run with a similar performance hit whether you use AMD or Nvidia hardware IIRC.