AMD?

[Mr. Tsao]

After seeing the demonstration of the Rx 480, how many people believ that AMD did something to make their cards appear faster? Keep in mind that AMD has done this in the past. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by W-L
Title changed

[LukaP]

no

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Tsao said:

After seeing the demonstration of the Rx 480, how many people believ that AMD did something to make their cards appear faster?

ME.

obviously. but what we do know is that its a 390x at a lower price (specwise)

[Mr. Tsao]

1 minute ago, josephaltareb said:

ME.

obviously. but what we do know is that its a 390x at a lower price (specwise)

Theoretically, but we don't know what AMD did to get that performance. For all we know they may have had it overclocked like crazy and cooled it with liquid nitrogen

[Mr. Tsao]

3 minutes ago, LukaP said:

no

Fanboy?

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Mr. Tsao said:

Theoretically, but we don't know what AMD did to get that performance. For all we know they may have had it overclocked like crazy and cooled it with liquid nitrogen

And you know this how? Might I remind you that everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, not vice versa.

 

1 minute ago, Mr. Tsao said:

Fanboy?

Erm, you might want to stop now before you get a penalty.

[don_svetlio]

5 minutes ago, LukaP said:

no

Welcome back Luka

[LukaP]

1 minute ago, Mr. Tsao said:

Fanboy?

Person with a brain. last gen was on 28nm, with a 4 year old architecture. We saw NVIDIA work wonders last year on an old process. i dont see why AMD couldnt work wonders on a new process and an arch 4 years in development. 
If anyone is a fanboy its you

[Dzzope]

Why bother till reviewers have cards... Just wait and see..

 

Though there is something .. odd... about picking ashes and then running cf 480's at 50% to beat a 1080... it's just Wierd and reviews will sort it out.

[Mr. Tsao]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

And you know this how? Might I remind you that everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, not vice versa.

 

Erm, you might want to stop now before you get a penalty.

Ok, I don't want to argue so just hear me out m8. The only reason I'm sceptical about AMD is because they've fudged their benchmarks in the past. And for the fanboy part, I'm just curious as to why they think that way.

[Agent181]

just dont fight and wait until it gets reviewed 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Mr. Tsao said:

Ok, I don't want to argue so just hear me out m8. The only reason I'm sceptical about AMD is because they've fudged their benchmarks in the past. And for the fanboy part, I'm just curious as to why they think that way.

Oh because Nvidia have NEVER done that? Please. I urge you to stop once again, for your own sake

[HKZeroFive]

Well, they did use a game that favours AMD cards to compare performance to a GTX 1080 so not everything is as clear cut as it seems. And AMD has exaggerated benchmarks before (I'm looking at you Fury X).

 

Then again, there's no reason why AMD has to lie. That's the beauty of advancements in technology.

[Mr. Tsao]

3 minutes ago, LukaP said:

Person with a brain. last gen was on 28nm, with a 4 year old architecture. We saw NVIDIA work wonders last year on an old process. i dont see why AMD couldnt work wonders on a new process and an arch 4 years in development. 
If anyone is a fanboy its you

Personally I wish both companies would cooperate more. And btw, I have a 7970

[Dzzope]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Oh because Nvidia have NEVER done that? Please. I urge you to stop once again, for your own sake

This... neither side are above dirty tricks or anything else to get a leg up.. WAIT AND SEE.. it's only a few weeks.

[Mr. Tsao]

3 minutes ago, Agent181 said:

just dont fight and wait until it gets reviewed 

I'm just trying to have healthy debate

[LiquidPanic]

I think you people are all missing something big here. 2 RX 480s in CrossFire were matching performance with a GTX 1080, while only at 50% utilization. If you translate that to not be confusing babble, they were literally saying that the RX 480 is just as fast as the GTX 1080, which is not going to happen under any scenario. Also, if you watch the demo closely, you can clearly see that the RX 480s in CF were running the game at lower settings than the 1080.

[LukaP]

1 minute ago, Mr. Tsao said:

Personally I wish both companies would cooperate more. And btw, I have a 7970

Thats like saying it would be nice if Samsung and Apple cooperated. Not going to happen. Not in the companies interest. And even if it were, there are laws against monopolies that cooperation would break...

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Well, they did use a game that favours AMD cards to compare performance to a GTX 1080 so not everything is as clear cut as it seems. And AMD has exaggerated benchmarks before (I'm looking at you Fury X).

 

Then again, there's no reason why AMD has to lie. That's the beauty of advancements in technology.

Well, that COULD just show the difference A-sync makes. Pascal still has no onboard A-sync hardware support - it's done through high clocks and drivers.

[Mr. Tsao]

3 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Oh because Nvidia have NEVER done that? Please. I urge you to stop once again, for your own sake

I know they have. I'm aware that both parties are dishonest, and I'm only curious to see others opinions, k?

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, LiquidPanic said:

I think you people are all missing something big here. 2 RX 480s in CrossFire were matching performance with a GTX 1080, while only at 50% utilization. If you translate that to not be confusing babble, they were literally saying that the RX 480 is just as fast as the GTX 1080, which is not going to happen under any scenario. Also, if you watch the demo closely, you can clearly see that the RX 480s in CF were running the game at lower settings than the 1080.

CPU limitation - that is how Ashes is

[LiquidPanic]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

CPU limitation - that is how Ashes is

That does not make any sense. The CPU is not a factor here. The RX 480s were running a higher framerate, while only at 50% utilization, meaning that a single one at 100% utilization is as fast or faster than a GTX 1080. It was all marketing, and the entire demo was complete bull.

[HKZeroFive]

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Well, that COULD just show the difference A-sync makes. Pascal still has no onboard A-sync hardware support - it's done through high clocks and drivers.

Let's face it, most play AotS for the benchmarks, not for the game itself. If AMD is going to use a game that will show their cards in a better light, they will. Most people are gonna being playing other games (Witcher 3, Battlefield, Fallout 4 etc.) which don't utilise Asynchronous Compute.

[Mr. Tsao]

3 minutes ago, LukaP said:

Thats like saying it would be nice if Samsung and Apple cooperated. Not going to happen. Not in the companies interest. And even if it were, there are laws against monopolies that cooperation would break...

Freesync and tressfx were both AMD developments that they made open source so that others (nvidia) could use, while nvidia had gsync and gameworks remain proprietary so AMD couldn't use it

[HKZeroFive]

7 minutes ago, LiquidPanic said:

I think you people are all missing something big here. 2 RX 480s in CrossFire were matching performance with a GTX 1080, while only at 50% utilization. If you translate that to not be confusing babble, they were literally saying that the RX 480 is just as fast as the GTX 1080, which is not going to happen under any scenario. Also, if you watch the demo closely, you can clearly see that the RX 480s in CF were running the game at lower settings than the 1080.

Game was never running at lower settings buddy. Starting to sound like JayzTwoCents:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/