GTX 1060 vs RX480

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

this isn't a multi GPU comparison, and obviously the 1060 can't SLI, but you shouldn't really be SLI/CFing low cards like that anyway, just get a single better card.


But i'm going to step out of this thread. too much fanboying going on to have a sane, objective analysis of the benchmarks recently provided by HWC which spawned this thread.

...... You called them bias. LOL. You stated multiple things that are false in this thread while calling the reviewers biased, and are now calling everyone else here fanboys. Unreal.

[Phate.exe]

@Zyndo

 

Aside from the fact you can't compare these cards clock-for-clock due the completely different architectures and IPC, AMD's boost clock and Nvidia's GPU Boost work very differently.

 

As far as I can tell, Nvidia GPU boost will keep cranking up the clockspeed on the card until it hits either a thermal or power limit.  They'll do this completely on their own, and overclocking them is mostly tweaking that power limit and keeping the card cool.  So out of the box, any decently-cooled 1060 will overclock itself pretty far.

 

AMD's boost clock targets a specific clock speed, and throttles things back once/if it hits a temp or power limit.  No matter what, if the card isn't hot enough to throttle, it will never go above the boost clock speed.  Overclocking an AMD card is like CPU overclocking.  Tweaking of boost clock, power limit, and voltage in order to get a balance between stability and running cool enough to not throttle.

[Zyndo]

23 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

Snip

I'm aware of all of that, but thanks for taking the time to go over it in case I was not. the exception being that GPU boost is a substitute for proper overclocking. some cards can go quite a bit further than what GPU boost puts them at during stock settings.

[Deli]

35 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

I'm aware of all of that, but thanks for taking the time to go over it in case I was not. the exception being that GPU boost is a substitute for proper overclocking. some cards can go quite a bit further than what GPU boost puts them at during stock settings.

Like you said "some cards......" The problem is we don't have large enough data to judge what is "general". Some 1060 can overclock way more than GPU boost puts them, while some don't. Same for RX480, some of them can't overclock much passes their stock boost clock, while some can overclock like king.

 

So there is no easy way to compare them in a fair manner, except to test them stock in out of the box fashion.

[Eponymous98]

Thank you all for your replies. Do you think that Nvidia is going to optimize their GPUs for DX12 titles in the future or will the RX 480 continue to be better? 

[Zangashtu]

12 hours ago, Zyndo said:

1060 6GB or 480 8GB doesn't really matter. they're both great. hardware cannucks did a test recently that showed the 480 is slightly better (like 2% better). but they were biased and they also didn't do any overclocking. 1060's typically have a lot more headroom in that area than 480's do. I wouldn't take their review as "law", but I'm also not against the 480 either. its a good card. 1060 is still better in DX11 games, 480 still better in DX12/Vulkan games, but the 480 has probably gained a step or two on the 1060 in that comparison.

 

if you're an avid overclocker, I would recommend the 1060 6GB. if you're a stock settings kind of guy, then get whatever is more affordable. Its also worth noting that the 480 4GB is probably a smarter buy than the 1060 3GB though (assuming similar pricing). But that is about all it comes down to: pricing.... get whatever is more affordable imo. They're going to be close enough in performance that you will not be able to distinguish one from the other in a lot of situations.

I agree, just get whatever you can afford.

They're both at the moment great cards, just go with what you can get and you probably wont be disappointed 

[Shura]

3 hours ago, Eponymous98 said:

Thank you all for your replies. Do you think that Nvidia is going to optimize their GPUs for DX12 titles in the future or will the RX 480 continue to be better? 

The RX series has async compute(DX12/Vulkan can utilize this) at a hardware level so no driver will make up for this advantage. Nvidia might be able to get a bit better performance with drivers but it won't catch up. I assume Nvidia will probably add this into their next line of cards after seeing how AMD is doing now; if you plan to update in an year then get which every is cheaper. If you plan to use it for 2-3 years then go with RX480.

[Eponymous98]

26 minutes ago, Shura said:

The RX series has async compute(DX12/Vulkan can utilize this) at a hardware level so no driver will make up for this advantage. Nvidia might be able to get a bit better performance with drivers but it won't catch up. I assume Nvidia will probably add this into their next line of cards after seeing how AMD is doing now; if you plan to update in an year then get which every is cheaper. If you plan to use it for 2-3 years then go with RX480.

Actually, AMD has had async compute for 4 or 5 years now and from what I have read Nvidia also has that technology (run graphics and compute workloads concurrently), but it is slower presumably due to driver implementation( although it is not 100% clear).

[Shura]

22 hours ago, Eponymous98 said:

Actually, AMD has had async compute for 4 or 5 years now and from what I have read Nvidia also has that technology (run graphics and compute workloads concurrently), but it is slower presumably due to driver implementation( although it is not 100% clear).

Yes Nvidia Pascal does have asynchronous compute but it's different from how its implemented in Polaris. With Pascal Nvidia introduced dynamic scheduling but the Pascal architecture itself is just an updated Maxwell and Asynchronous compute isn't designed into it; it's an added feature and not part of the architecture of Pascal. In Comparison as a result of creating chips for the consoles, AMD has been designing Asynchronous Compute into the Architecture of their chips since Fiji and Vulkan/DX12 can take advantage of this. Driver updates can improve things on the software side but nothing can be done about the Architecture of the GPUs. Yes Nvidia can do Asynchronous compute and therefor use DX12/Vulkan but the performance gains won't be as significant as it is on AMD cards; not this generation at least.  

 

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can explain things better.

[Eponymous98]

59 minutes ago, Shura said:

Yes Nvidia Pascal does have asynchronous compute but it's different from how its implemented in Polaris. With Pascal Nvidia introduced dynamic scheduling but the Pascal architecture itself is just an updated Maxwell and Asynchronous compute isn't designed into it; it's an added feature and not part of the architecture of Pascal. In Comparison as a result of creating chips for the consoles, AMD has been designing Asynchronous Compute into the Architecture of their chips since Fiji and Vulkan/DX12 can take advantage of this. Driver updates can improve things on the software side but nothing can be done about the Architecture of the GPUs. Yes Nvidia can do Asynchronous compute and therefor use DX12/Vulkan but the performance gains won't be as significant as it is on AMD cards; not this generation at least.  

 

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can explain things better.

I will look into it. Thanks for the information