RX 480 performs ~30% faster with Vulkan!...

[The Benjamins]

6 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

Serious question then, should I upgrade my 380 to a 480? Seems to be enough power. Or should I keep waiting for Vega?

Is the performance gain worth it to you? I personally get the top end and skip every other gen.

[byalexandr]

44 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Is the performance gain worth it to you? I personally get the top end and skip every other gen.

Well I used to have a 290 and I always told myself that just a bit more power would be awesome. If it performs like a 970 then I'd be perfectly fine. Especially since I play a lot of AMD titles like BF4 and DiRT Rally.

[The Benjamins]

58 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

Well I used to have a 290 and I always told myself that just a bit more power would be awesome. If it performs like a 970 then I'd be perfectly fine. Especially since I play a lot of AMD titles like BF4 and DiRT Rally

It's not a upgrade over a 290 I have a 290x that died just a week ago and plan on getting a 480 to use in the mean time but it will not be faster. I'm waiting for top end Vega.

[byalexandr]

50 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

It's not a upgrade over a 290 I have a 290x that died just a week ago and plan on getting a 480 to use in the mean time but it will not be faster. I'm waiting for top end Vega.

Well I have a 380 right now. I loved the power that the 290 had, and the 480 is just a bit faster which is all I wanted out of my 290 in the first place.

 

Don't really need a top end card to be quite honest. I just hope they fixed that 'problem' with the PCI-E power draw. Then I'd totally buy one. Hell I'd buy two if my mom would not have killed me already for buying one.

[Jahramika]

2 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

DF has some interesting early analysis. Link takes you to first number, 3:38 takes you to the second fps comparison, 3:95 for the third comparison. 4:34 for cpu comparison, and finally 5:36 shows 480v970v980. Also a reminder to everyone, TSAA is a much lighter AA variant, and is best used in combination with other AA variants (irc AC:Syndcate uses up to 4x TSAA + 2xMSAA)

 

Sigh whatever 5 other videos showing higher gain for AMD and same little gains for Nvidia. 4 of 5 cant be wrong.

 

Not only that the Nano uses less power than the 1070 and better performance under Vulkan.

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

32 minutes ago, Jahramika said:

Sigh whatever 5 other videos showing higher gain for AMD and same little gains for Nvidia. 4 of 5 cant be wrong.

 

Not only that the Nano uses less power than the 1070 and better performance under Vulkan.

 

 

1. The nano doesn't use less power.

2. The Fury X is outperforming the 980ti and 1070 stock to stock now no doubt.

3.This video also showed little gains from Nvidia and much larger ones from AMD, but the net result was still 1080>all.

4. Other videos using TSAA instead of any other AA solution need to remember how inferior TSAA is as a AA filter (it tends to cause a lot of loss of detail compared to the much more intense MSAA and MXAA/FXAA), thus numerous video games implement both TSAA and another filter concurrently (AC:Syndicate being a prominent recent one.)

 

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/watch-dogs/watch-dogs-anti-aliasing-comparison-1-4x-txaa-vs-8x-msaa.html

 

Obviously this isn't the greatest comparison shot, but it should be evident how TSAA/TXAA removes detail as part of a smoothing process (although as a result, it is thankfully much less susceptible to jaggies/artifacts than MSAA/FXAA). Another benefit to TSAA/TXAA is it tends to be much less intense on the gpu.

[SliceT]

Another very decent article on ComputerBase, the most respected media in europe.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/doom-vulkan-benchmarks-amd-nvidia/

 

Over 30% performance compared to 970 now.

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, SliceT said:

Another very decent article on ComputerBase, the most respected media in europe.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/doom-vulkan-benchmarks-amd-nvidia/

 

Over 30% performance compared to 970 now.

 

 

snip

One thing this illustrates dramatically is how much excess cpu resources the openGL AMD drivers were using. Probably the single largest improvement (as noted by the 1080p fps results.)

 

Also massive Google Translate fail.

[xAcid9]

31 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

7. Other videos using TSAA instead of any other AA solution need to remember how inferior TSAA is as a AA filter (it tends to cause a lot of loss of detail compared to the much more intense MSAA and MXAA/FXAA), thus numerous video games implement both TSAA and another filter concurrently (AC:Syndicate being a prominent recent one.)

 

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/watch-dogs/watch-dogs-anti-aliasing-comparison-1-4x-txaa-vs-8x-msaa.html

 

Obviously this isn't the greatest comparison shot, but it should be evident how TSAA/TXAA removes detail as part of a smoothing process (although as a result, it is thankfully much less susceptible to jaggies/artifacts than MSAA/FXAA). Another benefit to TSAA/TXAA is it tends to be much less intense on the gpu.

Did you mixed up TSSAA with something else? Shouldn't it offer you the best of both world? Not as heavy as MSAA but not blurry like FXAA. 

[pit5000]

that price to performance ratio is impressive

[Curufinwe_wins]

6 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Did you mixed up TSSAA with something else? Shouldn't it offer you the best of both world? Not as heavy as MSAA but not blurry like FXAA. 

Take a look at that picture comparison I posted. TSAA removes a shitload of detail. I honestly don't understand how people think it is "superior" to MSAA or FXAA. Pay attention to the background detail lost on foliage/trees/fence.

 

The biggest advantage to TSAA is that it almost never has artifacting issues (because it softens so much detail) and it is cheap to implement (resource-wise.)

 

Again some of the best implementations of AA atm are mixed high level TSAA + low level MSAA groupings (although higher resolutions are drastically reducing the need for AA, and I personally would rather crank up DSR than AA.)

 

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/watch-dogs/watch-dogs-anti-aliasing-comparison-1-4x-txaa-vs-8x-msaa.html

 

BTW this was an image that was used to promote TSAA (well TXAA but they are extremely similar) as a direct replacement for MSAA/MXAA.

[Phoenix721]

What about cards like the 300 series (including fury) and the 200 series?

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix721 said:

What about cards like the 300 series (including fury) and the 200 series?

Low res you are looking around 30-60% performance boosts (since cpu load is dramatically reduced along with other gpu optimizations), while High Res you are looking at more like 10-15%.

[xAcid9]

22 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Take a look at that picture comparison I posted. TSAA removes a shitload of detail. I honestly don't understand how people think it is "superior" to MSAA or FXAA. Pay attention to the background detail lost on foliage/trees/fence.

 

The biggest advantage to TSAA is that it almost never has artifacting issues (because it softens so much detail) and it is cheap to implement (resource-wise.)

 

Again some of the best implementations of AA atm are mixed high level TSAA + low level MSAA groupings (although higher resolutions are drastically reducing the need for AA, and I personally would rather crank up DSR than AA.)

 

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/watch-dogs/watch-dogs-anti-aliasing-comparison-1-4x-txaa-vs-8x-msaa.html

 

BTW this was an image that was used to promote TSAA (well TXAA but they are extremely similar) as a direct replacement for MSAA/MXAA.

Yeah it blurred distance object but not closer one but i prefer it because it reduce jaggies/shimmering on distance object/floor/wall greatly compare to other AA methods. 

 

AA-TSSAA 8TX

Spoiler

AA-TAA

Spoiler

 

 

AA-FXAA 1TX

Spoiler

 

AA-Off

Spoiler

 

4 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Also a reminder to everyone, TSAA is a much lighter AA variant, and is best used in combination with other AA variants (irc AC:Syndcate uses up to 4x TSAA + 2xMSAA)

Much lighter compare to MSAA/SSAA but heavier compare to FXAA/SMAA. I don't think you can mix TXAA and MSAA even in AC. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Yeah it blurred distance object but not closer one but i prefer it because it reduce jaggies/shimmering on distance object/floor/wall greatly compare to other AA methods. 

 

AA-TSSAA 8TX

  Hide contents

AA-TAA

  Hide contents

 

 

AA-FXAA 1TX

  Reveal hidden contents

 

AA-Off

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Much lighter compare to MSAA/SSAA but heavier compare to FXAA/SMAA. I don't think you can mix TXAA and MSAA even in AC. 

Snip sorry TXAA +FXAA (or MXAA+FXAA.

 

I really have issues with the blur addition personally (but then again I don't like depth of field blur either.)

 

 

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, byalexandr said:

Well I have a 380 right now. I loved the power that the 290 had, and the 480 is just a bit faster which is all I wanted out of my 290 in the first place.

 

Don't really need a top end card to be quite honest. I just hope they fixed that 'problem' with the PCI-E power draw. Then I'd totally buy one. Hell I'd buy two if my mom would not have killed me already for buying one.

the power draw is fixed, PCIe does not draw more then 75 watts now ( which is spec) and they added a mode to lower the cards total draw if power savings is key

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

the power draw is fixed, PCIe does not draw more then 75 watts now ( which is spec) and they added a mode to lower the cards total draw if power savings is key

The power draw is fixed at stock, if you overclock, then you have a problem again.

 

(It should be a non-issue with non-reference PCBs and one shouldn't be buying a reference PCB anyway -- unless they planned on doing a custom loop, but in this case, no one should touch a reference PCB). 

[MoonSpot]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

The power draw is fixed at stock, if you overclock, then you have a problem again.

 

(It should be a non-issue with non-reference PCBs and one shouldn't be buying a reference PCB anyway -- unless they planned on doing a custom loop, but in this case, no one should touch a reference PCB). 

What?  Are you sure about that claim?  Every review I've seen for the 480 post driver update says that the PCIe power draw is fixed in that it no longer exceeds 75w through the mobo.  I'd have expected they'd check OC'ing.  If you've a source I'd like to read it please.

[THawkSonYo]

Interesting, I must show this to the Vulcan naysayers.

[Tech Inquisition]

Also remember, Nvidia hasn't updated their drivers for Vulkan since the first release yet. So it's most likely going to be interesting once they've retuned it.

[BuckGup]

Can we just get rid of DX11 and OpenGl now

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Tech Inquisition said:

Also remember, Nvidia hasn't updated their drivers for Vulkan since the first release yet.

huh? You saying that nvidia hasn't touched their vulkan driver in the last 5 months. I find that hard to believe considering how many devs are working on Vulkan stuff and giving them feedback. This is in addition to the ongoing beta public testing of Vulkan on dota2 and Talos principle, even leaving aside doom.

[79wjd]

5 hours ago, MoonSpot said:

What?  Are you sure about that claim?  Every review I've seen for the 480 post driver update says that the PCIe power draw is fixed in that it no longer exceeds 75w through the mobo.  I'd have expected they'd check OC'ing.  If you've a source I'd like to read it please.

I forgot where I read it after 16.7.1 was released, but I'm too lazy to dig it up right now. So feel free to assume what I said is inaccurate/speculation as it's certainly possible I misread something.

[MilkJugg24]

Went from 107 FPS to 137 on nightmare settings with my 390X. This is outstanding