industry GPU maker Nvidia and AMD. The overall diversity.

[Guest]

Recently, one thing really itched me. 480 and 1060's performance comparison. Whatever it is 1060, the latest and cheapest Pascal defeated Polaris' best bet at this time. Minimum 30% is getting factored in every time( excluding Editing performance). Even Raja Koduri couldn't save AMD's Radeon Team. Cutthroat question. What's wrong with AMD? It gives us something new after a significant gap of time and still not so thrilled it makes us. It's not only about GPU or FPS or Overclocking facts. 

 

Simple. Red or Green. To you, who holds more value and regards according to your preference based on vastness? Nvidia has mastered the graphical thoughts over the years but AMD is still meh (Though count me as one of team RED) but AMD concentrates on many stuffs at a time and handles both players.Intel and Nvidia. Articulation is Nvidia and Intel's domain but AMD is running both of the sector. Sometimes people think reddish(ly) based on 'lets try'. 

 

What do you think?

[ThinkWithPortals]

9 minutes ago, Anirban said:

 the latest and cheapest Pascal defeated Polaris' best bet at this time.

Ah, no.

 

1: The 480's been beating the 1060 consistently in Vulkan benchmarks. Not many games utilise Vulkan though, but that will change.

2: The 1060 is actually far more expensive than the 480 in many parts of the world (eg outside the US) so the 480 is the better buy due to the fact that it's not massively far behind the 1060 but it is quite substantially cheaper.

3: Polaris was never intended to compete with Pascal. The actual Pascal competitor, Vega, is coming later. AMD made it clear that Polaris was a mid-range offering.

[The1whokill5]

I think AMD has more problems across the board with expectations and constantly failing them. 

I feel like nividia has continuously dominated the market and continue to provide great cards and improve all the time. Even now they're hinting a 1050 to please consumers while AMD can just launch 1 card and motherboard names

team green definitely ??

[ThinkWithPortals]

1 minute ago, The1whokill5 said:

with expectations and constantly failing them

What about NVIDIA's totally misleading "2x the performance of GTX 980" graphs for the GTX 1080 launch?

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Ah, no.

 

1: The 480's been beating the 1060 consistently in Vulkan benchmarks. Not many games utilise Vulkan though.

2: The 1060 is actually far more expensive than the 480 in many parts of the world (eg outside the US) so the 480 is the better buy due to the fact that it's not massively far behind the 1060 but it is quite substantially cheaper.

3: Polaris was never intended to compete with Pascal. The actual Pascal competitor, Vega, is coming later. AMD made it clear that Polaris was a mid-range offering.

Fully agree, not only that: Price/performance-wise the 480 still wins. It simply gives more FPS per dollar.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Anirban said:

Recently, one thing really itched me. 480 and 1060's performance comparison. Whatever it is 1060, the latest and cheapest Pascal defeated Polaris' best bet at this time. Minimum 30% is getting factored in every time( excluding Editing performance). Even Raja Koduri couldn't save AMD's Radeon Team. Cutthroat question. What's wrong with AMD? It gives us something new after a significant gap of time and still not so thrilled it makes us. It's not only about GPU or FPS or Overclocking facts. 

 

Simple. Red or Green. To you, who holds more value and regards according to your preference based on vastness? Nvidia has mastered the graphical thoughts over the years but AMD is still meh (Though count me as one of team RED) but AMD concentrates on many stuffs at a time and handles both players.Intel and Nvidia. Articulation is Nvidia and Intel's domain but AMD is running both of the sector. Sometimes people think reddish(ly) based on 'lets try'. 

 

What do you think?

I think there's something in the rules about making a thread about Nvidia vs AMD and the like, but I'll answer anyway. I've always gotten my GPUs from Nvidia and have no reason to switch. I like their performance, their drivers and their support throughout the games that I play. Expensive? You bet. But when I purchase Nvidia GPUs, or Intel CPUs for that matter, I feel like I'm making an investment as opposed to a compromise. I'm not rich by any means and I choose my parts carefully, so that I can maximize their usefulness throughout their lifetime.

 

Can AMD do all of this? Probably, and I have nothing against AMD as a whole, I just have a preference towards the green team. I think their technology is better and their performance superior. But that's pretty subjective and just my opinion. AMD has got some good cards coming and I look forward to seeing some benchmarks. But for now, until Nvidia fails to live up to what I throw at them, they'll be my card of choice.

 

TL;DR

Green team 

[SLAYR]

11 minutes ago, The1whokill5 said:

I think AMD has more problems across the board with expectations and constantly failing them. 

I feel like nividia has continuously dominated the market and continue to provide great cards and improve all the time. Even now they're hinting a 1050 to please consumers while AMD can just launch 1 card and motherboard names

team green definitely ??

They are only launching a 1050, because the rx 460 has been popular, and is most likly selling faster then the 950, and 750ti. 

[LukaH]

AMD does not have that sweet R&D money that Intel or Nvidia has, fighting two fights at a time with past CPU failures and the whole r9 3xx rebrand you bet they are not on the same level. but the investment in mantle/vulkan/dx12 is starting to slowly pay off. if zen will be near Intels offerings or at least not overpriced and if Vega does its job im sure they will be making that "dolla dolla bills yall, that swag money$$$"  and have more to throw into R&D i dont see why they couldnt make a comeback. 

 

i have owned AMD cards all my life except my first machine had a GeForce 2 great card ran everything (even crysis on ultra lol), not because im a fanboy but just at the time when i was doing my shopping those were the better performing cards or i had no control over the purchase (family computer). Next upgrade will be AMD  for sure because of better vulkan/dx12 support unless something drastic changes in the near future.

[Nena Trinity]

The FX-8370 + RX 480 can compete with a i5-6400 + GTX 1060 just fine in DX12 yet in DX11 the AMD CPU & GPU both struggle and it is worse to use them both combined sadly. The best combo is Intel + Nvidia in the majority of cases or AMD + Nvidia or Intel + AMD, that is sad really I wish AMD could make a better DX11 and OpenGL driver... (but they seem to focus only at DX12 & Vulkan)

[Brian McKee]

I hear way more about the 480 than I do the 1060. I'm pretty sure AMD is doing fine right now.

 

And everyone is hype af for Zen.

[Dexter89]

4 hours ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Ah, no.

 

1: The 480's been beating the 1060 consistently in Vulkan benchmarks. Not many games utilise Vulkan though, but that will change.

2: The 1060 is actually far more expensive than the 480 in many parts of the world (eg outside the US) so the 480 is the better buy due to the fact that it's not massively far behind the 1060 but it is quite substantially cheaper.

3: Polaris was never intended to compete with Pascal. The actual Pascal competitor, Vega, is coming later. AMD made it clear that Polaris was a mid-range offering.

I can second the price difference (in Australia at least) the cheapest I can get a 6gb 1060  is $400 which is a leadtek blower style with this ugly graphic picture on it https://www.pccasegear.com/products/36503/leadtek-geforce-gtx-1060-winfast-6gb where I can pick up an xfx 480 that is the same price which is a dual fan model https://www.pccasegear.com/products/36317/xfx-radeon-rx-480-gtr-oc-8gb (I know I could get these cheaper on newegg but that is the general Australian company price)

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, Dexter89 said:

I can second the price difference (in Australia at least) the cheapest I can get a 6gb 1060  is $400 which is a leadtek blower style with this ugly graphic picture on it https://www.pccasegear.com/products/36503/leadtek-geforce-gtx-1060-winfast-6gb where I can pick up an xfx 480 that is the same price which is a dual fan model https://www.pccasegear.com/products/36317/xfx-radeon-rx-480-gtr-oc-8gb (I know I could get these cheaper on newegg but that is the general Australian company price)

how does 20$ more for this card feel?

http://www.umart.com.au/umart1/pro/Products-details.phtml?id=10&bid=2&sid=288475&id2=1

 

20$ more...it's only 5% more expensive and the GTX 1060 is a lot more than 5% faster...it's also more energy efficient, run cooler, quieter...support a slew of new technologies and this model even has a backplate

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 hours ago, Nena360 said:

  (but they seem to focus only at DX12 & Vulkan)

yeah...cause DX12 is sooo amazing right now lol

 

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/deus-ex-mankind-divided-dx12-benchmark/2/

(that's an AMD game BTW )

 

[Nena Trinity]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah...cause DX12 is sooo amazing right now lol

 

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/deus-ex-mankind-divided-dx12-benchmark/2/

(that's an AMD game BTW )

 

Oh my that game is a disaster... o3o

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Nena360 said:

Oh my that game is a disaster... o3o

DX12 is a disaster...

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

DX12 is a disaster...

It works great in Ashes of the Singularity, when the Nvidia driver does not crash lel

[SteveGrabowski0]

7 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Fully agree, not only that: Price/performance-wise the 480 still wins. It simply gives more FPS per dollar.

But are we ever going to see the 4GB RX 480 for $200 again? Because the price to performance argument goes out the window if you can only get the 8GB version for $250 and up. The $200 RX 480 4GB seems almost like a bait and switch.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Nena360 said:

It works great in Ashes of the Singularity, when the Nvidia driver does not crash lel

the tech demo...every game that use it saw nothing of the promised performance increase DX12 is supposed to bring...i mean forza apex and killer instinct runs fine...ROTTR run fine in DX12 but nothing special...same as DX11...and now this game...gears of wars is a disaster...quantum broken is broken beyond repair...DX12 is a real let down.

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

the tech demo...every game that use it saw nothing of the promised performance increase DX12 is supposed to bring...i mean forza apex and killer instinct runs fine...ROTTR run fine in DX12 but nothing special...same as DX11...and now this game...gears of wars is a disaster...quantum broken is broken beyond repair...DX12 is a real let down.

Warhammer total war did fine and many of the claimed DX12 titles where just using DX12 features, they where really DX9 or DX11 games originally. (mainly Gears of War that fail-boat was doomed considering it ran on DX9...)

[Cheddle]

8 hours ago, Anirban said:

Recently, one thing really itched me. 480 and 1060's performance comparison. Whatever it is 1060, the latest and cheapest Pascal defeated Polaris' best bet at this time. Minimum 30% is getting factored in every time( excluding Editing performance). Even Raja Koduri couldn't save AMD's Radeon Team. Cutthroat question. What's wrong with AMD? It gives us something new after a significant gap of time and still not so thrilled it makes us. It's not only about GPU or FPS or Overclocking facts. 

 

Simple. Red or Green. To you, who holds more value and regards according to your preference based on vastness? Nvidia has mastered the graphical thoughts over the years but AMD is still meh (Though count me as one of team RED) but AMD concentrates on many stuffs at a time and handles both players.Intel and Nvidia. Articulation is Nvidia and Intel's domain but AMD is running both of the sector. Sometimes people think reddish(ly) based on 'lets try'. 

 

What do you think?

 

AMD have openly admitted that they felt SOC's and iGPU's would make dGPU's redundant so for a few years they stopped trying... They are targeting low-mid range with their cards. they are not looking to sell top level enthusiast cards with their Polaris release. They are looking to sell to the mainstream. A good stratergy given how many "mainstream" cards are sold vs. enthusiast cards. AMD also don't just make CPU/GPUs for example they make SOC's for Dell WYSE thinclients - a huge market that they are uncontested in price/performance.

 

Unfortunately, a far superior strategy has been adopted by Nvidia being to make a huge as fuck GPU that is exactly 30% faster than the last huge as fuck GPU we released, charge twice as much money as last time, and then with all of the broken and failed chips just turn off parts of them and sell them as the low/mid-range cards and price them to undercut AMD. They could have made a FP32 card with 6,000 cuda cores on a 600mm2 die on Pascal architecture if they needed to - but they didn't... because that would have been more than 30% faster than the last card.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

13 minutes ago, Cheddle said:

Unfortunately, a far superior strategy has been adopted by Nvidia being to make a huge as fuck GPU that is exactly 30% faster than the last huge as fuck GPU we released, charge twice as much money as last time, and then with all of the broken and failed chips just turn off parts of them and sell them as the low/mid-range cards and price them to undercut AMD. They could have made a FP32 card with 6,000 cuda cores on a 600mm2 die on Pascal architecture if they needed to - but they didn't... because that would have been more than 30% faster than the last card.

 

[Cheddle]

13 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

 

 

Buying a 1080 to replace a 980ti that replaced a 980 leaves you with a PH in the double-digits.

 

Not to mention the 1060 that replaced the 650ti that I traded for my 670...

 

A man can only take so much before he becomes the rock god

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Cheddle said:

Buying a 1080 to replace a 980ti that replaced a 980 leaves you with a PH in the double-digits.

Not to mention the 1060 that replaced the 650ti that I traded for my 670...

A man can only take so much before he becomes the rock god

the new Titan X though...which is the real replacement to the GTX 980ti (the huge ass chip you talked about) is like +65%

the GTX 1080 is replacing the GTX 980...that's why you are salty

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-980-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080/2576vs3603

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-980-Ti-vs-Nvidia-Titan-X-Pascal/3439vsm158352

[Cheddle]

11 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the new Titan X though...which is the real replacement to the GTX 980ti (the huge ass chip you talked about) is like +65%

the GTX 1080 is replacing the GTX 980...that's why you are salty

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-980-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080/2576vs3603

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-980-Ti-vs-Nvidia-Titan-X-Pascal/3439vsm158352

 

Call them what you want I count a "replacement" card as the one that comes out that is faster than the last one - each one is ~30% faster than the previous card - my salt is that Nvidia are not pushing the envelope... they are holding back and milking it. when you release a series of cards with CUDA core counts that are the same as common monitor resolutions - you do it for troll. If they had to compete with AMD I can't imagine that they would have made the 1080 die so small, nor kept its CUDA count a gimmick.

 

The new titan x is a teensy baby chip - not even trying - the new Titan X die is closer in size to the old 980 than the 1080 is to the old 980 - pascal has heaps left in the tank and I wouldn't be that surprised to see a 600mm2 fp32 pascal chip thats 30% faster than gp102 make it to market if Vega is a flop (I don't expect it will happen, but it would make sense to hold Volta in reserve and keep pascal out for longer)

 

980: 398 mm2
980ti: 601 mm2

1080: 314 mm2

pascal x: 417 mm2

[i_build_nanosuits]

7 minutes ago, Cheddle said:

pascal has heaps left in the tank and I wouldn't be that surprised to see a 600mm2 fp32 pascal chip thats 30% faster than gp102 make it to market

it already exist...in fact it's the FIRST pascal GPU nvidia unveiled:

http://www.nvidia.ca/object/tesla-p100.html

 

P100 (GP100) is 610mm

 

This one has HBM and shit...if nvidia would want it to...vega won't stand a chance against such a beastly chip.