1060 vs 480 future

[JeyTee84]

I'm planing to upgrade my 960 to a 1060  for my new 1440 monitor.  I'd really like to buy a 1060, but i got confused when the 480 came into the picture. The 1060 doesn't have hardvare that supports Vulkan and DX12? I'd really like to be a bit futureproof with it. What is the chance that in the near future the 1060 will lag behind other cards because of the lack of support for these new APIs? Or how does this work? Thanks in advance for any help and info!

[Nena Trinity]

Is it a free-sync monitor or g-sync? Also it looks brighter for the RX but nobody really knows...

[Sakkura]

The GTX 1060 does support DirectX 12 and Vulkan.

 

AMD's hardware just tends to get more performance in the new APIs compared to DirectX 11, where Nvidia often isn't getting any gains.

[don_svetlio]

The 1060 does support Vulkan and DX12 - 480 is just more powerful when they are used

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The GTX 1060 does support DirectX 12 and Vulkan.

 

AMD's hardware just tends to get more performance in the new APIs compared to DirectX 11, where Nvidia often isn't getting any gains.

Pretty much what he said.

 

Beyond that we can't really "guess" if DX12 will really take off within the card's lifespan (call it 3 years) so the best you can hope for is current games and announced games but even then.

 

Personally I'd settle for the 1060 since there's just more games that perform better on it out already but look at what you're playing and want to play instead.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

The 1060 does support Vulkan and DX12 - 480 is just more powerful when they are used

Actually the CPU overhead handicaps the card in DX11 even more so in OpenGL so many speculate that its DX12 and Vulkan performance is its "real" performance!

[Sevarsuab]

Unlike the 1060, you can add another card to run the 480 with CrossFire if you feel like you need more horsepower later on (since Nvidia decided that nobody would ever like to run a 1060 in SLI). That is future-proofing if anything.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Nena360 said:

Actually the CPU overhead handicaps the card in DX11 even more so in OpenGL so many speculate that its DX12 and Vulkan performance is its "real" performance!

Possible, who knows. Driver updates are also quite frequent and improve performance further

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Possible, who knows. Driver updates are also quite frequent and improve performance further

Well I heard over at Reddit, AMDs newest driver reduced the CPU overhead in many DX11 games!

[ScratchCat]

RX 480 - AMD supports thier cards for longer and brings new features to them. For example the 780 ti vs R9 290x - the R9 290 is still well supported while I cannot remember the last performace driver improvemnt for the 780 ti.

Also AMD needs the money, we do not want a monopoly.

[Darkseth]

That is true. But in the 970 vs R9 390, the 390 did not gain so much more compared to the 970. The latter can still keep up in recent benchmarks/tests.

 

DX12: From those 10~ DX12 games that are out... most of them have such a crappy DX12 implementation, that you're better off going back to DX11.

DX12 makes not much sense, if the game is not written in it from scratch. Instead just a halfway decent "patch" put over the finished game.

So i don't think it's good to have only DX12 in your Mind, since DX12 is still not really relevant.

 

Vulkan is the same deal. Only 1 game is out using that. WE don't know when the next comes, or when Vulkan will be used more frequently.

 

But let's go to those low level API games, that work pretty good:

 

Ashes of the Singularity: The company has Dan Baker in their team. He was working for MS before in their DirectX department. So he has a lot of DirectX/API experience, to make DX12 run good in this game.

 

Doom: Id Software did get a few good people from Crytek.

 

BF1: Dice and Johan Anderson are one of the best developers in that section, so we should see a decent DX12 implementation in BF1.

 

 

What about Deus Ex Mankind Divided? DX12 is completely horrible here, with even less performance than DX11. The developer already said, they have much less experience with DX12 than with DX11.

 

What i want to say: Do not focus too much on something, that lies in the Future, and is NOT present today. Vulkan is obsolete, since it's only one single Game, and who knows what might happen here with future patches/optimizations.

DX12 is obsolete, because almost every single DX12 game has a bad implementation, and the others don't benefit that much from it (except you have a pretty weak/old CPU, that's the biggest benefit).

 

Untill vulkan and DX12 hit the market and become the new "standard", even 2-3 Years could pass easy. Especially, since many people still use Windows 7, which doe NOT support DX12. Game developer can reach more people if they programm on DX11, than on DX12. So most will stick to 11 for a while, and maybe putting DX12 as a patch.

Just remember DX10 and Vista back then, or DX11 and Windows 7. It didn't come in one day. It took a whole while to be the new standard. And 10 wasn't even relevant for long. Most games stayed at DX9, and when more DX10 games came, DX11 was already there.

 

 

Predictions here can be very difficult. It can be in 1 year, or it can be in 4 years (and then both cards become irrelevant).

Or Nvidia might catch up in Low level APIs because of some optimizations in the future. Anything can happen.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Darkseth said:

That is true. But in the 970 vs R9 390, the 390 did not gain so much more compared to the 970. The latter can still keep up in recent benchmarks/tests.

The 390 gains quite a bit in DirectX 12 and Vulkan compared to the 970. And besides, the 390 is a rebadged 290, which was built to compete with the GTX 780. Today, the 290 and 390 leave the 780 in the dust even in DirectX 11.

 

As for the rest, no, it's definitely worth running DirectX 12 and Vulkan in most of the games that support it... if you have an AMD card.

[xGGAx]

Nvidia does improve performance with each driver release. I bet dx12/vulcan performance will improve as well so I say 1060.

 

[Leonardo_Du5chl4mp3]

I also need a new GPU and atm I'd choose the 480 8GB. Just because the 2 GB VRAM difference.

Isn't that important for future games/performance? I do not see anyone here talk about the RAM (6 GB vs 8 GB)

 

And:

8 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Also AMD needs the money, we do not want a monopoly.

[ivan134]

8 hours ago, Nena360 said:

Well I heard over at Reddit, AMDs newest driver reduced the CPU overhead in many DX11 games!

Yup it did. I noticed gains in overwatch and skyforge

[ivan134]

7 hours ago, Darkseth said:

That is true. But in the 970 vs R9 390, the 390 did not gain so much more compared to the 970. The latter can still keep up in recent benchmarks/tests.

 

DX12: From those 10~ DX12 games that are out... most of them have such a crappy DX12 implementation, that you're better off going back to DX11.

DX12 makes not much sense, if the game is not written in it from scratch. Instead just a halfway decent "patch" put over the finished game.

So i don't think it's good to have only DX12 in your Mind, since DX12 is still not really relevant.

 

Vulkan is the same deal. Only 1 game is out using that. WE don't know when the next comes, or when Vulkan will be used more frequently.

 

But let's go to those low level API games, that work pretty good:

 

Ashes of the Singularity: The company has Dan Baker in their team. He was working for MS before in their DirectX department. So he has a lot of DirectX/API experience, to make DX12 run good in this game.

 

Doom: Id Software did get a few good people from Crytek.

 

BF1: Dice and Johan Anderson are one of the best developers in that section, so we should see a decent DX12 implementation in BF1.

 

 

What about Deus Ex Mankind Divided? DX12 is completely horrible here, with even less performance than DX11. The developer already said, they have much less experience with DX12 than with DX11.

 

What i want to say: Do not focus too much on something, that lies in the Future, and is NOT present today. Vulkan is obsolete, since it's only one single Game, and who knows what might happen here with future patches/optimizations.

DX12 is obsolete, because almost every single DX12 game has a bad implementation, and the others don't benefit that much from it (except you have a pretty weak/old CPU, that's the biggest benefit).

 

Untill vulkan and DX12 hit the market and become the new "standard", even 2-3 Years could pass easy. Especially, since many people still use Windows 7, which doe NOT support DX12. Game developer can reach more people if they programm on DX11, than on DX12. So most will stick to 11 for a while, and maybe putting DX12 as a patch.

Just remember DX10 and Vista back then, or DX11 and Windows 7. It didn't come in one day. It took a whole while to be the new standard. And 10 wasn't even relevant for long. Most games stayed at DX9, and when more DX10 games came, DX11 was already there.

 

 

Predictions here can be very difficult. It can be in 1 year, or it can be in 4 years (and then both cards become irrelevant).

Or Nvidia might catch up in Low level APIs because of some optimizations in the future. Anything can happen.

I can't believe you're still trying to spread untruths despite being corrected multiple times. Every time one shill is run out of this forum, there always seems to be another lined up waiting to replace him/her.

[JeyTee84]

19 hours ago, Leonardo_Du5chl4mp3 said:

I also need a new GPU and atm I'd choose the 480 8GB. Just because the 2 GB VRAM difference.

Isn't that important for future games/performance? I do not see anyone here talk about the RAM (6 GB vs 8 GB)

 

And:

I think 6 gigs is close enough. never knew why amd cards have so much ram... I prefer the 1060... especially after all the comments above

[Lays]

On 9/12/2016 at 8:45 AM, ScratchCat said:

RX 480 - AMD supports thier cards for longer and brings new features to them. For example the 780 ti vs R9 290x - the R9 290 is still well supported while I cannot remember the last performace driver improvemnt for the 780 ti.

Also AMD needs the money, we do not want a monopoly.

The reason why the 290 got more support is because their newer line was basically all modeled off the previous one.  So if they optimized for 390/390x, it benefitted 290/290x too.  I guarantee you if they had a completely different architecture, they would of changed how they supported the previous gen. 

[grayperview]

What Ecosystem do you want to be in? 

 

your choices are.....

 

Nvidia cards are usually relevant for around 2 years. to get the best out them you need a G-sync panel thats costs a small fortune.

 

or 

 

AMD cards are a bit slower but usually age well and stay relevant for around 4 years, and have a much cheaper panel option in freesync, that makes everything run silky smooth.

 

Up to you.

 

For me the panel is just as important as the graphics card these days, the difference Adaptive sync makes is huge.