Looks like the RX 480 keeps getting better and better

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

In a world where someones choice is rx480 or a 1060, the rx480 will likely be better for longer. Thats all I was trying to say. And the person I had quote seem to imply that the amount of dx12 titles now doesnt matter, ignoring that in 2 or 3 years time a lot more games will be dx12.

In 2-3 years when both cards perform bleh in terms of what's available then, 15% doesn't seem like a whole lot. Even if a RX 480 gets 23 FPS while the GTX 1060 gets 21, it's still 23 FPS. It's still "unplayable". It still warrants an upgrade for the most part.

 

Unless you're okay with that performance.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

And the person I had quote seem to imply that the amount of dx12 titles now doesnt matter, ignoring that in 2 or 3 years time a lot more games will be dx12.

Is not that, the problem is that either card will be greatly outpaced in 2 to 3 years from today to be that relevant: after 3 years even a 1070 or 1080 would be capable of maybe doing medium detail and such on the latest game and certainly not at really high resolutions.

 

Yes the 480 will be better off but either card will offer such a poor experience it hardly matters. The choice of card 2 or 3 years needs to be made in 2 or 3 years most midrange cards are just not meant to last that long and are generally better replaced each 1 to 1.5 years instead (which makes sense if they cost about half the 1070 and Fury X offerings for example) otherwise most games will have to severely compromise settings.

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

In 2-3 years when both cards perform bleh in terms of what's available then, 15% doesn't seem like a whole lot. Even if a RX 480 gets 23 FPS while the GTX 1060 gets 21, it's still 23 FPS. It's still "unplayable". It still warrants an upgrade for the most part.

 

Unless you're okay with that performance.

I mean I don't disagree with you there. But for someone that wont ever be able to afford more than an rx480 or 1060, the 480 will likely serve them better for longer.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

I mean I don't disagree with you there. But for someone that wont ever be able to afford more than an rx480 or 1060, the 480 will likely serve them better for longer.

No, it won't. Both will pretty much start to suck at the same time.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

You should mention whoever I quoted then, because this point furthers counters the argument that Microsoft seemingly had a major hand in PC game developers finally starting to optimize for AMD, if that's really what's going on here.

Good point, @AresKrieger.

 

Consoles have always used their own API's and will continue to do so in the future. They may end up being based off DX12 or Vulkan but they will be their own forks of them specially optimized for the console hardware. The only reason consoles have been able to do what they have been able to do is due to the fixed hardware configuration and the very tight integration and optimization of the graphics API's.

 

I've never been one to bother comparing consoles to PC's as they are two worlds that will never meet, fixed hardware configuration versus a plethora of options. You'll never see a PC with the exact same hardware performance as a console be able to run the same game as smoothly, DX12 and Vulkan merely close the difference significantly.

 

There's games I will only play on PC and same goes for consoles so it's not like a favor either platform but unlike a large majority of PC gamers I will give consoles credit where it's due. I'll also point out game devs have always been capable of low level API programming as that's been the norm for consoles forever, they have just never been able to do it on PC and it's harder to do.

 

Edit:

We also need to give AMD some major credit here in actually forcing the issue on the PC side regardless of who does what better, DX12 as it is now would be nothing like it and Vulkan wouldn't exist.

[Misanthrope]

Let's follow the quoted example: the 780ti is now equal to worst in performance to the 1050ti. Granted this is an extreme example of a card really doing poorly after these years however, think about what happens when you want to use a 3 year old midrange card on a game like the division:

 

 

The midrange card, the 760 is not even on the chart it's below the 770 meaning it probably gives 23 FPS if it's lucky. This is what happens to midrange cards 3 years down the line: it's irrelevant if the AMD counterpart does 15% better or even 20 or 30% modern games will either be on really noticeable lower settings or unplayable.

 

You are meant to replace the 480 or 1060 probably a few months after the next gen card comes out tops. Otherwise it will start lagging behind fairly quickly.

[Doobeedoo]

It performs great, also DX12 is in early stages, still good.

[ivan134]

17 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Let's follow the quoted example: the 780ti is now equal to worst in performance to the 1050ti. Granted this is an extreme example of a card really doing poorly after these years however, think about what happens when you want to use a 3 year old midrange card on a game like the division:

 

 

The midrange card, the 760 is not even on the chart it's below the 770 meaning it probably gives 23 FPS if it's lucky. This is what happens to midrange cards 3 years down the line: it's irrelevant if the AMD counterpart does 15% better or even 20 or 30% modern games will either be on really noticeable lower settings or unplayable.

 

You are meant to replace the 480 or 1060 probably a few months after the next gen card comes out tops. Otherwise it will start lagging behind fairly quickly.

Ummm, good job proving his point. Look at the 290 and 290x in your graph.

[Valentyn]

29 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Ummm, good job proving his point. Look at the 290 and 290x in your graph.

Not even that, look at the 380 compared to the GTX 770. 

 

Early Kepler is not doing well at all now compared to Tonga, which was similar in performance to the 7970 when it launched. 

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

*looks at RX 480 inside case*

 

*gets warm fuzzy feeling*

And I'm just sitting here with my GTX 970, being fine with it(for now), and just kicking back to watch the show to see who I buy from next...AMD or NVIDIA.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

It's one thing to post information regarding a cards performance improving, but to make a title that would intentionally incite a fanwar, you are clearly asking for it. 

 

Let's also point out the elephant in the room, being DX12. The Nvidia cards are scaling negatively in DX12. If you compare the DX11 result of the 1060, to the DX12 result of the 480, that gap closes. Also, that 16% number is a massive 3FPS in 4k (23fps on the 1060 vs 26fps on the 480), basically unplayable by PC gaming standards. 

 

Feel free to update this post with that information.

That title doesn't incite a fan war; it's the truth. The 480's performance keeps increasing -- at a faster pace than the 1060.  The only way this incites a fan war is fanboys not being able to accept facts.

 

If I'm not mistaken, 480 beats 1060 now in most DX11 games, too, so what does having a smaller lead matter? It's still a lead.  Besides, someone buying a card should know that in the long run (and now in general) the 1060 is a worse buy.  

 

No one's buying these cards for 4k.  I don't even look at 4k numbers for these cards -- they're not a realistic use-case.

[AlTech]

2 hours ago, TechGod said:

https://www.techpowerup.com/228800/tom-clancys-the-division-gets-directx-12-update-rx-480-beats-gtx-1060-by-16

 

"Testing by GameGPU (Russian media site) shows that AMD Radeon RX 480 is about 16 percent faster than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, with the game running in the new DirectX 12 mode. "The Division" was tested with its new DirectX 12 renderer, on an ASUS Radeon RX 480 STRIX graphics card driven by Crimson ReLive 16.12.1 drivers, and compared with an ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 6GB STRIX, driven by GeForce 376.19 drivers. Independent testing by German tech-site ComputerBase.de supports these findings."

 

Not much to say really, it's clear the RX 480 just keeps gaining steam. 

Fix your post for forum dark theme users.

[AlTech]

19 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Not even that, look at the 380 compared to the GTX 770. 

 

Early Kepler is not doing well at all now compared to Tonga, which was similar in performance to the 7970 when it launched. 

Please.....I know first hand that Kepler is doing badly right now. I really want an upgrade to an RX 480 this year but probably won't have enough money .

[grayperview]

The 480 and 1060 are where i expected them to be now, i said at the time of the 1060's launch AMD would close the gap by Christmas, and would be ahead with a few months later, mainly because i know how poor AMD driver optimization is for new cards compared to Nvidia.

 

Add that to the excellent progression with the drivers the last 3 years, and it would only be a matter of time before the extracted the full performance potential of the 480.

[ivan134]

15 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

That title doesn't incite a fan war; it's the truth. The 480's performance keeps increasing -- at a faster pace than the 1060.  The only way this incites a fan war is fanboys not being able to accept facts.

 

If I'm not mistaken, 480 beats 1060 now in most DX11 games, too, so what does having a smaller lead matter? It's still a lead.  Besides, someone buying a card should know that in the long run (and now in general) the 1060 is a worse buy.  

 

No one's buying these cards for 4k.  I don't even look at 4k numbers for these cards -- they're not a realistic use-case.

The original title was edited by a mod.

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

OK so it pulls ahead in DX12... did anyone really find this surprising?  It's the same idea as Vulkan where we know AMD does better.  How is it stacking up in DX11 though?  Initially we saw the 1060 be measurably and consistently ahead ... has that changed?

 

Pretty well it seems  

[Guest lilbman]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

How much did the 480 win by in DX11 at 1080p and 1440p?

If it was already winning, and is now pretty much neck-in-neck then Nvidia might actually have gained (assuming AMD's card runs DX12 faster than DX11) more from DX12 than AMD did, which would go against the typical "AMD is better at DX12 than Nvidia".

 

 

 

I think that "RX480 is 16% faster than the 1060 at 4K!" would be misleading too. While the statement itself is true, the conclusion people will jump to is false.

I wish people would stop making crappy titles intended to deceive people, and just tried to be honest and unbiased. AMD vs Nvidia threads and articles are really insufferable because it's just a competition of who can twist the numbers to look the most favorable towards whichever brand you like.

 

I think this clip with the fucking nerd summarizes AMD vs Nvidia vs Intel threads really well (starts at 07:00):

 

Who is the Sega and who is the Super Nintendo? 

[AlTech]

@nicklmg Would it be possible for Linus and Luke to re-evaluate and compare the RX 480 and GTX 1060?

[PlayStation 2]

The real question is: who actually plays Tom Clancy's The Division on PC?

I thought this game died a long time ago.

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

The real question is: who actually plays Tom Clancy's The Division on PC?

I thought this game died a long time ago.

Apparently a new patch revived the game.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Apparently a new patch revived the game.

Heh, color me aquamarine and call me Groundskeeper Willie.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

8 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

The original title was edited by a mod.

Ah. Sorry.

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

That title doesn't incite a fan war; it's the truth. The 480's performance keeps increasing -- at a faster pace than the 1060.  The only way this incites a fan war is fanboys not being able to accept facts.

I edited the title to remove the very clear flame bait in it.

[ivan134]

36 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Not even that, look at the 380 compared to the GTX 770. 

 

Early Kepler is not doing well at all now compared to Tonga, which was similar in performance to the 7970 when it launched. 

Exactly. The 680 is now slower than a 7850. Sad.

[MageTank]

33 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

That title doesn't incite a fan war; it's the truth. The 480's performance keeps increasing -- at a faster pace than the 1060.  The only way this incites a fan war is fanboys not being able to accept facts.

 

If I'm not mistaken, 480 beats 1060 now in most DX11 games, too, so what does having a smaller lead matter? It's still a lead.  Besides, someone buying a card should know that in the long run (and now in general) the 1060 is a worse buy.  

 

No one's buying these cards for 4k.  I don't even look at 4k numbers for these cards -- they're not a realistic use-case.

The previous title was an attempt to incite a fan war. It was "Another one bites the dust, and another one gone, RX480 beats GTX 1060 by 16%". The problem with that title, is that it not only mocked Nvidia as a brand (something their fans would respond respond to with anger), it was misleading. That 16% number only came from the 4k results, something you yourself agree is an unrealistic use-case.

 

A mod edited the title to be a proper one, reflecting that the RX480 is indeed getting better with age, and one that doesn't mislead users with worthless performance metrics. As for the RX480 beating the 1060 in most dx11 titles, that's simply not the case...yet. AMD's DX11 drivers have slowly been improving, while Nvidia's driver support has been hit or miss lately. It's hard for Nvidia to improve their DX11 performance beyond what it is now, because they've already done such a good job, that any improvements made will likely be negligible. AMD on the other hand, struggled early on with DX11 support, and was only able to go up from there. From a hardware perspective, AMD always used superior hardware in an attempt to brute force things, but as their drivers slowly catch up (and potentially exceed) Nvidia's, that hardware starts to shine more and more as time goes on.

 

To those that may be offended by what I say, understand, I have no affiliation or allegiance to a brand. I simply call it as I see it.