Looks like the RX 480 keeps getting better and better

[Sniperfox47]

It's good to see the performance on AMD's side improving. I can't wait to see Vega. Hoping it may be only a generation or two more before I can drop my Nvidia hardware in favor of higher end stuff from AMD.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

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

I knew some of you would go for the low hanging fruit: The 290 and 290x where sold as TOP TIER cards at the time of release. The entire point I've been making is that high end cards are expected to last those 3 years and stay relevant in performance. In this regard I would agree with you: a 490 is more likely to stay relevant than a 1070 (assuming both are priced at 400 bucks) but 3 year old midrange cards just don't cut it for this much time.

[ivan134]

18 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I knew some of you would go for the low hanging fruit: The 290 and 290x where sold as TOP TIER cards at the time of release. The entire point I've been making is that high end cards are expected to last those 3 years and stay relevant in performance. In this regard I would agree with you: a 490 is more likely to stay relevant than a 1070 (assuming both are priced at 400 bucks) but 3 year old midrange cards just don't cut it for this much time.

Lol @ low hangoing fruit. Your mental gymnastics are hilarious.

 

I played the game during the free week and I was getting about 75% better performance on mostly high settings instead of ultra. If we apply that to the r7 370 in your chart, which is a rebranded 7850 that sold for $250 4 years ago, that puts it at about 55 fps. Maybe the next thing you're going to tell me is that it's unplayable at those framerates.

[VagabondWraith]

Makes me wonder what kind of performance gains NVidia would get if they implemented hardware schedulers and ACE's. Obviously their cards would run a bit warmer but I wonder if that would help their current cards receive a big boost in Vulkan / DX12 but also help keep older cards relevant longer. (Say Volta cards have a hardware scheduler & ACE's thus helping their cards age better.)

 

I could only imagine those hardware changes on Volta on top of their performance from the get go. 

 

For instance, current Pascal cards could see 10-15% on top of what we already have now if they had ACE's.

[raphidy]

So, it's still buy whatever is cheapest between these two. Yawn.

[Misanthrope]

22 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Lol @ low hangoing fruit. Your mental gymnastics are hilarious.

 

I played the game during the free week and I was getting about 75% better performance on mostly high settings instead of ultra. If we apply that to the r7 370 in your chart, which is a rebranded 7850 that sold for $250 4 years ago, that puts it at about 55 fps. Maybe the next thing you're going to tell me is that it's unplayable at those framerates.

Ok let me ask you something else: If for whatever reason the trends where to change and you'd find yourself with a card and architecture that favors a weaker side and a company that completely shifts gears into a different architecture and approach, thus abandoning driver support for your current card, would you feel the same?

 

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's very easy to claim now "Oh we all knew Kepler was going to bomb, nobody should have bought those cards!" yet you're riding your argument on Microsoft and their DX12 push, one of the mos notoriously unreliable companies when it comes to committing themselves to support PC gaming.

 

Right now it all points to the 480 having more legs for the future sure, right now that we're in the apex of DX12. But since when is future performance a major purchasing decision? Future proofing is for suckers.

[vanished]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

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

Yeah they really should actually

 

2 hours ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

 

Pretty well it seems  

Yeah we went over all this  

[ivan134]

41 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok let me ask you something else: If for whatever reason the trends where to change and you'd find yourself with a card and architecture that favors a weaker side and a company that completely shifts gears into a different architecture and approach, thus abandoning driver support for your current card, would you feel the same?

 

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's very easy to claim now "Oh we all knew Kepler was going to bomb, nobody should have bought those cards!" yet you're riding your argument on Microsoft and their DX12 push, one of the mos notoriously unreliable companies when it comes to committing themselves to support PC gaming.

 

Right now it all points to the 480 having more legs for the future sure, right now that we're in the apex of DX12. But since when is future performance a major purchasing decision? Future proofing is for suckers.

This is some ridiculous reaching and purposeful misrepresentation of the truth.

 

Kepler started performing badly basically as soon as Maxwell dropped. I'm not asking companies to support their architectures forever. Maxwell's foot was barely in the door before Kepler owners started getting shit on. We're talking about one generation. Not to mention Nvidia is at least 3 times bigger than AMD. They can afford to support both architectures. They're not even drastically different. 

 

Stop making ridiculous excuses for Nvidia. No one wants to spend $700 on a GPU only to have perform like absolute garbage 3 years later, especially compared to what the competitor is offering. Contrary to the popular belief on this forum, your average person does buy hardware to keep for a long time, even those that buy $700 GPUs. People who upgrade every year are a minority.

[Howitz]

5 hours ago, Cyndre1033 said:

That is one if that seems to always go with AMD and it is why I am considering the 480 over the 1060 for my upcoming build: longevity. Still wondering which 480 to get though

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/xfx/MediaGroupings/615/480_GTR_8GB_Card_Box.jpg

 

your new friend, the xfx gtr.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

This is some ridiculous reaching and purposeful misrepresentation of the truth.

The truth is kepler fucking sucks: I thought I gave you that much but I guess I needed to make that even more clear.

 

My assertion is that midrange cards are usually not future proof and not even AMD can guarantee they'll have an ace up their sleeves with things like Compute advantage every single time to trust that.

 

Are this assertions still too unreasonable to you?

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

This is some ridiculous reaching and purposeful misrepresentation of the truth.

 

Kepler started performing badly basically as soon as Maxwell dropped. I'm not asking companies to support their architectures forever. Maxwell's foot was barely in the door before Kepler owners started getting shit on. We're taking about one generation. Not to mention Nvidia is at least 3 times bigger than AMD. They can afford to support both architectures. They're not even drastically different. 

 

Stop making ridiculous excuses for Nvidia. No one wants to spend $700 on a GPU only to have perform like absolute garbage 3 years later, especially compared to what the competitor is offering. Contrary to the popular belief on this forum, your average person does buy hardware to keep for a long time, even those that buy $700 GPUs. People who upgrade every year are a minority.

Is the performance of Kepler any worse on the latest drivers then the old ones before Maxwell came out? No. No it isn't.

[Godlygamer23]

7 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

[removed]

Honestly, I believe that NVIDIA should actively support their video cards going at least three releases back, providing performance information for all three generations. Or actively support the most recent architecture, but also the most popular previous architectures.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Removing redundant words.

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

My assertion is that midrange cards are usually not future proof

Nothing is future-proof. 

[Space Reptile]

5 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

And how many games use DirectX 12?

we said the same about dx11 back then "we just got 10 why bother w/ 11" 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Nothing is future-proof. 

Nothing is but the raw performance of a high end card is naturally bound to keep it relevant for longer than a midrange card, that's all I was trying to say really.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Is the performance of Kepler any worse on the latest drivers then the old ones before Maxwell came out? No. No it isn't.

That's not the issue. The issue I see, is on older titles, Kepler absolutely destroys some Maxwell and Pascal cards, but on newer titles, lower end Maxwell and Pascal cards destroy even the flagship Kepler cards. Look at the video I posted a few pages back. The GTX 780 Ti is losing to a GTX 960 in GTA 5 and BF1, and is barely beating a GTX 1050 Ti. However, in Metro Last Light, the 780 Ti absolutely destroys both, even surpassing a GTX 1060 with ease. Now, one can argue new technologies like advanced color compression (such as DCC), less taxing forms of AA exclusive to new cards, and the improved tessellation performance of newer architectures aided in this, but for it to be as dramatic of a change as it is, something just doesn't feel right about it.

 

They are not nerfing older cards in older titles, but I feel they are not giving older cards the same level of driver optimizations as they do with newer cards in newer titles, to further compel people to upgrade.

[Space Reptile]

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Hm, no doesn't look like it: 

Though they're so close I'd call that one a wash.

the benches are 5 months old , this is about how the 480 has improved and is pulling u and slowly past the 1060 

 

(probably has been said already , but im just reading through this so excuse the late reply) 

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

They are not nerfing older cards in older titles, but I feel they are not giving older cards the same level of driver optimizations as they do with newer cards in newer titles, to further compel people to upgrade.

NVIDIA should be more consumer friendly, and offer perhaps a certain amount of time where cards will get active optimizations, not just ones that they "tripped" over optimizing for the latest release products. Perhaps doing what I suggested a few posts above, where they actively support at least three generations, including the latest generation. After that, they'll keep releasing drivers for the older products, but they won't optimize directly for them.

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Honestly, I believe that NVIDIA should actively support their video cards going at least three releases back, providing performance information for all three generations. Or actively support the most recent architecture, but also the most popular previous architectures.

This ^^^^ .

 

I bought my GPU in 2014 (it was originally released in 2013 ) and I feel betrayed for being punished for not using a 2016 GPU. Seriously? I really don't know what to say. Punishing people for not buying the latest and greatest thing is completely inappropriate and resembles behavior of communism (Something I'd know from living in a country which is semi controlled by China).

 

I don't think Nvidia would get away with this bullshit if AMD were twice the size they are now.

[ivan134]

15 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Is the performance of Kepler any worse on the latest drivers then the old ones before Maxwell came out? No. No it isn't.

I understand why you think I think that giving that so many people on the interwebs say that. I've never said that Nvidia decreases performance. What I mean is Nvidia neglects optimizations for Kepler. This game is an example. The 780 ti is definitely capable of more in this game. It's only 3 years old. I'm not asking for Nvidia to keep optimizing for Fermi or something.

[LoE Ferret]

22 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

Is an entire thread necessary for one benchmark?

For the AMD circlejerk to continue, apparently yes.

 

The whole thread is crazy. 

 

For people asking for further optimizations from Kepler etc. What proof do you have that there is more headroom for this optimization that is worth investing time into? 

[VagabondWraith]

8 minutes ago, LoE Ferret said:

For the AMD circlejerk to continue, apparently yes.

 

The whole thread is crazy. 

 

For people asking for further optimizations from Kepler etc. What proof do you have that there is more headroom for this optimization that is worth investing time into? 

Or that NVidia is neglecting old architectures? Maybe, just maybe they're already at their peak. Not much more to be done with them. AMD otoh is basically optimizing the same architecture under different nomenclatures; also known as rebrands. Once (if ever?) AMD releases new architectures consistently might we see the same "lack" of optimizations being done.

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

NVIDIA should be more consumer friendly, and offer perhaps a certain amount of time where cards will get active optimizations, not just ones that they "tripped" over optimizing for the latest release products. Perhaps doing what I suggested a few posts above, where they actively support at least three generations, including the latest generation. After that, they'll keep releasing drivers for the older products, but they won't optimize directly for them.

That would actually be counter intuitive for Nvidia since Nvidia only expects you to keep a graphics card for 3 years which usually coincides with 3 generations and markets new graphics for people who are using a 2 year old GPU.

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

That would actually be counter intuitive for Nvidia since Nvidia only expects you to keep a graphics card for 3 years which usually coincides with 3 generations and markets new graphics for people who are using a 2 year old GPU.

Then they change their marketing.

[Freezanator]

All of this was going on while I was asleep? Lol.