Looks like the RX 480 keeps getting better and better

[Sniperfox47]

57 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

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

To be fair, DX11 was just "DirectX 10+". There was no reason for developers *not* to support it since it full backwards compatibility and just layers features atop the existing API.

 

DirectX 12 is a paradigm shift. It requires a very different development mindset from other DirectX versions, and significantly more work from the developer to optimize. I can't see it taking off too much long term, other than possibly for Xbox developers who want to unify their codebase under UWP once Windows 10 has more market share and once the Microsoft Store stops sucking for games.

 

Vulkan I see taking off because it's not really harder than OpenGL. Just different. It'll be useful for developers looking to take care of Linux and Mac in addition to Windows. But DirectX12 I only see really being used so developers can slap a "DX12" logo on to sell their product.

[Dabombinable]

59 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

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.

Part of the 780ti's problem is the meager 3GB of vRAM-I am consistently having my GTX 970 exceed 3GB of vRAM usage at 1080p. Then you look at how much vRAM the R9 290 and 290X have-if they had 3GB of vRAM they'd struggle as well.

[leadeater]

Everyone should just go read all the discussion topics for when DX10 was coming in and replacing DX9. Just find and replace DX9 = DX11 and DX10 = DX12 and do the same for any graphic cards mentioned. I'm willing to bet all the time lines will be very close to what it was back then for DX12/Vulkan now as it relies mostly on game development cycles and not hardware. Hardware has always come first and the argument regarding what ever product best supports the new thing isn't relevant since it's not used is thrown around just the same.

 

Now I haven't actually gone back and looked but if you go pick one of the best transition cards at the time, the one with the best DX10 performance out of the launch products, and then look at a game released 2 years later and it is still doing a decent job and also doing much better than the competing card of it's time that should be a decent indicator for now.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

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. 

Yeah, I've been told about the title, and I should probably edit that out of my post, but, eh, it's whatever. 

 

Yeah, I know about AMD's hardware superiority and software inferiority. That's why I lean more towards their cards, even if they're losing at present (given that it's by a small margin).  I did think that I read somewhere that the 480 was starting to beat the 1060 in lots of games, and figured that since that was awhile ago, it's probably started to beat it more with these performance increases.

[DarkBlade2117]

6 hours ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The 480 could never hit 2GHz air cooled or even liquid cooled you'd need LN2 to get even 2000MHz. 

To be fair a 480 at I think 1850Mhz is onpar with a 1080 in 3DMark

[Space Reptile]

24 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Vulkan I see taking off because it's not really harder than OpenGL.

not just this , vulcan is also open and multiplattform , unlike DX12 

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

not just this , vulcan is also open and multiplattform , unlike DX12 

That's one reason why I think Vulkan may be more likely to succeed than DX12. And also why it should succeed versus DX12.

[Rolfejc]

I always thought the 480 was rushed. With some new drivers now and with DX12/Vulkan being the future I'd say the RX 480 is a better buy than the 1060 right now, but it's still pretty close. 

[ivan134]

49 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Part of the 780ti's problem is the meager 3GB of vRAM-I am consistently having my GTX 970 exceed 3GB of vRAM usage at 1080p. Then you look at how much vRAM the R9 290 and 290X have-if they had 3GB of vRAM they'd struggle as well.

Then we should be seeing similar performance drops on the 7950/280, 7970/280x, 2GB 380 and 2GB 960. Neither of these things are happening. The 780 ti should not lose 60% to 65% in performance because of lack of VRAM when other cards are showing no such thing.

[Dabombinable]

23 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Then we should be seeing similar performance drops on the 7950/280, 7970/280x, 2GB 380 and 2GB 960. Neither of these things are happening. The 780 ti should not lose 60% to 65% in performance because of lack of VRAM when other cards are showing no such thing.

Ever think that more performance can't be squeezed out due to the limits of the architecture being reached? That for example is where AMD cuts off support-where performance can no longer be reached. Improvements can only go so far through drivers (and most of those are Nvidia and AMD tuning the drivers to run games in the optimal manner, something the majority of devs don't do themselves).

https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/5-things-you-should-know-about-new-maxwell-gpu-architecture/

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Ever think that more performance can't be squeezed out due to the limits of the architecture being reached? That for example is where AMD cuts off support-where performance can no longer be reached. Improvements can only go so far through drivers (and most of those are Nvidia and AMD tuning the drivers to run games in the optimal manner, something the majority of devs don't do themselves).

https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/5-things-you-should-know-about-new-maxwell-gpu-architecture/

And I'm not disagreeing with that. 780 ti is still a $700 GPU that is only 3 years old. AMD is poor. Nvidia can afford to keep supporting Kepler and make sure a $700 GPU from 3 years ago doesn't run like the updated version of the 7850.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

And I'm not disagreeing with that. 780 ti is still a $700 GPU that is only 3 years old. AMD is poor. Nvidia can afford to keep supporting Kepler and make sure a $700 GPU from 3 years ago doesn't run like the updated version of the 7850.

But they don't have to, cause AMD is poor, and under-performing. It's closing in on a year without a fucking high end GPU response and several without a CPU response worth shit.

 

This is legitimately worrying in fact.

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, Space Reptile said:

not just this , vulcan is also open and multiplattform , unlike DX12 

Those are both great things, but I don't really see them being the pushing factor. OpenGL is open and multiplatform and Direct X still crushes it for supported games.

 

OpenGL is a bitch to develop for, similar to DX12 and Vulkan because you need to correct for all sorts of driver bugs, hacked in vendor extensions, and other problems. Vulkan on the other hand is a clean slate and can succeed precisely because it takes into account everything OpenGL did wrong.

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Part of the 780ti's problem is the meager 3GB of vRAM-I am consistently having my GTX 970 exceed 3GB of vRAM usage at 1080p. Then you look at how much vRAM the R9 290 and 290X have-if they had 3GB of vRAM they'd struggle as well.

I don't think the 780 Ti's VRAM is part of the problem at all, not even in the slightest. If it was a VRAM issue, we would see frequent stuttering. What we are seeing, is very consistent framerates, that are underperforming compared to lower tier, newer cards. How do we go from a 780 Ti maxing out Metro LL, beating a 6GB GTX 1060, to losing to a GTX 960, and beating a GTX 1050 Ti by only 10% in GTA 5 and BF1? This is at 1080p mind you, not like we are talking high resolutions with obscenely detailed textures and copious amounts of AA. With the exact same settings, these newer, weaker cards are absolutely smashing the older flagships.

 

If they came out and said "Hey, we have this new form of DCC that helps these new cards run better" or said "We have new AA options exclusive to new cards", i'd be more inclined to believe them. However, if you turn everything off, and compare the cards against each other,and the massive compute powerhouse of the GTX 780 Ti, barely beats the GTX 1050 Ti, it's plain to see shenanigans are going on. We saw it with Gameworks, where turning it on magically crippled all non-Maxwell cards in Witcher 3. 

 

I wouldn't be as paranoid about forced obsoletion as I am, if Nvidia didn't have such a bad track record of doing this. Need I remind everyone of DSR, which at its launch, was only supported by Maxwell? Then through driver edits, magically worked on cards as old as Fermi? It wasn't until they were called out on it, that they came out and said "Yeah, Fermi supports it now". Same thing with mobile G-Sync, where suddenly a simple driver was enabling G-Sync on panels without the module, and all of a sudden it was because it was built into eDP, and didn't need the module to process for the multiple forms of input. Now, we have Fast Sync, which again, only supported on Maxwell and above, yet I enabled it on my old GTX 770 with Nvidia Inspector, and it works exactly the same as it does on my GTX 1070. 

 

It's obvious at this point, that Nvidia wants people to buy new cards more often, and their new "architecture exclusive" technologies are a part of that business model. I understand that. What I do not understand, is letting GPU's that still have some potential left in them, go the way of the Dodo, simply because newer cards exist to fill that market segment. 

[ivan134]

29 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

But they don't have to, cause AMD is poor, and under-performing. It's closing in on a year without a fucking high end GPU response and several without a CPU response worth shit.

 

This is legitimately worrying in fact.

You're right. They don't have to do anything. Consumers also don't have to give them any money if they're going to be treated like shit after giving them $700.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, ivan134 said:

You're right. They don't have to do anything. Consumers also don't have to give them any money if they're going to be treated like shit after giving them $700.

Right now, they kinda do if they want something better than a Fury X, but I get your point.

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Right now, they kinda do if they want something better than a Fury X, but I get your point.

Just for the record, I don't think anyone who bought who bought a 1070, 1080 etc is a raging fanboy. Fact of the matter is nothing competes with them right now. Just because I now gravitate to AMD doesn't mean I can't acknowledge their shortcomings. I'm able to live them though because they have way less anti consumer practices. Luckily for me I also don't buy games at launch and wait for sales . Only full price games I bought this year were Overwatch and Gears of War 4.

[kiska3]

While I am here patiently waiting for any of these cards to price drop, already there is a RX 480 reference card with 8GB of VRAM going for A$269

Oh and here have a RX 480 vs GTX 1060 rereview

 

[That Norwegian Guy]

In every one of these threads, it makes my rectum clench to see the amount of straws grasped at; "but how many DX12 games are there" at the top of the repertoire. Makes me think of Linus' dreams about what an LTT forum would be like before he made it, and how far we are from that reality.

[MageTank]

9 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

In every one of these threads, it makes my rectum clench to see the amount of straws grasped at; "but how many DX12 games are there" at the top of the repertoire. Makes me think of Linus' dreams about what an LTT forum would be like before he made it, and how far we are from that reality.

I don't see the problem with that question though. We are comparing two cards in the present, with an API that is not widely adopted yet. The amount of DX12 games that are currently available to consumers, are 17. Now compare that to the vast amount of games that support DX11. I understand that more games will support DX12 in the future, but by then, these cards will likely not be sold by then. It's a very relevant question if you ask me.

[That Norwegian Guy]

6 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I don't see the problem with that question though. We are comparing two cards in the present, with an API that is not widely adopted yet. The amount of DX12 games that are currently available to consumers, are 17.

And by the end of 2017 it'll be 90. Acting like DX12/ Vulkan is irrelevant is denial.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

And by the end of 2017 it'll be 90. Acting like DX12/ Vulkan is irrelevant is denial.

90? Source?

[MageTank]

Just now, That Norwegian Guy said:

And by the end of 2017 it'll be 90. Acting like DX12/ Vulkan is irrelevant is denial.

Got a source for that number? Wikipedia's only listed upcoming DX12 title, is Star Citizen. Also, it's not denial. It's speaking with the facts that we have in front of us.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Got a source for that number? Wikipedia's only listed upcoming DX12 title, is Star Citizen. Also, it's not denial. It's speaking with the facts that we have in front of us.

Mass Effect Andromeda should be too since it will be using Frostbite. I'm gonna guess Cyberpunk 2077 will be too, but that's just a guess. That's all I can think about. I guess since we're getting all the Xbox games now, that list just exploded.

[MageTank]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Mass Effect Andromeda should be too since it will be using Frostbite. I'm gonna guess Cyberpunk 2077 will be too, but that's just a guess. That's all I can think about. I guess since we're getting all the Xbox games now, that list just exploded.

Did Microsoft go through with that? I didn't pay too much attention, but I heard GoW4 was one of the titles to support cross-store play. Either way, I am curious to see where the number 90 comes from with him.