Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by Truder, Jul 29, 2016.
From more raw compute power. rx480 is a 5.6 tflops card.
nvidia will drop support for older gen.. It works but it will be slower over time. look at 700 series, it is dead.
New game engines that will be optimized for GCN due to consoles will allow developers to harness more of that compute power.
OP - get the RX480 or wait for Vega
Sorry,what did you say?
Radeon Software Crimson Edition Graphics Driver Installer for Windows 7 64-Bit
The AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition contains the following:
AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition Display Driver version 16.30.2311
MD Desktop Product Family Compatibility***8203;
Radeon™ RX 480 AMD Radeon™ Pro Duo
AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury Series Graphics AMD Radeon™ R9 Nano Series Graphics
AMD Radeon™ R9 300 Series Graphics AMD Radeon™ R7 300 Series Graphics
AMD Radeon™ R9 200 Series Graphics AMD Radeon™ R7 200 Series Graphics
AMD Radeon™ HD 8500 - HD 8900 Series Graphics AMD Radeon™ HD 7700 - HD 7900 Series Graphics
AMD Radeon™ HD 8470, Radeon™ HD 8350, Radeon™ HD 8000 (D/G variants), Radeon™ HD 7000 Series (HD 7600 and below), Radeon™ HD 6000 Series, and Radeon™ HD 5000 Series Graphics products have been moved to a legacy support model and no additional driver releases are planned.
This change enables us to dedicate valuable engineering resources to developing new features and enhancements for graphics products based on the GCN Architecture.
Latest driver,Crimson Edition 16.7.3. :wanker:
Gtx 1060? No Async Compute in hardware,No buy.
Any reason why PC exclusive devs even with help from AMD are not getting this at the moment?
In DX12/Vulkan GCN is pretty much approaching it's maximum potential, while Nvidia cards are a mess, but managing to hold on via brute force.
I see alot more potential for improvement with Pascal, Polaris just makes it easier for devs to do 1:1 ports and it will be sales suicide for devs if they put to many of them out.
Will be not sales suicide in the future.
Right now games ported from consoles who have Async or other Dx12/Vulkan stuff will work better on GCN arch because Radeons are well prepared for the future API's (Mantle>Dx12>Vulkan).
When nVidia will have Async Compute enabled in hardware,maybe Volta,then their cards will work better.
Sorry,but right now there is no chance to have that options enabled on nv hardware.Depends on nVidia to support new API,but Maxwell have not a chance and Pascal so so.
nVidia need right now Volta to be ready for Dx12/Vulkan.
Nvidia cards are still the majority, and we all know how PC gamers like to boycott/pirate games that they think are not ported properly for their hardware.
That's a brave business decision to make.
AOTS is pretty much an AMD funded tech demo and the 1060 and 480 are pretty much identical.
Async isn't as important as AMD fans make out, it's a way to magic up extra performance out of nowhere, it's only helpful if the full potential of the hardware is not being utilised.
You're not getting 105-110% usage by having async compute enabled in hardware.
It looks like AMD hardware needs async more than Nvidia does.
AOTS is one of those games where 480 easily loses to 390 and 390x when it in almost everything else matches those cards.
It has more compute and more texture fillrate then 1060 but lacks behind in GPixels by quite a lot even tho it is more efficient then old AMD cards because it only has those 32.
The only reason I see 480 losing to 390x is GPixels and bandwidth since compute they are roughly the same.
I think the best buy is 480 4gb model if one can find one. The 8gb is tad overpriced it should always be lower then similar 1060 but it ain't. And like anyone will need that 8gb on 1080p even mirrors edge will take such a big performance hit on hyper settings that it is a moot point.
I can see 480 getting some more performance most recent drivers giving roughly 10% in tomb raider is a good example.
I miss your point.
Adding DX12 support to an existing engine isn't efficient (look at the unreal 3 games with tacked on dx11 effects) as building an engine ground up to include DX12.
DX12 and Vulcan have room for improvement, they have not been saturated like DX11. Polaris is 4th gen GCN, its performance will go up with better drivers and optimized engines.
Nvidia cards are a mess? Pascal seems very similar to Maxwell but higher clocks. Of course performance will increase with better drivers and optimizations, but I don't see much room for improvement for the 1060. It's pixel fill rate is much higher than the RX480 but it's limited by the low shader count.
Most people by now have large backlogs of games on Steam, Origin, GOG, etc. Look at benchmarks for the games that you most want to play and maybe look at the games coming out in the next year and the engines they will use in order to make a more informed decision. 480 and 1060 are mid-range cards now, neither of them are "future proof". Makes no sense choosing one mid-range card today over an other hoping that in 2 years you'll be able to gloat about having 32 fps over the other card's 29 fps. Get the card that will give you the best experience in the games you want to play now. If you want to future proof a bit, stay on a reasonable sized/refresh rate monitor and buy a higher end card.
I don't see 980ti's "low" shader count hamper it's performance when compared to the Fury X for example.
It will in the "future", when neither card is worth a damn.
It isnt like that. Its still worth a damn for some people. Its 2016 and im enjoying Doom at 80fps at Ultra settings with newest API on my 4 year old AMD card.
Guy i was talking to in Doom thread had to change his gtx680 duo crappy fps (low 40's) on his 4 year old nVidia card.
It was the day when i debated wich to choose between those, same as op is doing now.
^Yeah, but the 7970 was a top end card, not midrange. 490x may very well be a good value/future proof card. 480 not so much.
I guess if you want to keep a gpu for 5 years and play on medium settings, AMD makes sense.I personally don't buy gpu for it to come to it's own a few years later. I buy what's good at the time and when it starts performing poorly, I'll just get a new one. Be it AMD or Nvidia.
And your point is??
Go look at nv driver section then.. same gpu support since Fermi upwards.. that legacy quote you quoted is just a troll bait, nothing more. Get over it.
Why does it matter if its midrange? Nvidia top end cards doing any better?
Bye bye mighty GK110.
Why not post both open gl and vulcan.. that 780ti does 10fps more in opengl.
But then again why does it matter both are old tech.. look at what it does in other stuff... barely reaches playble 40fps+.. Stormyandcold linked you a yt video look at it again
Anyway as a lot users recommended Fury nitro is the only gpu worth it. 480x and 1060 are irrelevant.
It's cool that GCN (even 1.0) does so well in Doom Vulkan, it really is. Assuming AMD can replicate this in most titles over the next couple of years, bring lower prices, and provided that Nvidia sits on its thumbs and does nothing to improve it's own architecture, I might go back to them at that time. DX11 performance is still very relevant however, and it'd be great if AMD continued to make improvements there too.
My initial point stands, OP should choose card based on what he/she plays most.
Out of the three I too would pick the Fury. I've had good experiences with Sapphire cards going back to 9800 Pro.