Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by gerardfraser, Jun 11, 2016.
Yes, but they usually are in different price regions.
Yep, no new rasterizer (no CR, no ROVs), no new memory layout swizzles (no TR-T3, no standard swizzle).
The GCN Gen 4 do not expose any extra features compared to Gen 3.
They improved the geometry backend, so a lil improvements should at least come with tessellation too.
Please note that AMD, like Intel, supports Geometry Shader bypass to expose certain semantics to all shader stages that before required a run on the geometry shader stage. This is could improve performance under DX12 (and DX 11.3) when no geometry shader are used, some example includes different tessellation techniques. Actually NVIDIA still requires a geometry shader (created by the application or the driver) which increase overhead.
As for Pascal, NVIDIA finaly finalized the requirements to reach the tier 2 of Conservative Rasterization (Maxwell 2 just miss one or two requirements, and have the same 1/256 pixel precision). And this is very nice, 'cause is with CR-T2 were interesting things can begun to appear. Note also that actuall only Intel Skylake support CR-T3 (as all other PC hardware features new to D3D12).
Thank you m'lord
Pretty much every iteration of GCN had small improvements. I imagine Vega will have some stuff, just not a massive redesign or anything. The biggest gain to Vega in terms of performance will be utilizing HBM2. It frees up some power and die space. Plus I imagine it will be watercooled again, at least the top end variant -- which actually lowers the power even further due to lower leakage.
This is the same question I made myself a couple of days ago (where all was still under NDA).
I would think Navi will be a bigger redesign, I don't believe 10nm to be ready soon.
I could actually get one watercooled big card if Vega delivers in performance. It seems Polaris is quite a bit better in tesselation and how it handles pixels then before.
And in witcher 3 it was 31fps for 390 and 39 fps for 480 when hairworks was on. That is significant.
AMD is so much behind that short of some spectacular GCN driver optimizations, all Vega will be able to compete will be the price.
Worse perf/W than 28nm GTX 980? Disaster...
Bring new Software, since they can't compete in Hardware.
Not the worst idea.
Hmm so some prices in Swedish stores already around the 2800SEK mark, not bad especially as I get the tax back and my boss is giving me $100 towards one as well, do I buy the core 480 or wait for an OC version to show up? I kinda want it ASAP!!
dont buy the reference card. let the mainstream people buy it.
rather go for well cooled AIB cards which you can overclock to 1480-1600mhz.
if you dont care about overclock. ofc, reference card is fine and probably 10-20$ cheaper
Yes, it seems it was rushed out..the price is what changes things though.
Yes AIBs are Better as always.
In Dx12 this little Devil Beating 980 !
BTW Im waiting for 490 now -> Not for me this 480 or this 1070.
I need 2048:1536 with MLAA 4xQ in Crysis 3 Average >60FPS
But RX 480 is Great main stream GPU for the ppl who don't wanna pay too much
So was a 390. It's not about DX12, it's about AotS and Hitman. Virtually all other DX12 games favor NV; tomb raider, forza, gow
Polaris was anything but rushed out
And the price... Tell me, how does one compete with a product that's inferior in every single metrics, if not by pricing it as low as they can?
Still.. I'll proly end up buying smaller Vega, because that one should offer awesome pricing too but with decent perf., and because I'm kinda locked with AMD having FreeSync monitor.
Price competition is not that bad, especially if the product isn't very expensive. There is no reason to really recommend a 960/970/980/380/390/390x after this launch, and they moved the performance threshold one scale down. I would still recommend waiting for the 1060.
The current list of low leve games we have is:
AotS (where it seems that things are not THAT AMD favored, as the 980Ti seems to be faster than the Fury X for some time now)
Hitman (an AMD-favored title, but we still don't know if it's indicative)
Tomb Raider (a port with a patch that favors NVIDIA)
Gears Ultimate (an ancient engine again with a patch that favors NVIDIA)
Total War: Warhammer (which seems to be a more or less solid implementation favoring AMD)
Forza Apex (which seems to favor AMD, correct me if I'm wrong, the only numbers I've seen were from the Digital Foundry)
All the newer stuff seem to run better on AMD, which makes my point stand about the 480 making the 960/970/980/380/390/390x obsolete. The smaller cards are done due to performance limitations, the similar performing cards are done due to either vram size, power consumption and price.
Wait for the 1060.
Price competition is AWESOME!
I'll be honest:
I am not that mad at AMD for falling behind Nvidia in every single arch. metrics. Because that means their pricing be awesome.
Add +50% perf/W that AMD is promising with Vega, and perf should be fine, while retaining attractive pricing.
What I am mad at is having to wait for months on my Vega.
Gears of War is currently better on AMD hardware actually. Well atleast rx 480 and 390 leaving 970 behind.
Of course that is stock 970 so oc it and it goes past rx 480 I guess?
Amd can offer competitive performance for competitive price. But not competitive efficiency at all.
is freesync that good?
you can always use a nv card with a freesync monitor without enabling the feature in your monitor.
of course it's that good.
you play with Vsync off responsiveness, zero stutter, while not tearing\
it would be godlike if frame-limiting wouldn't not cause tearing.
Total War Warhammer was one of the titles AMD claimed multi-gpu good scaling. Unfortunately they asked us the card back before a second sample (a customized AIB card :grin may arrive this July and we will not able to see it