You mean RX480 performs around GTX970?
Yes it doesn't not necessarily need to match GTX980, as long as it beats RX480 lol.

haha its okay, waiting amd release vega series
else it can't compete 1070 and 1080 as well

what term and condition for reviewer card? what standard time only can reveal the info? Do they provide the new driver for test?

sorry for asking.

Sorry typo there. Yes RX 480 ~ GTX 970.

Case by case, if it's not yet in the market then have to hush hush.

Yes new driver provided IF it's required, like RX 480. We were given the driver before it was available to the public.

so you know how gtx 1060 doing

AMD's current philosophy is, in my opinion, a little "neither here nor there" for PC gaming. Their GCN is very compute-optimized, good for parallel workloads (probably why they make good mining cards?) but in PC gaming, most games are not designed that way. And nVidia is architectured how PC games are designed hence they are a lot more efficient, especially since AMD would need to have more transistors to have the same output. Perhaps that is why AMD's power efficiency is no where near like nVidia's.

But console game developers do use Asynch compute to make their games run more efficient (all consoles have AMD GPUs) so AMD make chips that support it. And I am guessing that AMD wants to save cost in not redesigning a whole new architecture for the PC gaming market but adopt a lot of their stuff from their console chip. AMD after all have way lesser R&D money compared to nVidia.

DX11 as far as I know doesn't have asynchronous compute support and AMD have been pushing Microsoft to come up with an updated API that does. A bit too long so AMD made Mantle (later gave it Khronos and renamed it to Vulkan). And then microsoft went "okay okay we have DX12 now"

So when game developers actually use asynch compute (DX12) in their games, AMD cards perform really well. Like Hitman, Quantum Break, Total War: Warhammer, and Ashes. In guru3d's review, RX480 actually runs faster than GTX980 in those games. Rise of the Tomb Raider is an exception, read somewhere that they only apply pseudo dx12 stuff, gotta read up on that more.

So yeah it really depends on game developers but for the current market and probably at least the next 2 years, nVidia > AMD.

It'll be interesting to see how the new cards from both camps run on Vulkan.

Not yet arrive my lab.

Rise of the Tomb Raider isnt built from the ground up for dx12, so maybe is why the async only improve abit.

BF1 will be the next DX12 game, not sure got async or not, and maybe Mankind Divided.

Are they old? Because AMD = Gaming is actually quite true in the early to mid 2000s K7 to K10 perform better in games, better than their Pentium 4 counter part. All the way to Athlon 64 X2 - Prescott days.

Tables were turned when Intel unveiled their Conroe.

I agree. SLI/ CFX is entirely a hit and miss thing. At the end, it all boils down to what games you play. I'm just looking at this from a viewpoint of person on budget who can only afford to fork out for RX 480 or the upcoming GTX 1060, and maybe able to save a bit within 6 months to a year for an upgrade. Since GTX 1060 not going to have SLI, I'll take RX 48- as example.



Two games that RX 480 CFX performs decently, on par with GTX 1080 and OCed GTX 1070



Two games that might as well take the second RX 480 and burn it coz its totally useless.

So if that person plays the 2 games that do well in CFX, well they have an option to get another RX 480 to crossfire, or they can sell the RX 480 and get a better single GPU. If they play the 2 games that's crap at CFX, well only option to upgrade is sell it off and get a better single card. Its about options.

In the case of GTX 1060, I firmly believe that performance will be better than GTX 970, and maybe even be on par with GTX 980. And if it had SLI capability, I believe it would do even better than RX 480 CFX. But well, that option is not going to be available, because it will jeopardize GTX 1070 and 1080 sales. Profit Margin 1 - 0 Budget Consumer.

And same thing with the frame-pacing issues. Its the managing tolerance between increase fps with SLI vs frame-pacing issue. If frame pacing problem is inherent and is so bad in all games that runs SLI, I think nvidia would also forgo the SLI for GTX 1070 and GTX 1080. But some games already showed a marked improvement in frame-pacing with the new Pascal arch.


Maxwell SLI's earth quake.


Pascal GTX1070 SLI.

I believe Nvidia will continue to improve their SLI implementation so that the benefit of increase fps (both avg and min) far outweighs the frame-pace issues. I heard rumors that GTX 1080 Titan will be 50% faster than GTX 1080. Based on current SLI benchmarks, I'll probably get another GTX 1080 to SLI, rather than sell my current GTX 1080 for a single GTX 1080 Titan.

you facebook link please follow u

Sorry if I put it wrongly. I meant RM 1,200 discount from my purchase price. Sold both for around RM 2,400 which is pretty good since supplier are currently fireselling available GTX 970 stocks. Got myself a Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming. Hoping for GTX 1080 Titan to come out soon, so that I can buy another GTX 1080 to SLI. I know one person that might sell his GTX 1080 once GTX 1080 Titan comes out

GTX 1080 Titan really a 4k card

It's as if AMD is encouraging "console ports" to come to PC, when PC gamers absolutely DO NOT want console ports. And because AMD is not willing to gamble on a "big chip" card now because not many games supports DX12, and if the take-up on DX12 fails and more devs go OpenGL or Vulkan, their "big chip" cards will be branded a total disaster and a waste of money for the kind of performance they give out.

Even if the SLI/CFX benefit is there, the earthquake-like framepacing isn't worth it for midrange cards. For both cases, SLI or CFX. SLI or CFX counts for a very niche few, less than 1% based on reports posted. That is why most people who SLI or CFX, they do that at the higher end level cards like 290X/390X/FuryX or 980/Ti/TitanX level, because if SLI/CFX doesn't work, they still have a relatively powerful single card performance to live with.

Explicit Multi Adapter is also one of the touted improvement in DX12, but again, at the current rate AMD cards are being released, it is holding things back altogether. And not a "1+1 = 2", no 100% scaling there.

I do live video on my page https://www.facebook.com/goldfries.fanpage/

Hopefully can do GTX 1060 this week.

I'm not on Nvidia's priority list so nothing I can do. I count on AIB partners to work with me.

Are you sure? Everywhere I read, it's CUDA efficiency > openCL for the same workload. l'm not sure what kind of implementation bit mining programs use. AMD GPU is faster there?

Basically GPU is still a vector processor. The workload is definitely parallel in nature. Efficiency of both designs are much more complicated than that.

Yeap, probably 2 years or even longer, depends on how fast Windows 10 replaces all the Win 8 and Win 7 computers. As long as there's significant number of Win 7/ 8 gaming PC in users, game developers would have to create games for both DX11 and DX12.

My conspiracy theory is that Microsoft wants DX12 to be ubiquitous, partly for its console business. With DX12 as the underlaying API for both their Xbox One and PC games, they will entice game developers to jump into their UWP platform. Develop a game on a single platform, sell to both Xbox and PC gamer. For users, maybe something like, you have one Microsoft account, you can download a game and play it on your Xbox console or your PC. Microsoft already started trying to give PC gamers a taste of the console games, Forza Apex and Killer Instinct, which exclusive to Windows 10 only (DX12??????). Read rumors around 2 months back that Battlefield 5 could be Windows 10/ DX12 exclusive, but don't think it will be. It will be stupid for as there's still a lot of Windows 7/8 DX11 PCs (Steam statistic early this showed that 41% user on Windows 10 and there's still ~37% on Windows 7). So Battlefield 5 will have both DX11 and DX12 support.

As for game developers, they can develop a game on a single or almost similar API platform (and a low level at that too, unlike DX11), so they don't have to spend time porting it to different platform (not like right now, DX11, Xbox, Sony, PC). Future could be DX12 (both Xbox and PC) vs Sony Playstation.

But see how much hate Microsoft get for folks who refuses to update to Windows 10, not to mention how people hate Windows Store and its UWP component. I kept mentioning playing Killer Instinct but finding a local player who plays this game is like finding a diamond the size on Losmah's ring finger.

you can see here in Steam the popular GPUs used and platforms currently.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Windows 10 64 bit according to the graph seems on the rise.

Frostbite dev did mention long ago but unfortunately still slow. will see how with BF1 coming soon on Frostbite Engine. likely to have dx11 support at least with dx12 toggle.
https://twitter.com/repi/status/585556554667163648

This post has been edited by svfn: Jul 11 2016, 02:27 AM