for current game d11, it would be 1060 for future dx12 game would go for 480
so neither win
Still early to judge. It depends on game titles. Don't jump your gun.
With such puny market share, doubt the debt-ridden low class will have market standard and impact after all. The low class has itself cornered at sub-MYR1k segment. The concern is whether the low class can survive another let-down by Zen and Vega.
Seriously? U compare aftermarket GTX 1060 with aftermarket cooler with ref RX480?
And people already starting to see RX480 with aftermarket coolers matching the R9 390x, aftermarket GTX 1060 still struggling to compete with REF RX 480 in DX12
so your ignoring computerbase graph showing performance uplift from factory oc custom AIB model and extra headroom depending on silicon lottery? okay, okay.
Go ahead add 8% (over reference card). nVidia still leads (with 18% OC headroom over reference card).
This post has been edited by ALeUNe: Jul 26 2016, 03:45 PM
math failed? reference (100%) ->(8% performance uplift)-> nitro x+ (108% from reference) ->(6% more headroom by increasing power limit, oc to the max with 1.15v voltage) nitro x+ OC max (1.08x1.06 = 114.48%)
so totaling of 14.48% extra performance vs reference and you still saying only 3% headroom? how about other people who managed to make their card run at 1415mhz (computerbase 4gb oc nitro+) or 1400mhz (jagatoc reference binned rx480), those headroom become even larger, thats not even including voltage bypass that is possible just by using afterburner. I know efficiency will be affected with the OC, but that OC headroom are there if the users want to take advantage of it.
even ANUS claim their card can go 19% faster vs reference, yes its cherry pick, deal with it.
math failed? reference (100%) ->(8% performance uplift)-> nitro x+ (108% from reference) ->(6% more headroom by increasing power limit, oc to the max with 1.15v voltage) nitro x+ OC max (1.08x1.06 = 114.48%)
so totaling of 14.48% extra performance vs reference and you still saying only 3% headroom? how about other people who managed to make their card run at 1415mhz (computerbase 4gb oc nitro+) or 1400mhz (jagatoc reference binned rx480), those headroom become even larger, thats not even including voltage bypass that is possible just by using afterburner. I know efficiency will be affected with the OC, but that OC headroom are there if the users want to take advantage of it.
even ANUS claim their card can go 19% faster vs reference, yes its cherry pick, deal with it.
You save couple hundreds from buying a GTX1070 @ MYR1.7K. You just gotta deal with it.
And all I can see AMD RX 480 have smooth game play with 60 fps..
Kesian those who bought GTX 970 To think it was launched 2 years ago. Take a look at the rival of GTX 970, the R9 390x Once a rival, and now dominate in the same game.
Just like RX 480, max 60 fps frame compared to GTX 970 around 40-50 fps (maybe more if they turn off v syc)
See why I dont buy NVIDIA?
GTX970 is indeed launched almost 2 years ago. R9 390x launched 1 year ago.
Only the low class thinks the newer card should perform slower than old cards.
That doesnt justify the 20fps difference It aint BS when it has been proven. oh come see ALeUNe GTX TITAN launch year: 2013 ATI 7950 launch year: 2011
And better yet, losing to 3 gb card LOL No point to talk now calling people names?
Did I say anything about buying RX 480?
Real mature kid.
We all know AMD has an edge on Vulkan. It's either we see new improvement from nVidia on Vulkan or we see Vulkan die like Glide. Either way, still early to judge on relevance of Vulkan.
Moreover, puny market share of AMD anyway. It's not like moving the market anyway.
Which is worth to get AMD or nVidia, AIB RX 480 vs GTX 1060, AMD Pricing 
Jul 26 2016, 01:38 PM
Quote
To think it was launched 2 years ago. 
kill rx480 that cost 2k
0.0177sec
1.42
7 queries
GZIP Disabled