>people buy AMD GPUs for budget builds usually because they're supposed to be better value
>reviewers test the cards with the most powerful cpu available to regular consumers like the 5960x or 6700k
>people buy the budget AMD card with a budget cpu
>people suffer horribly from AMD driver overhead
What's the point of AMD? They're no good in the budget end because of the driver overhead, and they're no good in the enthusiast tier because Nvidia flagships usually perform better.
When will they fix their drivers? Or will they just force dx12 down our throats instead?
If they fix their drivers, both on windows and Linux, they will be a viable option for many people who understand the issue and go with nvidia because of it.
>>55290664
>driver overhead
I thought crimson was supposed to fix that?
What the fuck is wrong with AMD? I don't want to have to upgrade to the botnet for competitive performance.
>>55290664
Looks like an old graph from September 2014 which is when the 970 was launched (see filename). Nice try Nvidia shill.
>>55290664
>Or will they just force dx12 down our throats instead?
Most likely. I doubt that shit is easy to fix or I'm sure they would have done it already. Whether it's related to their hardware somehow or the driver was just poorly designed I have no idea, but having experienced it myself it really is quite shit. It's not even an issue of "woe is me I can't run my games at 200FPS" since this shit can have very visible negative effects in terms of overall smoothness due to frame time variation.
>>55290760
There have been some minor improvements over time but nothing major, it won't make a scene that is a stuttering mess due to overhead run buttery smooth.
>>55290883
>an old graph from September 2014
>GTX 1080 & 1070 results in the graph
>295X2 has working CF in FO4, which it didn't get for a while after the game was released
Nah, those are quite recent drivers for sure.
>>55290883
>2014
>gtx1080
Kill yourself.
>>55290903
shoop da woop
>>55290884
How much improvement?
someone post the before and after patch fallout 4 benchmark
>>55290948
What does that have to do with driver overhead?
>>55290942
I don't know about numbers, I think the last "big" jump was in W10 due to WDDM2.0. You can trawl the AMD driver section of the guru3d forums and in each driver's thread you'll very likely find people posting API draw call benchmarks and shit. I don't think anyone ever made nice and neat tables or charts out of the info, but if you're really curious you can have a look.
>>55290987
I'll give that a look, thanks.
Not sure if the rx480 will be a good buy if I have to rely on dx12...
So hopefully the driver overhead is just exaggerated
>>55290942
>Typical nvidia graph
>>55290903
>>55290926
Link to proof or STFU
>>55290664
>mfw I'm gonna put a 480 in my 6700k build until the 1080ti comes out
>>55291040
Driver overhead won't affect you much then, especially if 1440p or higher
>>55290664
You're the same retard/shill who started this thread yesterday about purported driver overhead. You got thoroughly anally devastated then, considering your reasoning is indian call center level. Be prepared to have your lack of hardware knowledge exposed.
The Fury series is designed as a 4K solution, also the 970 numbers in that graph are bullshit, clearly it's some kind of shop or TechPowerUp is retarded
>>55291105
He shooped it but left the filename showing the September 2014 giveaway. He's a retard.
>>55291131
>>55291105
Kill yourselves for being too incompetent to do a simple Google Search.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/15.html
>>55291105
>got thoroughly anally devastated
He did? I was in that thread and all I remember is AMDrones shitposting and getting butthurt while Nvidia users ignored or laughed at them :')
>>55291160
>he took the bait
>>55291192
Kill yourself stupid baitposter.
>>55290664
Is this real?
Holy shit, I should have gone with nvidia...
>>55290664
>people who understand the issue
lol
I will stick to AMD, thanks.
>>55291586
Enjoy your driver overhead
>>55291586
Sheep.
Baaaaaaaa
>>55290883
>gtx1080
>old graph
Kill yourself you fucking degenerate.
>>55290664
>Fury x worse than a 970
I thought they fixed this overhead bullshit with crimson?
Looks like I'll pass on the 480...
>>55290883
>Initial release date: November 10, 2015
You are a detriment to the human race
>>55292136
What a funny thing to say, given supporting a monopoly is anti-consumer. If you're OK with paying $2000 for a CPU and $1500 for a graphics card, then great, because that's what would happen in the absence of AMD. Hell, Intel is already charging $1700 for their flagship because AMD has been out of the game for so long.
>>55290664
>this thread, again
100 rupees have been deposited in your nvidia account
>>55293617
As a 295x2 owner, I haven't noticed any problems with overhead impacting game performance. All of my games run wonderfully, even the ones optimized for nvidia.
>>55294479
>What is a PAPERLAUNCH
>>55294550
Cpu and screen resolution?
>>55294515
>rupees
B-but NVIDIA are jews and AMD are the Indians
Holy fuck, is this for real? And the rx 480 was supposed to beat out a 980ti?
Wow, I'm glad amazon has a good return policy... what a waste of time.
>>55294575
5960X and 1440p.
>>55290664
muh overhead
sage&reported
>>55294591
Exactly.
>>55294587
>And the rx 480 was supposed to beat out a 980ti?
Did AMD ever say that? Nope. Pay attention you insufferable faggot.
Here. Let me quote AMD's Roy Taylor for you because you're too fucking lazy to look up the market positioning yourself.
""The reason Polaris is a big deal, is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM [total addressable market] significantly," said Taylor. "I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part."
Get it through your thick millennial heads.
When I built by computer 2.5 years ago I got a FX6300 and a GTX770. I did this because going for an i5 would have been at least $150 more expensive and I didn't have that budget at the time. I'm happy with that decision because I got a good roi and plan to upgrade next year. Doing so will let me see what zen has to offer, and make a decision on whether to go for an i5 6600k, or zen. I'll also be able to see what Vega has to offer, and the inflated prices of the 1070 will most certainly have dropped in that time.
Why do people get riled up about this? For me it made sense to do what I did.
That being said I would advise against buying any amd cpu from here on until zen comes out. The FX series is too old at this point and the chip is dead. Either buy an i5 or wait until Zen.
>>55290664
go back to /v/ and bitch about manlytears or whatever you /v/irgins talk about on that containment board
>>>/v/
>>55294898
You seem salty
>friend works at a Uni near me
>tech department, works with shit like that
>programming degree etc
>helping me build my new gaming PC, had this one for too long
>my 650 Ti is a bit outdated
>get to the point where I tell him that the 480 was my aim seeing as its pretty cheap and looks alright
>tells me I should really reconsider as AMD is notorious for making really underwhelming products as he puts it
is he right? He seems to know quite a bit as he's worked there for 3 months and already been given a promotion. He's one of those "look down on everyone regardless of their intelligence relative to mine" types. But he does seem well informed
>>55295419
Sounds like someone who visits /b/
>>55295074
So much salt
>>55295419
tough to say until we have multiple reliable benchmarks from various sources
I'm skeptical that amd all of a sudden figured out how to make powerful cards that don't start fires and take a generator to run, but they may very well have
>>55291586
Ahaha poor
>>55295419
He's a fanboy.
When he means underwhelming he means 'great value'
>>55295419
He sounds like a retard.
Also, half of /g/ is also retarded.
>>55295419
He's right, if you're not using an i7, any amd gpu will be underwhelming.
>>55295788
While that's very likely, don't forget that you'll need a good cpu.
>>55296300
>muh l2 cache
>>55297787
It's that bad.
>>55297875
Its really not - the (typically) extra 2mb of L2 cache consumer i7's have over i5's are not going to suddenly make or break driver overhead - not does having the additional threads due to hyperthreading.
AMD's driver simply pounds thread 0 so for same generation Intel chips clockspeed is more important.
Im now wondering if the 480 is worth upgrading to from my HD 7870 (1080p). It still gets by but i cant play new games on ultra anymore, should i keep waiting for price drops on other cards? I dont intend to spend more than 250 either way
>>55298529
A 290x is roughly on par with 7870 crossfire.
>>55298529
Why not the 1060?
What's your cpu? AMD drivers will hold back performance on anything less than an i7, or a heavily overclocked i5.
>>55294622
well, it should have about the same amount of tflops.
while we have no idea how much shaders units and other gibbets rx480 has in pure mathematics should be about as good.
>>55298639
> AMD drivers will hold back performance on anything less than an i7, or a heavily overclocked i5.
ITT anon doesn't understand how AMD's driver interacts with the cpu.
>>55298639
what do you know about 1060?
>>55298694
Prove me wrong.
>>55298698
Not much, but it should be coming soon.
>>55298729
what this image shows is that i3 is bottlenecking hard and just not allowing 280 to use it's full potential.
>>55298729
>Prove me wrong.
As said earlier, AMD's driver simply hammers the first thread. Being an i3, i5 or i7 makes no difference as its this thread that is effectively the limit on performance.
Having more threads available is only a benefit if a game can properly scale (some do, some don't) but outside of the L2 cache a same generation i3 and i7 are very close in performance when at the same clocks. Saying you need an overclocked i5 or i7 is woefully ignorant of the underlying issue and at worst straight up inaccurate depending on how well threaded a game is.
Its why DX12 is somewhat of a magic bullet for AMD's cpu woes.
>>55298750
Because the drivers are more of a burden on the AMD card, which is why it's losing more frames on the i3 than the nvidia card.
>>55298794
Because of that single thread issue, I feel bad for people who buy an i5 6400 instead of an i3 6100 when they make a budget build with radeon graphics
>>55298836
> i5 6400 instead of an i3 6100
I would still prefer the i5 simply because hyperthreading (or to be technical, SMT) doesn't give you anywhere close to the performance of actually having more cores. Plus off the top of my head the 6100 has even less cache than the other skylake i3 range.
>>55298867
That i5 is only 11% faster than the i3 in a perfectly multithreaded scenario like rendering, iirc.
2 3.7ghz cores with HT vs 4 2.7ghz cores.
In actual games the i3 usually wins or trades blows with the i5 because most games still primarily use the first core.
