http://videocardz.com/61753/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-specifications-leaked-faster-than-rx-480
NVIDIA WON
AMD KEKS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>>55353962
the question is
can a 1060 (or a 980 for that matter) drive elite dangerous at max at 5760 x 1080
>>55353996
>4.4 tflops vs 5.8
>6gb vs 8 gb
1060 CONFIRMED DEAD ON ARRIVAL
RX480 GET REKT, AMD BTFO
>>55353962
It might be winning now, but we'll see the same thing that happened with the GTX 680 and the 7970. It might outperform it now, but in a years time the RX 480 will increase in performance while the GTX 1060 will start to get worse.
>>55354014
120w, 6BG GDDR5, 1700MHz
do u wnt me to continue AMD shill?
Now lets hope the founder's edition doesn't cause it to cost 300$ across the board.
>>55354014
>970 4.2tflops
>480 4.4tflops
RX480 cant even destroy 2 year old card
And why is that
>>55354040
s-shut up. Nividia ALWAYS wins.
>>55354040
keep dreaming AMDrone
>>55354014
nvidiots BTFO
>>55353962
Oh my dear God... AMD, I'm so sorry.
>>55354040
It's more that the 1060 will gain about 10% performance while the 480 will gain more like 30-50%, but hey, go ahead and keep pushing the "NVIDIA GIMPED MUH CARDS" meme that's been disproven tons of times.
Major fanboys on both sides here.
Intel dGPUs when?
I don't see a price. If it's less than 10% more, fucking sold. Otherwise it's dead to me.
>>55354058
I can provide a times stamped version if you like.
Since AMD will probably keep using the same silicon for another 3 years or so, they'll have to maintain the performance for longer than Nvidia.
The RX480 will outperform the GTX 1060 in a year or twos time. Screenshot this.
>>55354058
yeah, amd cards have never edged out their nvidia counterparts, the 780 still is trading blows with the 290 to this day!
it'll never happen again, not like the previous times, things will change.
thank god i got that off my chest, now i can buy two 1060s carefree.
>>55354078
I never said that it'd be gimped, just that it wouldn't perform as well in the future.
See
>>55354119
>>55354078
>keep pushing the "NVIDIA GIMPED MUH CARDS" meme that's been disproven tons of times.
You're right actually. Stopping optimizations to a card as soon as a new gen is out technically isn't gimping
>>55354040
>but in a years time. . .
We'll be looking at the next generation of cards and most everything else will be obsolete. Unless AMD decides to do another year of rebrands. . .
>>55353962
DELET THIS
>>55354119
The standard red on the hero looks meh with that green, you tried by making the ROG logo green as well, but still the 'hardcoded' red in the board is a shame.
This again I guess you dont care so much cuz you also rocking those noctua's.
>>55354040
>>55354119
Yeah nVidia gimps their cards.
And AMD cards can literally cook bacon, and 30 FPS is the max the human eye can see, and unicorns are apex predators.
>>55354179
I have a windowless case so yeah, I couldn't give a fuck. I haven't even installed the lighting control software. I was surprised to see it was green when I opened it up for the photo.
>>55354058
Actually, all reviewers noted that RX480 gets better than 980 at Dx12 games. No info about Vulkan, tho. In previous Dx games, avarage outcome of tests puts it between 970 and 980, with slightly above 970. For lower price than used 970, not to tell about new ones.
Im not fan of any brand, but Im using GTX660 right now and previous card was GTX460. Give me a reasons, why I shouldnt buy 4gb version of RX480, for this price.
In order to make me buy 1060, Nvidia would have to offer it for me for the same or lower price - 200-220$. Do you believe that they will? After seeing prices of 1070, I dont think so.
Im just a avarage consumer, not interested in VR or 4k resolutions. All I want is card with good performance to price ratio, but not more expensive than 250$. I dont trust buying used cards either.
What would you say?
>>55354181
Basically every decent GPU can be used to cook bacon.
The 30FPS meme is totally irrelevant.
Unicorns were apex predators.
>>55354181
thanks for agreeing anon
>>55354201
Wait a month for AIB cards from both parties. I'd reccomend you go for the RX 480 personally because it'll be perform better for longer, because AMD has a history of optimising their drivers for older cards, while Nvidia has the opposite.
>>55354201
>Actually, all reviewers noted that RX480 gets better than 980 at Dx12 games
No they don't, it might perform better in Hitman and ASOTS, but that's not news
>graph starts at 0.8
Why are marketing people such vermin?
NVIDIA ALWAYS WON
A L W A Y S
This is getting a little ridiculous. Seems like the only break amd capable of catching is the pcie slot.
>>55354078
People want instant results when buying new things.
2 years from now when the 480 finally has good enough drivers it'll already be 2 generations behind.
>>55354291
Nvidia you never cease to impress me on how much of a jew you are, they can fuck off with their 192-bit shit.
>>55354308
>Seems like the only break amd capable of catching is the pcie slot.
>>55354291
For scaling purposes idiot.
>>55354319
AMD is juist as guilty of it.
2.8 the power efficiency, comparing a 470 to a 270 pitcairn gpu, a 3 generations older architecture
>>55354334
You don't have to explain why they did it your retard, I understand why they did it
>>55354308
>>55354324
samefag
>>55354354
>Don't provide me with a sensible explanation, I want to throw a literal tantrum online
>>55354458
>a sensible explanation
>making the card look better than it is
No fucking shit sherlock
>>55353962
HOT DAMN I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE 1050!!!
AMD REALLY BTFO
>>55354291
Makes 15% performance increase look good, which it really needs to since it'll cost 25% more.
>>55354244
I was going to jump straight to the 480, but I decided to wait a bit more and see how the 1060 fares, after I saw amd still haven't fixed its tendency to jump to 3d clocks on dual monitors.
Consumption isn't really the issue, heat and noise are, and I'd rather not having a card idle at 60c and sounding like a jet while browsing the net or watching a stream.
>>55354334
>>55354458
You a certified retard. Don't post without my permission.
>>55354491
Not so much about noise, but having an extra 8pin connector as well as the 6 pin will mean the card will be much more stable, and have more overclocking headroom.
If someone then goes and releases a 1400-1500MHz you don't want to be stuck on something with 1200MHz.
AMD for life.
>>55354519
>>55354472
>I do not understand a comparison between 100% and 115% percent unless I am spoonfed an explanation
Get off /g/ before you learn to stop breathing through your mouth.
>>55354545
...time retard achievement award
>>55354014
Because you totally need more than 6GB of ram right.... Lol.
>>55354244
It blows me, really.
Im using same PC for 6 years, with once replaced GPU, from 460 to 660.
I was planning to buy whole new PC in mid July. I turned up myself so badly that I can barely contain myself.
Thats why I was willing to pay those 200$ right away.
>>55354181
24fps is the maximum amount of frames per second a human can see retard
>>55353962
Yes Yes,well done nVidia,well done nVidia...
HOWEVER,price 300$(400EURO in EU)
You're fools if you think it will be anywhere close to 200$.And price is the big part of rx480.
>>55355091
Most people already looking at the $200 480 is going for the $240 480. A good deal of those might look to the cooler, more efficient, and better performing 1060 if it is $250 or $300.
oh shit
I was hoping to sell my 980 for ~$300 and put that towards a 1080. Should I do that now?
>>55355127
no shit
>>55353962
>gaymer
>>>/v/
>>55355127
yes
>these graphs scale
This is what I call desperate.
>>55353962
All of the cards this generation are retarded AMD flopped here with their cards with not being stronger than a 970, and nvidia fucked up because they did not fix async compute on their cards. (They lose performance on dx12) and AMD gains performance. The r9 fury x was what I wanted originally, but AMShit didn't add HDMI 2.0 to that card so I got a 980 ti for my 4k TV. I'm pissed last year's and r9 390 may BTFO my card because of async compute and dx12 same with the 10xx series as well.
>>55353962
>MUCH FASTER
>1.1, 1.2 x
Did they hire /g/ to make this bar graph?
>>55355183
hey, they're just zooming in to the important part for your convenience.
>>55354014
But with drivers, and I won't have to put up with the fact that all companies are trying to kill my card.
It would have to be priced the same to sway me. Im sure they can afford it
wait what the fuck is this graph lmao
>>55355127
You still could, but I'd personally hold out for the 1080TI in your case.
t. 1080 owner
>>55355248
i know roflmao :DD
>>55355314
rawr xD :3
>>55353962
> 192bit
> will likely cost somewhere around 350$
Yeah, the RX480 is soooo dead. Unless NVidia decides to have a huge price gap between the 1060 and 1070 this card will not compete with a RX480.
>>55354291
That's how you use a normalized scale to show difference when you have different information.
It's like you people have never taken a science class in your life.
>>55355376
1070 is 379 MSRP, 1060 will be somewhere around 249
>>55353962
ha. gay.
>>55355249
I've thought of doing that too. The 980 is still pretty good and there's no new games coming out that I really even want to play, other than DX Mankind Divided.
>>55355376
The x60 nvidia GPUs always have a price of <$250, but seriously another 192 bit bus just another 1080p card but it should have the performance of a 980 at 1080p at least.
>>55355389
So instead of saying 10% faster they make it look like 60%. Yeah thats not marketing, its just maths!
>>55355208
No, they hired marketeers.
If card A would score, say, 1500 points in some test and would cost, say, 200$, while card B would score 2000 and cost 450$, it would make performance/price ratio in first card to be 7,5 and 4,4 in second. Other guy could say "card A is better choice, because B is only 33% better for 2,25 times higher price!", while another would say "no, B is better choice, as A have only 75% of B performance".
Data is the same, it is all about how you present it.
>>55355435
>make it look like
Maybe if you can't read the axis.
>>55355392
>1070 is 379 MSRP
You know this is bullshit by nvidia and no 1070 sells at that price, right?
>>55355045
Please help me ;_;
>>55355452
Is it your first day on Earth?
>>55355448
Many wont, thats the point
>>55355448
>Maybe if you can't read the axis
A lot of people dont and thats they hope for.
Since you mention science related classes, its like you never presented your own measurements outcome.
>>55355463
That's not the fault of the graph. That's the fault of retards that won't read clearly provided information right in front of their face. If you choose to ignore an axis on a graph and make shit up out of your ass you deserve whatever misfortune might befall you.
is it 6 or 5.5GB?
>>55355496
Pretty much summed up nvidia owners thank you.
>>55355496
You dont get it at all. Thats the very point of marketing, thats how you sell products - by manipulating the facts, presenting them in different light to make your product look better and convince consumer to pick yours instead of another.
Most of people, like my lecturer used to say, are visuals - they prefer to have images instead of text. They wont even read the scales on axis. I saw a lot of articles with data presented in a way that could fool some people into thinking that they did something spectacular, but in fact, it was below avarage. It was all about presentation.
>>55354014
>192-bit
every time
>>55354014
>Tflops
>for a midrange card
>>55355573
>getting manipulated
>ignoring freely available information
Your fault.
I have no sympathy for people who get tricked by marketing when they ignore information of their own accord. They chose to fuck themselves, they can choose to live with their retardation too.
What if Nvidia prices this at 150$.
That would kill AMD.
>>55355591
Nah they can price it at $250 and it'll still sell better because it's more powerful and doesn't kill your mobo
THANK YOU BASED NVIDIA
>>55354014
>970 ~3.5 TFLOPS
>480 ~5 TFLOPS
AAYYMD DRIVERS LITERALLY NON EXISTANT
>>55355591
They need amd because of anti-monopoly laws. Same as intel. Nvidia has 80% of discrete card market already.
>>55355591
What if they would price this at 100$?
What if they would price this at 50$?
What if they would price this at 10$?
What if...?
Lets try to be realistic here.
>>55355590
While person who gets tricked is not without fault, I wouldnt say that they are the only one.
If you trick a kid to give you keys for its house and then raid it, nobody will say "its all kid fault", because you used advantage over its clear lack of knowledge and naive nature, while being fully aware that you are tricking it into its own harm.
Both kid shouldnt trust you and you shouldnt trick it. Thats the whole point.
>>55355591
It doesn't need to be that low. Most people don't want anything to do with AMD regardless of their performance. They can easily price it the same or even slightly higher and they will continue to have good sales numbers and AMD will continue to only be bought by a small minority of the GPU buying populace.
/g/ isn't an accurate representation of anything.
>>55354620
>i use a barchart to purposely mislead people into thinking the change is bigger than it really is
There is no excuse for not showing the entire bar, the bars are there to give you an instant idea of the size of the difference, otherwise you would just post numbers.
Marketing boy gtfo
>>55355604
>doesn't kill your mobo
I love this new meme, it's truely exquisite. I owned Palit 750ti for past year, a 90w card with no added power, just PCI slot. My mobo is perfectly fine, and it's just normal, not top of the line one.
I never seen reports of those cards damaging motherboards.
Go meme somewhere else.
>>55354014
>192-bit
Literally why?
>>55354014
>inb4 $350 base price
>>55355663
Risk of damage does not mean 100% guarantee of damage, idiot
The specifications are there for a reason
>>55355669
Because you don't understand the significance of those numbers yet continue to post.
>>55355604
>doesn't kill your mobo
>>55355675
>Risk of damage does not mean 100% guarantee of damage
Nice backpedaling, go shill for Nvidia on reddit.
>>55354051
>the 960 can't destroy a 690 so it's bad
This is how stupid you sound.
>>55355713
How is that backpedalling you moron?
You are literally defending AMD cards having a risk of damaging your other hardware components.
Typical blind fanboyism
>>55355713
Nah it just randomly shuts it off, making the card even more useless.
>>55354244
>AMD has a history of optimising their drivers
You are fucking hilarious.
AMD has shitty drivers and they drop support for cards faster than Nvidia.
>>55355677
>current year
>192 bus width paired with 6GB of memory
AMD CURRYKEKS ARE ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>55354334
That's not what scaling means, retard. Cropping is not scaling.
>>55355751
>arbitrary numbers that can't be compared 1:1 because of software and hardware differences
/g/ - "technology"
>>55355748
s-sauce?
>>55355663
Meme isn't a verb you infected vagina.
>>55355657
>There is no excuse for not showing the entire bar
66% of the entire bar is wasted information. Scaling a bar graph is a standard and accepted practice.
>>55354676
>oh sweet, I have a hard disk with a whole gigabyte of storage, I'm set forever now
>>55355816
Just stop, you don't understand bar charts
Can someone please explain the /v/ raid that's been happening?
>>55355750
>what is directx 10.1 for $100 Alex
>>55354014
>192-bit
So Nvidia has given up?
>>55355837
People on /g/ go to /v/?
Notice the big fucking lack of a price. At least AMD told you the price. Yes I know it's gone up due to demand, but at least they had much more stock at launch than Nvidia did. Some of those retailers only got a handful (Like 3) of 1080/1070's. Overclockers shifted 1000 RX480's in a day whilst 1000 Nvidia cards were sold in a MONTH!
>>55355829
Are you the same idiot who quoted wikipedia but didn't read the entire citation? The same idiot who tried to argue that any scaling is misrepresentation and failed miserably?
>>55355844
DirectX 10.1 isn't a game.
Historically AMD has far more issues with performance and stability with a focus on specific benchmarks being optimized for marketing. Trying to spin that like its a good thing just makes you look like a dumb ass shill.
>>55355845
And yet with such a small memory bus, it actualy is able to give 980 performance, compared to the 480
Gives you a good sense of how much better Nvidia's architecture is compared to AMD's rebranded GCN
>>55353962
>for every gamer
but /g/ told me all these GPU threads were definitly about serious CUDA statistical learning and shit
no manchildren here at all
>>55354014
This card is going to literally be worse than a GTX 970? LMFAO
>>55354148
Yep, meanwhile amd dont even have an old card to gimp
They've been renaming their cards since forever
>>55355872
You honestly believe that? lol
>>55355871
directx 10.1 is the update that nvidia decided didn't need to be rolled out to gtx2* cards
amd updated cards with directx10.1 for two years after nvidia decided not to do it
>>55355869
You keep throwing around "It's accepted practice'
I don't care what you think, a bar chart is only functional when it gives an accurate idea of the scale between two variables without having to look at the numbers.
Just fuck off already marketing boy
>>55355887
>nvidia said 1070 has titan x performance
>it has titan x performance
Don't see why I shouldn't believe it
Meanwhile
>amd says 480 will beat 500$ cards
>fails to mention they mean launch prices of two year old cards
>>55353962
I have literally never, not once, seen a Nvidia card be cheaper than the AMD equivalent in down under land. They are always more expensive without fail. I don't expect the 1060 to be any different.
>>55355889
You are a fucking moron it literally doesn't matter.
>>55353962
DELETE
At 16nm the 1060 will barely make Nvidia any profit if they reduce the cost too much.But it really depends what deal they have with TMSC.
>>55355933
it means that nvidia drops support for their cards years before amd does
amd cuckolds are on suicide watch
hopefully they all neck themselves
>>55355896
>You keep throwing around "It's accepted practice'
It's not my problem that you have difficulty with an inconvenient truth.
>I don't care what you think
You're right! I wrote that article in wikipedia before you cited it and it does not in any way represent the thinking of others.
You sir, are a retard. A closed-minded, unthinking retard who demonstrates his inability to comprehend his own failings with every post. A faggot who has no standing to claim that others don't know what they are talking about. Your own citation proves this and you still act like what is in your citation only matters for what you want it to say rather than what it actually says.
>>55355937
Yeah anon tell us about Nvidia's deal with TSMC, I'm sure you are privy to such information and really know what you're talking about.
>>55355954
Again, you don't understand bar charts period, now shoo
>>55355183
1 - 1.1
its like our memes has become real.
>>55355941
No it just means that they didn't add support for one extension on one specific version of DirectX to one specific subset of cards.
If you call that not supporting then AMD doesn't even support their brand new cards.
>>55353962
If it is almost twice as fast as the 480 like that graph suggests it'll cost at least 350 bucks knowing NVIDIA.
200 bucks is still a great deal for a 480 if you're a poorfag.
>>55355991
>>55353962
I miss the Hump of the 8800 Ultra.
hell I miss the Ultra brand.
>>55355970
Do you know who else argues like you do, repeating yourself over and over again? Nine year olds.
I'd provide another pro-tip but like the last one that rekt you it'll just be ignored.
>>55356020
>ad hominems
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel there buddy
>>55355875
God, the 480 is the worst card ever made, I'm glad of my 390. AMD are incompetents
>>55355990
kek this is almost exactly what nvidia said
>it doesn't matter, it's just a tiny update, inconsequential
do you work for their marketing department or something?
it meant that none of the gtx 2* series cards can play directx 11 games, pretty much making them obsolete in 2012
>>55356059
It didn't have an effect on the ability of the cards to play the games. It was literally an optional extension.
Absolutely fucking perfect.
>>55332847
Thank you, Nvidia shills, who reported my concerns to HQ.
>>55355976
>>55355183
>>55353962
>that retarded clickbait title when the opposite is true
>those slides
>double the bar length
>"much faster"
>10% faster in their own selected game
>300$
>>55356071
you can't play directx 11 games on gtx 2* series cards because they didn't roll out directx 10.1
stop drinking the kool aid you fucking shill
>>55356076
>300$
Source: Your Ass?
>>55356035
>>ad hominems
Oh that's rich coming from the guy who repeatedly posted:
>You don't understand bar graphs.
Just like a nine year old. It's okay when you do it to others but not okay when others do it to you.
>>55354051
has more to do with drivers,
the drivers for the 970 have been optimized to the max now, the rx 480 still has to be optimized - once they are, AMD can easily add 10% performance, and with Vulkan that will be an increase of 20-40%
AMD wins everytime in the long run
>>55356088
the same ass videocardz pulled their "specifications leaked FASTER than RX 480" from
>>55355991
It's confirmed to be $250
>>55356089
>Oh that's rich coming from the guy who repeatedly posted:
>You don't understand bar graphs.
That's not an ad hominem though, lol
>>55354291
Much faster in what? Minecraft? Minefield? Mein Fuhrer?
>>55356093
>mfw my 290 Vapor-X beats out 970 with ease.
>>55356093
>once they are, AMD can easily add 10% performance, and with Vulkan that will be an increase of 20-40%
I giggled
>>55356083
I'm sure you can play Witcher 3 on AMD cards from 2009 right?
XD
(you can't)
>192bit bus
The 660ti 3gb got cucked from that why are they doing it again?
>>55356104
Right. That was not an attack on the author of the point to undermine the point the author presented.
You weren't claiming that I don't understand bar graphs to undermine my point about bar graphs?
Just like a nine year old. Tossing around a term you do not understand.
>>55356101
I'm sorry but all I can find there for '300' is 'RADEON 300' at the top and '299' turns up nothing. Could you point me in the direction of the ass?
>>55354291
>15% faster on cherry picked benchmarks
>"""much faster"""
>inb4 $300
>>55353962
>faster than rx 480
not really much of an accomplishment...
>>55356129
No it wasn't, it was an observation
The only logical one, one could make based on your clear lack of understanding of how to properly use bar graphs
>>55353962
>>55354014
>>55354022
>>55354040
>>55354041
>>55354051
>>55354056
>>55354058
>>55354074
>>55354300
>>55354314
>>55354319
>>55354479
>>55354545
>>55355183
>>55355196
>>55355249
>>55355571
>>55355576
>>55355611
>>55355713
>>55355734
>>55355750
>>55355759
>>55355845
>>55355871
>>55355872
>>55355875
>>55355877
>>55355906
>>55355933
>>55355946
>>55355990
>>55356044
>>55356059
>>55356071
>>55356093
>>55356101
>>55356121
>brand fanboyism
>gaymer products
Get back to >>>/v/ and never come back, disgusting manchilds.
>>55356156
found the assblasted AMDcuck
get rekt pajeet
>>55356156
What are you doing outside of your pretend programmer general
>>55356130
>>55356165
>>55356155
>No it wasn't, it was an observation
Now I get to add liar to your list of personal failings. It's a long list.
1. Closed-minded
2. Cherry-picking
3. Ego-centric
4. Hypocrite
5. Immature
5. Liar
>>55356165
Did you notice that all of the pro AMD comments in OP's article have terrible pajeet English and overly American names?
>>55356121
you can, because amd updated their cards to directx10.1
>inb4 2fps
how about overwatch
nvidia cards from that year wont run either game at all
because nvidia cuts support for their cards years before amd does
>>55356179
Savage burn but I'm afraid your speculation is a less credible ass than videocardz. They've been pulling information out of their asses for a while now and it's usually quite good shit, pun intended.
>>55356198
>No it wasn't
Yes it was, you just lack understanding of such a basic concept, and you've demonstrated it clearly.
Stay assblasted buddy
>>55356156
>summer with new GPU season at full swing
what do you expect
>>55356198
Messed that up.
1. Closed-minded
2. Cherry-picking
3. Ego-centric
4. Hypocrite
5. Immature
6. Ignorantly term dropping
7. Liar
Fixed!
>>55356229
>Yes it was
Just like ad hominem you do not understand what an observation is and its difference from an argument.
Observation:
>I wouldn't bother arguing with him. He's an ignorant about bar graphs.
Ad hominem argument:
>You are ignorant about bar graphs.
Would you like more rope to hang yourself with?
>>55356209
If you want to see a real lack of support then look at the decades of instability in AMD drivers.
>>55356259
You seem to be putting alot of time and effort into this. Keep going though, it's entertaining.
>>55356269
im so glad you can accept being wrong about something so gracefully
go look it up, you might learn something
>>55356275
Dude I can show you older Nvidia cards that will work on Windows 10 then AMD. You are citing lack of hardware support for an extension as a failing on Nvidia's part.
2 RX 480 beats GTX1070, although by small % it does. And 1070 has 68% higher price over here.
Wtf are you all talking about?
>>55356317
They will also fry your motherboard
>>55353962
>THAT FUCKING GRAPH
Clever sneaky Jews
>>55356299
>780 performance nosedived after 9xx series release
Nvidia will drop driver support for older gen cards, which is a huge issue since they heavily rely on proper software.
>>55356323
Well no objection there.
Maybe rebrands will improve that.
>>55356274
Even abandoning the argument "its an observation?"
I wonder. Just how far can you backpedal?
>>55356345
>780 performance nosedived after 9xx series release
That's unsubstantiated garbage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvCsT_dk-1E
>192-bit
And just like that you've lost me.
I guess Nvidia still doesn't understand memory memery is bad.
>>55356317
Actually, it doesn't
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
>>55356359
>unsubstantiated
Don't you mean "debunked?"
>>55356356
Keep it coming, I'm giggling
>>55356373
Given how ever other post you made was false I'm sure this one is true.
>>55356299
holy shit are you actually this retarded? just read what i wrote again
>nvidia decides not to update gtx 2 series cards to directx 10.1
>they say its an unimportant update to the api so theres no need for driver support
>card with drivers that support directx 10 cannot play directx 11 games
>card with drivers that support directx 10.1 can play directx 11 games
>amd cards from the same year get the update, able to play directx 11 games
here is an example of amd supporting their cards better and for years longer than nvidia does
so where you said
>AMD has shitty drivers and they drop support for cards faster than Nvidia.
you were wrong
>>55356342
I work at Nvidia heres the actual uncut graph. Seriously I don't get what you guys problem is.
>>55356383
Just saying something is false, does not make it false.
You need to learn some debate skills buddy
>>55356317
>>55356361
It wins in terms of raw performance, but not in application. Just like every other AMD solution™. The power is completely meaningless in a great deal of games that just don't support multi GPU. Setups with SLI and CF with anything but a pair (or more) of the best single GPU are retarded for this reason. Let's not even consider microstuttering.
>>55356370
No I mean unsubstantiated garbage
>That graph.
You can't make shit like this up because it's just too silly.
>>55356403
>Just saying something is false, does not make it false.
Just like you do not understand the difference between an argument and an observation you also do not understand the difference between a statement and an explanation?
>>55356269
You have a lot of nerve calling other people shills when the only thing you do in this board is shill for nvidia or just shitpost, and I've been here for a long time, you're either a brand loyal manchild defending Nvidia as if your life's on the line because of your autism, or a paid shill.
PS: end yourself, daddy issues fuckwit.
>>55356361
But 68%. Worst margin is 15%-20%.
Plus driver optimization in near future because it just came out.
>>55356417
You just provided a citation that debunks the claim but rather than concluding it is invalid ou leave it as valid but unsubstantiated?
>>55356429
No just like every post you have made so far
I tried to normalize the graph guys, how am I doing.
>>55356443
Technically I would have to have called it unsubstantiated and debunked garbage, as no evidence was provided to back up that lie
>>55356342
>Let's make up a graph that tells you absolutely fucking nothing about what is being measured against.
At least AMD used something to compare with when using AoTS even if it is a meme game now.
This graph may as well be measuring the flammable performance of dried cow turds vs peat bog for all it's worth.
>>55356450
Your response doesn't even make sense in light of the post you responded to. Have you gone of the rails completely? Or did you misword what you meant previously as "like man, that's just your opinion" rather than "just saying?"
>>55356441
>driver optimization
Ah, the old AMD "good drivers coming soon™"
>>55356468
>more ad hominems
You seem butthurt
>>55353962
>That terrible shoop job turning a 1080 into a 1060
>>55354676
Right, have fun with your 5.5GB!
>>55356466
>At least AMD used something to compare with when using AoTS even if it is a meme game now.
Yeah! With 51% utilization! Whatever that means.
>>55354040
>but in a years time
Why is it that AMD shills are always going on and on about the future being good?
Seriously, today is never great for them, it's always some nebulous future date when they'll totally be on top.
It's faster yes, but at least 50$ more expensive likely also runs hot and sets your house ablaze. How's that btfo?
>>55356462
>this is fine
>for scaling purposes
kek
>>55356489
5GB!? There's really no need for more than 4.5GB. After all, a 192-bit bus with more than 4GB is just silly. The GTX 970 did just fine with 3.5GB so we're shipping the the 1060 with 3GB. Unless of course you buy the 3GB version which has 2.5GB.
>>55356484
Still tossing around terms you fail to understand.
It seems you cannot backpedal anymore and are not responding with non-sense. Why? Do you have an immature need to have the last word?
Let's test this out. You will respond to this post with more non-sense. To which I will reply, "It almost hurts to be right so often." You know what the response will be so if you respond to that one as well you prove to have an immature need to have the last word.
>>55356507
Because they can't claim victory now, they have to make up shit that in the future everything will magically change
>>55356477
Well something has to come out, even if it improves performance in by 3%.
>2016
480 gets 90fps in a game for $200
1060 gets 100fps in a game $300
>2017
480 gets 100fps in a game for $180
1060 gets 100fps in a game $290
>2018 (new card time, deploy the gimp drivers)
480 gets 100fps in a game for $150
1060 gets 70fps in a game $280
>>55356523
Why are you mad though?
>>55356486
>it still uses 6 pin
Is this the new power meme?
>>55356547
It almost hurts to be right so often.
>>55356558
Answer the question
>>55355376
>MUH BITS
It's like I'm really back in 1992 listening to sega commercials.
>>55356550
It's cheaper than an eight pin to manufacture and install and if OEMs who provide a factory OC'd version need more power they can put in their own eight pin.
>>55356507
In the past this was true. But with DX12 and Vulkan a reality and DX11 game development unlikely to stay a constant eventually Nvidia will be hampered. AMD is playing the long game from this point on. Sure your Nvidia cards will probably be faster now. But give it 1-2 yeasr and you'll be switching teams when your 1080Ti can't play the latest buzzword game title as fast as a 490 (or whatever it's going to be called).
This week has been so much fun
>>55356585
So an even longer wait for the 1060 to be worth buying then. Meanwhile AMD will be making a klilling in the midrange market.
>>55356596
>give it 1-2 yeasr and you'll be switching teams
Or buying a new modern card. . .
>>55356615
Did you miss the point or are you just a paid shill who has to support AMD in every post even if it is a non sequitur?
>>55356585
It's more that AMD wanted to give the illusion that the RX 480 is a power efficient card. That was BTFO immediately and now reports are trickling out that the PCI-E power draw is killing motherboards.
>>55356044
the 480 is not the successor to 390 retard
>>55356596
The thing is I dont play many AAA games, and my 960 is already perfect for what I do.
[spoiler]I just want a 1060 so I can crank those shader mods on minecraft up, youtube money is fun[/spoiler]
>>55356630
most people dont buy a new graphics card every 1-2 years
>>55356632
>It's more that AMD wanted to give the illusion that the RX 480 is a power efficient card.
I'd agree with you there that for the R480 it appears to be a "meme." 150w is the design max for the six pin and yet constantly goes above it but I don't think it's a meme for a 120w card if the 1060's specs are accurate or even if it goes 10-20w above because it still has headroom.
Given the facts that the reference card comes with an insufficient cooling package, negligible OC headroom, and a six pin plug, I'm inclined to believe AMD tried to bolster the R480's performance in response to the 1080/1070 by clocking it to the max.
>>55356671
poorfags don't buy a new graphics card every 1-2 years*
Fixed it for you pajeet.
>>55356671
Nor do they buy current graphics cards expecting it to be better than the competition in 1-2 years. "Futureproofing" is a long dead concept.
>take GTX1080
>divide it by half
>????
>>55356606
This. AMD has finally brought some competition to Nvidia. Now their fanboys with bleeding anuses are crying trying to justify Nvidia's shit performance in DX 12 with sour grapes and ad hominem attacks.
>>55356707
>>divide it by half
You would get twice the 1080
>>55356707
>take GTX1080
>divide it by half
>????
>PROFIT!!!
You missed a step.
>>55356718
>AMD has finally brought some competition to Nvidia
You mean competition to their 2 year old card on a bigger node? Impressive
>>55356685
hey man, that's just like, what matters to you, and that's fine
of the people who buy graphics cards, the overwhelming majority buy mid range, and keep it for a little longer than
>1-2 years
>mfw AMD is shit now both at gpu and cpu market
>>55356718
>AMD has finally brought some competition to Nvidia
The 1060 isn't out yet
>>55356798
>just wait for...
nvidiots, when will they learn?
>>55356741
>$200 price tag
>better power efficiency
>can literally use 430W PSU with 0 problems
Of course someone on an R9 390 will have no reason to upgrade, this card was meant to replace the R9 380 you dumbass.
>R9 380
>380
>Rx 480
>480
hmmmmmm
>>55356810
>literally stealing the amd meme
>>55356816
Except it doesn't have better power efficiency whilest its built on a much smaller node, it's pathetic
>>55356816
I wonder. If it performed a bit better if they would have called it the 490. . .
