So I've been reading the leaked reviewer's guide, or at least as much as the watermark hiding pics allow, where the 1060 gaming results came from
http://videocardz.com/62138/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-reviewers-guide-leaked
Still unsure of the actual objective of this. It does offer some testing guidelines, but the rest seems like marketing propaganda. Can't shake off the feeling this is a "these are the results we want you to show" guide
I'm pretty sure this is done by both nvidia and amd, but what are your thoughts on this? Also does anyone have a link for the clean guide?
>>55551726
>>55552050
>/g/ is incapable of having a discussion without resorting to memes and name calling
Oh right, I forgot
nvidia is a scummy company but everything I saw in there didn't seem too insane. Just typical bullshit that can easily be ignored. I mean of course nvidia is going to show their 'reference' benchmarks beating AMD's shit easily. Who cares, AMD did the same stuff. I say this as someone who so desperately wants AMD to do well.
>>55551726
Literally every review site runs their own tests.
>>55551726
at least now we gonna see better what site/youtuber will shill hard for it those 480 numbers must have been measured with an older driver cause there isnt a single review out there that shows the card being 65% slower and competing with a 960..
Well no shit it tells reviewers what nvidia wants the consumers to know. If you sell a product you want people to buy, then you do the best you can to pain that product in a positive light. You tell them why they should by your product over another product. Advertising is one of the largest markets in the world and it exists for a reason. The flip side (AMD) is no different. They will do everything they can to sell their product over a competitors offering. None of these companies are in this for anything but profit.
>>55552086
One thing I'm curious to see is once the reviews are out, who follows this by the word and who doesn't.
Would really like to get my hands on an amd one though, so I could make a comparison.
>>55552132
well they cant really... unless they ninja chaned their previous 480 results... otherwise they gonna be on a serious trouble lol
>>55552074
Anything graphics card related isn't worth discussing.
Considering it will cost more than the 480 and have less RAM it better be faster in all areas.
>>55552348
it doesnt have the hardware to do so...no one in their right mind can possibly think that a card with 55% less hardware than 1070 will compete with 480 while 480 is almost as fast a 1070 on dx12..
>>55552395
>Almost as fast as a 1070
Don't do this.
>>55552092
I think Michael would be happy if you downloaded his Phoronix Test Suite at least once.
>>55552395
Oh wow theyve upped the humour now to "480 is as good as a 1070"
Next week it will be better than the 1080. That card just keeps giving bravo AMD.
>>55551726
>Reading
>Images over text
I had to rageesc
>>55553815
they are hiding watermarks, who ever decided to leak it probably is liable.
>>55553751
Lmao
AMDummies are so delusional
>>55552050
>zł
>>55552945
>>55553751
Well he did say "in DX12".
In DX12/Vulkan the 480 catches up significantly to 1070/980ti and will shit on the 1060.
>>55551726
Sure, Nvidia used old drivers for benchmarks, but they stated that.
If they hid or lied about that, that'd be propaganda.
>Reviewer's guide
holy kek Nvidia brainwashing is real
>>55551726
Wow holy shit this is fucking sad.
Between this and the special "press" drivers Nvidia is worse than Intel at this point.
Nvidia is losing hard.
After years of dominating the market a little bit of competition comes along and they go and shit themselves.
>>55555770
>1060 is better than 480 in every way
>Nvidia losing hard
Top kek
>>55551726
>reviewers guide
>look our card is so good
>premium materials such as woodscrews
>whisper silent and cool as fuck (80c)
>fucking benchmarks provided by nvidia
Sad thing is shills like Linus will follow this
>>55555833
>unreleased unbenched card beating its competition
>>55555833
>10-15% for 100$ more
Nevermind this is paper benchmarks.
>>55555875
Poorfag detected
>>55555833
>in every way
>based on nvidia benchmarks
>less vram
>crap dx12/Vulkan performance
In reality it will be 5% faster in DX11 for $50-100 more, which is alot considering these are budget cards. That 5% in DX11 can easily be lost too, drivers for RX480 already increased its preformance by 3%. By end of August they could have another 5% in DX11, putting it ahead/on par of 1060.
>>55555907
By August the 1060 will be 50% faster than the 480
>>55555836
$9,999 for nuclear reactor? Sign me fucking in.
>>55555904
Then buy a 1070 or 1080 instead of a poor mans Nvidia card.
>>55555904
480 gets 100+ fps maxed out on DOOM with Vulkan now, there's no need for some $700 waste of money card.
>>55555922
Ah yes, they're going to make it faster like a 1070 but still keep the mid range price, makes sense if you're an nvidiot.
>>55555922
Nvidia doesn't improve performance through drivers like AMD though, since they are already launched at full capability.. Where have you been the past 5 years. Or you new to PC.
>>55555933
Already have a 1070, it's great.
1060 is a step down and still much better than any AMD card too.
>>55555904
The 1060, heck the x60 and below is Nvidia's 'budget' tier. The 480's designed as a 1080p card anyway, why would I pay 50-100 more for 10 or so more frames?
>>55555934
480 is fine if you don't mind killing your motherboard
>>55555957
I disagree, Nvidia cards at the lower end are shit and are outdated within a year (760 vs 280/x, 960 vs 380/x). They are only good at the high end $400+ segment (previously $300+ until they jacked the prices up).
>>55555971
It's worth paying for Nvidia quality. Better drivers, better power draw, lower heat.
>>55555977
a bit late with that granpa
>>55553751
cards from 2011/2013 are providing 83% more perfomance of their respective counterparts...
its 2016 and 480 is already only 11% behind 1070 without having even matured drivers..
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/doom-vulkan-benchmarks-amd-nvidia/
have fun realising how a 200 card is gonna shit on 1070 at 5-6 months
>>55555989
>Better drivers
no. decade old meme. I have a 980 and previously had a 7950, had less issues with AMD drivers. with the 980 I have to roll back to previous drivers and now I dont bother updating them unless I absolutely need to for a new game.
>lower heat
heat is the same on reference cards, usually 75-80c on EVERY reference card. you dont want heat, you buy an aftermarket card.
>better power draw
true, but a slightly lower power draw wont save you money. a couple dollars in a year at most?
>>55555989
>better power draw
400 series is loads better than the 300 series at that, so it's getting negligible.
>Lower heat
AiBs solve this easily.
>>55555989
>Nvidia quality.
holy shit, as retarded as apple fanboys
>>55555955
I always thought that how gcn ages is hardware related. I noticed if you test the same benchmarks/games with new and old drivers (couple years back), they don't improve that much. It's on new releases that we see old amd cards gaining distance from nvidia. The larger vram/bus is a good example of it: larger new textures for instance will quickly exhaust cards with smaller amounts of vram and tighter bus
>>55556007
kek this is actually funny
nvidia needs to push for new cards each year to compete with a uarch from 2011 man i wonder how big the smile is on the people that bought that monster 7970ghz back then
>>55556007
Too bad this is just a single game and 99% of all upcoming games in the next 2 years minimum will have dx11 support compared to the ~5 which will also have dx12 support. Amd are currently a no go for me and this is a pretty poor argument since its based on a case by case scenario. I'm getting a 1070 btw for the sole reason I know it'll work as intended without requiring api updates which most games won't even get.
>>55556135
kek
3 vulkan
16 released dx12 plus 8 more to come all AAA
dx11 is irrelevant as shit this year only batman will be the selling point of it IF warner actually release another one..
>>55556135
Most AAA games in the next year will be DX12
Deus Ex next month, Battlefield 1/Forza/Watch Dogs 2 later this year, Civ 6 just announced DX12 support. TW:Warhammer just got DX12 support. Pretty much every AAA game will announce DX12 support closer to release dates.
>1060 $150 3gb
>470 $150 4gb
HOLLDUP
Are all of you retards not reading?
>>55556020
>unless I absolutely need to for a new game
Using nvidia for almost 20 years now, I can't think of a single instance that happened. I've gotten more performance from updating driver, but never has a game not run
>>55556252
>nvidrones will deny this
Doesn't this mean amd wins this for low market?
>>55556183
So you're telling me out of the 100+ games at e3 which all looked good and worth a play, only 25 or so will get dx12 support? Yeah that's pretty shit. 1070 it is my friend.
>>55556093
AMD has been playing a ridiculously long hand, doing so wasn't far from killing them, and they might be stopping that hand with the separation of everything graphics from the CPU counterpart
>>55556026
Power draw on AMD is way worse than Nvidia. Power draw = heat production, so AMD cards always produce more heat as well. AMD just makes very inefficient architectures that are riddled with bugs.
>>55552050
MAD POORS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>55556522
>that are riddled with bugs
You were doing so great until here. What are these "bugs" you speak of?
>Nvidia provided testing results
>all real bences are NDA
I think this is more trustworthy
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9202637/fs/9188962
>>55556419
100 game on e3...
every console games is amd aka dx12/vulkan
almost all of the ports will be on vulkan/dx12
most of the pc exclusive are dx12/vulkan
many of the indies are on dx11/dx9
literally almost all the big names of 2016 is on dx12/vulkan its very simple
>>55556522
btfo
>>55556680
Dishonored 2?
RE7?
Infinite warfare?
Titanfall 2?
Shenmue 3?
These are just 5 games off the top of my head which are considered the biggest games to come out this year and next and there's no word of them being developed with dx12 support.
Also your claim of all console games being developed with dx12 is false. Consoles don't use dx12. Xbox has its own low level api which is much more efficient than dx12 and ps4 uses gnm. There are also a lot of console ports which run better on nvidia compared to amd. Go back to watching adored tv.
>>55556855
>the biggest games only because it has dx11?nope sry doesnt go like that
dishonored 2 is going to have a dx12 path
what was the last re game that was relevant? accordin got steam spy well....its pretty much dead IP if they manage to revive it it might be nice but given the team behind it well kek
infinite warfare...the game that managed to have the most dislikes that everything good luck with that
was titanfall 1 any sort of relevant in the first place?
shenmue 3 isnt even a game that you will consider it AAA
you really dont know nothing do you know..first of all dx12 is already on xbox
second ALL of them have the same code structure which means porting just became a lot easier
third amd is bringing all of the profiling tools they created for the consoles to gpuopen..
when they talk about a homogenous ecosystem they mean exactly that...eventually paying to port a game on dx11 will be extremly inefecient
When the 1060 comes out does all the manufacturer versions (ASUS, MSI, etc.) also get released day one with the founders edition?
>>55556993
well obviously milking cow fe needs to be out for a month
>>55557009
What?
Do you want to try again and write in English this time?
>>55557056
FE COW MILKING
>>55551726
>Can't shake off the feeling this is a "these are the results we want you to show" guide
I read the whole guide and it's obvious these are just guidelines, the TDP and Noise Db were well explained and I can see some reviewers fucking up, we have already seen youtubers like jayztwocents fucking up big time before and lots of people watch him.
Also the part about noise was obviously something suggested they should mention on their review, as they have stated in the guide the 1060 should have lower temperatures and lower noise than the 1070 while using a blower fan, if it's true people who complain bout temperatures and noise on reference cards won't have anything to complain now and if it's like Nvidia says they it should be mentioned.
The driver part you just have to use you freaking brain, those papers are made with weeks on advance.
also for amd shills lets not forget that in the 480 presentation AMD used a GTX1080 with leaked beta drivers to compare it with and the public drivers with improvements have been available for everyone for a few weeks already.
>>55556954
>b-b-but these games don't count because they don't have dx12 support
Like clockwork
>dx12 is on xbox
I can't tell if you're legit retarded or trolling. The consoles are already running at maximum efficiency with 100% gpu and cpu thread utilisation compared to current pc gaming which mostly uses a single thread and sub 99% gpu utilisation. Dx12 specifically helps pc gaming only and consoles will always be way more efficient due to their closed hardware nature. Why do you think Phil Spencer himself said dx12 won't do anything for xbox? Are you claiming you know more than him now?
>>55557070
Alright mate, calm down
>>55557091
so what you are saying is that the ms statement to bring dx12 to xbox is a lie then
riiiiiiiiiiiiiighttttttttttttttt
as always 4chan defies logic
MS is also making it easier for devs to implement mGPU using a new abstraction layer.
>>55557091
are you really suggesting xbone doesn't use dx12?
>>55557127
So you are legit retarded then? Xbox uses its own version of directX api with its own specific libraries and always has since its release. The xbox gpu doesn't even fully support dx12 so anything they have added will only affect software side optimizations like creating a unified ecosystem between windows and pc and will not affect actual game performance. If xbox is running the pc api dx12 and only got it a year ago, how did they get the console to run at 100% efficiency under dx11 which everyone that isn't brain dead knows to be very inefficient especially concerning thread utilisation? Are you claiming the xbox had been using a single thread in all games till it got dx12 support because it was using dx11 before?
>>55557091
>maximum efficiency with 100% gpu and cpu thread utilisation
Literally "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about": the post.
100% utilisation only tells you that all resources are being used, it does not tell you if the architecture is being used efficiently.
>>55557324
http://www.developer-tech.com/news/2015/apr/24/directx-12-unlocking-xbox-ones-potential/
>DirectX 12 will have a huge benefit to Xbox One. It is, essentially, unlocking its potential being held back by an age-old API's lack of understanding in how to utilise multiple threads and cores simultaneously
>>55557324
obviously you are such a guru on technology that phil spencer blush
http://wccftech.com/phil-spencer-directx-1-xbox-one-hardware-graphics/
kek have fun
>>55557324
At launch the XB1 used two APIs, bog standard DX11 (for developers that are ether inexperienced or have low resources) and a low level DX11 with most of the functionality of DX12 inspired by the low level DX introduced on the Xbox 360 in the later parts of it's lifespan in response to Sony's LibGCM. After the update last year XB1 now also supports standard DX12 on top of standard DX11 and the stopgap low level DX11.
>>55557374
>posts speculation fud released months before dx12 release
>even goes to the extent to claim esram was added because of dx12
>Phil Spencer comes out and literally puts an end to all these bullshit rumours
>“On the DX12 question, I was asked early on by people if DX12 is gonna dramatically change the graphics capabilities of Xbox One and I said it wouldn’t. I’m not trying to rain on anybody’s parade, but the CPU, GPU and memory that are on Xbox One don’t change when you go to DX12. DX12 makes it easier to do some of the things that Xbox One’s good at, which will be nice and you’ll see improvement in games that use DX12, but people ask me if it’s gonna be dramatic and I think I answered no at the time and I’ll say the same thing.”
You're just embarrassing yourself now.
>Covering up what I assume was a watermark with meme pictures
>>55556761
Compare it to the 1070
480 is slower than the 1070 and uses more power, 480 is incredibly inefficient.
It's even worse when you compare a 480 to a 1060
AMD's technology is basically a whole generation behind Nvidia
>>55557468
Nvidias prices are two generations behind though so it works out.
>>55557484
They can do that because amd are way to incompetent to make a good product and win back market share.
>>55555875
It's actually 10%-33% slower and still costs $100 more, while also having 2GB less vram.
>>55557468
The 1070 uses more power though.
>>55557484
You pay for a better product with Nvidia. Definitely worth it when AMD is making cards that literally destroy your motherboard.
>>55557569
Sadly not even close.
The 1070 is 50% faster than the 480 and also uses less power.
>>55557643
>Definitely worth it when AMD is making cards that literally destroy your motherboard.
Sorry, but you're more than a tad late to the party. Not only does this not actually break motherboards, AMD fixed it with a driver update.
>>55557517
1060 is up to 33% faster than the 480. It's also the same price.
>>55557683
AMD didn't even fix it, 480 still goes over the power limit. I almost got a 480, but I don't even trust AMD's parts not to damage my system. I had a 6850 and that's the last AMD GPU I ever buy.
I'm looking through this list and things do actually look encouraging for Nvidia, there are a much of games where the card has a real improvement @ 1080p 60fps, even more if you're using a 1080p monitor at a higher refresh rate. Metro, GTA V, and Tomb Raider are all popular games where its seeing big improvements. A lot of the games it doesn't do well on are either unpopular, or the card is overkill anyways.
It doesn't seem to be good enough for 1440p max settings but neither is the RX480. Generally the RX480 scales better into larger resolutions which is no surprise but I don't know how many people are going to buy a big monitor, then get an RX480 and have to tune all their settings down, and 2x480 continues to be a stupider idea than going for 1070 even if the benchmarks tempt you.
>>55557694
1060 is up to 10% slower, all the way down to 33% slower, than the 480. It's also $100 more expensive.
>>55557694
>Still pushing those figures that come from Nvidia's own materials using old drivers for AMD and suspicious-as-fuck settings
>After every thread since yesterday has pointed out how suspicious those figures are
Well somebody sure ether seems to be gullible as fuck or a complete shill...
>>55557723
Interesting, you might want to look at the picture to the left.
1060 destroys the 480 in everything
>>55557707
EVERY FUCKING CARD GOES OVER THE POWER LIMIT
The 480 does so even LESS than the average nvidia card. Try harder, shill.
>>55557510
>Definitely worth it when AMD is making cards that literally destroy your motherboard
This old and pointless news.
Nvidia cards may be more efficient, but they can't pull an Intel by just making more power efficient cards that perform /slightly/ better than the old stuff at the same price. Even if you swear by green it'll be cheaper to just buy older cards if 11xx series isn't a game-changer.
>>55557739
That's not even close to true.
Never has there been a card that goes over the pcie slot limit. That's why the 480 power issue is such a big deal.
AMD is just incompetent, that's the sad truth. If they can't even get something as simple as power draw right on their cards, I don't trust their products to work right in my system at all.
>>55557707
Are you that one idiot that claimed as soon as it minimally passes the rated specs the slot will 100% grenade itself?
Like 1060 is actually impressing me quite a bit. There seems to be rather few games where 1070 has any performance improvements at 1080p 60hz, and in those few games you can probably just tame settings down a bit and you'll barely notice. It also beats their previous 900 series. The RX480 not being able to max certain games like GTAV is actually gonna be a pretty big deal to gamers. The biggest game where it doesn't improve over the RX480 is fallout 4, where the 1060 is overkill anyways.
This card seems to really hit a nice niche of luxury 1080p performance, I expect Nvidia to make a killing off it, even if RX480 was the better value card.
>>55557707
>AMD didn't even fix it, 480 still goes over the power limit
Yes they did and as proven by Nvidia by the 960 Strix and 750 Ti without the 6 pin power connector, drawing a bit over the standard 75W from the PCIe slot is not something that will break your motherboard.
Please stop being that massive of a shill...
who cares. do you video card people even use them or play games? or sit on 4chan all day talking about benchmarks that are always different?
seriously. seeing this shit so much makes me just wanna use a console
>>55557773
No they didn't, the 480 is still drawing too much power, see pcper's review.
The 960 and 750 Ti never went over the limit, the 480 is literally the only card to do so.
It really says a lot about AMD that they can't get something right that every single GPU in the past has done just fine. I just don't trust AMD at all anymore, their products are just very low quality.
>>55557736
>Look mom! I posted it again!!1
I know you like reposting that thing over and over again, but we've known since yesterday that it's from Nvidia's own materials using suspicious-as-fuck settings and old drivers for AMD. It's literally anything but reliable.
>>55557797
>damage control
>>55557736
Meanwhile not a single other benchmark reaches these low numbers for the rx480. Really makes you think, huh.
>>55557786
and they play mobas and hearthstone too
>>55557739 is more right than >>55557751 but is being misleading.
Cards having power spike that put them well over PCI-E spec have been a thing for a long time and cards powered entirely off the PCI-E slot are spiky like this. RX480 drawing more than 75w at stock in metro at 4k was an issue not really if you were using 1 card at 1080p because you would never stress the card enough to go over 75w average, the tomshardware test that started all this tested metro in 4k with a 480 which is retarded because when will you ever be playing metro in 4k with a 480?
It's more of a concern for people trying to crossfire the cards and pulling 81w out of two slots that would actually be able to play higher requirement games at higher settings, and especially people overclocking, because they were able to draw about 90w average. PCper was saying that they talked to mobo manufacturers and said their slots were rated for about 95w surges. Now imagine somebody puts the cards in crossfire and then overclocks them and overvolts them.
Fucking housefires. The issue was sort of overblown but AMD definitely still had to fix it.
>>55557751
Nvidia shills, everybody. They literally have no clue what to say anymore.
everyone ignoring the article, $150 3gb model is the same price as the rx 470 4gb $150 model
>>55557834
The numbers are legit, you can't compare benchmarks from other sites you realize, they are in different conditions with different hardware
>>55557795
>No they didn't, the 480 is still drawing too much power, see pcper's review.
The follow-up on this states that it did fix the problem.
>The 960 and 750 Ti never went over the limit, the 480 is literally the only card to do so.
Picture related... The Strix 960 DEFINITELY went over the limit.
This really goes to show which are the more rabbid shills when N/v/idiots try to actively ignore the fact that the problem has affected Nvidia cards well before, but hasn't actually caused any problems.
>>55557852
Sorry the truth hurts
>>55557822
>Point out that source of "data" is sketchy as fuck
>"damage control"
Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddo...
Also I have yet to see another card that draws more than 75w average from the slot in any game outside an overclock. People think this applies to like 950 overclocking because obviously if it's drawing from the slot, and it's overclocked, it must be drawing more than 75w. These people are retarded and don't know nvidia cards throttle themselves if you draw too much from PCI-E even when overclocked unless you flash the bios.
The RX480 isn't the first card to have power surges over 75w but it's the only card I'm aware of that pulls 81w aveage from the slot at stock and 90w+ average when overclocked. The AMD damage control from AMD bootlickers has been ridiculous.
>>55551726
Sounds like a good move, since otherwise there might be some idiot reviewers who "test" their product in a completely ludicrous way that has zero actual value to a real world customer's needs, but still paints the product up in a bad picture.
Example would be furmark results, which most cards' cooling solutions typcally aren't intended to handle.
The only really "questionable" thing in there are the reference performance results, since it only shows a list of applications that Nvidia wants reviewers to focus on, but unless I missed it it does not tell the reviewers they can't show results for games not on the list. Though it can also serve as a useful frame of reference incase the reviewer isn't getting the same results.
>>55557884
t. totally not a shill good goy
>>55557897
Read pcper's review, they show the 480 is STILL overdrawing power.
AMD is so incompetent they fucked up the 480 at launch and they still can't even fix it with an update.
960 Strix never went over the limit, see this:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480/Evaluating-ASUS-GTX-960-Strix
480 is literally the only card in existence to go over the power limit. That's why it's so fucked up. I would never recommend anyone put a 480 in their system because it's literally a dangerous card.
>>55553709
Maybe I will, when the installer doesn't tell me to uninstall these other packages on my system that I do not want uninstalled.
>>55557917
Have you considered googling? Have you considered reading this thread? Have you considered not pretending reality doesn't exist?
>>55557897
>>55557949
Maybe you should learn the difference between peak and average consumption.
>>55557917
>The RX480 isn't the first card to have power surges over 75w but it's the only card I'm aware of that pulls 81w aveage from the slot at stock and 90w+ average when overclocked. The AMD damage control from AMD bootlickers has been ridiculous.
Yes that's absolutely correct. That's why the 480 is so fucked up, it's the only card to do this. AMD must really have a bunch of idiots on their team to release a card that is as fucked up as the 480.
>>55557871
1060 3gb is cut down. it has less cuda core and shit than the 6gb 1060.
why they didnt call it the 1050 is beyond me
>>55558004
It's another tactic to try to pretend it's the same card with less memory, just like the rx480. They're trying to make the cut-down compete with the rx480 in normalfags' minds.
>>55558004
Because no one would buy a 3GB 10xx when games break 3GB easily.
>>55557944
>Read pcper's review, they show the 480 is STILL overdrawing power.
Yes, 0.25A over spec in terms of amperage but at 8W under spec in terms of total wattage. We're talking about a complete non-issue situation here.
>960 Strix never went over the limit, see this:
Which is sort of odd seeing how Tom's Hardware measured it doing exactly that at launch. Only real explanation is that they fixed it in later revisions of the board or trough drivers.
>>55557962
>Graph shows 960 strix spending a good majority of it's time over the 75W level
>"The average is totally fine, the peaks are totally not an issue guise!!1"
Right...
>>55558052
Tom's method of testing is just pointless. They don't normalize the peaks from switching.
>>55552050
>somebody was mad enough to make this image
>>55558035
>just like the rx480
what do you mean, 480 didnt do this? the 4gb 480 is the exact same card as the 8gb 480, just with 4gb memory locked off.
where as the 1060 6gb has more cuda cores(1280 vs 1152) and more texture mapping units (80 vs 72) than the 3gb 1060.
so they named it the same card, but it has less memory and will perform worse.
>>55558045
but they're launching a 3gb 1060?
>>55558087
>Normalizing away peaks just for the sake of normalizing them rather than showing accurate figures
>>55558116
>the 4gb 480 is the exact same card as the 8gb 480, just with 4gb memory locked off.
Exactly. But the 1060 isn't. Plebs don't know that, though. They see that there's an rx480 that's supposed to compete with the 1060 which is the "bigger memory" version, and they see there's a smaller rx480 along with a smaller 1060. They assume, the rx480 being the same as the bigger one except with less memory, that the 1060, which competes with the rx480, must be as well.
>>55558116
>but they're launching a 3gb 1060
Why? Even a year ago 3 was borderline.
>>55558080
>Graph shows 960 strix spending a good majority of it's time over the 75W level
You guys live in a reality distortion field, another representation of the same data pulled directly from tomshardware.
>>55558195
>goes over 250w
>Its just a spike guys, it isn't ALWAYS at 250 and that makes it okay!
How about this, I'll give the guy using an rx480 paper cuts constantly, and I'll violently shank you every 4 to 5 seconds and we'll see who hemorrhages to death first.
>>55555999
>>55558255
>arguments get btfo
>retarded analogies to the rescue!
>>55557679
>50% faster
It's not even 30% faster than 390, in DX11, much less DX12, fampai.
>>55557694
considering the 1070 is only about 30% or so faster than 480 in the best circumstances, I very highly doubt that
Reviewers guide
aka "you better say its true or you wont be getting your Nvidiabux goy"
>>55559388
>55555555
RX480 will be faster than a 980ti j-j-just wait for the benchmarks
>>55559483
Literally no one has said that. 480 sits between an 970 and 980, everything else is overhype.
>>55555931
Don't use it in your house though, it's detailed as a "housefire"
>>55556620
but it is synthetic, it doesn't take gimpworks into account to increase*™ fps™
>>55559535
480 sits in a pile of poo
>>55559388
1070 is actually 50% faster than the 480 under normal circumstances.
>>55558310
AMDummies have no use for logic
Nvidia's reviewers guide:
Mr. reviewers, hold my hand and lets stroll around greenland and be sure to step right in every pile of horse shit lying around because they're so soft and warm; if you don't, no more review samples for you..
>>55559957
It's not even 40% faster than 970.
Stay delusional
>>55560019
We did it boys. The future is red and smells of curry.
Btw the fuck is a RX 490 and when can I buy it.
>>55560153
How many % bigger do you think 111.9 is than 68.3?
fun fact: amd pushed their poolaris on 480 so far, it violated pci-e specs at launch.
because they promised power efficiency to their investors last year.
which failed badly. surely, their marketing/finance team pressured engineering. it's a glorious spectacle, by the way.
that's how you fail at managing a company.
>>55560220
>68.3/111.9 = .61
>100 - 61 = 39
About 39% anon...
>>55560519
Go here
http://www.percentagecalculator.net/
Input the values to the third row of boxes, making sure to input the smaller value to the first box, and the larger value to the second box, so you get the percentage increase. Then press calculate.
Now screenshot your result.
>>55560519
weak AMD shill bait
>>55556954
>dishonored 2
Runs on id Tech 5. Vulkan is a possibility, but so far it's only on id Tech 6.
>>55553709
What does /g/ think of him?
Phoronix is my go to site for loonix related news.
>>55560625
Sorry Ahmad, I didn't remember that you read from right to left.
Input the larger value to the first box, and the smaller value to the second box.
>>55560705
kek'd
>>55551726
>2012
>everyone starts using crazy amounts of tesselation to fuck over amd cards
>amd fixed this problem
>2016
>everyone starts using crazy amounts of aa to fuck over amd cards
>tfw happening
>>55560705
Ahmad, Ahmad, you're not doing this right. Let's go back to the basics.
Your cousin tells you that he has fucked twice as many goats as you have. He has fucked 10, you have only fucked 5. He promises to give you a goat to fuck if you answer his question correctly. His question is: How many more goats has he fucked than you in percentages?
Don't mess this up, Ahmad.
>>55560663
>>55560775
lost
>>55560482
The pci issue is already fixed. Welcome to last week, my african american fellow.
>>55558109
MAD AS AMD
I hope it doesnt stack up that well against the AMD meme. AMD finally has a good thing going on for a mid-tier budget card, let them have that spot I guess. Not that I would ever touch AMD shit. Unemployed and I still got a gtx1080 because I dont like fucking around with mediocre hardware.
Im slightly pissed that AMD isnt competing with the top cards, but atleast they are doing something and not royally fucking everything up like they did in the past 2-3 years. Competition is good and despite me using jewvidia products (their gpu's and a g'sync monitor) I do think that Nvidia is a shitty company that keeps holding their products back simply because nobody is really competing with them.
>>55561036
Get with the times, grandpa
Vulkan is where it's at, now.
>lrn2asynccompute.fov
>>55560767
AhMaD
I see what you did there.
>make post 7 hours ago
>leave for football
>go out for dinner
>come back, and the same neckbeards are still arguing over this shit and shilling for amd
Jesus
