GTX 1060 is everything AMD said the RX 480 would be.
Might be. I've been using Radeons for a while. I may shift to NVidia afterall.
I'd instantly switch to Nvidia if they supported Freesync/VESA adaptive sync.
Nvidia just waited for AMD to fuck up with the 480, then they release a card that is better in every way.
but if amd goes bankrupt who will update my drivers
>>55449684
freetards
>>55449483
I hope Samsung buys them.
>>55449680
>waited for amd to fuck up
That's all Nvidia has to do for amd to fail. Nothing. I'm not either teams fan boy and would love amd to not be such a clusterfuck. There's no real reason to choose amd now after yet another overhyped underperformer outside the being cheaper argument.
>>55449660
Good luck, pal. Nvidia didn't make their Displayport 1.4 because that would have enabled Freesync for everyone. That has some interesting side effects such as HTC Vive not working at all.
http://www.hardwarebbq.com/htc-vive-doesnt-work-with-gtx-1000-series-gpu-via-displayport/
>>55449483
wait for vega
>>55449805
Wonder if it will use 400 watts
>>55449805
>vega
>$650 for 1070 tier performance
>>55449805
I'm betting it's going to be another Fury mess judging by the power gobbling 480 furnace.
>>55449721
It could buy their GPU department, but their x86 license is non-transferable, and it's not Intel's best interest to renew it if they get bought by someone who can make them competitive again. AMD has no options but keep existing while losing money. The current situation is actually better for Intel because now they aren't technically a monopoly. But if AMD decided to go bankrupt, Intel would suffer too because of monopoly laws.
>>55449684
Ask the 3dfx Voodoo owners
RX 480 is a mess.
http://youtu.be/plC7tOYIqBw?t=3510
>>55449684
who would bake the crust? who would melt the cheese?
>>55449971
Rumor is Intel will buy AMD's GPU department
AMD can't be sold because of Intel being cunty. Monopoly rules say Intel cannot take ownership of AMD patents.
Round and round we go.
>>55449783
>Nvidia didn't make their Displayport 1.4 because that would have enabled Freesync for everyone.
Why do people support this company? Jesus they suck.
>>55451163
The monopoly concern isn't even relevant now, ARM will all but kill off x86 within the next decade.
>>55451221
>The monopoly concern isn't even relevant now, ARM will all but kill off x86 within the next decade.
Give me a fucking break, /g/.
>>55451221
Freesync is an objectively inferior technology and nVidia doesn't want to risk their less informed customers being plagued with a sub-par gaming experience.
>>55451243
>Give me a fucking break, /g/.
Are you seriously blind? Apple will be ditching x86 in the very near future and most people are moving over to shit like smart phones and tablets that are already running ARM. I'd say that the hobbyists on /g/ will stick to x86 but seeing as it's been so compromised by Intel with their "security" features, only PC gaymurs will still want it.
Intel will probably switch to ARM themselves at some point in the not too distant future and will also start renting their fabs out to other companies to compete with GloFo and TSMC.
>>55451326
>nVidia doesn't want their customers to have a choice
>instead forces more expensive proprietary hardware on them or having no adaptive sync at all
>>55451371
>We decided to use 10 CPUs because 1 CPU was only 1/10 of a power of Intel CPU of the past.
>>55451408
Nice try, Apple's latest ARM processors are already faster than Broadwell / Skylake per clock cycle.
>>55451385
That's like saying console manufacturers should choose to let their customers buy chinese knockoff games, or Google should choose to let their customers install malware.
>>55449483
wccftech was wrong about the 480
why would it be right about the 1060
>>55451426
That's a shit comparison and you know it
>>55449783
>Nvidia didn't make their Displayport 1.4 because that would have enabled Freesync for everyone.
freesync =/= adaptive sync
adaptive sync is an optional part of displayport 1.3a, freesync is amd's proprietary implementation of it (you won't be able to use freesync with other implementations unless AMD releases/licenses the custom ASIC included with gcn 1.1/1.2 GPUs that handles it).
>>55449971
Intel already sort of is as they use subsidies and government collusion to stifle competition (AMD etc). That's why they are the way they are and it's not because they always put out a good product.
>>55451455
>freesync =/= adaptive sync
They're literally different names for the same tech, anon.
AMD is already losing so much money every quarter on their GPU division, it will be gone soon if they don't want to go under.
>>55451221
>ARMeme
If anything ARM will likely be supplanted by VIA/Intel/Samsung/Nvidia possibly even AMD (miracle).
>>55451477
freesync is a driver, dumbass.
I'm betting on Microsoft buying AMD
>>55451520
MS buying anything at this point with their administration style and how bad it is would be a bad thing. Nokia was all but destroyed. Skype somehow got even worse. Minecraft is a shitty console game now. Halo turned into dogshit. Xbox became dogshit after initial release. Xbox Live initially a great idea at the time to merge gaming on pc and console turned to shit and another digital store/ad platform for mouth breathers and DLC sheep.
>GTX 1060 is everything AMD said the RX 480 would be.
A pair of 1060s will have a MSRP of under $500 and be able to beat a 1080 then? That seems like an odd business plan but I don't doubt Nvidia's willingness to fuck over their own customers. Nevertheless I'll believe it when I see it.
>>55451578
Yea right. The 1060 in 3GB and 6GB? It's a failure before it shows up anywhere physically. The pricing also doesn't reflect the amount of gimping they did to the cards. Nobody with a couple brain cells to rub together is going to pay more for less with the 1060. That is to say besides the Nvidia people that are not any better than an Apple iphone fan at this point.
>>55451578
SLI is unstable and requires different motherboards, it's not the same as one card
>>55451614
The 1060 will be by far the best card at $249
>>55449483
does it do async?
>>55451578
>still clinging to muh crossfire
xfire is dead. no games support it anymore. not to mention the fire part is literal now lol.
>>55451624
Sure thing friendo. It's the new Cosby Card by Nvidia. Perhaps they might be gentle with your anus and you won't realize it. Is it really rape then?
>>55451671
It's true though, nothing will beat the 1060 at $249. It'll be the new kind of midrange.
>>55451679
>>It's true though, nothing will beat the 1060 at $349. It'll be the new kind of midrange.
>>55451785
1060 will be $249, feel free to screenshot this.
>>55451805
>>>
>buying a gpu with less than 4GB vram.
The ONLY reason to be a low tier gpu is so you can sli them later on when you can afford another one
>>55451805
1060 6gb will likely be $300+ USD. Remains to be seen if and when the card actually shows up. Memory even if it's 6GB likely means no cheapo VR. Memory bus (Nvidia fashion) will likely be another key area where it's limited.
>>55451887
Funny how the 3GB 1060 beats the 8GB 480
>>55451970
Guaranteed 1060 will be $249
>>55449943
>150w of power is a furnace
Nvidiots everyone
>>55451996
Why would they cannibalize the sales of their own hardware?
>>55451996
Guaranteed the 1060 will be $299
>>55451996
I bet just like the 1070 and 1080 were even close to their MSRP and still aren't near it yet. Try harder.
Nvidia brings everyone 2013 performance in 2016. Way to go Nvidia.
>>55452008
They aren't. They're just following the same pricing scheme they have with the rest of the 10 series.
Every single card so far has been +$50 from the previous gen.
The 960 was $199, therefore the 1060 will for sure be $249
>>55451980
even if it does good luck using it in 2 years. 3GB is already VERY low!
>>55450106
actuallly a good video
Feel bad for all the memecard owners. Expected though if you base everything on highest price being best.
>buying gpus less than 6 months after release
who the fuck does this?
>>55453204
People who want to be ahead of the curve and not run into obsolescence quite as quickly.
Or faggots.
Either one.
>>55453204
people who are unlucky enough to happen to be building a new computer right now
i'm seriously just considering building everything else in my tower except the GPU, and just limping by on integrated graphics until distributors start putting out better/cheaper cards
>>55452127
>3GB is already VERY low!
50% of steam users have 2gb of less, 30% of that is from 1GB cards alone. 3gb is more than adequate for the majority of users, especially the target market (1080p gaymen) for a budget card like the 1060 or 480.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
>>55451999
>defending a low end card pulling as much power as a gtx 1080
/g/ is such a joke
>>55451415
Scaling up ARM to match the high end performance of x86 completely destroys any energy efficiency advantage it holds. Intel proved this with the D series Xeon. ARMs design point is low power and simple instructions. Where else in the industry do we see a more complex, faster clock arch outcompete a more simple, wider, high throughput low clock design?
>>55452127
3GB is totally fine, in fact it is overkill, pic related.
The irony is that a 3GB 1060 beats an 8GB 480.
>>55451679
You people are expecting 980Ti performance when half a 1080 would be less than 980 performance
It's as ridiculous as the AMD jerkoffs spouting 1600+
>>55453830
>Where else in the industry do we see a more complex, faster clock arch outcompete a more simple, wider, high throughput low clock design?
kepler/maxwell/pascal vs gcn.
>>55453871
1060 will be 980 performance
1060 is basically what the 480 promised, except Nvidia can actually deliver unlike AMD
>>55453912
3GB wont be good two years from now, when the people who used 1GB before arent even thinking of upgrading. Very high settings in a lot of games already use more than 2GB, and the console crunch won't slow down from here.
>>55453977
3GB will be perfectly fine for 1080p for many years.
In fact at no point will the 8GB 480 ever overtake the 3GB 1060 in performance, that's just how slow the 480 is even with 8GB of RAM.
>>55453977
>3GB wont be good two years from now,
mid-range $200 cards won't be good in 2 years. the amount of RAM won't change that. nobody is maxing 2015/2016 games with 660tis and 760s and nobody will be maxing 2018's games with 480s and 1060s.
>>55454009
>In fact at no point will the 8GB 480 ever overtake the 3GB 1060 in performance, that's just how slow the 480 is even with 8GB of RAM.
2 years from now the 480 will be performing on par with 1070 if not 1080. Just look at how 780 fares against 280x.
>>55453869
>>55454013
keeping games at high or max settings for 4 years is good enough for me for under $300
>>55454062
>2 years from now the 480 will be performing on par with 1070 if not 1080. Just look at how 780 fares against 280x.
the 280x has a ~30% overclock over the original 7970 and still can't beat the supposedly crippled gtx780.
the myth of amd's '''longevity''' really needs to die. their rebrands are pretty much just factory OCed cards.
>>55454062
The 480 won't even beat the 1060, let alone the 1070. Hell it won't even beat a 970.
480 gets beat by everything.
>>55454134
>the myth of amd's '''longevity''' really needs to die
AMD has no longevity, it's pretty clear.
>>55454062
Wow the AMD clan are getting desperate
"in 2 years time muh 480 will be as good as the 1080"
What the actual fuck?
>>55454163
AMDtards stupidity knows no bounds
>>55454134
You do realise the 7970ghz existed to dethrone the 680 right? The mere fact that the 280x gets that close to a 780 when - upon the 780's release - it was faster than a 290 and about on par with a 290x is telling enough.
The 770 should be whats competing against the 280x yet that is clearly not the case. In fact the 770 is closer to a 270x.
Question guys Im planning to get a gtx1060
Hope many nvidia cards series did I skip from from my last expensive card of 9800gx2 before dying 2 months ago and getting a bandaid card of gt630
>>55454134
Wasn't the 280x supposed to compete with the 770?
>>55454208
If 390 is competing with 970
Shouldnt 390 be competing with a 770?
>>55454223
*290
>>55454191
>The mere fact that the 280x gets that close to a 780 when - upon the 780's release - it was faster than a 290 and about on par with a 290x is telling enough.
you're confusing the 780 with the 780ti. the 780 was definitively beaten by the 290 and 290x, the 780ti was faster than all of them but at a significant premium ($700).
you're also comparing overclocked rebrands to cards from a company that's notorious for clocking their reference cards really low. gk110 cards came clocked at ~850mhz core clock, but could boost to >1200mhz.
>>55454239
> company that's notorious for clocking their reference cards really low
Well given the subject is tahiti that equally came clocked stupidly low. Even the ghz/280x was clocked low as those cards easily went to 1150mhz+ on the good models. Its only been hawaii, fiji and maybe tonga (i'm not too familiar with tonga's overclocking) where AMD's cards have had lowish headroom.
Still, the anon that was trying to spin this relative increase in performance into a negative is trying to be misleading. Your gpu gaining performance is a good thing for you as a consumer (and unlike the incoming rebuttel, said gpu was competitive against the equivalent Nvidia card upon release, so its performance increase isn't to keep parity, but to best the competition).
>>55454284
>Your gpu gaining performance is a good thing for you as a consumer
it gained performance from a 30% increase in clock speed relative to reference nvidia cards. you can get similar OCs on those old kepler cards and still have superior performance to the old AMD rebrands. how exactly is that 'besting the competition'?
>>55454312
>how exactly is that 'besting the competition'?
The fact that its beating a 770 is the primary point of evidence. The 770 was released to be faster than the 7970ghz and it moreo r less was (given the 770 is just a 680 with the memory clocked 1ghz faster).
Its the same story for the 290x - AMD released a card, Nvidia releases one slightly faster and over time the Nvidia card becomes the slower one in benchmarks. Though I doubt this trend will hold for fury x.
We still have to wait until european prices. You seem to think europe is not a poor shithole-- you're wrong. Make the 1060 any more expensive than 300€ and people on a budget will still buy more 480s.
>>55453808
>480
>low end
\v\ is such a joke
If only I knew how to edit that photo to say amd headquarters in 2016
>>55454780
C'mon man it's not that hard. I can do it and I'm dumb as a rock.
>>55451578
The 1060 is literally half of 1080 with slightly more ROPs than you'd expect, so yea it'd be somewhere in the ballpark depending on clocks.
>>55454842
kek
>>55453065
I was always using AMD/ATi staff except CPUs. My HD4850 lasted me for such a long time and I could honeslty say it would still keep me going playing some basic vidya to this day. I only upgraded to a 580 at 2011 because someone was selling it for 120 euros for some unknown reason (It was also brand new and wasn't stolen).
Now my next upgrade will be a RX480 non-ref model or a RX480X or whatever comes. My wonderful i5 2500K I have absolutely no reason to upgrade. Running it with a Xigmatek Aegir at a stable 4.5Ghrz overclock.
It feels good to see all those psychos buying new tech every year for 10%-20% upgrade spending trucks and trucks of money. When I upgraded from my C2D 6400 and X1900XT, the upgrade was fucking monumental. Now I'll spend another 300 euros to buy a used laptop with a 820M and i7 which offers 8 times more performance than my current piece of shit.
Besides my little story, give me one good reason to NOT buy a non-reference RX480 that can prolly boost to 1400-1500mhrz and match a 980 Ti (Maybe being 5-10% slower) for like 250 euros. You think most consumers give two shits about 5 FPS?
>>55449483
>1060
>no GCN
>No Vulkan
>Poor dx12 support
Cards gonna be irrelevant within two years of its release, while 480 will be relevant for up to five. It's not a difficult choice to make.
>>55451221
you are a retard
>3GB Model
>2016
I'll just stick with my 290 for another year unless the urge hits to buy 2 480s. I'm not supporting the nVidia shill show.
If Zen isn't dope, I will switch to Intel though.
>>55454151
Be more accurate. The 480 does not lose to the 970 but it does not beat it either. They're matched, performance wise.
This is just the first year of the die shrink. I'm not updating yet.
Who else is waiting till next year?
The 480 was going to get a 3% performance gain but now it has to compensate for their power fiasco.
IT WAS GOING TO GET A PERFORMANCE INCREASE BUT HAD TO CANNIBALIZE IT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET THEIR SHIT TOGETHER
HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
>>55455790
but it is vr ready? it's just there are not enough hdmi ports in the reference 1080/1070. a simple $7 adapter fixes it.
>>55455871
A software fix will take care of the VR issue. Unlike the power fiasco that AMD fucked themselves into.
>>55455886
Remind me where is the async compute driver Nvidia promised?
Remind me where is the driver that fixes the 970?
Remind me why software can't fix every problem.
>>55455921
I would rather have software issues rather than hardware issues any day. Now go enjoy your new 3% performance increase...oh wait you can't!
>>55455950
You do realise the 480's issue is being fixed via software right? Its the first GCN card that has its power states changeable by software (as opposed to requiring a bios mod).
Plus the 970's issues are hardware related, not software - it can't be fixed.
>>55455871
The HDMI fix does not out put the same high refresh rates like DP.
>>55455979
Yes being fixed with software and will take a performance hit. So the added performance it WAS going to get from the new drivers has to compensate for their colossal fuck up. Last time I checked the PC Master Race wasn't about compromise and it looks like AMD can do nothing but take shortcuts.I don't buy expensive hard ware to get good enough patches.
>>55456030
>and will take a performance hit
Based upon what? The voices in your head?
Undervolting not providing a negative to performance has been a thing for years for gpus - few mess with it because its not as fun as overclocking.
>>55449971
Why do retards keep repeating monopoly if AMD dies? There's still the giant named ARM that Intel has to compete with and is actively losing to.
>>55456137
If they didn't need to draw all that power through the PCIe connector in the first place why did they do it? Did they spec the components v+ using dice for fun?
>>55456148
Because ARM is barely relevant outside tablets and smartphones. Sure, different companies keep trying to push it into server space, but so far none are succeeding very well.
>>55456175
> why did they do it?
Yields most likely - set a high voltage curve to ensure the maximum number of chips will run at the rated clocks.
>>55456183
Anything out of tablets and smartphones is barely relevant. Only Windows is dependant on x86, Appleshit will have an easy transition to ARM, Linux already has most of its software compilable to ARM.
If Apple releases an ARM Macbook, you can bet your ass other Manufacturers will follow suit to Chrome OS with Android compatibility coming real soon. Then the only reason to use a Wintel piece of shit is for video games, which Consoles can cover with ease, while being much cheaper and you don't get assfucked by PC Part manufacturers.
>>55456220
There's more to CPUs than consumer crap.
>>55456297
The current fastest supercomputer beats the previous Intel powered champion by a factor of 3 and it's a chinese designed RISC based. In a few years, Intel has nowhere to go but legacy workstations and gaming desktops.
>>55449829
>>55449874
>>55449943
Wait until you get outperformed by a console in a year and a half. Then you'll see how the tables are turned.
>>55456331
lol the ps4 can bearly beat my i3/950 combo wat makes u think u sure bout that? ;)
>GTX 980 was 550€
>1080 is 730€, which is +33%
>GTX 970 was 325€
>1070 is 500€ which is +50%
>GTX 960 was 200€
>1060 will be... ??
I'm betting for $250 minimum and 325€ in Europe.
>>55456609
i bought a 960 two months again. :)
>>55456609
>325€ in Europe.
That's what I'm also thinking and that's for the cheap models.
>itt: deluded amdfags
Holy shit AMDkeks on suicide watch. The 1060 is by far the best card currently in the market, from one of the best companies out there. Buy Nvidia, it just works.
>>55455886
what fiasco? more like a lot of nvidia fanbois crying about the good price the rx480 has. And amd delivers the promised price, promised performance
>>55455871
it has the power to run vr but you just cannot use vive because nvidia sucks.
> rx480 uses 10W over limit, huge nvidiot screaming over the whole internet
> meanwhile there are tons of oc-d cards out there that draw over limits, nobody complains
> 1080 / 1070 incapable to deliver vr in some devices, nobody cares
wtf? does nvidia pay people to shill?
Or:
> 2016
> people are so fucking dumb
>>55456806
The 1060 is not currently on the market.
>>55451970
$300+? You think more than $300 is a possibility like $310? What idiot wouldn't pay $70 more for a 1070, or $70 less for a 480 8gb?
I can't see Nvidia going below $280 or above $290. Below that they will cannibalise GTX1070 sales, above that RX480 will slaughter them in terms of FPS/dollar.
Guess we'll see if I'm right though. If it's below $300 I'll consider it.
>>55456831
1060 3gb $299 -> $249
1060 6gb $319 -> $269
1070 $449 -> $379
1080 $699 -> $599
The FE prices will probably go away when the 10xx line loses interest.
>>55456875
>1060 6gb $319 -> $269
source?
>>55456891
His butthole.
>>55456875
1060 6GB is $249 >>55454973
>>55456030
>Last time I checked the PC Master Race wasn't about compromise and it looks like AMD can do nothing but take shortcuts.I don't buy expensive hard ware to get good enough patches.
Very true, this is why I don't buy AMD.
>>55456331
The consoles will have ~6tflops of gpu and one of the most pathetic cpus of today, the 480 has around 5.5tflops. The console won't do shit, especially when the 970 has 4tflops and still rapes the shit out of the 480.
>>55449483
so 1060 is
>good at dx12?
>will actually beat 970 and 980 on both dx11 dx12?
>will have OoO executions
>will have 3 logic processors on it to give developers the ability to code themselfs for it?
>will actually have 8gb?
>will have 256 bit memory?
>will deliver its perfomance on all fronts as amd did?
>will be good on non gameworks games?
>will be less than 250 as a founders edition?
>will use crap graphs to overhype it?
1060 is what nvidia wants an overhyped card that probably will get stomped on non gameworks games and dx12..
>>55456831
you underestimate nvidia's mindshare...
sheeps will always buy from certain companies even if its +1000000 more those are the ones that actually bought FE cards
>>55453912
>480 promised
AMD never said this bullshit you retards. It was you dumb fucks believing rumors which led to your own disappointment.
>>55456030
you really dont know nothing about hardware eh....
there isnt a single gpu onthe market that when you decrease the voltage it wont increase the clocks...
all the cards increase the clocks to compensate amd didnt lost any perf instead they actually can get even more now and they did already
>>55449680
They wouldve released it at 200$ if amd didn't fuck up
>>55457694
>overhyped card that probably will get stomped
could you be more mad? nobody is hyped for this card
>>55458004
Nope we got hyped for the 1080 and i delivered
then we sat back and watch the 480 waddle out, shit itself and fall over.
>>55458004
well on thing for sure at least paid shills wont have the choice to keep shilling on 480 lol they will be busy hyping that cut down version of a cut down version of a card
>>55449483
>GTX 1060 is everything AMD said the RX 480 would be.
except availability.
>>55458116
>shills.
You live in some hilarious dreamworld.
>>55458164
nah i just know better than you since i used to that back in 2008
>>55458190
Of course you do.
in 2008 you were probably about 9 years old
>>55458214
obviously because we all know you can tell who is who from the interwebz..
sad that this site has been filled with idiots
>>55458244
Im right then
Also "i used to that back in 2008" isnt a sentence that makes any sense.
how about amd processors guys? will they die out as well?
>>55458275
you dont even know what im talking about lol
>>55458278
obviously because will release a x86 chip.. oh wait
>>55458301
no because its garbled, great explanation
>>55458321
and back to my original point
how do u know op its not even out yet.
>>55458376
because he is a paid shill
>>55449483
If only NVIDIA would stop fucking with PCI passthough for any card below $1000 I might buy one
>>55458041
>Nope we got hyped for the 1080 and i delivered
>delivered
Jesus Christ no it didn't. I was expecting a much higher jump given that it was a two node jump. Fat chips will deliver however. 1080 and RX480 are both pretty small.
>>55457518
>>Last time I checked the PC Master Race wasn't about compromise
WTF do you say to all the budget build people then? PC "master race" is just having a system where you can do what you want (ex mods)
>>55458463
>companies actually shill
>>55450665
I predict nvidia will get the cpus and intel will get the gpus. Or at least I hope that will happen.
>>55453065
> retards gonna retard
I am not really surprised.
I am actually amazed that such simple minds were able to register AND post on a forum.
It's quite something, anon.
>>55453525
AMD would dominate the entire Steam userbase based on pure sales if it wasn't for the fact that so many AMD cards were purchased for coin mining back when it was a thing and never saw a Steam account.
$199 for the 480
$249 for the 1060
The 1060 beats the 480 by 15% (we shall see when the actual reviews appear) for $50 more.
>New slightly more expensive card is faster than slightly older cheaper card.
What a fucking shocker!
You guys are retarded. Fuck the lot of you.
>>55455717
I am no AMD fan boy but FFS. In 2 years time there will be much faster cards and everyone will be moving to 4K.
>>55461645
Neck yourself, you miserable piece of shit.
>>55456891
Based on current market trends and availability. If Nvidia floods the market with 1060's then fine it will be priced correctly. If limited supply then scalpers will keep the price above MSRP.
>>55457489
1080 was launched as $599 but we all know how that went. Don't believe the hype.
>>55459144
it's a ~20-30% gain over last gens 600mm2 flagship chip packed into a 300mm2 die, that's a pretty good boost.
>>55462019
Yeah, but that's only because of the smaller node. If you look at IPC per core, it's about the same. So... good show from TSMC, not so much from Nvidia.
>>55449483
RX 480 still out of spec at PEG in compatible damage control mode (12V 5.7A vs 5.5A)
http://www.tomshardware.de/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-grafikkarte-treiber,testberichte-242146.html
>>55457604
Yes, the 1060 will outperform Scorpio in the core performance but the 1060 has only a little over half the bandwidth of Scorpio. Also, Nvidia is severely lagging behind in DX12.
>inb4 but the Fury X with 512gb/s bandwidth is outperformed by the 1070 with half the bandwith.
That is because games aren't optimized for that much bandwith now but will be once Scorpio comes along possibly.
>>55451519
Freesync is just AMDs quality standards for Adaptive Sync
>>55449680
>no dx12
>no sli
>no async
>no vram
>no compute
>"better in every way"
>>55462226
>That is because games aren't optimized for that much bandwith
you can't 'optimize for bandwidth'. most games just aren't moving things around in memory to actually need that much bandwidth, and when they are the many caches and buffers in your GPU are usually enough for that purpose.
>>55462263
But why then 5x the bandwith from the original Xbone to Scorpio if it isn't needed at all (all the games will work with the original Xbone at same fps).
>>55462303
because memory bandwidth is much more important at higher resolutions, which IIRC was the stated design goal for the newer consoles.
but for 1080p gaymen, most games are not bandwidth bottlenecked and higher clocked gddr5 doesn't really give a performance gain.
>>55462359
So in conclusion, will a custom cooled RX 480 (Sapphrie Nitro, PowerColor Devil) OCed outperform the Scorpio GPU?
>>55462533
Yes it will
>tfw i bought a freesync 1440p monitor and now wanna get a 1060
kill me
>>55463028
>1060
>1440p
>1080
>high refresh 1440p
Fat Vega chip with HBM2 nigga.
>>55449483
>mfw everyone drooling over these new GPU's
>mfw just bought a 390X for $250
>it comes with a free processor
>tfw sexy 512-bit memory bus
>>55449483
But isn't the 480 exactly what AMD said it would be?
Pretty sure other people hyped it up to, "980 GTX levels"
>THREE
>POINT
>FIVE
>>55463751
enjoy your new furnace
>>55463772
I posted pasta saying it will probably be at least 390 and 970 all the time, It's a combination of shitposters, genuine fanboys, and idiots. It delivered on everything and it's a great card for the price. I'm waiting on RX470 and RX460, those might be great for a small powerful PC that's also cheap.
>>55463772
I could have sworn they were themselves the ones who started the "just buy two 480s for $500 and xfire them! They'll outperform a 1080 for less money!!!" meme
>>55455748
Nvidiots like to trash AMD for "970 performance in 2016" when Nvidia is giving people a 2011's VRAM capacity.
>>55454204
9000 series <-you were here
200 series
300 series
400 series
500 series
600 series <-you are here
700 series
900 series
1000 series <-where you want to be
>>55463815
I'll just undervolt and only use the power when I actually need to. Not worried desu.
>>55456320
>10.5 million cores
Give anybody 2 billion dollars and tell them to build a computer with it and they'll outperform whatever is currently the king. It doesn't matter the arch or design, it's going to be really big and really fast. Other places dont have a totalitarian government willing to abuse tax dollars for little gain.
A comparable number of xeon d-1567 (875K = 10.5M cores) would perform a max theoretical 400 petaflops of DP compute and 0.8Exaflop SP compute. That's not even counting any possible parallel co processors.
>>55449483
>literally no facts
2 RX 480s are at the heels of at stock 1080, I don't like cf, but it's still a lot cheaper to buy two 480s
AMD's apu, and console gpu/cpu markets reign victorious still, so they won't go out of business.
I don't like that 192-bit bus at all. Could be wrong since Pascal has different architecture but this screams bottleneck.
>>55449483
I think i'm gonna buy that but why the fuck nvidia can't into dx12?!
>>55465287
The 10 series has advanced delta color memory compression meaning the bus isn't that much of an issue. AMD needs a bigger bus because their color compression is shit.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3071037/hardware/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-review-the-most-badass-graphics-card-ever-created.html
>>55465441
>DX12 meme
If you enjoy Microsoft first party shovelware then you should invest in an AMD card.
If you want to play 99.9% of the games currently out there @ 1080p 60fps then buy the 1060
>>55465705
Polaris no, the rest, yeah.
>>55465732
>no
Polaris color compression is still 2 gens behind
>>55451567
You have literally no idea what you're talking about
AMD is bankrupt and finished
>>55463908
>Nvidiots like to trash AMD for "970 performance in 2016" when Nvidia is giving people a 2011's VRAM capacity.
the only card that had 3gb of vram before 2012 was the 580 which was released in 2010. both nvidia and amd's other cards all had 2 and 1gb.
>>55449721
It will happen when the time is right. Book it.
>>55449777
You'll be bitching and moaning when you can't afford $600-$700 midrange card when NVidia is the only option available.
in b4 eRich.
>>55455775
People seem to forget that the 40>28nm shift brought similar performance uplifts/power reductions with first gen products. In two years we will see maxed out die sizes and larger mainstream parts.
>>55450106
>reference card
it's like it literally hasn't been released yet
>>55456403
The 300 dollar ps4 can barely beat my 300 dollar setup!!1!11
>>55467494
Oh so sorry I was a month off of a 4 1/2 year old card's release.
7970/7950 was January 9th, 2012. The 3GB 580 was not the release stock VRAM offering, 3GB was the stock offering for the 79xx. Sue me.
