Discussion in 'Hardware Discussion' started by SCHUMI_4EVER, Mar 27, 2012.
heh, here it is
In slightly less than 2 weeks, Nvidia is launching the 1060. Starts at 250$, Nvidia says it's on average 15% faster than the 480. It seems to be only a 6gb version, unless they announce a cheaper 3gb version later. But 250$ for a strong 6gb card is quite good.
The new drivers with the voltage fix has been released:
And they've been benchmarked to see if there's a difference in performance. Doesn't seem like it. This didn't test the voltage, only performance:
Damn, son. This HAS to be because of broken drivers;
Larger increase at lower resolutions as cpu bottlenecks reduced compared to high end. Nvidia has less of a cpu overhead. They also cannot do asynchronous compute but fake it.
Vega will destroy.
I have a 1080 but pls give Vega now. 4k no compromise
Supposedly, Async wasn't enabled on Pascal but is coming soon. That is a sick gain for GCN architecture.
It's a mixed bag for nvidia users from different tests, but overall high gains for GCN users on every test.
I don't have the game, ive only tested the Demo which only has OpenGL and already running at around 100+FPS at Nightmare settings TSSAA at 1440p for me
Reading through Tiago Sousa's twitter (lead renderer programmer at id software) gives me a lot of hope about the future of gaming.
The effects of this Vulkan update, the general positive reaction from the community, the continued updates to the game shows that putting in the effort when possible leads to a product that resonates with the consumers.
Ashes of the Singularity has more or less become the default go to for DX12 benchmarking (yuck) and Rise of the Tomb Raider becoming better with updates, nothing compares to the efforts put forward by the guys at id.
FFS a basic bitch 480 with all its problems is smoking Doom. One of the cheaper cards is handling this game amazingly and I can't wait to see how the 1060 handles Vulkan.
It's also a big slap in the face to AMD for having such poor implementation of DX11 software.
Is it really slap in the face of AMD? They have a bit of overhead which reduces FPS in CPU-heavy games, but the 970 and 390 released at the same price (330$) and perform similarly in DX11 games. An average of multiple benchmarks had the 390 at 1% faster than the 970.
I mostly see this as vindication for an AMD employee who, about 2 years before the release of Mantle I think, said publicly that Directx could be improved. He described what AMD would eventually do with Mantle, and the worst part is that three reputed engine developers talked on twitter and in interviews, saying he was right: John Carmack, Repi from DICE, and some dude from Crytek (I mean, they do know how engines work).
Despite this, that AMD dude was made fun of by tech websites and forums, saying "lolololol AMD doesn't know anything about software and they dare insult Directx?".
Turns out, they were right and now Vulkan and DX12 are built on the foundations of Mantle.
Poor dude. He was right but probably talked about it earlier than he should have.
but ever since the crimson drivers came out amd basically closed a very large gap in dx11 peformance
Doom needs some sort of bench tool or at least batch to make results consistent. AMD had consistent gains though and very large
3Dmark TimeSpy DX12 multi adapter and async compute. Several sites already benched. AMD once again showing their hidden muscles
So, it seems that AMD cards are gaining around 11% in performance with Async in that specific benchmark, Nvidia 10x0 cards are gaining around 6%, and their 9x0 cards aren't gaining anything at all:
The numbers don't lie.
This the proof of another "Cripple AMD" function in nVidia side?
well, there has been rumours regarding time spy not using async compute to an extent or not using true async.
And yes. GTX 1060 released, not really a 980 killer and trade blows with RX 480 but RX 480 generally faster in DX12 and Vulkan
The 1060 wins almost every Dx11 benchmark. I'm not sure how that's called trading blows. I guess if you put more weight on Dx12/Vulkan then it would seem like it.
Overclocking is also better on the 1060.
I like this one, comparing average performance at 1080 on many games:
API RX 480 GTX1060 R9 390X GTX 970 GTX 980 GTX 960
Overall (37 games) 91.5% 100% 97.8% 87.6% 101.1% 54.8%
DX11 (35 games) 88.8% 100% 94.3% 88.1% 101.2% 56.1%
DX12 (5 games) 102.2% 100% 111.5% 83.5% 100.4% 46.0%
OpenGL (Doom) 86.3% 100% 90.3% 87.3% 105.6% 50.2%
Vulkan (Doom) 121.1% 100% 128.9% 99.0% 110.7% 65.2%
DX12/11 Highest Mix (4 games) 95.9% 100% 105.3% 87.7% 102.5% 54.4%
Since I don't know how to properly format it in the forum, the important numbers:
480 vs 1060
DX11 (35 games) 88% vs 100%
DX12 (5 games) 102% vs 100%
Doom OpenGL 86% vs 100%
Doom Vulkan 121% vs 100% (goddamn)
Average of every games (37 games) 91.5% vs 100%
So, the 480 is the better purchase for the new APIs, but the 1060 is the better purchase overall today.
Meanhwile at Futuremark
As long as I can continue to hit 1080p60 in new games with my 970 at medium+ settings I won't be upgrading any time soon so yeah. I already got a new monitor 2 years ago so that is not getting replaced for another 5+ years at this point in time.
Separate names with a comma.