You'r move amd

You'r move amd

ThE 1060 IS TWICE AS EVERYTHING HOLY SHIY

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_chart
faculty.atu.edu/mfinan/2043/section31.pdf
statisticshowto.com/misleading-graphs/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Truncated_graph
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>graph starts at 0.8

>Believing anything you see from a website that was proven wrong on almost everything they posted about the RX 480
Top kek

i don't expect it to be insanely faster, so why make the bench make it seem like it?
also, let's not hope that nvidia continues this founders edition shit and places it at 300 dollars.

Effectively the graph starts at 1.0 as the 480 is used as the baseline but it'd look weird if they didn't provide some gradients below that.

where is DX12 performance ? ^)

Cripple cards compute, bit bus and ram then brag about efficiency. RX 480 24 MH/s GTX 1080 1 MH/s

Are you an idiot?

The graph is done totally improperly and in a fashion to make it look like the 1060 is twice or more powerful than the RX 480 because the green bars are twice as long or more than the red bars.

At a GLANCE, it seems like the 1060 is blowing the 480 away. When you look at the small numbers, nVidia is only claiming 15% increase in normal games.

If they can sell it for $250, this will be really really bad for AMD. Like company-ending bad.

>15% increase in normal games

15% increase for the same price is huge

What about the 1070?

>same price
You're talking about Nvidia

>The graph is done totally improperly
Okay. Let's say that they start the graph from zero. They'd have more than half of the graph providing no useful information. That would be both a waste of time (for both the graphic artist and the audience) and a waste of space.

You sir, are an idiot. You are defending a trivial objection that demonstrates a lack of understanding and sophistication.

It's nVidia, the price will be like 30% more for 15% more performance.

>300$ in the usa
>599€ in europe
t-thanks...

Calling it right now, it will be $250, the same price 480 is going for

>nVidia is only claiming 15% increase in normal games.
Oh, and I forgot to get to this as well. "Only?" 15% faster is a pretty big margin. It is a big enough margin to not suggest getting a 480 if you already have a 970/290(x)/390(x) as it wouldn't be much of an upgrade.

This is exactly what I expected, about 15% faster than a 480 while being vastly more efficient.

AMD will compete by being cheaper, while Nvidia offers the superior product.

Hopefully it isn't a pathetic overclocker like GP104

>They'd have more than half of the graph providing no useful information

Except that's wrong, the bars would give a far more realistic look of the performance difference, which is only about 15% but looks like a 100% right now

I see you've never written scientific reports or papers.

Your ass would get laughed at by teachers, professors, and the general scientific community.

Business leader and marketers would suck your cock though.

>pathetic overclocker like gp104
Still preferable to nonexistant overclocking on fiji and the 480

>Except that's wrong
Most of the graph, from 0 to 1.0 would be red and green bars. The last bit to 1.4 to 1.5, or less than ONE-THIRD OF THE GRAPH IF IT STARTED AT ZERO shows the important information.

You sir, prove beyond question to be an unthinking retard and determined to stay an unthinking retard even after the obvious is explained to you.

100% (which the graph implies) vs 15% (claimed by the numbers)

is a large discrepancy.

I'm not critiquing the card, I'm criticizing the sneaky Jews in nVidia's marketing department.

the 6gb will be 299$

>I see you've never written scientific reports or papers.
Thanks for the classic ad hominem. Now do you have an valid argument to present?

>inb4furtherIcannotintoscale

That's the launch price. I'll be amazed if the 1060 launch price is below $300

They might as well have just given the numbers, instead of making a shit Fox News style graph like that.

I see someone majors in Women's Studies.

Pricing has already leaked out
3gb: $250
6gb $300
Not the same

>100% (which the graph implies)
The graph doesn't imply 100% improvements unless you fail at understanding baseline comparisons.

Just stop will you, we get that you don't get it

>Okay. Let's say that they start the graph from zero. They'd have more than half of the graph providing no useful information. That would be both a waste of time (for both the graphic artist and the audience) and a waste of space.
>You sir, are an idiot. You are defending a trivial objection that demonstrates a lack of understanding and sophistication.

>Omitting useful and relevant information is useful
>Graphs need to look sophisticated, not accurate. How else is the consumer going to make a decision
>Real shills using marketing tricks in a free market is trivial

WEW LAD. WE FOUND HIM. ITS THE PROGENITOR NVIDIA FUCKBOI.

Do you own a 970, and a 480 in your rig for PhysX? Do you cry yourself to sleep knowing that you will never have an Nvidia made CPU in your PC instead of Intel or AMD?

fixed

>Now do you have an valid argument to present?

>Your ass would get laughed at by teachers, professors, and the general scientific community.

To simplify. I have an education. You, obviously do not.

See Neither company is going to do that. Remember the "51% utilization" of two 480s versus one 1080 graph?

AMD's card full RAM card is cheaper.
AMD wins.

Oi vey look at all that non useful information, cut that graph at 0.8 quickly

And absolutely nothing was gained and everything was made smaller. Why cannot idiots into scale?

>The graph doesn't imply 100% improvements unless you fail at understanding baseline comparisons.


It implies it unless you look at the numbers more closely.

Marketers know a lot of people will just look at the title and glance at the bars... not even looking at the number below.

Literally 400% faster

What was gained is that the bars now accurately give a sense of the performance difference between both cards at first glance. Even to the untrained eye.

I thought power efficiency doesn't matter shills?

Yes. Thanks.

Now when you GLANCE at the graph, it is more OBVIOUS, nVidia is claiming 15% improvement.

Stay salty, nigger.
I'll see your tears when non-reference PCBs come out.

Thank you for making it clear you do not have an argument to make as all you can do is present ad hominem fallacy after ad hominem fallacy. You even get called on it and you still think that is going make any difference.


>It implies it unless you look at the numbers more closely.
Let's get this straight. You believe people just look at the pretty bars and not what the x and y tables represent?

Oh please, it's always 'Wait for this to come out' with AMD fags, and then when that comes, it's wait for the next thing

You idiots never learn

>3gb: $250
lamo nividjews are in full shekel mode

The whole point of graphs is that you shouldn't have to look at the number to get an idea of what it says, dumb ass.

When they don't scale the graph properly, it is done to mislead you. The only way to get the proper information, is to IGNORE the bars and look at the number... in that case, they should have just made a TABLE...

but they're using their Jewish tricks to con you into believing it's twice as fast if you just glance at it.

>192 bit
>3/6gb RAM
>no dx12/vulkan support
>graph starts at 0.8
Also, the benchmarks they did must be in some dx11 nvidia optimized cherry picked result, AMD is the clear winner and will scale MUCH better into the future.

And those non-reference PCBs are a week or two away :O

but you made the top bar longer and the bottom two shorter.

Performance should be at 1.1, VR performance at 1.3, and Power Efficiency at 1.5 according to the Nvidia graph

Where is dx12. Oh yes still being developed.
By the time its used in enough games the 1080 will be obselete. (well half of you lot will have them by then)

It's hard not to expect the 1060 to be stronger than the 480. It will also be more bang for buck. Unless Nvidia goes full jew on pricing, they should have this in the bag.

You're hopeless, fuck off to /shota/ or some other non-technical board.

>Even to the untrained eye.
It doesn't take any training to understand the difference between 100% and 115%.

>The whole point of graphs is that you shouldn't have to look at the number to get an idea of what it says
You sir, just won the award for the dumbest thing said in Sup Forums for the day.

That clock scaling is fucking beautiful, unlike Pascal which needs a 300MHz overclock for 10% 3Dperformance

Wait I read wrong, my bad. Your graph is going by twos while Nvidia's is ones.

I get the feeling AMD made GCN's pipeline TOO short and it's limiting their options.

>A bar chart or bar graph is a chart that presents grouped data with rectangular bars with lengths proportional to the values that they represent.

>with rectangular bars with lengths proportional to the values that they represent.

>lengths proportional to the values that they represent

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_chart

>You sir, just won the award for the dumbest thing said in Sup Forums for the day.

see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_chart

>lengths proportional to the values that they represent

>Bar charts have a discrete range. Bar charts are usually scaled so that all the data can fit on the chart
Pro-tip: You might want to read ALL of your citation before you cite it.

See and enjoy your rekt.

>$250

Exactly like I said.

properly fixed

I don't think you know just how dumb you are.

What part of

>lengths proportional to the values that they represent

don't you understand?

Why don't you read this, first hit on my google search

faculty.atu.edu/mfinan/2043/section31.pdf

statisticshowto.com/misleading-graphs/

dumb ass

Thanks for the classic moving the goalposts.

But to humor you for a post:
Zero is clearly out of scale as 2/3rds of the graph is wasted space yet 0.8 is "misrepresentative" in your opinion. Then where do you suggest they rationally start the chart at? 0.5?

Here faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Truncated_graph

Let me make this clear. By your own citation scaling in bar graphs is a standard and accepted practice. The graph does not have to start at zero as was the initial complaint. So I ask the question again:
If 0.8 is unacceptable to you and zero is out of scale what would be an acceptable starting point on the bar scale?

You lost your argument, get over it.

>15% more Directx 11 performance than an RX 480 without proper texture compression and power management thanks to AMD's driver incompetence

So, in effect, you get 1 GB more VRAM for 50$ less from AMD and in a couple of weeks you'll also get equivalent Directx 11 performance while the RX 480 will utterly castrate the GTX 1060 in Directx 12.

Nvidia sure showed them. /sarcasm

Nice damage control

It's unacceptable because my citation says

>These graphs can create the impression of important change where there is relatively little change.

It would only be acceptable if the change is small.

15% change isn't small.

If nVidia was claiming, like .25% or 2% change, I could see that.

Your autism is showing if you can't grasp what is going on.

>You lost your argument
Your own citation proves my argument and you reject your own citation?

Thank you for proving you are the faggot with your closed-mind. You provide a citation that proves you wrong and think you have "won."

>It would only be acceptable if the change is small.
And I asked you where would the change be small enough in you opinion. Clearly you have not thought about where it would be clear to provide a change like the unthinking retard you are.

>15% change isn't small.
Even if they started the graph at zero the "15% change isn't small?"

I'm done extending you the benefit of the doubt that you can understand what I saying regardless of the formation of words and construction of sentences I present. That's almost as stupid as the previous line of "we shouldn't need to read what the graph actually represents when looking at a graph."

Ouch.

So wait, wasn't Nvidia supposed to be all about ignoring AMD and pretending they are not even worth their time and nobody has heard of them?

Why are they suddenly doing direct comparisons to 480? Did AMD hit a nerve there?

Now that would be gross misrepresentation.

>wasn't Nvidia supposed to be all about ignoring AMD and pretending they are not even worth their time and nobody has heard of them?
When has that ever been the case? The last few generations we've seen a pricing hierarchy based upon performance between the two companies.

>When has that ever been the case? The last few generations we've seen a pricing hierarchy based upon performance between the two companies.
I remember their statements around the release of 1080 pretending they are the only relevant GPU company.

They need to rev up the shilling because we all know that Nvidia's performance promises never turn out to be true.

By the time the GTX 1060 is available in stores (in six months or so) the RX 480 will have proper drivers and most games will run on Directx 12, making the RX 480 the 237% better buy.

>I remember their statements around the release of 1080 pretending they are the only relevant GPU company.
Source? I suspect your memory may be a bit faulty. Even when Nvidia released the Titan and the Titan X, uncontested fastest GPUs of their generation, there wasn't any implication of "AMD isn't even worth their time."

Ouch that must hurt

The problem is exactly that I have no source but remember something like that so I am a bit surprised with direct comparison to 15% marketshare guys.

...

>AMD performance is literally nothing
How can AMD even compete? How can they keep their business running? When will they finally sell the Radeon Group to Intel?

le hivemind

Given the history of pricing and gpu releases I'd say your memory is faulty. Perhaps you are remembering what some fanboi here posted in regards to Nvidia and misattributing it to Nvidia?

Pricing isn't really about marketing statements. While I am sure they are 100% aware of AMD I could see their marketing team pretending they are the only ones to guys who wouldn't even otherwise know of AMD.

>Pricing isn't really about marketing statements.
Am I understanding this correctly. It isn't what they actually do that matters as much as what you kinda remember them saying that matters?

I'm done taking you seriously if that is how you sincerely think.

They don't realise they're a living meme when they post this shit.

That's a fantastic graph according to this idiot

>1.1
>mutch
kek

>I remember their statements around the release of 1080 pretending they are the only relevant GPU company.

well thear not wrong lolol

Here AMD fanboys, a card that actualy performs like a 980 while being much more efficient than a 480

Basically Nvidia wins on all fronts, and AMD is the budget option once again

PAPERLAUNCH

considering that's 10% faster on stock clocks and the 480 only overclocks 1.5%, that is indeed a lot.

...

>3gb $250

jew lad

How shit do you think it's gonna be in DX12 Sup Forums?

>hitman or ASOTS
Every single time

You do realize nobody actualy plays those games?