I was literally waiting for RX 480 STRIX to reach my country and then this benchmark showed up.
Am I interpreting this wrong? The 480 loses it's edge on the 1060 with older cpus in Vulcan/DX12, larger CPU overhead maybe(?).
As a [email protected] owner that is not planning to get a new cpu this gives me no choice, in DX11 the 1060 is better or equal, in DX12/Vulcan is probably also better or equal with my old cpu.
Is there really a choice here or am I stuck with Nvidia again?
Other urls found in this thread:
cpubenchmark.net
cpubenchmark.net
anandtech.com
anandtech.com
computerbase.de
eurogamer.net
youtube.com
3dmark.com
twitter.com
>buying AMD Asus
Don't ever do that. Asus is only good with mobos.
welcome aboard :)
You can still wait for 490, but I wouldn't recommend that
I thought Nvidia was supposed to be using the CPU to augment the GPU. Why does it appear to be the other way around?
Don't worry, the 480 is going to beat it after a while thanks to improved drivers. You can expect a 20-30% increase by the end of its lifespan. On top of that, these tests were done with the reference model that performs worse than the other options.
AMD's Vulkan driver and Doom are both pretty heavily multithreaded, meaning that those 4 extra threads on your 920 compared to the 750 are going to get utilized, making this not really an issue and that's before your overclock is factored in.
It's always been the other way around. On dx11 AMD suffered massively from driver overhead, even on shit like haswell i5. Looks like vulkan helps, but not completely...
I'm a proud 9800gtx+ owner, this card went about and beyond it's duties, but I really wanted Nvidia to have competition this time.
The whole idea is getting the best possible with the smallest budget.
>30% increase by the end of its lifespan
Why are AMD fags so delusional? Is it buyers remorse?
So glad I bought an nvidia card instead
920 at stock clocks:
cpubenchmark.net
750 at stock clocks:
cpubenchmark.net
In short: It won't be a problem.
>Asus is only good with mobos
FUCK NO, NEVER DO THAT
Im like AMD but I am starting to dislike that argument, it feels like a cop out.
It does feel like grasping for straws at this point, amd dropped the ball on this one, maybe the 490 will do better at it's tier...
The 920 is a bit better than the 750 but how can we know it also won't be an overhead for the 480?
Being less worse than the i5 750 doesn't reassure me, what's to say that the 920, while being more utilized, still isn't enough to crack the needed ceiling for the 480?
>r9 390OC+FX9590
>AMD DX11 driver overhead myth
>but its AMD supported game
>gtav
>gameworks
kek
>myth
Explain dipshit.
>Am I interpreting this wrong? The 480 loses it's edge on the 1060 with older cpus in Vulcan/DX12
Assuming that the benchmark is accurate, you're looking at two 7 year old CPUs that weren't even high-end when they released.
This is a non-issue
>OpenGL is DX11
Everyone knows AMD has strict OpenGL support. Where as Nvidia created an unofficial path for OpenGL.
Its not that AMD sucks at OpenGL, but rather OpenGL sucks. Nvidia has implemented a workaround using nvapi to bypass default OpenGL and add in their own implementation
From my research into the subject it could be an issue - AMD cards do disproportionately worse than Nvidia cards on slow CPUs.
That said, the driver overhead difference gets negligible the closer you get to a current i7 and it depends on the game as well.
The i7-920 might do slightly worse with an RX480 but it will be much better in DX12 games.
920 doesn't even have decent turbo boost. It's not that fast compared to an i5 750. At stock clocks it is pretty close to the performance of an i5 750 in cinebench and that's a multithreaded benchmark.
What CPU was used in that benchmark?
Because AMD driver overhead is real, and posting random benchmarks using an i7 won't help in the slightest.
Many people buying the rx480 will still be on shit like i5 2500 or 4460 or anything in between.
I7 870 here. Still getting solid performance with my gtx680 4gb but looking to upgrade to 1440p
Is the 1070 good enough at 1440p
to last as long as my 680 did?
Overclocked my cpu to 3.8ghz and it's performing really well. Can go up to 4.2, but that's just housefire temps.
Go look at benchmarks at review websites, they literally spoon feed you how much frame rate you'll get at whatever res. I was not meaningfully bottlenecked in anything with an i5 750 at stock clocks, but I only have 60Hz monitor so I never needed more than 60 FPS.
With nvidia an old processor isn't that horrible of a handicap.
That's what I think too, that plus cpu is less of a bottleneck at higher resolutions anyways.
Thanks I guess, seems rather obvious that's what I should have done.
Cheers mate
...
Vabies?
What does that mean? It's not English, that's for sure
>no agruments
Why haven't you bought a Xeon X5650 yet, user-kun?
The older i7 in the test is running at a much lower frequncy, otherwise my Fury works just fine with my 8350 for 60hz gaming
I dont know user how about the fact that 920s regularly OC 60% and those scores dont show up in these shill threads.
And this
computerbase.de
OP is full of shit
Fun fact, a dual core i3 6100 can match, and outperform, a quad core i5 2500 and 8 core fx8350
eurogamer.net
youtube.com
only vulkan / dx12 titles on a 6600k
good vid.
but you can clearly see on the image you just posted the i3 isn't doing that well
good on you that you managed to pause the video at the exact time but still
>less frametime spikes than i5 3570k
>averaging same fps as the quad cores
Here you go then.
>artificially creating a cpu bottleneck causes a cpu bottleneck
Holy shit someone call CNN
According to this user here, using a new CPU won't result in any performance gains whatsoever :')
The writer needs a few physics lessons.
Asus used a cooler designed for the 780ti on a OC 290x ,there is no suprise it resulted in higher temps. The 290x has a tdp of 300w, 780ti 260w. The asus cooler also uses less copper than the sapphire one. The cooler just cant transport the heat fast enough to keep card cooler.
Kek, get fucked
>720p
>on a game that already gets more performance from higher ram clocks than vram clocks
Why are you being this much of a dishonest little shit?
Why does it matter if all the heatpipes aren't in contact with the gpu? They're still in contact with each other, aren't they?
Not him but FA4 is cpu intensive, and just like how gpu intensive games benefit from vram overclocking, cpu intensive games benefit from higher ram frequencies. Also 720p is ideal for cpu benchmarking because it has the highest load on the cpu, the higher the resolution you go, the less load is on the gpu.
Why are you so shit at even basic shitposting?
>Also 720p is ideal for cpu benchmarking because it has the highest load on the cpu
That was my whole point dumbass
He was intentionally creating a cpu bottleneck to claim amd can only perform well with i7 Ks
AMDKEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>posting proof that the driver overhead is a real issue while claiming it isn't
Kek, nice shitpost
Jesus Christ you're autistic.
>in contact with each other
Yes it does, but it looks like the writer thinks the other way.
I'm on a 2500k at 4.5ghz, will AMD driver overhead affect me?
>AMD Vulkan driver overhead is higher than nvidia's OpenGL overhead.
What will AMD fuck up next?
Yep.
Nothing. They'll just go bankrupt.
Enough to warrant a 1060 over a 480?
Probably not. Especially since dx12 and vulkan are supposedly going to eliminate the overhead issue.
You should be fine though, your 2500k is much faster than an i5 750.
>dx12 and vulkan are supposedly going to eliminate the overhead issue
apparently not for amd
Hence why I said supposedly.
Considering even a haswel i5 can suffer from overhead I honestly don't know man. How does your overclocked 2500k compare to a 4690k? Or 4570?
not me
With a 2300 I feel you.
2500k at 4.6/2133 and 1070 here.
My frame rates are comparable to newer CPUs, but my frame times and minimum frame rates are lower.
I intend to get a 6700k when Kaby comes out.
Have you considered a 2600k? How much ram?
Btw is it worth to upgrade on a 2500? I won't be able to overclock bc of the mainboard and could get such an i5 for 80€
2600k shows pretty much no improvement at the frequency and ram speed I'm running.
Considered a 3770k for a while, but decided that if I'm going to upgrade my CPU, I might as well wait and go with the latest generation.
I3 2120 here, Is it worth it to go to a 2600 or should I just upgrade to a new platform?
Specs.
Benchmark
3dmark.com
Don't spend that much money upgrading to an old chip.
In that case then yeah, 6700k will be a massive step up from a 2600k, enjoy your lower tdp, higher performance, and faster ram
It's only a little more than an i5 2500 and should be much better?
I don't know shitposting dollars, but 120 bucks seems like way too much for a 5 year old chip.
If you're going to go through the trouble, you might as well spend 100 bucks more and get a modern i5 instead.
>staying on the video card treadmill just like they want you to
Anyone paying over $100 (and even that's a lot) for a video card is an idiot. Modern games aren't worth paying that damn much to run. Go play the real Doom game and fuck this Halodoom pretender bullshit game, you'll have 200000x more fun.
Let me guess.
You own a console. Exclusively.
hmm, Vram temps could explain why 2 of my asus gpus broke in 2-2.5 year in warranty. I got fooled by fans and headpipes and i thought man temps would be much lower...
Last of my card still lives after 2.5 year and i ordered gtx 1060 since 7850 may die any day and is too weak to play any modern game.
with the way gcn works, it scales more with a stronger processor than a weaker one.
in doom - vulkan, async is enabled on amd cards and async is used HEAVILY in doom - vulkan. the older cpu's cannot feed the ace's and cu's fast enough. you still get a boost, but not as big. slap in a 6700k and, well in doom, it turns that $200 card into a $400 one. its able to keep up with the 480 and feed it plenty.
nvidia on the other hand doesn't have async enabled. id disabled it since it gives nvidia cards a regression and they're waiting for nvidia to release a driver to reenable async for nvidia cards (nvidia lacks hardware schedulers and their cards cannot do graphics + compute at the same time on the hardware level, so they depend on software scheduling and preemption). so the only benefit nvidia is getting is the general less driver overhead. which is why nvidia gets a bigger boost with older cpus and not newer, stronger cpus. the older ones cannot keep up with the driver overhead, so switching over to dx12 frees up a lot of resources for older cpu's while the 6700k is strong enough that it doesn't matter so nvidia see's less of a boost.
thats why you'll notice the stronger the processor becomes, the less of a boost the 1060 receives, and the higher the boost the 480 starts to receive.
gcn is built to be fed, and utilize async. the more you feed it, the more powerful it becomes. give it a ton of things to do and it shine. vulkan / dx12 will always give amd a boost but the stronger the cpu, the more boost you'll get.
if you're building a pc now a simple 6100 is more than enough for a 480. if you're on a first generation i7, it be best to upgrade. regardless if its amd or nvidia.
>I7 2600 = ~$150-$180, no need for new mobo or ram
>i5 6400 = ~$250
>8gb ddr4 2400mhz = $59
>basic mobo = $78 for an asrock h110m dgs
How much faster will the $400 upgrade be compared to the $160 upgrade?
Depends on the GPU.
If you have a 750ti, nothing.
If you have a 1070, then massive.
Shit, if you have a shitty GPU, you won't see any gaming performance from switching to the 2600 anyway.
>telling him to play the original doom
>console
Is the whole world mentally retarded now or is it just Sup Forums?
I have a 680, but I'll probably get a 1070 by the end of the year
I'm sorry.
He has a PC WORSE than a console. Wasn't paying super close attention.
i5 4670k here, should I be looking to rx480 (the non-reference if they ever show up) or a 1060?
Do not get a fucking 1070 with a goddamn Sandy Bridge CPU in 2016.
You're already bottlenecked. A 1070 will barely run better than a 680 with what you have.
I'm sorry, are you saying you can't run the original Doom on a good PC?
Yeah, you are mentally retarded. Holy hell. Seriously, go work on that before posting on Sup Forums again.
>amd doesn't work well with slower, older cpu
I'll get the 1060 then. Cheers.
Honestly, the 1060 is a safer bet.
It will be faster in more games than the 480. The 480 will crush it in Vulkan titles if you have a good CPU, but run worse on non-optimized stuff or DX11 and some DX12 games.
If you intend to keep it for more than a year then buy the RX 480. Longetivity + DX11 slowly being phased out.
I'm sorry that you're so poor that you have a sub-console tier GPU.
Maybe someday you can join the rest of us and play in something above 240p.
Do not EVER compared doom with halo ever again. Even the shitshow halo 5 is better than this turd of a game.
>still own an i5-750
fug
How common is this in games?
if you're running a 10 year old toaster then yeah but if you have anything made from intel since 2012 you'll fine.
But an i5 2500 trades blows with an i3 6100, doesn't it? So that'll put the i7 between the i3 and a skylake i5?
Or at haswel i5 performance?
Meh, the 1060 looks like a more attractive option anyway.
the 6100 shits all over the 2500k in single threaded performance. in multi-threaded they sorta do.
for driver overhead, the 6100 would do MUCH better thanks to its stronger single threaded performance.
Yeah, looks like its a tiny bit better than a 4670. Will that really hold me back that much with a 1070?
>cpu from 2009
>gpu from 2016
why bother? Surely a gpu from 2013 paired with a cpu from 2013 will perform better.
I thought nvidia suffered a lot less from driver overhead than amd?
historically yes, but that didn't mean they didn't endure any. they do. you'll always have driver overhead, even in low api's.
and anyways, the 2500k is a terrible option now. you'll better off sourcing a used haswell if your dirt poor. a 4770k or 4790k can last you plenty.
I'm running an old i5 750 at factory clocks. Been researching about getting a new GPU, as mine is old and busted (HD 68XX) and I was trying to figure out whether or not to get a 1060 or a RX 480. My mobo can take crossfire but not SLI (not that the 1060 can be SLI'd) but I just want to make sure I get the most bang for my buck. The stock 480 is obviously garbage so I'm waiting for aftermarket comparisons before buying anything
2 words.
>driver overhead
there wont be driver overhead on the 480 in dx12 or vulkan titles. it just won't be fast enough to fully take advantage of its ace's and cu's. he will still get a boost, but not as great.
dx11 well yes, driver overhead
Can you please find me a source for async being disabled on nvidia cards? I couldn't find one after a quick Google Search.