| Page 469 of 772 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 1st Dec 2016 17:21 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have same board, but i have gpu installed on last pcie slot, works fine without any problems.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Dec 2016 17:23 Post subject: |
|
|
the last pcie slot might be x4, you might be gimping your GPU
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Dec 2016 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
or even only x1, rtfm before you put a pc together
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Dec 2016 18:16 Post subject: |
|
|
My card is running at x8 which is like 1-2fps loss with my old 780ti.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51400
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2016 22:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Good lord, that retarded default interface 
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2016 22:38 Post subject: |
|
|
It's not the default one.
Enthoo Evolv ATX TG // Asus Prime x370 // Ryzen 1700 // Gainward GTX 1080 // 16GB DDR4-3200
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51400
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2016 22:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Not in name, it's not 
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2016 07:42 Post subject: |
|
|
A recent article looked at the GTX 1060 and the RX 480 as they currently perform. It benchmarked the cards in multiple games, but what was more interesting was when it looked at how the cards performed on average back in July compared to now.
On average, in DX11, the 1060 was 12% faster at 1080p and 2% faster at 1440p.
Now, the 1060 is 2% faster in 1080p and the cards are dead equal at 1440p.
On average, in DX12, the 1060 was 3% slower at 1080p and 4% slower at 1440p.
Now, it's 6% slower with both.
The writer says that the 480 actually won in most games, but the 1060 won in the most popular games (such as Overwatch and Battlefield 1). He also mentions something else, which is that the 480 didn't end up selling for the price AMD released it as. With its originally announced price the 480 would be the obvious winner (now that performance is virtually tied), but both cards end up selling for the same price. This makes them pretty much equal.
In the past, we've seen a similar retrospective where AMD cards improved their performance over time when compared to Nvidia cards. If this comparison is to be believed, this is still ongoing.
The article, for people who want it. The link opens at the last page (final results), you can go back to previous ones if you're curious: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2016 08:18 Post subject: |
|
|
When the performance and prices are equal, then you go Nvidia for the better support.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14330
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2016 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | you AMD for better futureproofeness.  |
is that kinda like the 970, a 2014 gpu with gimped VRAM, beating the 480, a 2016 GPU, in dishonored 2, watch dogs 2, mafia 3, quantum break, shadow warrior 2 and so on? 
In some of those actually beating the whole AMD line up due to the CPU overhead.
You buy AMD when you are on a budget. You get a more powerful card, often more VRAM and then deal with the dx11 overhead, practically at the mercy of the developers optimization of their game engine.
I sincerely hope this changes with dx12 becoming a standard, but that's still the future, with the proof part still to come
I'd certainly like to start seeing better prices for high end gear, but while the dx11 overhead is here, and most demanding titles are demanding on the CPU as well as the GPU, nvidia is the better choice.
at least that's what my research shows, and i've pretty much scoured yt performance vids of regular gamers who show actual gameplay, not a 1 minute test run on 20 gpu's with a journalistic deadline and using the most expensive CPU paired with budget GPU's, which often doesn't fully expose the overhead that consumers with actual budget components all around will see. I mean, how many people buy a 6 core+HT cpu and pair it with a budget GPU?
It's actually hard even finding some performance vids from AMD users in many titles, because they are often so CPU bottlenecked, they don't even bother posting the vids. Then you search for the same game vid for nv cards, and ton pop up.
So yeah, it's fair to say I don't agree with that statement. 
With relation to the 700 series by NV? absolutely, but maxwell and pascal, no way. Not yet anyways, but knowing NV, you never know 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14330
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2016 23:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Good post actually. My idea comes from the evolution of 700 series in comparison to the 290(x).
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2016 23:54 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think 1060 6gb compares to 480... here 480 8gb is even more expensive than 6gb 1060.
So let's say they are the same price. With 1060 you get ~same performance as 480 but more overclock ability and considerably better temps with pascal.
Also gameworks and all that nvidia shit. It's mostly a gimmick but in some games like Arkham Knight, it's pretty fantastic.
For me it's usually amd, nvidia, amd, nvidia cycle every 3-4 years
Those who went with 970 are still golden. No need to upgrade unless 3,5gb is crippling texture settings.
3080 | ps5 pro
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 00:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| KillerCrocker wrote: | | Those who went with 970 are still golden. No need to upgrade unless 3,5gb is crippling texture settings. |
My 970 already feels outdated in several games, mainly those "AAA" ones.
For example Just Cause 3 and Homefront 2. In both i'm not able to get stable 60 fps, even with several reduced settings.
Sadly more and more bigger companies don't give a flying shit about optimization anymore and just expect people to upgrade (in most cases the GPU).
Enthoo Evolv ATX TG // Asus Prime x370 // Ryzen 1700 // Gainward GTX 1080 // 16GB DDR4-3200
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 00:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Mon, 4th Oct 2021 10:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51400
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 00:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Barnsen wrote: | | KillerCrocker wrote: | | Those who went with 970 are still golden. No need to upgrade unless 3,5gb is crippling texture settings. |
My 970 already feels outdated in several games, mainly those "AAA" ones.
For example Just Cause 3 and Homefront 2. In both i'm not able to get stable 60 fps, even with several reduced settings.
Sadly more and more bigger companies don't give a flying shit about optimization anymore and just expect people to upgrade (in most cases the GPU). |
You sure it's not due to your 1500yo 2500K instead?
Bye
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Przepraszam
VIP Member
Posts: 14491
Location: Poland. New York.
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 00:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Barnsen wrote: | | KillerCrocker wrote: | | Those who went with 970 are still golden. No need to upgrade unless 3,5gb is crippling texture settings. |
My 970 already feels outdated in several games, mainly those "AAA" ones.
For example Just Cause 3 and Homefront 2. In both i'm not able to get stable 60 fps, even with several reduced settings.
Sadly more and more bigger companies don't give a flying shit about optimization anymore and just expect people to upgrade (in most cases the GPU). |
and then you realize even the titan x pascal can't max out any of the aaa games... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 00:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Drowning_witch wrote: | | couleur wrote: | | you AMD for better futureproofeness. |
is that kinda like the 970, a 2014 gpu with gimped VRAM, beating the 480, a 2016 GPU, in dishonored 2, watch dogs 2, mafia 3, quantum break, shadow warrior 2 and so on?
In some of those actually beating the whole AMD line up due to the CPU overhead.
|
I looked it up and only Shadow Warrior 2 ran better on the 970.
Mafia 3: 40fps on the 480, 32 on the 970.
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=26022
Dishonored 2: 50 on the 480, 47 on the 970
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
Watch Dogs 2: equal. 45 on the 480, 44 on the 970.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
Quantum Break: Even the DX11 version doesn't make the 970 beat the 480. At best, they're equal.
Here, the 480 / 1060 / 970 are all neatly together:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Quantum-Break-Spiel-15745/Specials/Technik-Test-Steam-1209192/
Here, you can see that the 970 is at 33fps and the 470 (not 480) is 31fps:
http://gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Quantum_Break_/new/qb_1920_off.png
Or we can go back to the DX12 version of the game where the 480 spanked the 1060:
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/GTX-1060-UPDATE/GTX-1060-UPDATE-77.jpg
So that leaves only Shadow Warrior 2. The cards are not tested together, but in the first picture you can see the 970 being only slightly slower than the 1060, and in the second picture you can see the 480 having only 90% the FPS of the 1060 in SW2:
http://gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Shadow_Warrior_2_/sw2_2560.png
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1080p-2-840x641.jpg
Meaning it would run at approximately 44.5fps compared to 47 for 970.
So out of the games you listed, only 1 was true.
You also laughed at the 2014 970 equaling the 480. But that last game, Shadow Warrior 2, shows the 2013 290x with the exact same average fps as the 1060.
Youtube videos are generally not the best source of information.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51400
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 01:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Cool story bro.
Now read his whole post again, including the bits you conveniently omitted from quoting
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51400
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 01:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Don't be angry just because you bothered to compose that post when it was completely unnecessary taking into account what DW posted in the first place, it's not worth it mate
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 01:12 Post subject: |
|
|
How many changelogs of games that deal with AMD cards do we need to agree that Nvidia has better driver and developer support?
I never(?) see Nvidia specific problems fixed because they are tested more vigorously.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2016 01:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| tonizito wrote: | | Don't be angry just because you bothered to compose that post when it was completely unnecessary taking into account what DW posted in the first place, it's not worth it mate |
Someone disagreeing with you makes them angry from your point of view?
I did take it into account, I didn't see the point in arguing it. I said not to believe what Youtube videos tell you, as they're poor sources of information. This refers to the claims that a budget CPU will turn those results completely on their heads.
And if you really want to be nitpicky, here: an actual look at the impact of CPU on AMD and Nvidia cards. This is Doom in OpenGL (not Vulkan), comparing i7 5930K vs i3 4360 (not an actual 4360, rather a CPU with disabled cores and reduced clocks).
http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7Ni9835hggpGXxfU26oBHQ-650-80.png
The 1080 falls to 83% of its performance on a stronger CPU. The Fury X falls to 88% of its performance. The weaker cards are unaffected.
Here with the game at Medium settings:
http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZMiRTtXWCkss42W3DCu6iN-650-80.png
Here the 1080 falls to 94% of its pervious performance, the Fury X falls to 86%. This does a better job of showing the AMD limitation, yet the card is still performing well above 100fps.
The weaker cards are once again unaffected.
Reminder here that AMD performs poorly on OpenGL, even worse than they do on DX11. That's why they want to move on to DX12 and Vulkan. But despite this, the weaker CPUs do not somehow turn their cards into complete garbage.
They tested with 2 cores running at 3.7ghz. This is below what people buying a 480/1060 would even buy. Yes, I did read the full original post. Including the section saying that the CPU overhead is so large that it can make the 970 run better than the entire AMD lineup. If the 118$ cpu doesn't ruin the cards, I think nothing will. (Current 2-core 3.7ghz CPU: i3 6100)
If someone who buys the 480/1060 spends as much on their CPU as they did on the GPU, they will have a 4-core i5. Will this make the 970 faster than the Fury X? No, it won't.
I somehow thought I didn't need to make my original post longer to dispel something this silly. But hopefully now you are satisfied with the information presented.
I'm the only one who shared sources and actual tests. Yet people are accusing me of being inaccurate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 469 of 772 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
