)) this sentence would alone win you a best troll oscar with no additional effort
I doubt it. Nvidia Fanboys in this thread have much better candidates.
AMD Radeon RX 480 Review: Performance for the masses
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I doubt it. Nvidia Fanboys in this thread have much better candidates.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,602 +5,232
I think you're right - AMD didn't "bother" to release a high end card because no one would buy it... Because it will be priced the same as the 1080 and won't be as good...and consume far more power!
As to "how do I know the Nvidia 1060 will be released?" I think it's pretty obvious that it's coming... Whereas pas history has shown us that AMD simply can't compete with Nvidia in the high end market.
Hey, I'd love to be proven wrong - competition benefits the consumer - but if AMD could compete, they would.... They can't, so they aren't....
Because HBM2 cards are around corner, only stupid Nvidia fanboys buy GDDR5 based old stuff. That's why AMD released mid end product now.
What past history? As I already stated, only *****s bought old tech so called "high end" cards like GTX 980 Ti. My friend was going to buy one, I recommended buying R9 380 instead. He saved few hundred doing that by not buying 700$ card that loses half of it's value in three months. Not bad, eh? Also GTX 980 Ti is pretty far from high end now as AMD's mid end card offers around 75% performance of 980 Ti.
So why AMD should have released 28nm "high end card" when they knew that 14nm mid end card will be close to it's performance? AMD buyers are not as stupid as Nvidia buyers and AMD knows that.
Technically AMD is years ahead Nvidia, as DX12 is future and DX11 is past. Also complaining about AMD's drives issues is funny as Nvidia's async shaders supporting drivers are yet to be released, they should have been about two years ago
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
I know right!
If only Nvidia could get their hardware to run as hot and loud as AMD"s, suck as much power, while having just as crappy software.
Ohh wait.
AMD is always behind the curve, the drivers suck compared to Nvidia's, their power consumption sucks compared to Nvidias, thier overclock ability sucks compared to Nvidia's, and their pricing is always much cheaper, and its been like this for about 10 years.
Ahahahaha, AMD is king!
BS. Nvidia just cannot design advanced chip like AMD and so power consumption is smaller. Advanced chips consume more power and that's not surprising.
About software, AMD has been supporting async shaders for years now. That's enough for that. Remember that Nvidia lied about that support.
Azshadi
Posts: 55 +53
As I know that troll is still messing around an spewing lots of useless garbage about stuff he has no clue about (got him on ignore which I would advise for everyone to do because talking sense into him is just like digging through dry concrete with a wooden spoon).
http://videocardz.com/61753/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-specifications-leaked-faster-than-rx-480
This just takes care of the "how do I know the Nvidia 1060 will be released?" part.
TPU shows up with this article right here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/223802/nvidia-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1060-next-week
Ignoring the fact that it's a spec leak and the rest of the content that's in the article should be taken with a grain of salt.
And I bet his next comment will be "What about DX12".
So mate if you're going to be a half-decent troll at least look stuff up before you talk.
http://videocardz.com/61753/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-specifications-leaked-faster-than-rx-480
This just takes care of the "how do I know the Nvidia 1060 will be released?" part.
TPU shows up with this article right here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/223802/nvidia-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1060-next-week
Ignoring the fact that it's a spec leak and the rest of the content that's in the article should be taken with a grain of salt.
And I bet his next comment will be "What about DX12"
.So mate if you're going to be a half-decent troll at least look stuff up before you talk
.As I know that troll is still messing around an spewing lots of useless garbage about stuff he has no clue about (got him on ignore which I would advise for everyone to do because talking sense into him is just like digging through dry concrete with a wooden spoon).
http://videocardz.com/61753/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-specifications-leaked-faster-than-rx-480
This just takes care of the "how do I know the Nvidia 1060 will be released?" part.
TPU shows up with this article right here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/223802/nvidia-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1060-next-week
Ignoring the fact that it's a spec leak and the rest of the content that's in the article should be taken with a grain of salt.
And I bet his next comment will be "What about DX12"
So mate if you're going to be a half-decent troll at least look stuff up before you talk
How about putting some reliable sources next time?
Sources: BenLife.info, VideoCardz
Sounds VERY reliable sources to me "(y)". Well, Nvidia fanboys tend to believe every lie Nvidia tells so not surprising.
Even if that article holds true, it's paper launch with very limited availability:
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
That's funny, you speak of limited availability while standing behind AMD.
According to "reliable" sources, RX 480 availability is 25 times better than GTX 1080's:
http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-shipments-hit-us-stores/
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
I still have some remarks for you...
GCN is not inefficient for no reason.
Do with this info as you wish.
Or maybe it says something about you, if I confuse you with certain people... I have nothing against you personally, rather, it's the double standards regarding these brands that I despise.
I get that. But you also have to stop comparing it to just nVidia GPUs. The node jump offered AMD as much power efficiency as nVidia's. In other words, the jump in efficiency from the R9 390 to the RX 480 is about the same as the jump from the 980 Ti to the GTX 1070, if not slightly better. That is a good thing for AMD compared. Obviously it still warrants comparing it to nVidia, but, it has to be compared in the right context. Worse than nVidia in power/performance? Yes it is as of right now, if you take all the DX11 games. Has anyone even bothered to do a DX12 performance/watt? Of course they haven't.... The picture would be quite different then, and we all know it. And then you'll understand the difference between Pascal and GCN.
GCN is not inefficient for no reason.
And what were the gains on the RX 480...?
It's the reason I never buy reference cards. For the reference card itself, forgetting all past reviews, you were not unjust in this review, which is a good thing. But, when we look at the past, and negative points weigh 10 times as much when the brand is AMD, I have a problem with that.
Do with this info as you wish.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I would hope so seeing as a mainstream card will sell 100's more cards than a top tier.
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
It looks like that to the ignorant. But really, AMD is ahead in terms of technology right now... They are more power hungry for a reason, but I wouldn't expect you to understand. At least, not until someone does DX12 performance/watt calculations.
To put things into perspective using DX12 as a reference, we have the following;...
GCN 1.0 supports FL11_1
GCN 1.1 supports FL12_0
GCN 1.2 supports FL12_0
Fermi supports FL11_0
Kepler supports FL11_0
Maxwell supports FL11_0
Maxwell 2 supports FL12_1 (sort of)
Note that GCN 1.1 and GCN 1.2 support FL12_0. This means that since 2013, AMD has GPUs on the market supporting pretty much all DX12 features. On top of that, they support the majority of these features on the highest tiers, including the 'hidden' 11_2 feature level. They are only missing conservative rasterization and ROV. Compare that to nVidia. Maxwell which was released in 2014, were still only capable of FL11_0!!! In fact, AMD's GCN 1.0 from 2011 has a higher rank in feature level support than 2014's Maxwell... Let that sink in for a moment...
......................
With Maxwell 2, they included the two missing features of AMD, conservative rasterization and ROV, making them capable of advertising FL12_1, as DirectX12.1, to pretend that their cards are superior, despite their technology actually being inferior. They also have a higher tier in tiled resources compared to AMD's GCN. They had to include these features in their cards (and fast) for them to be remotely competitive to the features that GCN was offering.
However, despite all this;
- AMD's is still a higher tier in resource binding, even GCN 1.0 which is from 2011.
- Stencil reference value from pixel shader is still only supported by GCN cards, again starting from GCN 1.0.
- All GCN cards have the full heap available for UAV slots for all stages, Maxwell 2 cards are limited to 64. This likely isn't changed with Pascal.
- GCN 1.0 cards have two asynchronous compute engines with two queues per unit (total of 4), which allow concurrent calculations of graphics + compute. Maxwell 2 still can't do this since they're limited by their required context switch. The same is true for Pascal. They can do asynchronous computing only, but they can't do concurrent graphics + compute. GCN doesn't have this limit since no context switch is required. GCN 1.1 increased the compute units from two to eight compared to GCN 1.0, and the queues from 2 to 8 per unit also (total of 64). And this isn't even being used yet. Developers are starting to experiment with it. It was dropped down to 4 with the RX 480, which is still more than whichever nVidia card can handle.
- GCN 1.2 and newer are the only cards that have minimum float precision. Maxwell 2 doesn't have it at all, and neither does Pascal.
People complaining about GCN being outdated and the architecture needing to be redesigned have no idea what they're talking about. In fact, from this perspective, Fermi, Kepler and Maxwell look more like rebrands than the GCN cards. The GCN architecture is one of the best that has ever been designed in terms of longevity and being future proof. It supported so many features since 2011 that are only now going to get used with DX12 and Vulkan. Why would AMD overhaul something completely that is just about to show its strength?
That's without touching the new stuff specifically added with Polaris...
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Fixed that for you. That's the same thing people say about Windows with all it's bloat, technologically advanced. Tell me at what point does it become a negative? And since this is an AMD thread I will not bring up the negativity AMD fans have toward nVidia's advancements. I'm sure nVidia would be there, if there was demand for any DX12 supply. At this point there is no demand for DX12, so why would nVidia release cards now that support it. Especially when they can use DX12 as reasons to upgrade later. The negativity you hold for nVidia are more than likely marketing decisions not an indicator of their capabilities. And if you think about AMD's desperation, you would understand why they have so much out on the table.
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
No, their not.
Talking about DX12 perks and some other specific strengths AMD has does nothing to bolster any argument. Overall its not even close, Nvidia's tech is smoother, more efficient and more powerful.
DX12 is in its infancy, in a year both companies will have much better DX12 performance.
Maybe because they are losing customers, company credit and are fighting for their lives to stay afloat?
It's tough to sell a GPU that runs so hot from the factory it needs liquid and has little to no overclock headroom.
GeforcerFX
Posts: 1,091 +547
Can I ask how you interpret the Fury X as needing liquid cooling? Has the same TDP as the 390 and 390x, both of which were air cooled by all the AIB's, it's power demand was usually only 10-20 watts greater then the 390x (which could be the pump). I always saw it as more of a niche, they were gonna deliver a 980Ti performance card that could fit inside a smaller case with relative ease. The PCB size being small wasn't hard thanks to the HBM, so why not offer the unique capability?
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
Yeah, that $240 quote he gave was pretty low. I see them on sale for around $260 at the least and that's in limited quantities and with a mail-in-rebate. It's not like Nvidia has infinite stock of those cards too. A year from now the RX 480 will still sell first hand retail, the 970 will not.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
I'd actually say that AMD's high end card will be pretty good with power. HBM 1 had pretty low power usage so I expect HBM 2 to better that. I still expect it to consume more power than Nvidia's though.
Once again, it takes Nvidia at least two years to make DRIVER that support async shaders. So at that speed, it takes at least 10 years for Nvidia to develop good DirectX 12 hardware. So your logic has been proven false.
As AMD has good DX12 support, AMD's cards are much more future proof. That also means AMD cards do not suffer value huge drops like GTX 980 Ti
Nvidia's tech is "efficient" just because they have no hardware support for features. You just got facts that AMD is technologically much more advanced but still you deny. Makes me wonder why.
How do you know in a year Nvidia will have better DX12 performance? You don't know so you just guess. And guess wrong.
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
OMG! Async shaders! Everybody run!
Lol.
AMD cards performance jumped all over the place and it used to drop/spike like crazy.As AMD has good DX12 support, AMD's cards are much more future proof. That also means AMD cards do not suffer value huge drops like GTX 980 Ti
Min and average frames on AMD GPU's were terrible for years, CrossfireX was worse.
They did fix that right?
And future proof? Lol.
Haaaa Ha hahaha
Yes Nvidia GPU's have no features!
Hahahahahahaha
The only thing good about AMD tech is thats its cheap and easy to afford.
It's second rate, second best, and its priced accordingly.
What is the fastest, most efficient GPU on the market today? A GTX.
And your rebranding comment is funny, since AMD renamed the same GPU's for 3 generations. Are you kidding me?
Last edited:
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
The 980 Ti dropped in price because of the release of the 1080. That had nothing to do with AMD.That also means AMD cards do not suffer value huge drops like GTX 980 Ti
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Ohh the irony, telling someone their prediction is wrong.
Truth hurts it seems.
GTX 980 Ti was not future proof and so price drop was huge.
Very easy to say that prediction is wrong.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
You mean it is easy for you to predict that to be wrong. Which is where the irony is, you predicting a prediction to be wrong.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Sorry that's just wrong. Nvidia released a new product - the GTX 1080 - that was 25-35% faster than the old product - 980 Ti - at the same price point - $50 cheaper to be honest - less than a year later.
It had nothing to do with future proofing or missing features. You're going to need to try harder than that.
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
Every time Techspot review an AMD GPU the same pack of AMD fanboys come in and argue up and down the wall to protect their little precious AMD cards. It's soooo funny and pathetic, every time.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
USB 28 error on windows 10- Iddo12 replied
