I really wanted to go AMD this time

File: ASUS AMD GPUS ARE SHIT.png (611KB, 726x1246px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 726x1246px

>>55689049
>buying AMD Asus
Don't ever do that. Asus is only good with mobos.

File: 8213329135_597620ea23_b.jpg (400KB, 681x1024px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 681x1024px

>>55689049
welcome aboard :)

You can still wait for 490, but I wouldn't recommend that

>>55689049
I thought Nvidia was supposed to be using the CPU to augment the GPU. Why does it appear to be the other way around?

>>55689049
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.

>>55689049
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.

File: gta5p_1920vh.png (15KB, 582x368px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 582x368px

>>55689132
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...

>>55689102
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.

>>55689116
The whole idea is getting the best possible with the smallest budget.

>>55689145
>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

>>55689049
920 at stock clocks:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-920+%40+2.67GHz&id=834

750 at stock clocks:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-750+%40+2.67GHz&id=772

In short: It won't be a problem.

>>55689070

>Asus is only good with mobos

FUCK NO, NEVER DO THAT

>>55689145
Im like AMD but I am starting to dislike that argument, it feels like a cop out.

>>55689213
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...

>>55689197
The 920 is a bit better than the 750 but how can we know it also won't be an overhead for the 480?

>>55689151
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?

File: arson.jpg (90KB, 653x369px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 653x369px

>>55689159
>r9 390OC+FX9590

File: untitled-2.png (44KB, 682x844px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 682x844px

>>55689159
>AMD DX11 driver overhead myth


>but its AMD supported game

>gtav
>gameworks
kek

>>55689545
>myth
Explain >>55689049 dipshit.

>>55689049
>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

>>55689577
>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

>>55689049
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.

>>55689151
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.

File: c3w_1920vh.png (16KB, 582x368px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 582x368px

>>55689545
>>55689545
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.

>>55689730
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.

>>55689977
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.

>>55690075
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

>>55689049
>>>/v/abies

>>55690149
Vabies?

What does that mean? It's not English, that's for sure

File: patchy4.png (275KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 600x600px

>>55690149
>no agruments

>>55689049
Why haven't you bought a Xeon X5650 yet, anon-kun?

>>55689049
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

>>55689303
I dont know anon how about the fact that 920s regularly OC 60% and those scores dont show up in these shill threads.

Posting from the other thread OP made.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/15
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16

And this
>>55691851
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/7/#diagramm-anno-2205-1920-1080-intel-core-i5-2500k
OP is full of shit

File: 800x1000px-LL-d6042000_W3.jpg (103KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x450px

>>55693923
>>55693935

Fun fact, a dual core i3 6100 can match, and outperform, a quad core i5 2500 and 8 core fx8350


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoanTrMenI

only vulkan / dx12 titles on a 6600k
good vid.

>>55693949
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

File: 800x1000px-LL-2d47b7df_CoD.jpg (74KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x450px

>>55693968
>less frametime spikes than i5 3570k
>averaging same fps as the quad cores
Here you go then.

>>55693990
>artificially creating a cpu bottleneck causes a cpu bottleneck
Holy shit someone call CNN

File: oknNaYX.jpg (82KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 523x440px

>>55693923
According to this anon here, using a new CPU won't result in any performance gains whatsoever :')

>>55689070
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.

File: 76343.png (24KB, 650x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 650x300px

>>55693923
Kek, get fucked

>>55694056
>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?

>>55694079
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?

>>55694090
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?

>>55694113
>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

>>55689049
AMDKEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

File: Screenshot_2016-07-22-14-14-38_com.android.chrome_1469162195845.jpg (82KB, 704x601px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 704x601px

>>55694128
>posting proof that the driver overhead is a real issue while claiming it isn't
Kek, nice shitpost

>>55694128
Jesus Christ you're autistic.

>>55694113
>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?

>>55694386
Yep.

>>55694392
Nothing. They'll just go bankrupt.

>>55694394
Enough to warrant a 1060 over a 480?

File: amd_s.jpg (52KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 568x612px

>>55694406
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.

>>55694422
>dx12 and vulkan are supposedly going to eliminate the overhead issue

apparently not for amd

>>55694434
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?

>>55694458
not me

>>55689049
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.

>>55694493
Have you considered a 2600k? How much ram?

>>55694492
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€

>>55694508
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.

File: Screenshot_2016-07-22-15-15-51_com.ebay.mobile.png (251KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 720x1280px

I3 2120 here, Is it worth it to go to a 2600 or should I just upgrade to a new platform?

>>55694525
Specs.

Benchmark
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9373748

>>55694534
Don't spend that much money upgrading to an old chip.

>>55694525
In that case then yeah, 6700k will be a massive step up from a 2600k, enjoy your lower tdp, higher performance, and faster ram

File: Screenshot_2016-07-22-15-20-49_com.ebay.mobile.png (262KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 720x1280px

>>55694557
It's only a little more than an i5 2500 and should be much better?

>>55694572
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.

>>55694628
Let me guess.

You own a console. Exclusively.

>>55689070
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.

>>55689049
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.

>>55694592
>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?

>>55694713
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.

>>55694634
>telling him to play the original doom
>console
Is the whole world mentally retarded now or is it just 4chan?

>>55694724
I have a 680, but I'll probably get a 1070 by the end of the year

>>55694728
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?

>>55694732
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.

>>55694745
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 4chan again.

>>55694696
>amd doesn't work well with slower, older cpu

I'll get the 1060 then. Cheers.

>>55694753
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.

>>55689049
If you intend to keep it for more than a year then buy the RX 480. Longetivity + DX11 slowly being phased out.

>>55694761
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.

>>55694628
Do not EVER compared doom with halo ever again. Even the shitshow halo 5 is better than this turd of a game.

>>55689049
>still own an i5-750
fug

How common is this in games?

>>55694769
if you're running a 10 year old toaster then yeah but if you have anything made from intel since 2012 you'll fine.

>>55694758
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?

>>55694799
Meh, the 1060 looks like a more attractive option anyway.

>>55694801
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.

File: b4.png (68KB, 582x688px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 582x688px

>>55694801
Yeah, looks like its a tiny bit better than a 4670. Will that really hold me back that much with a 1070?

>>55689049
>cpu from 2009
>gpu from 2016
why bother? Surely a gpu from 2013 paired with a cpu from 2013 will perform better.

>>55694824
I thought nvidia suffered a lot less from driver overhead than amd?

>>55694836
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

>>55694904
2 words.
>driver overhead

>>55694912
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

>>55694927
Can you please find me a source for async being disabled on nvidia cards? I couldn't find one after a quick Google Search.

>>55689203
I have an asus z170-e and it works fine no clue what you're on about

>>55694758
Christ alllmighy you people have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

File: s1Em8AI.jpg (81KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 523x440px

>>55694861
Fuck off, I did some personal research. You're full of shit, the 2600 is still a very decent cpu, won't hold back a 1070 much, and is a much better value upgrade.

You're full of shit.

>>55695016
These driver overhead threads being spammed is a new attack by Nvidia shills. Ignore the threads, they're everywhere

These guys post the same four images and make claims they have no way to quantify or back up.

>>55695030
>damage control amdrone stops reading at driver overhead

>>55694534
Just save your money for Zen at the end of the year

File: Screenshot_2016-05-12-18-03-32.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>dem frame times

And people still think the overhead is non existent.

File: 372505.jpg (23KB, 330x309px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 330x309px

>>55695016
>much better value upgrade
>value in buying a fucking ancient chip on a dead socket

Tons of value there mate.

If you have a board/memory already, sure go for it. You're squeezing more value out of your existing hardware.

But realize you're buying somebody's second hand goods that has been Overclocked for 5 years.

For anyone else it's not worth it. Better to buy a good z170 board, an i3 6100, and 1x8gb(4 slot) or 1x16gb(2-slot) DDR4. Then upgrade to Kaby Lake and throw in another 16gb next year.

>>55695030
What does my post have to do with driver overhead?

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-high-overhead-drivers-on-dx11.209726/

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=398858

http://m.pclab.pl/art60000-21.html

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

Take your fucking proof and fuck off you fucking retard.

Fuck you /g/, each and every one of you

>>55695073
>i7 2600
>overclocked
>dead socket

Eat a sack of shit you cunt.

I have a i7 950 and I've been googling a lot recently trying to find benchmarks with older cpus. My conclusion is that it doesn't matter. There was a guy on YouTube running a 1080GTX with a i5 750 (albeit overclocked) with 5-15% bottleneck. If you Google i7 920 and R9 390 performance you get benchmarks that show there is minimal almost non-existent bottleneck and that card has a bigger driver overhead.
Anyone with a 900 i7 series cpu or equivalent will be fine with either card. In the end it all depends on what you want, both cards won't dip below 60fps, with a 1080p 60hz monitor anything over that is redundant.

>>55695132
Thank you. You'll find videos of people running games quite decently on shit like an overclocked q6600 still, so I'm not surprised

>>55694836
also if you want some background....

the reason why nvidia had stronger dx11 drivers was because they were multi-threaded which helped lower driver overhead since it could be spread out across multiple threads.

but another reason was because of their use of a software scheduler.

one of the reasons why fermi ran so hot was because it utilized a hardware scheduler, just like all amd gcn based cards do. hardware scheduling draws a lot of power and more power means more heat. why did they use a hardware scheduler? a hardware scheduler will always be faster than a software one. less overhead, and the gpu can do it much faster than software.

the problem with a hardware scheduler? once built, you cannot modify it. you have to build a whole new card if you update the hardware scheduler.

but nvidia wanting to move on from their house fire fermi's decided to remove hardware based scheduling with keplar and beyond. this is the main reason why keplar used far less power and ran cooler than fermi. nvidia realized with dx11, you didn't need a complex hardware scheduler. most of the scheduler went under utilized and was overkill. with dx11 multi-threading capabilities, and making their drivers multi-threaded, it help alleviate a lot of the driver overhead one would endure with utilizing a software scheduler. in turn this gave them the opportunity to now have more control over scheduling. able to fine tune the drivers for individual games. well, they had to. this caused a lot of work on nvidia's driver team, but it helped them max out every ounce of juice they can get from their cards and lower power and reduce heat.

maxwell continued this by removing more hardware based scheduling.

the problem? dx12 and vulkan need a hardware scheduler to be taken full advantage of. you need it for the complex computations of async and to manage compute + graphic operations at the same time. they're complex, and you need the performance.

>>55694970
https://community.bethesda.net/thread/54585?tstart=0
>Does DOOM support asynchronous compute when running on the Vulkan API?

>Asynchronous compute is a feature that provides additional performance gains on top of the baseline id Tech 6 Vulkan feature set.

>Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.

also futuremark stated async is disabled by nvidia for maxwell and below in time spy.

>>55695182
and this is why nvidia cards cannot do async properly. not only do they not have the hardware needed to run compute + graphics at the same exact time, but they lack the complex, high performance hardware scheduler to run them. their hardware can only do compute or graphics one at a time. with pascal nvidia did some tweaks to help speed up the switching between compute and graphics, but it still isn't optimal. its a bandaid. pascal still comes to a crawl if it recieves to many compute + graphic operations. it cannot swith fast enough.

whats funny is nvidia knew what they were doing. they just didn't think compute was ever going to be useful in graphics and games.

here's a nice article from keplar's launch done by anandtech:
>http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/3

>GF114, owing to its heritage as a compute GPU, had a rather complex scheduler. Fermi GPUs not only did basic scheduling in hardware such as register scoreboarding (keeping track of warps waiting on memory accesses and other long latency operations) and choosing the next warp from the pool to execute, but Fermi was also responsible for scheduling instructions within the warps themselves. While hardware scheduling of this nature is not difficult, it is relatively expensive on both a power and area efficiency basis as it requires implementing a complex hardware block to do dependency checking and prevent other types of data hazards. And since GK104 was to have 32 of these complex hardware schedulers, the scheduling system was reevaluated based on area and power efficiency, and eventually stripped down.

>>55695201
>The end result is an interesting one, if only because by conventional standards it’s going in reverse. With GK104 NVIDIA is going back to static scheduling. Traditionally, processors have started with static scheduling and then moved to hardware scheduling as both software and hardware complexity has increased. Hardware instruction scheduling allows the processor to schedule instructions in the most efficient manner in real time as conditions permit, as opposed to strictly following the order of the code itself regardless of the code’s efficiency. This in turn improves the performance of the processor.
>Ultimately it remains to be seen just what the impact of this move will be. Hardware scheduling makes all the sense in the world for complex compute applications, which is a big reason why Fermi had hardware scheduling in the first place, and for that matter why AMD moved to hardware scheduling with GCN. At the same time however when it comes to graphics workloads even complex shader programs are simple relative to complex compute applications, so it’s not at all clear that this will have a significant impact on graphics performance, and indeed if it did have a significant impact on graphics performance we can’t imagine NVIDIA would go this way.
>What is clear at this time though is that NVIDIA is pitching GTX 680 specifically for consumer graphics while downplaying compute, which says a lot right there. Given their call for efficiency and how some of Fermi’s compute capabilities were already stripped for GF114, this does read like an attempt to further strip compute capabilities from their consumer GPUs in order to boost efficiency. Amusingly, whereas AMD seems to have moved closer to Fermi with GCN by adding compute performance, NVIDIA seems to have moved closer to Cayman with Kepler by taking it away.

>>55695214
important part here:
>NVIDIA is pitching GTX 680 specifically for consumer graphics while downplaying compute
>downplaying compute

it's also why in nvidia's "dx12, does and don'ts" they state not to run to many compute + graphic operations at the same time.
>https://developer.nvidia.com/dx12-dos-and-donts

their hardware cannot handle it. while amd's gcn not only can, but shines brighter when its under heavy async load.

here's some more interesting reads on nvidia's async debacle:
>http://www.overclock.net/t/1606224/various-futuremarks-time-spy-directx-12-benchmark-compromised-less-compute-parallelism-than-doom-aots-also

yes its mostly focused on the time spy issue regarding their usage of async, but it does dwell into nvidia's architecture limitations.

also the use of the hardware scheduler is why amd gpu's used more power and ran hotter than nvidia's since the keplar and gcn 1 days. if nvidia slapped a hardware scheduler on pascal, their gpu's would not just use as much, but most likely use more than amd's since nvidia is on 16nm instead of 14nm like amd.

>>55689145
if amd ever completely fixed their overhead issue, sure, 20-30% more, but they won't. that said, an aggregate 1060 is about 5-6% (when you take outliers out either favoring amd by a fuckload or nvidia) better than a 480, that is a very beatable gap.

the gap also gets closed if you take into account dx12/vulcan and as op showed have a decent cpu... i wish they used something besides the worst i5 any my current cpu though so we could know where that switch between amd being held back and amd pulling ahead happens...

>>55689591
my current cpu, 955 black, reason i still have it, litterally nothing requires more bar a few poorly optimized games, and i want something that is overkill if i'm going to upgrade, looking at either dual xeons for rendering, or possibly a zen if that thing is decent.

would rather have more money for other system components so i'm hoping zen isn't shit.

>>55693314
>Xeon X5650
because right now 2 of those are slower than a single Intel Core i7-4790K, and if i remember right, dont have the cheaper motherboards and require a proprietary psu for the motherboards that do support them.

>>55694790
every game to some extent unless they are heavily gpu bottlenecked.

some outliers that run better on amd than nvidia here and there aside, assume every game takes a hit.

>>55689102
So what's up with the random skanks at nvidia convention?
Are suppose to fuck them or something? like, is there a shoulder boob massage if a buy a piece?

What's the end game here?

>>55694829
because we have not had a reason to upgrade cpus sense quad cores at 3ghz were a thing, there is no normal shit you do on a computer that a quad core cant handle, even a dual core can easily handle most people needs.

gaming is the most common cpu demanding thing, and there are only 5 out that wont run on a 2 thread cpu, and a handful that can't hit at least 30 on a pre sandy bridge quad core cpu.

>>55694679
>7850 may die any day and is too weak to play any modern game.
0/10

So If I aim to buy a i5-6600k as my CPU, which card should I buy? For every opinion on this thread I believe a 480 is equally good as a 1060 (comparing both price and power) but with a future proof on Vulkan / D12 better support.

I can only buy cards on microcenter, but in my zone there is only reference cards. I can only buy a card till the beginning of the next month, should I buy a reference 480 or just go for a reference 1060?

>>55695430
6600k+gtx 1070
6100+ rx 480/gtx1060

Doom Vulkan using new vulkan drivers async compute along with shader intrinsic extension for amd. Meanwhile nvidia is using barebones vulkan and old vulkan driver and still awaiting optimizations. This is not amd biased benchmark.

>>55695430
If you really can't wait until beginning of August for the nitro+ then go for a good aftermarket 1060. If it's between reference cards I'd go for the 480.

>>55695448
what do you mean by this?

>>55695400
Nvidia = 3D
AMD = 2D

>>55695558
So Nvidia is for real men, AMD is for people who masturbate to cp in their moms basement?

Sounds about right.

>>55689049
Why bother arguing for OpenGL when Vulkan exists and has better frame rate for everything?

>>55695625
>said the man who visiting website made for people who masturbate to cp in their moms basement

File: a4f699ef37144d4d12dcc8694a46d64cee3a55e4f67567aff88f3e3f01306d29_1_1469173626473.jpg (68KB, 492x653px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 492x653px

>>55695725
> /g/ is for the discussion of technology and related topics.
> /g/ is not for the discussion of cartoon child pornography and children's shows.

>AMD cards are generally for people who care about perf/price and low prices in general
>the cards require an expensive CPU to perform at their proper levels
Isn't this a big problem?

>>55696014
Yes.

>>55696014
No.

>>55689145
Fuck off with your lies shill. Not even the 79XX cards that are the oldest GCN arch didn't get that much of an improvement over the time.

>>55689102
I want to fuck that fairy

File: bf3_1920_1200.gif (28KB, 400x377px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x377px

>>55696140
Fun fact, HD7950 and 7970 aged nicely IN BENCHMARKS because reviewers started using stronger CPUs for benchmarks.

Since we first saw GCN, we've gone from reviwers using an i7 2600k which most of them don't even overclock, to an i7 5960x or 6700k. Personal users who have not upgraded their CPUs at all won't see the same gains as reviwers.

It's also part of why they see so much performance gain in dx12, as all that untapped potential is finally being utilised

>>55696230
So driver overhead for dx11 wasn't reduced with crimson?

i5 2500k, never overclocked but pan to.

480 or 1060?

>>55697515
1060.

>>55697515
480

>>55697515
yes

>>55695059
OP is looking for replacement for his 7 years old i7, not for Pentium 4.

File: CapturePC.jpg (97KB, 1186x343px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1186x343px

Building a PC around a 480. I have the following thoughts:

>Maybe a lower end/older gen CPU
>A different mobo since im unable to find a good local price

Suggestions pls

File: dutdut.png (63KB, 220x150px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 220x150px

>>55697817
you still havent added 12% vat lad

File: stone neko.jpg (70KB, 225x606px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 225x606px

>>55697817
>ASrock
>GSkill
>Seagate
>Rx480
>i5 6500

AMD Card is CPU dependent
All the benchmark that placed Rx480 as good as 970 is with a i7 6700k

>>55696014
>AMD cards are generally for people who care about perf/price and low prices in general

>costs more than nvidia for less performance

Now THAT is a problem.

>>55689070
The DirectCU II is bad, but the DirectCU III is pretty good.
I get 71 degrees on full load on my 390x, though I set a custom fan curve.
(The problem with the standard settings is that it tries to keep the fan as quiet as possible and make it kick in later, which obviously ramps up the temps fast.)

So I just upgraded to an i5 4690K because I got a good deal on it.

How long do you think I'll have left before I have to replace it for 1080p?

Updated build from SQT.

Looking at the following SSDs:

A-Data ASP550SS3-240GM-C (240GB,55$)
and
Kingston SV300S37A/120G (120GB, 42$)

Any recommendations on that price range?

>>55697914
All prices in PHP are already VAT inclusive, except those with no local prices available.

>>55698024
Yeah, I noticed this too. The i7 6700k is priced a too high though. Might wait for more RX480 benchmarks with lower end CPUs before buying.

The dillema though if I do get a 6700k is just wait for a high end 490 or 490x and get a z170-a mobo for OC purposes. This then defeats me trying to keep costs low as much as possible.

File: CapturePC.jpg (103KB, 1229x367px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1229x367px

>>55698170
forgot pic

>>55689102

MOAR OF THAT DAWN PLOX

>>55698170
Avoid the v300, it's been gimped by kingston to only operate at half the advertised performance on a good day.

How about instead of the i5 6500 + z170, you get a cheaper b150 board + 6600k?

>>55694927
Good luck playing only Vulkan and DX12 titles. There ain't that many. Also, you still have the nasty driver overhead, it's just nowhere near as bad and it's multi-threaded.

Oh and you need Windows 10 too.

>this lowlife neckbeard who keeps writing out these essay posts of the basic shit everyone already knows

I have a 7 old year rig (phenom II 955, hd 6850, 4g ram), and Im buying a new rig with more ram and a i5-6600k. What GPU should I buy if Im not buying anything new in some year?. I wanna play witcher 3 on Ultra,overwatch, total war, metal gear and stuff.

1060 it is then, my i5 2400 would be pretty fucked if paired with the 480. Thanks OP

>>55700594
Youjustgotmemed.jpg