How is the Rx 480s driver overhead? Will I have trouble with

File: 1469471335568.png (498KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1920x1080px

no. in dx12 nvidia and amd have equal driver overhead which is very low. and before anyone brings up pic related i'm just going to do a tldr.

>tldr
all you need is a 2500k or higher. technically a 3ghz nehalem. haswell or above is absolute sweetness. you do not need the latest and greatest i7.

>tldr #2
all pic shows is the processor bottlenecking the 480. this is NOT a driver overhead issue as explained above. with async enabled, the 480 processes a lot of data and the potato processor x4 955 from 2009 with core 2 quad level of performance cannot keep up with the 480's async.

>tldr #3
nvidia does not have async enabled in doom - vulkan. all it benefits from is less driver overhead compared to opengl. this is why the increase from opengl to vulkan with both the 955 and 750 is the same 12fps. if you looked, with the 955 the increase on the 480 too is 10fps. similar to the 1060. with the 750 the 480 jumps to a 18fps increase, higher than the 1060's, because it enters a level of cpu performance that's able to start keeping up with the 480's async performance.

>tldr #4
i don't understand why they went from a 09/10 processor all the way up to essentially 2015/16 processor. little more than half a decade of improvements. but honestly, by seeing the leap from the awful 955 (core 2 quad level) to 750 (2.6ghz first gen nehalem), a 2500k should be more than enough. and if its the k, there is zero reason why it should not be overclocked to a minimum of 4.2ghz with a 212 evo slapped to it.

>tldr #5
all you need is a 2500k or higher. technically a 3ghz nehalem. haswell or above is absolute sweetness. you do not need the latest and greatest i7.

>tldr #6
don't complain if you have a haswell i5 or higher

>tldr #7
you don't need the latest and greatest i7.


didn't you just have a thread up not to long ago about this though?

are you just shilling trying to start a flame war?

>>55876665
Jesus you wrecked the thread before it even started. I feel like I am necroposting, on fucking 4chan

I'm really curious how one of the Westmere Xeons at 4ghz stack up on this test. Is Doom heavily thread capable? Will 6 cores be used well in Vulkan, and does hyperthreading see any benefit?
Theres a 50% difference between the 750 and 6700 using a 480. The x5650 I have has two additional cores, HT, and is running almost 60% faster than the 750.

>>55876665
this is true, when I turn on vulkan in DOOM my CPU time jumps from just 3.5ms up to 18ms (!!!), while my GPU time drops down from ~17ms to 11ms

my CPU is an i5 4670 and my GPU is fury X

basically get ready to buy an 8 core CPU if you want to get good performance in proper DX12/Vulkan games, boys

>>55877128
wait, no, I meant that happens when I turn on async in DOOM (you can disable it by using AA that isn't TSSAA)

>>55877091
4ghz westmere is like a 2.8ghz haswell at best. you'll def run into classic amd driver overhead.

So should I build a 480 system with a 4460 or get something stronger?

File: fixd.jpg (166KB, 548x629px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 548x629px

>>55876562
Fixed chart too. Shills should be ashamed.

File: gears[1].jpg (34KB, 697x447px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 697x447px

>>55876562
Seriously, Forbes of all places was the only site I seen that went out of its way to use a mid range i5 out of the idea that most people may not have an i7 and wanted to test viability of the gpus for the mid range user.

The only boost to the RX 480 was in specifically AMD sponsored games, other than that you're talking 5% difference in other DX 12 games on an i5 6600k.

>>55876562
>offload heavily to cpu
>fool people into believing in benchmarks who use +1000$ i7s that amd cards get higher fps
>actually get a shitty fps with i5 or any weaker cpus

bravo AMD

File: 2810315.jpg (106KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1600x900px

>an i5 is all you will ever need

>>55879266
>look guys, one game out of thousands uses more than 4 cores! :^)

>>55879265
More like:
>Fuck up DX11 and OpenGL drivers so that they mostly utilize only one core and bottleneck on it
>Finally fix this in DX12/Vulkan drivers
>N/v/idiots go on crying about how how they're somehow cheating by offloading work to the CPU
Never change /v/...

>>55879307
It's actually dx12, and every new game coming out, but okay buddy

>>55879312
>>Finally fix this in Vulkan drivers
no they didn't. see >>55876665

>>55879307
>look guys, it's not like this brand new APIs are going to get any more popular :^)

File: tww_pr.jpg (100KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 523x440px

>>55879307

How about a game that absolutely murders IPC?

File: xBgSksM.jpg (18KB, 340x260px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 340x260px

>>55879307

>>55879321
>i5 750
>4 slow-ish cores with no HT from 7 years ago
>Somehow representative of modern hardware
Yes, keep trying to convince yourself of this meme, but an i5 750 is generally a bottleneck for both AMD and Nvidia.

>>55879313
>>55879322
>>55879324
>>55879331
whoa there AMDrones, no need to get this upset! It was nothing but a humble shitpost, please contain your jimmies :^)

>>55879362
>Post ill informed crap
>People responding to this are "AMDrones" and "upset"
Right... Then again you shouldn't expect any more from a N/v/idiot.

>>55879351
newer i5s are only about 15-30% faster though
and i5s still have only 4 cores with no HT so not sure what's your point

File: v-v-vulkan doesn't count.png (16KB, 524x175px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 524x175px

>>55879362

Shitposting or not there are idiots on /g/ that genuinely think like your post and such ignorance will damn us all.

File: thumbsup.jpg (11KB, 240x212px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x212px

>>55879351
>i5
>HT

>>55879396
Why would you care what idiots think? Shitposting is not going away and and I'm just pissing in a sea of piss.

>>55879393
single core performance if i remember right, from that shit first line of i line to sandbridge was almost fucking double, its every gen after it that had next to no improvement.

>>55879324
wow... those numbers are shit.
have a computer with a 4790 oc to 4.3
have a single 290x

getting an average of 60 with spikes up to 100fps with most if not all the settings maxed.

and THIS is what 980 ti in sli do? are you fucking kidding me?

>>55879566
Yeah cause drivers for that title have matured now from both manufacturers.
Duh.

How are you fags handling the wattage problems? :^)

>>55879307
More than 2 cores*

File: 1455908496479.png (112KB, 470x225px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 470x225px

>>55879743
>wattage
Kill yourself

>>55879266
Finally I'll be able to use the full power of my 8350

:^)

>>55876665
Jeez you're on point these days. How come you're guarding /g/ so closely right now? Really want to clean up this misunderstanding? You are bettering /g/, they either just learn from you or don't know how to respond because they have no insight themself. Do you have any decent, /g/-length articles written that I can read for consumer hardware decision/judgement-reference or fun?

>>55877693
>there's a 50% difference between a 750 and 6700 using a 480
A 6-core westmere not only has 50% more resources than a 750 (two more cores) but the advantage of, in my case, a 55% increase in core clock compared to the stock i5-750 test.

The 6700 is 50% faster than the 750.

Either a 6-core Westmere is almost equal to a 6700K or it exceeds it in this scenario.

>>55879520
Using the original Core2 as a baseline, the first gen i series (Nehalem and Westmere) were about 12-15% faster, with Sandy Bridge another 12-15% on top of that. Ivy was 3-5% faster than Sandy (but with ~10% better FPU execution), Haswell was 5% better than Ivy, broadwell about 3% in some things but also a performance regression in others, with Skylake finally being about 5-7% better than Broadwell.

All told the difference between first gen i series and Skylake is about 30-35%, Sandy and Skylake about 20%

I don't know where you get "double" from but it certainly isn't right. AVX hardware doesn't really count, it's a specific vectored ISA for very specific data crunching that certainly does not apply to games even today.

>>55880215

Intel get a lot of usage from AVX when they can as it really helps them claim large performance increases per generation.

>>55880215
That's IPC. Actual per clock performance has increased much more. Sandy Bridge is at least 50% faster than that ancient i5 dug up by that review site. That thing only clocks to 2.67Ghz. Sandy Bridge has base clocks well above 3Ghz and turbos to almost 4Ghz.

Benchmarking a 7 year old 2.67Ghz processor with a modern GPU is just bullshit.

>>55880503
>IPC
>Instructions Per Clock
>is not >>>per-clock<<< performance
You're just trolling now but I'll indulge.

IPC is per-clock performance. The first gen "core" series could all mostly easily hit 4Ghz.
The i7-920 D0 stepping is notorious for being a solid 4Ghz overclocker. The 980X 6-core is fabulous for reaching at the least of the spectrum 3.8Ghz. The i5-750 refresh/update easily clocks out to 3.8Ghz as well.
Comparing stock speeds during the period that Intel heavily underclocked their products to a time when Intel started ramping up stock speeds (4Ghz 4790Ks for instance) is the dumbest thing you can possibly do.

My x5650, a 6-core better binned variant of basically the 980X, is a stock 2.67Ghz part. This Xeon chip is well known for being able to hit 4.4Ghz+ with good cooling.

I wish /v/tard babbies would read more instead of shoving mindless games in their faces before they try and argue about technology.

>>55880565
>Comparing stock speeds during the period that Intel heavily underclocked their products to a time when Intel started ramping up stock speeds (4Ghz 4790Ks for instance) is the dumbest thing you can possibly do.
comparing OC to stock is even dumber
none of this has any relevance to the 2.67Ghz chip used by Nvidia shills to benchmark a GPU in 2016. That thing is slow even compared to Sandy Bridge and prehistoric compared to current midrange chips.

>>55880716
You're a fucking idiot with a very defective brain.

>>55876665
>dx12 meme
>w10 botnet meme
>5 games available
>All those samefag responses

Holy fuck you're embarrassing. AMD shills can't even get their shit together.

>>55876665
So the 480 is better then the 1080?