AMD is shit

They focus on meme technologies like Async and Vulkan instead of proper support for shit people actually use like OpenGL

>>55906826
Situation will reverse later this year when DX12 shits on nvidia cards

>>55907323
And then Nvidia develops DX12 compatible cards that destroy AMD's, and people buy them because they arent foodstamps poor like AMDrones

>>55906925
Literally this,
Why the fuck didn't they develop their architecture for OpenGL

>>55906826
Vicious cycle of lack of money means lack of resources for R&D and software support.

>>55906826
because amd doesn't know how to optimize their dx11 drivers for shit

How much more actual FPS though, not just %?

Because AMD a shit.

>>55907343
>AMD is yet again pushing progression
>Let me try and spin it in a negative light

File: tumblr_ob0dl9ItMd1r5kws5o1_1280.jpg (355KB, 960x1200px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 960x1200px

I love how exaggerated this graph is and how nobody seems to notice.

Great job nvidia shilling team!

>>55906826
>AMD shit
>/g/ post AMD hate thread every day


I think /g/ is just mad cause AMD is making a come back.

I know right?

Nvidia is better with vidya oriented architectures.

Who cares for compute and async lmao

>>55906925
>technological progress is a meme
nvidiots everyone

>>55907768
its the /v/ spillage that comes here to shitpost that hates AMD
/g/ has always liked AMD

>buy amd card
>costs 50 dollars less
>comes with more RAM than advertised
>Improves performance over time
>makes money passively, ultimately paying for itself
>Loses by a couple frames in unoptimized DX11 shit to cards more expensive than it, but the difference isnt really noticable
>Crushes the more expensive card in newer games.

meanwhile
>buy nvidia
>pay more to Play the Way its Meant to Be Played(tm)
>has less ram than advertised because "Th..that was extra goy!"
>performance falls off a cliff once a new card comes out
>card just costs money, never makes money
>wins buy a couple frames by texture streaming and gimpwerks(tm) implementation The Way it Was Meant to Be Played(tm)
>gives the ultimate SlideShow Experience(tm) with modern technology.

so hard to choose

>>55907343
The 1060 already beats the 480 in DX12. Things will only get worse for AMD from here on out.

>>55908483
The OP image says you're full of shit.

>>55908483
>Hardware unboxed
Nvidia shills

>>55907720
>AMD shot their load too early
>amd cuckolds still defend it

Why would they do this?

>>55908300
>buy amd card
no one has seen one in stock in a month after release, even with AIB reviews coming out still no AIB's have come out.

File: 1469451013247.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Is it normal for a 280x to often require me to run medium-graphics games in a smaller window rather than fullscreen if I want perfectly smooth performance?

Graphics of about this quality is what I'm talking about. Still have special effects, but no exceptional texture or mesh resolutions.

>>55906826
>>55906925
>>55907323
>>55907343
>>55907366
>>55907368
>>55907587
>>55907694
>>55907707
>>55907720
>>55907764
>>55907768
>>55907801
>>55908300
>>55908483
>>55908528
>>55908559
>>55908586
>>55908621
>>>/v/

>>55906826
There's a $50-$100 price difference

File: Shut it down.png (659KB, 1041x3977px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 1041x3977px

>>55908211
>its the /v/ spillage that comes here to shitpost that hates AMD

Not that both intell and nVidia are known for Jewish tactics at all.

>>55908672
Eat a dick

>>55906826
Meaningless numbers, literally mixing pears and apples. You can't simply compare percentages that don't take the same base value for 100%.

>20 vs 25fps
>25% FASTER!!!!

>100 vs 105fps
>5% faster

The 1060 still wins in most games, but the graph is misleading and useless for measuring how faster it is.

>>55907323

Just like DX10 swept the world, and openGL reigned.

>>55908725
>Intel Compiler causes programs to run 47% faster for Intel CPUs, even if it's a random CPU disguised as Intel
So a huge amount of software has had its performance bricked for a huge portion of the computers out there, and AMD has suffered probably billions in losses from the benchmarks since a small difference in performance can mean a big change in opinion, let alone big difference in performance.

How has Intel not been sued for like, ten billion dollars or something?

>>55908741
20 vs 25 being 25% faster is legitimate though.
If it takes a hundred million computations for a frame for a slow game and ten million for a fast game, then if something runs at 6FPS on the slow game and 60FPS on the fast game it's clearly able to do 600 million computations a second.

If something gets 9FPS on the slow game and 90FPS on the fast game, then it's clearly able to do 900 million computations a second.

And no matter what things you compare; computations a second, slow FPS, fast FPS; you get the answer that the second GPU is 50% faster.

>>55908300
>comes with more RAM than advertised
This doesn't happen unless it's some limited rebranding scheme to pretend a card exist.
(1 Nvidia partner has done that too in the past, GTX 465 = GTX 470)

>>55909013
4GB RX 480's are 8GB RX 480's with 4GB disabled, but flashing an 8GB BIOS enables the other 4GB.

>>55908918
Intel had to pay a birrion dorrar to AMDa few years ago for this and other anticompetitive practices.

>>55908741
Uhh the numbers are literally exactly as they state. It's not misleading in the least bit.

>>55908528
Notice how the 1060 even wins in Ashes DX12, an AMD favored game.

Not even in the graph is Tomb Raider (DX12) and Time Spy (DX12) where the 1060 also wins.

1060 is much better than the 480 in DX12...and everything. It's just a much faster card.

>>55909155
>Tomb Raider (DX12) and Time Spy (DX12)
>DX12
lol no they dont

>>55909024
They probably flashed some of the 8GB RX480's with 4GB bios because they wanted to avoid bait and switch accusations. Because that's pretty much what's happening with these "$199" cards.

File: tr12.png (30KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x650px

>>55909193
Here's the 1060 easily beating the 480 in Tomb Raider (DX12)

File: timespy12.png (47KB, 682x791px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 682x791px

>>55909193
Here's the 1060 easily beating the 480 in Time Spy (DX12)

>>55909024
That's exactly what I was talking about. Good luck with that one if they ever start producing the 4gb variant.

>>55909231
Nah, it's more that they just had one production line to reduce costs.
For some reason, 4GB of VRAM costs less than a new production line to spit out 4GB cards

File: 1469154414420.jpg (102KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 400x533px

>>55907720
>Use experimental technology no one gives a fuck about yet instead of making proper support for shit people actually use
>AMDrones try to spin this off in a positive light
Meanwhile Nvidia has proper Linux support, DX11 support, and OpenGL support. Shit that in some cases has a massive performance decrease for AMD because their Rajeets can't code.

Because AMD really sucks at creating reference coolers.
The sapphire nitro or powercolor devil are on par with the 1060.

>>55909420
>>>/v/
>>>/a/

>>55909351
>>55909329
Nice reading comprehension illiterate nvidiot

File: 1468280860085.jpg (3KB, 124x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 124x125px

>>55909351
>in Time Spy (DX12)

File: 1467050613351.jpg (359KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 800x800px

>>55909329
>Tomb Raider
>(DX12)

File: amd.jpg (138KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 653x726px

>>55906826
DELET

>>55907343
>And then Nvidia develops DX12 compatible cards
they would have to completely redo their architecture and change or replace CUDA cores.

>>55909828
Nvidia already easily beats AMD in DX12

>>55909921
nice meme

>>55909921
hardware unboxed are shills anon find a different source

>>55909930
meme? it's the truth, look at the charts above

the 10 series is very good at dx12, far better than anything from amd

>>55909981
here's your (You)

>>55909981
0.02$ have been deposited in your account

>>55906826
Yes it's a dumb shit but:
amd < nvidia < intel < arm

>>55909986
>>55909986
Sorry you can't handle the truth

>>55908621
miners have been buying hundreds of them
the 480 is the best card for it

File: 7818_201_nvidia-titan-review-monster-performance-4k-60fps-single-gpu.png (2MB, 600x970px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x970px

Nice P/W there AMD

>>55911379
Lmao

File: amd.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

>>55911379
DEL

File: perfdollar_1920_1080[3].png (32KB, 500x770px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x770px

>>55909329
>>55909351
Here's the RX 480 beating it in value.

>>55908884
What happenend ?

Rx490 when

File: value.png (43KB, 500x1210px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x1210px

>>55912261
And here's the 1060 easily beating it in value

The 1060 is by far the best value card you can possibly buy

>>55908725
This makes sense. That's why I can't find problems anywhere regarding AMD's open drivers and many problems with Nvidia's.

My guess is that you can't make Linux shill that much for a particular hardware vendor since the kernel just adapts to whatever is on the market according to everyone's needs.

>>55915832
That's an old graph. Mine is newer :P

File: perfdollar_1920_1080[1].png (36KB, 500x810px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x810px

And this is the newest.

>>55908709
Well in my coutry they cost roughtly same.
And the RX480 is reference.

Why would anyone buy AMD is beyond me. They fuck up everything. Performance, drivers, power consumption, marketing, pricing.

>>55916321
>Why would anyone buy AMD is beyond me. They fuck up everything. Performance, drivers, power consumption, marketing, pricing.
because you are an nvidia fanboy

>>55917691
not an argument

Also I'm posting from laptop without AMD or nVidia crap. Get fucked.

File: 1439238401511.jpg (395KB, 774x720px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 774x720px

>>55909680
>DX11, OpenGL, and Linux are all /v/ and /a/

Hmmm, it's almost like AMDfags are also the same Microsoft Pajeets who also shitpost anti-Linux threads along with their DX12 cocksucking...

>>55918296
kys nvidiot

>>55916196
even TPU clearly shows AMD wrecking and they're notorious nvidia shills

>>55918296
>Linux
have you even used AMDGPU lately or are you the kind of moron that spouts hearsay from two years ago?

>>55918855
Nvidia has official Linux support miles beyond AMD.

AMD Pajeets can't even support common APIs yet brag about how they can copy paste Vulkan and DX12 code cause its "next gen"

>>55906826
Because they're trying to compete with literally a tenth of the budget of the competition. Everyone knows (unless you're a brain dead shill) that intel and nvidia make the best products concerning cpu and gpu but amd are just there for market competition because intel and nvidia want them there. Amd used to have the "we are cheaper!" Argument but now their stuff is the same price as nvidia or even more expensive. Board partner 1060 is £229 but board partner 480 is £250.

>>55916321
Someone seems to have forgotten some history, such as the original 480 house fire, 196.75 drivers literally burning cards up, and the 4870 vs the 280.

>>55916196
performance/dollar, price/performance, cost/frame are all fucking retarded metrics. Graphics cards aren't expensive enough to justify pinching pennies on them.

I'm pretty sure the only reason that low-end cards only sell for like 30 bucks less than entry level while delivering 1/4 the power is because if they didn't, poorfags would try and quad-SLI them because it's such a good deal! And then complain when it wasn't as good as a gtx x80.

>>55906826
DESU I dont trust benchmarks *at all* anymore because sites only bench at ultra settings, and a lot of those settings are crippling for AMD moreso than NVIDIA

if you did a *high* settings comparison it would be a lot closer, especially in games like witcher with HBAO+ and stuff

with a 290x clocked at 1100 I can play at 1440p high settings averaging 55 fps. according to benchmarks that would be my framerate at 1080p

>>55916321
I don't know what you're talking about; AMD has had fantastic drivers for almost two years straight and NVIDIA has had almost double the software fuck ups, as well as the 970 meme scheme in recent memory

>>55918891
>Nvidia has official Linux support miles beyond AMD.
nvidia has a fuckhuge binary blob that's only marginally better at openGL perf, and who knows for how long. the nvidia-settings tool is fucking shit and includes a fourth of the features you get on windows. plus if you want to do anything multi-monitor, you need to manually save their generated Xorg.conf that fucking breaks most of the time. it also takes them months to fix anything like not being able to output video on monitors with corrupt or missing EDID.

t. disgruntled 970 owner

meanwhile amd's drivers are foss, built into the kernel and are constantly updated with more than just opengl optimizations

stop living in 2010

>>55919083
>if I turn down the settings I get better performance
>this is because of nvidia crippling me

Are you trolling or really this dense in the head?

>>55919180
you have to be completely retarded to misinterpret what I said

what I said is the the performance difference increases between nvidia and amd going from high to ultra settings in most games, especially anything that involves tessellation or nvidia favored AA or AO

if you were to run the same cards at reasonable settings the difference wouldn't be so high

>>55919153
The combined effort of AMD supplying shit proprietary drivers, AMD supporting open source drivers and Intel bankrolling mesa development is finally paying off. Soon AMD will pull the plug on their proprietary OpenGL stack and replace it with mesa even on Windows.

>>55906826
its the poor mans brand m8

>>55919239
AMD is doing the smart thing by keeping a common code base for their GPU drivers on both Linux and Windows.

To be fair, that's probably Nvidia's strategy too, but who the fuck knows.

>>55919239
Why would you want Mesa for Windows? It would be a lot of work, take a long time, cause regressions, and when it's stable, GL is already well into the sundown phase and only legacy code uses it.

>>55919282
nVidia definitely shares code across the platforms. I've seen the same driver bugs on both platforms which kinda indicates that.

>>55919207
>let's play at lower settings so it gives amd more of a chance!
>let's not push each card as far as they can with the highest settings!

So you really are dense in the head then. That's not how benchmarks work. Reviewers won't purposely benchmark at lower settings for stupid reasons like yours.

>most games

So you're saying nvidia has gameworks in "most games" which is what causes this? Gameworks is in a very select few games and not "most games" like you're trying to imply. If there is a bigger regression between ultra and high on amd cards in non gameworks games that's solely amds problem for creating shit hardware and also your fault for buying said shit hardware.

>>55919489
>>let's not push each card as far as they can with the highest settings!
that's not what I'm saying
what I'm saying is very few people, and mostly stupid people, play games at everything on ultra settings

what I'm saying is there should be more benchmarks of games at different settings for all cards, because """"""Ultra""""" rarely means that, and very many games have crippling settings that should be disabled on most cards
>>let's not push each card as far as they can with the highest settings!
no, I'm saying that lower settings and higher resolutions would genuinely push the GPU capabilities rather than being crippled by unoptimized gimmick effects

>>55919397
Why not? Mesa is already better or equal to AMDs own GL stack in many cases and MIT licensed. Maintaining a proprietary stack for sundown tech doesn't seem too great if you could just use an open stack with other partners paying for part of the development.

File: 1433953992232.jpg (26KB, 480x542px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x542px

>>55919573
>very few people play on ultra settings
>you're stupid if you play on ultra settings for some unknown reason

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Get a load of this chump. If I play bf4 or even a game like witcher 3 on ultra settings I'm stupid even though my gpu is perfectly capable at the resolution I play at. Go back to >>>/v/ you colossal retard.

>>55919901
yeah, you are dumb for leaving foliage distance on ultra instead of high. I bet you don't even have a great card; I bet you have a 970 and play it at "ultra" 1080p instead of turning some settings down to high and downsampling for a sharper image

File: forz6apexdx12.png (35KB, 1053x278px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1053x278px

>>55920008

File: gearsofwardx12.png (35KB, 1053x278px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1053x278px

>>55920026

>>55919993
>>55919901
also, you don't buy a midrange gpu to play low resolutions on ultra settings unless you are extremely retarded

File: GTX-1060-REVIEW-79.jpg (110KB, 614x442px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 614x442px

>>55920047

File: GTX-1060-REVIEW-80.jpg (136KB, 614x444px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 614x444px

>>55920061

File: r_600x450.png (121KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 600x450px

>>55920076

File: warhammerdx12.png (36KB, 682x802px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 682x802px

>>55920089

>>55920108
and as tom puts it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-470,4703-8.html

>Its GTX 1060 looks especially good in DX11-based games. But an increasing emphasis on DX12 and Vulkan support does the $250 card no favors.

>>55919993
No I don't have a 970. I'm not poor like you and my card probably cost the same as your 290x as I know how to get a good deal. And if you really knew anything about the witcher 3 foliage on medium is no different to foliage on ultra, high and ultra are the exact same. That doesn't affect me anyway because I can run the game at ultra 1440p at a locked 60 fps. Stay mad son.

I remember in 2009 people in /g/ would actively recommend AMD CPUs. As the years have gone by, I never see anyone even mention them anymore. Shit does falcon even include them anymore.

>>55920049
You don't buy a midrange card like yours to play at low on high resolutions either you retard. I bet you're the type of guy who uses a 1080p monitor and users super resolution to downscale from 4k but plays at medium/low settings.

>>55920230
>f you really knew anything about the witcher 3 foliage on medium is no different to foliage on ultra, high and ultra are the exact same
yeah ok buddy
I know how to find a good deal too, my 290x cost me $275 over a year ago with a custom cooler to boot
you probably spent $100 more for me just to get that *ultra* check mark in the settings menu, with no noticeable improvement to visuals, and the same performance
>>55920279
no I have a 4k monitor and play most new games at 1440p, anything older than 3 years at 4k

>>55906826
>LETS COMPARE ALL THE LATEST GAMES WE HAVE NVIDIA DRIVERS FOR


every. singe. time.

>>55920261
Phenom 2 was a good alternative to C2Q. Since then AMD has produced nothing but turds.

>>55908211
/g/ is one person.

File: 1463089344906.jpg (31KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 250x251px

>>55920288
my 980 cost £250 a a year ago when 970's were £250. over a £200 saving when the 980 was still one of the best gpu around unlike your ancient card with no memory compression.

>he tells other people to downscale from higher resolutions when he purposely bought a 4k monitor only to game at 1440p which doesn't even scale correctly

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>55920671
I dont have the time to tell you how unwarranted your condescension is so I'm going to end this retarded shit with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

File: 1413712390594.jpg (30KB, 525x481px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 525x481px

>>55920722
>running away

how did i know.