AMD PRO 490: NVIDIA IS FINNISH

>>57795169
>unconfirmed benchmarks featuring an unreleased video card with TWO GPUs on it
>beating a single GPU

ok cool let's just celebrate IBM's 2018 GPU as a success, too
oh, wait :(

>>57795169
>wccftech
Nice source, faggot.

>>57795593
Since when is the 490 going to be a dual GPU card?

>>57795169
>AMD's dual GPU high end card barely beats Nvidia's mid end card that uses less than half the power
AMD literally got knocked out this generation, Nvidia will be going in for the curb kick next generation.
It's a pretty sad state for AMD when Intel's integrated graphics is almost as fast as their flagship.

File: amd-radeon-fury-x-4k-benchmarks-100592003-orig.png (73KB, 1339x1360px)

73KB, 1339x1360px

>>57795169
Reminder not to mindlessly fail for the AMD hype meme since they'll just disappoint again.

>>57795169

>AMDs big new dual card release can't even reach a 1080 non-Ti

Wew

>>57795169
assuming this is actually halfway real and not curryjew clickbait (* not very fucking likely) there are still three vastly different but somewhat probable things it could mean:

> Dual Polaris 10 - who fucking cares, nobody will ever buy one anyway
> Vega 10 - AMD is literally actually completely fucked and will (not shilling) fail in 2017
> Vega 11 - AMD has a <150 W card that handily beats out a 1070, and a Vega 10 will be close to twice this fast, holy shit.

There's a strong indication that Vega will be branded as the RX 5xx family or the Fury/Rage/Whatever XXX Pro and not RX 4xx, so the first of these might be the most likely.

>>57796026
i think you posted the wrong troll pic friend

>>57796440
>He's just trying to say that Vega 10 will be a repeat of Fiji, which ended up being a pretty unbalanced chip for gaming

not sure why he'd post an infographic showing it beating the 980ti in every game though?

>>57796466
Because the first anon was being ironic about how retarded consumers are when it comes to GPU purchases. I watched the recent adored video and it blew my mind. The 4870 was the first GPU I bought with my own money and I remember doing research at the time and being really confused about who in their right mind would have ever paid for a GTX 260. It's people like this anon who can look at benchmarks showing a Fury X clearly beating out the competition and still try to make the case that it's a bad card.

>>57795959
There was actually a decent amount of evidence to suggest it would originally be a dual GPU card coming out before the end of the year. Such as and showing the slides comparing 2 480s to a 1080, and them confirming originally that not only was there no "big Polaris" but also that the 490 would not be a Vega card nor would it feature HBM.
Supposedly the 490 was pushed back to "adjust" it for Vega, but I think a more accurate description would be they scrapped the original 490 design and are just giving the name to another card they had in the works that would have likely carried the fury moniker.

>Poolaris claimed to be on par with GTX 980
>barely as good as a 970

so I guess this one will be just as good as a 1060 despite AMDshill claims

Perkele

Also
>Wccftech

All I want is a card with more than 4GB of hbm

>>57796558
Nvidia pandered to the normie consumer, someway, somehow. I'm not quite sure how it happened myself. Could have been hyping up their reputation for "it just werks" driver suites.

The recent adored video was pretty mindblowing though. Disheartening, to say the least.

>>57796874
Go check userbenchmark; the 480 sits between the 970 and 980, which is exactly what was expected.

>>57796026
This.

What the fuck is wrong with you people, this pic is a perfect recent example of everything wrong with this thread.

>Pro 490
>Pro
This would make it a mobile GPU

>>57796949
It's funny how AMD is always "Exactly what's expected" while Nvidia is always "Blowing away expectations"

really makes you think

File: 1478665099235.jpg (27KB, 289x293px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 289x293px

>>57796974

NVIDIA RECONFIRMED BTFO

>>57796983
Nvidia certainly blew me away with the staggering amount of RAM they packed onto the 970

>>57795169
>Barely better than a fury x oc
fuck sake amd

>>57797063
We don't even know the MSRP, calm yourself

>>57796781
>There was actually a decent amount of evidence

Nobody but wccftech kept saying that it will be a dual 480. And that site is nothing but clickbait rumours.

>>57797048
You're right, It's amazing, considering the 970 still blew away anything AMD had at the time and the RAM had little to no effect on its performance

>>57797048
That was just their really elaborate way of giving everybody a $30 mail-in rebate.

https://www.gtx970settlement.com/Home.aspx

File: geforce experience.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>57796983
>Nvidia is always "Blowing away expectations"

Well that's correct, you expect a card that works, and you get one that blows up.

>>57797125
>It's amazing, considering the 970 still blew away anything AMD had at the time

AMD had nothing at the time. They had to rebadge the 2xx cards so they can please OEMs.

>>57797113
Read the rest of my post buddo. Amd was dropping some hints about what the card would and wouldn't have, and we're saying it'd be out before the end of the year. Dual 480 was speculation, but it wasn't baseless speculation.

>>57797113
The new PS4 is a dual GPU system. It makes a lot of sense to go dual GPU for VR. I think dual GPU cards may be the only way AMD stays competitive with Nvidia going forward simply because of the potential they have for VR. Nvidia may have an elegant software solution for VR rendering, but I don't see how that will ever beat out having hardware do the job-- that hasn't happened in the past.

If it is dual GPU count me out, I've been looking to upgrade my crossfire 290xs sleep specifically to get away from multi GPU .....

DX12 and Vulkan don't support it at the moment and I actually get less FPS in BF1 doing CF lmao......

>>57797187
>The new PS4 is a dual GPU system
No it's not. It's the same APU with Polaris-based GCN cores and a faster clocked Jaguar CPU.

>>57797191
>best AMD gpu currently available is nearly 2 years old
>4 year old 290x is as good as the best new AMD card
AMD sucks, and I have a r9 290

Dual 480 is extremely pointless. When was the last time Nvidia or AMD made a dual midrange card? I presume never. Also wouldn't be competitive in terms of price/performance.

Low power Vega 10 makes much more sense, but considering the 12TF rumor Vega 10 is a pretty huge chip. Doesn't line up with the benchmarks.

Conclusion: OP benchmark is bogus.

>>57797063
It's a cheaper card, Fury was shit anyway. Hopefully their Vega is 1080Ti levels

>>57796983
>while Nvidia is always "Blowing away expectations"
Who are you quoting, faggot? Nvidia is as expected as well, unless you fangirl out

>>57796874
>things that never happened, the post
The 480 is often pretty close to the 980.

>>57797253
>dual midrange card
It's not mid range. It's high end.

>>57797231
>gtx 1060 is as bad as a gtx 980

really makes you think

>>57796026
I like you.

>>57797202
It's a dual GPU system. We've known this for months and recent interviews with Mark Cerny confirmed it.

>>57797253
A dual GPU card will be more cost effective for VR almost every time so long as the synchronization is good, which should be a lot easier to pull off when the frames don't have to be split or serialized.

>>57797161
>Amd was dropping some hints about what the card would and wouldn't ha

No they weren't. The whole "two 480s outperform a 1080 for cheaper" thing was nothing but marketing spin by Raja so they can sell the card. Currytech took it at face value and said that the 490 is a dual 480.

>>57797293
>It's not mid range. It's high end.

480 was never a high end card nor was it ever meant to be.

>>57797372
You're pretty retarded. Of course the 480 is mid range. The 490 will not be, even if it is dual GPU.

>>57797350
>It's a dual GPU system. We've known this for months and recent interviews with Mark Cerny confirmed it.

It's a single chip APU.
That Cerny quote about it being a dual gpu system refers to it being 2x more powerful, as if it had twice the cores or a second identical gpu in there. But it does not physically have a second gpu, it has a single gpu that is twice as fast.

>>57797391
>The 490 will not be, even if it is dual GPU.

If it's a dual gpu card, it'll be two midrange gpus in a single board, which is not a high end card because the second gpu won't do fuck all for the majority of games.

>>57797413
>If it's a dual gpu card, it'll be two midrange gpus in a single board, which is not a high end card because the second gpu won't do fuck all for the majority of games.
Not everyone plays games, faggot. Also check out the r9 295 or HD 7990. Games do not require CF profiles to use the card to its full potential.

>>57797413
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/238261-the-ps4-pros-chief-architect-shares-surprising-details-on-the-systems-architecture

>Cerny recently sat down with The Verge to talk about the new console, and some of what he had to say is quite a bit different from what we were expecting. For starters, take the GPU. General expectations around the Internet (including our own) have predicted a single unified Polaris-class GPU with 36 CUs. According to Cerny, that’s not what Sony built. Instead of a unified GPU core, Sony plunked a second GPU down right beside the first.

>>57797391
The point was that neither Nvidia nor AMD tend to put midrange chips into dual GPU systems.
Granted it's AMD's mid term goal to use multiple smaller chips instead of one big chip, but releasing a mainstream card with such a configuration would be very "courageous" at this point.

>1080 still crushes it
>1080ti will obliterate it

>>57796874
>so I guess this one will be just as good as a 1060 despite AMDshill claims
>claims 480 is as good as 1060
>1060 was advertised as being the same or better than a 980
lol

>>57797155
they didn't need anything, maxwell couldn't do shit against hawaii

>>57797470
>seriously comparing cards of entirely different performance tiers

>>57797489
>two GPUs getting beaten by one GPU

>>57796005
>implying this won't use cherry-picked 90W dies

>>57796412
Vega 11 is big Vega
Vega 10 is the smaller chip.

Makes sense. RX 490 Vega 10 now
Fury/Rage/whatever Vega 11 in mid or late 2017
Question is if HBM2 is being produced in large enough quantities for a mainstream card.

>>57797497
>two GPUs costing 1/3 of one GPU

>>57797521
Just admit that AMD is trash and the only reason you won't buy Nvidia is because you have brand loyalty out the ass

>>57797489
So AMD high end can only compete with Nvidia mid?

>>57795169
>490 only being equal to about a 1070

Please no, why can't AMD compete?

File: Nietzsche187a.jpg (632KB, 1464x1986px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1464x1986px

My rx480 roasts my friends gtx 1060. Nvidia cards are fucking garbage for the price.

>Mfw I can turn everything in battlefield 1 up to ultra and not get a single stutter below 60fps
>Mfw my friends 1060 can't even cross 60fps on just high settings.

>>57797854
>game that AMD helped make works well on AMD hardware

Tell me more, anon.

>>57796026
This anon gets it.

>>57797140
Part of the geforce experience is setting up a certain ambiance. A lot of games have smoke/fog effects and the card was just trying to heighten the experience.

Duh.

>>57797867
>Only AAA title that sold well this year
>Well optimized for my clearly superior card
>Also shits on my friends 1060 in Witcher 3, all the Crysis games, far cry, dishonored 2 after updates, doom, paragon........

Nvidia fanboys are a whole new level of retarded. All my friends who bought nvidia cards are caught upgrading every 2 years. Meanwhile my 7950 was still viable to max out games up until I bought my rx480 for the new battlefield and titanfall.

>>57797912
Riddle me this, what card should I use for 1440p high refresh rate and 4k gaming? Because that measly 480 isn't gonna cut it

>>57797912
But my gtx 680 is still running most modern games on high or ultra.

Doom for example ran great on my pc.
GTA V is another example.

ATi/AMD literally hasn't released a card worth buying since the Radeon 9800 pro.

>>57797940
2 rx480s.

Still better than a 980ti, trades blows with the 1070 and 1080 at a much cheaper price point.

>>57797952
>>57797952
Preach.

680 is probably the least-lauded but best nVidia flagship card in the past 10 years. I'm still running a first-batch reference 680 and have yet to have a single issue with it.

>>57797965
Uses almost twice as much power and only trades blows in one AMD sponsored title.

It struggles to keep up with a 1070 in real world performance.

>>57797940
GTX 1080.

>>57797965
>spending an equal amount of money for a 2x setup and praying that the devs support it instead of just buying the 1070 which will give much more consistent support across the board

Fucking why? And even then the 1070 is only really scratching the surface. The 1080 and up is the sweet spot for that level of gaming and AMD has nothing at that level thats a single card. I want AMD to compete and do well but with shit like this they're giving Nvidia free reign over the high end market.

>>57797988
Damn nvidia fanboys are fucking retarded.

>>57797449
If you're buying this for a workstation you're doing it wrong.

>>57796005
Assuming the 490 is actually a dual-GPU card, it will be based on Polaris. Polaris is not an enthusiast architecture, and AMD will be releasing Vega soon, which is an enthusiast architecture.

File: crossfire_doom.jpg (75KB, 1069x730px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1069x730px

>>57797965
No.

>>57798041
How soon is "soon"? We're already over 6 months in to an Nvidia dominated top end, is AMD really going to give them the enthusiast sector of the market for an entire year?

>>57798090
I've read they want to release Vega at the same time they release Zen, so probably in January.

>>57798166
I hope that's right, prices are fucking outrageous right now

>>57798060
>zotoc

Shit card manufacturer

File: my 660ti.jpg (155KB, 1024x554px)

155KB, 1024x554px

>>57798648
nah

>>57798910
Yah

>>57799053
>t. sapphire or asus owner

>>57795169
I actually prefer this to having an overpriced card that cant even run 4K at 60fps. This may be actually the sweetspot for people with a 1440p monitor or even a 1080p/144hz monitor, if it comes with a relatively low price of course which is doubtful.

>>57799114
Sapphire is shit too asus is decent I have never had a bad experience

>>57799149
then you might be retarded. Asus had the worst 200 cards ever because the cheap fucks just reused kepler coolers

>>57798648
>>57799149

Bro, you stooooopid!

>>57797298
>Implying 980 is bad

>>57799196
Every asus I have ever owned has been nice of course I usually go for the better cooler versions

>>57799207
>stupid for knowing things are so cheap for a reason

>>57796412
Just wait for Vega

If you wait you'll see =^)

>>57799196
>200 cards

Oh fuck, something bad happened a decade ago!

>>57799278
>3 years ago was a decade ago
ok

>>57799292
Honestly OP who are you trying to convince? 480RX was a failure, retards like you were shilling for it using the same currynigger source just so in the end the card would end up being weaker than 1060 in dx11 (which is like 90% of current and future games) while costing the same due to to low supply and high demand. It cannot OC, it runs hot and it's overall just another /g/ contrarian meme that supports "competition" for the sake of being competition instead of actually being viable.

>>57797231
so amd saying that the 480 will be at 290/x terriroty and actually delivering is "amd sucks" ?

god damn those idiots

>>57799559
I love how you absolutely ignore the fact that AMD shills were shitposting/shilling using "journalist" websites like OP to claim that 480RX would compete with 1070 and 980 Ti.

>>57799554
by weaker you mean only on nvidia infested games eh... cause in any other else 480 is ahead...

K

File: index.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>57799568
but AMD themselves did not, thus it delivered its performance and you're retarded

>>57799568
the official word from raja was 480=290/x

File: bf1-benchmark-1080p-dx11.png (39KB, 712x609px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 712x609px

>>57797854
>lying on the Internet

>>57797293
>Hopefully their Vega is 1080Ti levels
I thought this was vega?

>>57799583
>>57799588
Backing on words as usual. That's why nobody actually purchases AMD or takes you guys seriously. AMD fans pretty much scream dishonest and retarded. Same way I've just came from a thread where some retard was comparing Fury X to 980 Ti and saying it's pretty much the same performance in 4K when 99% of players wouldn't pick either for 4K since both cards drop to ~35 fps and 980 Ti blows Fury X out of the water in 1440p/1080p benchmarks.

>>57799622
give me any OFFICIAL article from amd that said they will compete with 1070

fury line was just a test bed for hbm even someone stupid enough with technology knows that
and that is the reason why amd never let anyone to deriver from their design
also you need to do a reality check
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti-revisited-36-games-including-watch-dogs-2/view-all/

28 out of 36 games amd is winning or on par with 980ti
and 6 out of 7 dx12 games amd is still ahead..

>>57799670
Not him but

>The GTX 1070 is the fastest of the three cards we have tested here using our maxed-out 36 game benchmark suite. In second place is the GTX 980 Ti followed by the Fury X.

Isn't helping your case.

>>57799685
pretty sure you didnt even saw the benches..

>>57799702
Why would I waste time reading through some massive graph when they've summarised it for me?

>Overall, the GTX 980 Ti is still significantly faster than the Fury X in the majority of our games although the Fury X has been able to gain a little ground – 7 additional benches out of the 75 we originally tested are now in the Fury X’ favor – although it is still bested by the GTX 980 Ti overall.

Wow the 980 ti is still receiving performance improvements in drivers! Quickly delete that link. Old nvidia cards can't be seen to have improvements! It's the only claim amd fanboys ever had >_<

>We continue to see good optimizations being made for the GTX 980 Ti although they appear smaller than for the GTX 1070.

File: 1475529784902.gif (2MB, 277x342px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 277x342px

>>57799599
>TFW they dont post 290

>>57795169
>Its going to be close to the price point of the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080.
really ?

>>57799729
The 290 is shit now as is the 290x. The aftermarket 780 ti still kills them both and even beats the 480 and oc 970.

>>57799794
Are you even trying with your bait?

File: wd2_1920.png (150KB, 548x629px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 548x629px

>>57799794
Honestly, are you joking?

File: Dis.png (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>57799818
>specifically say aftermarket
>spastic posts stock benchmarks

>>57797125
The 970 is currently getting beaten by the gen older R9 290 in new games.

File: Maf.png (1MB, 1920x1080px)

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>57799832

File: Wew.png (2MB, 1920x1080px)

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>57799834
Explain these then
>>57799832
>>57799840
>>57799599

It's all a lie amirite ?

File: Crysis.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>57799852

>>57796941

This. I somehow don't want to support Nvidia just because I find normies so goddamn annoying. And they always assume everybody else owns Nvidia as well and behave as such. How many times were you looking for a guide for this or that and heard or saw "open nvidia control panel" spoken as a complete given?

>>57799852
Nice old games and gameworks titles m8.

>>57799866
That's very hipster of you anon

>>57799869
>dishonored 2
>mafia 3
>old games

Can't tell if bait or retardation

File: 1459368227075.png (390KB, 850x720px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 850x720px

>>57799852
>>57799840
>>57799832
>>57799859
>i5 3570

File: proz intel.jpg (110KB, 626x832px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 626x832px

>>57799832
>>57799840
>>57799852
>>57799859
Quit posting your tired, cherry picked screenshots and post actual benchmarks like I did.

No one cares if all the mid range graphics cards can get 80+ FPS on Crysis 3, an old as fuck game that isn't even coded well.

>>57796874

Actually the RX 480 was advertised to be on par/ a little bit better than the 970. Which is it is.

>>57799886
>dishonored 2
>mafia 3

Both gameworks titles benched using gameworks features m8

File: how odd.png (35KB, 682x840px)

35KB, 682x840px

>>57799840
hmmmmmm

>>57799832
Read the chart instead of screaming. You do realize that the 780Ti would have to get a 25% OC to scale linearly to even match the 480, right? You're a fucking retard

File: 1313308608383.jpg (19KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x512px

>>57797952
>>57797987
>tfw still rocking a 680 with high settings on most games

>>57799888

>>57799832
>>57799840

>i5s have 8 threads

>>57799893
>g-games d-don't matter if they aren't r-released in 2016 under the goyim evolved title

t. Assmad amdrone

>>57799903
>mafia 3
>game works

'no'

>>57799911
>amdgoys believe charts over actual video evidence with statistics shown

Like clockwork. I bet you'll be defending windows store soon itt.

File: 1480074181100.jpg (68KB, 619x827px)

68KB, 619x827px

>>57795169
>currytech

>>57799893
Sorry anon but I take a picture of a yt video with MSI afterburner in it over some glorified shill journalist websites at any given day. You should know better after Gaymergate and 98% Clinton's chance of winning shill.

File: watch-dogs-2-gpu-1080-vhigh.png (36KB, 805x485px)

36KB, 805x485px

>it's a lie!

>>57799942
Hahaha, look at him and laugh.

You're probably the dumbest, neet nvidiot on /g/

Keep thinking your cherrypicked screenshots of AMD cards playing Crysis 3 and GTAV at a silky smooth 80FPS is actually an argument against AMD cards

Meanwhile while your 1060 can't keep 60FPS in BF1 I'll be laughing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxsIOV2AjMc

>>57799992
>muh dx12

Oh I'm laughing.

File: 1726450i03g9jmahjj0mjj.png (63KB, 421x248px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 421x248px

>>57797954
R700 > GTX 2XX
Evergreen > THERMI
Northern Islands >THERMI EXTRA CRISPY
Southern Islands > Kepler
Sea Islands > Kepler 2.0
Sea Islands > Maxwell

>>57799955
Are you drunk? Cram your iPhone up your asshole shithead

>>57799966
Yup, gamersnexus has always been shit, see >>57799818

File: 1460343445848.jpg (27KB, 640x301px)

27KB, 640x301px

>>57797965
I highly prefer AMD thanks to there significantly better long term support and fewer anti consumer practices and support for open standards but everyone with a functioning frontal lobe knows that multi GPU (both Nvidia and AMD) is terrible.

I would personally recommend the R9 Fury if you got the PSU for it. It is currently 259.99 on newegg and performs similarly to the 1070 at a significantly lower price point.

I will personally stick with my 7970 until Vega comes out.

>>57799992
let's see shall we.

>guru3d

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,6.html

>1060: 95
>480: 94

>techspot

http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html

>1060: 94
>480: 92

>based gamers nexus

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2652-battlefield-1-graphics-card-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12

>msi oc 1060: 95
>msi oc 480: 87

Hahaha, look at him and laugh.

>>57800055
But I don't have a functioning Frontal lobe I always used to piss off my mother's wife she she got me fixed

>>57800021
>Yup, gamersnexus has always been shit

so the only benchmarking website to actually bench aftermarket gpu which is representative of 99.99% of people in the market for a gpu is shit because they don't do shitty stock benchmarks which favour amd's highly oc out of the factory gpu?

let me ask you this. are you currently using a stock clocked, stock cooler gpu?

>>57795169
>pajeettech

>even if true it only barely beats a 1070 on benchmarks
>in reality the 1070 will still be superior in the vast majority of games
>still can't touch the 1080 and probably can't touch a factory overclocked 1070
lmao

>>57800114
Not that guy but I am mainly cause I'm scared to death I'll fry it

>>57800174
wait what

>>57800187
I don't know the limits of a 780 to be honest

>>57800196
this is just pure autism.

>>57800207
>autism cause afraid to damage expensive equipment

>>57796026
kek
I can't believe retards fell for that

>>57800213
m8, that's straight up some weird form of ocd and autism. these gpu can take quite a beating up to temps of like 95 degrees. also you will know the limits of your gpu when you start getting artifacting or black screens.

>>57800241
What is autistic about not wanting to spend a bunch of money on a new GPU cause I made a mistake?

>>57800271
why did you spend that much money if you were going to underclock the thing because you're scared of breaking it?

definitely autism

>>57800334
I didn't umderclock it its running at normal stock clocks

>>57800366
definitely autism my friend.

the only card i've ever left at stock was an msi r9 390 because the fans were too damn loud with even the minuscule oc it came with out of the box. shit was idling at 70 degrees.

>>57800394
I don't get how this is autism even if I do overstock it it won't get much of a performance gain

>>57800409
>overstock

Fuck you autocorrect

>>57795169
>pajeettech

>>57796255
that's 490
there is also 490x as a rule

>>57801193
no. they ditched that. there is the 470, 480 and the 490 is pretty much confirmed from several leaks. there won't be a '490x'. if there is a bigger gpu than the vega chip in the 490 (which i doubt due to costs) it will be called something else totally.

>>57797187
>>57797350
>>57797450
No, it isn't.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/PlayStation+4+Pro+Teardown/72946

It is a single APU. One IGP. Stop regurgitating tech illiterate /v/irgin child bullshit.

>toddlers arguing over tech when 70% of what matters is how game was coded and optimised

'High end" PC gaming tech is a fraud, it doesn't mean jack shit next to how games are optimised and no one bothers with it. You wank over maximum ultra settings with shit like 2% more grass density and a an additional billionth filter on shadows while your PC games are an unoptimised mess and those features still cater to a specific hardware. Thats why PC gaming is dying outside of shit like mobas, we need a better game engines.

>>57801302
The source of this laughable misinformation isn't even a misquote from Mark Cerny. Its a tech illiterate retard from the Verge pulling something entirely out of their ass, then the echo chamber media all regurgitated it.

This is the line in question:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13350476/sony-ps4-pro-mark-cerny-4k-games-psvr-graphics

>Instead of using an entirely new GPU, Cerny said the PS4 Pro is using a "double-sized one."
>In effect, the new console has a second, identical GPU configured next to the original, with a 14 percent boost in frequency to 911MHz, which more than doubles the processing power of the Pro.

That second line is entirely the author pulling things out of his ass. The original PS4 APU had 20CU on die, 18 are active. The PS4 Pro has 36CU active, double the original PS4. That is all that Cerny said. He never claimed it was a dual GPU system.

/v/ children need to stay in their own board.

>>57797588

Really? The nvidiot is using brand loyalty against the AMDrone? I mean come on, don't tell me you can't see it.

>>57802336
Fanboys can't see irony

people will still buy Nvidia gpus just because it's Nvidia

>1070 tier
Fug, I want a fucking 1080 tier AMD card.

File: Screenshot_20161202-152742_01.png (156KB, 1080x291px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1080x291px

>>57797514
That wouldn't make any sense, given Polaris 11 is small Polaris and Polaris 10 is the larger one

>>57803501
I want titanx+ amd card for $700.

I'd be able to live on it to the end of times.

>>57795169
Does the AMD CEO wear leather jackets as well?

>>57795169
Are the 1070's still overheating?
Is it safe to buy one?

>>57803667
you are simply ignorant, it was mentioned several times that it's order of development not codes
they developed big polaris first
now they develop medium vega first

>>57803700
Source on that? Never heard it before

>>57799818
>4 fps difference between the 480 and gtx 980
nvidiots on suicide watch

>>57803690
nah, but she's got phd in engineering and math

>>57803675
Yeah, I guess I'd prefer that as well. However I'd be fine with a 1080 tier card. 1070 tier seems fucking pointless for me, considering I already have a 480.

>>57803698
what do you think? nobody made any rivisions

>>57795169
>nvidia is finnish

didnt know jewish graphics cards are made in my country wew lad

>>57803708
I don't remember it was mentioned in the heat of 480 release, koduri was talkative at a time

>>57803700
>it was mentioned several times that it's order of development not codes
this is generally accepted.

>they developed big polaris first
>now they develop medium vega first
these claims demand sauce, especially given how adamantly you've been making them.

>>57799568
RX 480 competing with cards more than double its price is a bit ridiculous, stop shitposting.

>>57803715
She looks like my old boss and that makes me hate her.

>>57803720
That's why I was asking.
I wasn't sure if they happened yet.

what numbers does 1080 have in those benches?
1070 comparison is irrelevant

Price of a RX490. What do you expect?

>>57798166

nope, vega is h1 '17, zen is q1.

>>57803805
MSRP 300
in reality hell if I know will vary from 370 to 550

>AMD's high end card barely beats nvidia's mid range card

Oh boy

>>57803805
The RRP will be just under the 1070, but you won't be able to find it for any less than $100 more than the 1070.

>>57796026
idiot this is exactly how the fury x performs at 4k, its faster than the 980ti

stupid question

will the 570 be much faster than the 470 or will it be like 7870/270/370 again?

im gonna assume it will be the same architecture again, so no. but not totally sure

>>57803905
>will the 570 be much faster than the 470 or will it be like 7870/270/370 again?

it will most likely just be a rebranded 480

File: Fury-290.png (102KB, 804x521px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 804x521px

>>57797231
tfw upgraded to fury from ayysus 290

>>57795169
In rough order of believability:
> made up bullshit
> this is dual 480s, who cares when Vega is coming soon?
> (massive power gap)
> this is Small Vega, AMD is saved!
> this is Big Vega, AMD is doomed!

These numbers seem too good to be true for small Vega (1x HBM2 module = 256 GB/s = successor of RX 480/Polaris 10) but nonsensical for something with >1.5x the compute of Fiji and 2x the bandwidth of a 1070.

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 413x395px

>>57795169
>dual gpu
>crossfire
>barely beating a 1070

Toppest of keks

Thanks Doc.

>>57799599
>DX11

>>57795169
DELET

>>57800010
Maxwell = Kepler 3.0
Paxwell = Kepler 4.0

>>57805269
PAJEET

>>57800006
let me guess you still use win7 because you're incredibly tech illiterate

>>57796874
The rx 480 was advertised as meeting minimum recommended specifications for vr at a 200-240$ price point (reference) the minimum required specifications of current vr platforms is the gtx 970 and R9 290 or better. It performs exactly as advertised, and typically somewhat better than expected.

>>57795169
>comparing AyyMD GPU with TDP of 9000W to a mobile nvidia GPU with TDP of 85W
Great propaganda, pajeet

>>57805202
There is no small Vega. Vega 10 is big (bigger than 1080) and Vega 11 is probably huge.

If this is Vega it could be a low power Vega 10 variant. "Pro" seems to denote mobile.

>>57805339
>There is no small Vega. Vega 10 is big (bigger than 1080) and Vega 11 is probably huge.
Not him, but doesn't this imply that Vega 10 is smaller than Vega 11, thus there is a small(er) Vega? That's all that small denotes anyway.

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

>>57805339
>>57805349
Most rumors place a smaller Vega as being a 1x HBM2 (= 256 GB/s) with ~7 TFLOPS in <150W and a big Vega with 2x HBM2 and ~12 TFLOPS in ~230W.

If Big Vega is in 450-500 mm^2 territory, Small Vega might still be smaller than GP104 (314 mm^2).

>>57805259
>using dx12 in bf1

it's almost like you enjoy crashes and shit frames per second

>>57799599
DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW

>>57795169
You mean
>POO 490

>>57795169
> FINNISH
last time I checked they were Korean

>>57805596
terrible bantz

File: 2413529-6085233473-nvidi.jpg (70KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x563px

>>57801338
>pc gaming dying

>>57806165
>using nvidia charts

that's illegal on this board. learn the rules.

>>57806191
>it's green so it must be nvidia!

Retard, I got it from Google.

>>57806198
it says nvidia in the filename you twit

>>57806221
>the filename must be the source

File: graph_2.jpg (35KB, 560x272px)

35KB, 560x272px

>>57806191
Better?

>>57806281
no. it's not in /g/ amd red.

>>57795169
but how much will it cost

>>57806370
Gay em dee?

File: Capture+_2016-12-02-11-14-00.png (562KB, 1440x2392px)

562KB, 1440x2392px

>>57806370
OK I fixed it.

Do I need to worry about brandwars if I get my parts for free?

>>57806191
The sauce in on the botton
>>57806481
ayyy

File: bf1-benchmark-1080p-dx12.png (39KB, 712x609px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 712x609px

>>57800090
>based gamersnexus
>shill site
>can't even get the DX12 version running, unlike real review sites like eurogamer/digital foundry and gamegpu
Not hard to see why nvidiots flock it it

File: 1319394614697.jpg (15KB, 250x250px)

15KB, 250x250px

>>57806946
It's alright man. It's over. We lost. AMD could put out the better card for the next 2 generations and they'll still go out of business because morons keep slurping up Green Team cum.

>>57800090
>not being able to read
Look carefully dumbass, under DX12 the RX480 wins in the guru3d benchmarks
>g3d - RX480: 89, GTX1060: 87
>techspot - fails because it can't get DX12 running
Wow, another shill post

>>57806946
are you legitimately retarded or just trolling? 99% of reviewers who benched bf1 all reached the same conclusion about dx12 mode being broken.

>b-but these 2 reviewers out of 100+ g-got it working so it m-must work, r-right
>b-based ayymd

>>57807023
You stutter in real life, don't you? That's why you project so hard in your green text.

>99%
Nice numbers, faggot. Fuck off.

>>57807023
>2 reviewers out of 100+
I already listed 3. Guru3d, gameGPU, and Digital Foundry. Don't get your panties in a knot when your favorite shills fall flat on their faces.

>>57807063
Not him but the RX 480 only gained one frame >>57806946 as opposed to >>57799599

>>57803905
I doubt that the 570 will be much faster. Vega at the same performance or slightly greater than the 480

>>57803805
350 after prices settle

>>57801193
Probably 490 then Fury

>>57800114
The benchmarks are fucked to begin with. That was my original point. 10% OC doesn't translate to those numbers.

>>57807111
Not sure what your point is. Look at the horrible minimums in the GN DX12 bench. Competent reviewers didn't report that.

>>57807090
guru3d also said it was broken you spastic.

>The difference in-between DX11 and DX12 seems to be trivial with DX11 being a slight notch faster. Choose whatever suits you the best I'd say.

are you trying to claim dx12 is meant to cause performance loss vs dx11 or are you actually this retarded?

>gamers nexus

Unfortunately, DirectX 12 is variable on each vendor, with generally poor low performance values and occasional stuttering. The stutters are buried a bit as multiplayer sessions are stretched over a longer period of time, but still present.

>techspot

After running our own benchmarks, Battlefield 1's performance is certainly interesting and we're not shocked to see a heap of controversy among users regarding the game's DX12 performance. Being surprised and even confused at times about the performance I was getting, I looked around the web for comparison and few tech sites appeared to be mentioning Battlefield 1's inconsistent frame rates when running DX12.

>pcgameshardware.de

Under DirectX 12 the performance does not improve either with AMD or with Nvidia, at this point probably DICE even with patches help, the current version (Day 0, 1.7719) is still the same, with which we have made all the measurements in this test.

>hardware unboxed

It was disappointing to find that DX12 offered nothing over the ageing DX11 API. If anything DX12 was a step backwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9OEw2INeg&t=1s

>joker productions

https://youtu.be/AWgy9pq5W54

>legit reviews

AMD Radeon graphics cards do very well on this DirectX 12 game title when you look at the average FPS, but they appear to be suffering from some massive FPS drops when playing at 1920 x 1080. You can be playing with respectable frame rates and then all of a sudden the performance plummets down to the single digits. NVIDIA graphics cards also experience some FPS drops, but to a lesser degree.

>>57807090
>>57807249

>pcworld

Flipping the DX12 switch results in no noticeable frame rate increase and actually results in slightly slower average frame rates at 2560x1600 resolution, even with the extra CPU cores and dedicated async shader hardware built into Radeon GPUs. Worse, enabling DX12 actually introduced some infrequent but massive stuttering to the game. Frame rates sometimes stalled out and dipped below 30 fps, which is very noticeable while you’re playing. That stuttering behavior wasn’t consistent, oddly enough; in a handful of benchmark runs it didn’t occur whatsoever. When it did, though, it tended to be when explosions roared or buildings collapsed.

Activating DirectX 12 in Battlefield 1 results in a demonstrably worse experience.

>computerbase.de

Compared to the competition is for owners of an graphics card from AMD also worth considering DirectX 12. Especially in the single player mode, DirectX 12 can run slightly faster than DirectX 11 - with a maximum of five percent, however, the gains are small. In the multiplayer mode, with DirectX 12, on the other hand, on the Radeon RX 480, AMD is consistently slower.

>hardocp

When switched to DX12, BF1 falls flat on its face. There is no performance improvement, and there are no visual quality improvements. In fact, there is a negative return on framerate. On both the AMD Radeon RX 480 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 the framerates go south and provide worse performance while gaming, at 1080p and 1440p.

DX12 introduces a stutter in BF1 on both video cards. We found it incredibly noticeable during mission load, and multiplayer map load. For the first 15 seconds of loading a new map or multiplayer map there would be random noticeable stutter. Then there would be random stutter as you played, especially more noticeable in multiplayer maps. DX11 was butter smooth with no issues on either video card in multiplayer.

and there's many more. let me guess though, it's all a lie amirite?

>>57807249
>claims guru3d also said it was broken
>The difference in-between DX11 and DX12 seems to be trivial
Have you reached the point that you literally see what you want to?

>gamersnexus
>literal joker production
It's shit

>hardware unboxed (sometimes interesting tests, occasionally unreliable results)
>Again we see that for the most part the RX 480’s performance seems much the same using DX12 and DX11. Meanwhile the 1060 is up to 10 fps slower using DX12.
>I only took a quick look at the DirectX 12 performance because what I had seen so far wasn’t that impressive and reports from others at the time seemed to be inline with my own findings. The AMD graphics cards delivered about the same performance while the Nvidia cards were a bit slower. A few of you were quick to point out that a few HIGHLY RATED outlets such as DigitalFoundry, found the RX 480 to be quite a bit faster when using DX12.

>>57807401
so i was right. you literally believe it's all some massive lie and conspiracy and are still believing 2 (TWO) benchmarkers over the ~10 i just provided which all have clear evidence to prove there are issues with dx12 mode on bf1 with massive frame drops and stutters.

amdrones will do anything to defend dx12, even if its a dogshit port. it's quantum break all over again. kill yourself.

File: 1440p.png (186KB, 1482x3629px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1482x3629px

>>57807335
>>57807458
Even an occasional stutter is unacceptable.

Of course this is a minor, short term problem that is not universal. Even in DX11 the 480 and 1060 are neck and neck in any moderately reliable benchmark (pic related). You are focusing on a minor detail, an occasional stutter, to avoid facing the fact that the 480 simply performs better in DX12 in the vast majority of reviews of BF1, including many of the reviews you cited.

We aren't arguing about the implementation of DX12, we're arguing about which cards perform better. Clearly, Polaris outperforms Pascal at the same price point in DX12.

>>57807458
>nMADia

>>57807579
terrible damage control. it's not a "minor, short term" problem if it still hasn't been patched to this day. the stutter isn't minor either since it occurs frequently in multiplayer matches and causes minimums to drop significantly.

>We aren't arguing about the implementation of DX12

actually i was arguing that you dunce. i don't care which performs better, i just hate the fact retards like you will defend dx12 no matter what and let the devs get away with shit implementations like this by turning a blind eye to all the masses of reviews calling it a shit port.

you mentioned dx12 and i explained why i didn't mention it in the first place, because it's broken and i proved my point.

>>57795169
too late, everyone already has their 1070
AMD can keep their cards

>>57807660
>actually i was arguing that
That's because you're avoiding the real issue, which is that Polaris outperforms Pascal in DX12.

>i don't care which performs better
That's not what you said here >>57800090 and here >>57799859 and >>57799852

And I quote
>>57799852
>It's all a lie amirite
>>57807458
>all some massive lie and conspiracy
>>57807335
>it's all a lie amirite

Fuck off lying shill

AYYYMDPOOJEETS ARE AT FULL FORCE ITT

>>57807811
Keep meming, faggot. May 1RU come to you for each post

>>57807745
>That's because you're avoiding the real issue, which is that Polaris outperforms Pascal in DX12.

no one can be this retarded. seriously this is some cockroach tier IQ.

how many times do i have to say you can't take anything out of the dx12 performance in this game because it's broken? according to your conclusion, dx12 performance means no gain on amd cards and a loss on nvidia cards since you're basing your dx12 performance on this single game alone. all that basement humid air has fucked your brain.

>That's not what you said here >>57800090 (You) and here >>57799859 and >>57799852

i made one post, why are you quoting a bunch of other people?

i should rephrase. i don't care which performs better in dx12*

i assumed you had a brain and enough logic to deduce this, since it's the whole point of discussion. can't trust an amdrone to have any logic so my bad.

>And I quote

again, quoting other people. i made the last 2 posts in that and i was talking about dx12 performance being broken as a lie and conspiracy as you have clearly shown to believe.

kill yourself. you got schooled.

>>57807745
>That's because you're avoiding the real issue, which is that Polaris outperforms Pascal in DX12.

maybe in a few amd sponsored games like hitman (which also decreases image quality when using the dx12 renderer), but otherwise pascal is much better perf/w and overall performance than amd's competition.

>>57807856
>how many times do i have to say you can't take anything out of the dx12 performance in this game because it's broken?
A stutter doesn't mean that all results are invalidated, retard.

That's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Or when I bring up DE:MD DX12 perf (AMD wins) you're going to scream that that doesn't count because it's a POOJEET EPOO'D game?

>>57808060
>maybe in a few amd sponsored games
Wow, I called that card >>57808307

>>57808307
>Or when I bring up DE:MD DX12 perf (AMD wins) you're going to scream that that doesn't count because it's a POOJEET EPOO'D game?

nope. because i don't give two shits about that game. it doesn't matter to me. the only amd sponsored game i've ever bought in recent years is hitman and guess what? it runs like absolute dogshit to the point i uninstalled the piece of trash because of the shit performance.

>>57808060
>hitman (which also decreases image quality when using the dx12 renderer)
lolwat?

>>57796874
Any intelligent human being would choose rx 480 over 1060. Freesync already makes a big difference, dx12, better drivers, more vram, newer architecture.

>>57808367
>The only games that count are the ones I like
Not that guy you're "arguing" with but you should seriously just kill yourself at this point, senpai.

>>57808684
he asked me a question, not you or anyone else. i replied with my own opinion. problem?

>>57808951
He asked you if you were going to dismiss AMD's DX12 results in DE:MD just because it's a Gaming Evolved title and you said that you would for the simple fact that you don't care about it. That's not a valid reason to dismiss the results, you turbonigger, and yes I have a problem with that :^) :^) :^)

>>57809168
he asked me, yes. me. get over it manchild.

>>57809263
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>57809458
then why are you still posting?

>>57795169
HBM 2 @ 1 TB'

CONFIRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMD


RIP NIVIDIA!!!!!!

>>57809507
>can't beat the 1080 and the titan pascal
You fell in the HBMeme

Someone please delete /g/. What a fucking mess of a board. How is it getting even worse?

Really, depends on how AMD prices it, in my opinion they have to be aggressive and target $300, $350 max.

>>57796952
>>57796026
>>57797347
>>57797878
>>57800221
0.5$ have been deposited to your account.

Nvidia™

>>57811284
Wow, $0.5 for 1 post? Where do I sign up?

File: lal.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

>>57795169
>FINNISH
>From Finland
>Finnish
>MaxAutism.bat
>MFW

>>57811094
Historically it hasn't mattered where they price it. People will not buy AMD cards, even if they are better and cheaper than Nvidia's.

File: 1454911283834.jpg (54KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 720x720px

>>57796026
>top tier videocards still cannot run 4k at 60fps

>>57812272
>says the word "historically"
>only thinks of the last 5 years

File: make_b8_gr8_again.jpg (158KB, 1000x1000px)

158KB, 1000x1000px

>>57795169
>wccftech

1070 performance level sounds good, doesn't it? Who expect a niche of enthusiast wants more? I've never seen a non-brand whore in the enthuiast bracket either.

>>57795169
>Pro

Dual card confirmed. Still awaiting Vega.

>>57812272
I think /g/ underestimates how many people buy Pre Built gaming PCs.

Almost every one of those have Nvidia cards these days. Plus the marketing helps, if they have both AMD and Nvidia powered ones on display, usually the Nvidia ones have cooler displays/demos.

>>57816320

That is the gist of what AdoredTV was on about.

File: 1402065566623.jpg (43KB, 450x450px)

43KB, 450x450px

>>57795169
So let me get this straight.

It's a dual gpu card, and under perfect conditions it's only slightly slower than a 1070, Nvidia's third fastest single gpu card?

Oh wow AMD definately outdid themselves

>>57816384
*slightly faster

>>57797940
Vega 11 with hbm2. Meanwhile pascal offers tech from the maxshit era.

>>57816408

If you scaled fury x up core wise from the extra space the node shrink gives you'd have a 300w monster that would annihilate everything in its path. Naturally vega won't be that as we know its a new generation of GCN and even ignoring that the cost to build such a chip would be astronomical.

Reminder this isn't even Vega and AMD promised it early 2017. Fuck pajeets.

File: 1470238695556.gif (1MB, 400x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x287px

>>57807579
>7970ghz averages 45fps with 2048 cores @ 1ghz
>470 averages 56fps with 2048 cores @ 1.2ghz
>45 * 1.2 = 54
>a GCN 1.0 card with the same core count and frequency as a a GCN 1.3 card performs the same, the only difference is power consumption which the new PP sure helped with

>780ti averages 55fps with 2880 cores @ 1ghz
>980ti averages 89fps with 2816 cores @ 1.25ghz
>55 * 1.25 = 69
>a GK110 card with MORE cores and the same frequency as a GM200 card performs 30% worse, all of this while staying on the same PP


this is why amd is failing and you know it

>>57816576

You're an idiot. There is more to a gpu that core count - the primitive discard in polaris is leagues ahead of earlier GCN version which is why when you crank tessellation (for example) polaris doesn't give much of a fuck - older GCN die on their feet.

Hell generally speaking a 480 is half of a 290x (though it does have a 25% clock advantage) but performs roughly the same.

Typical AyyyMD faggots:

"T-This t-t-time around w-we-we'll be f-f-f-faster! YOU JUST WAIT A FEW MONTHS!"

>>57812272
people don't buy it because they don't even know it exists as competition or they might think it's some knockoff walmart brand.

when i decided to move back to pc gaming last year from playing on an xbox 360 since 06, the first gpu compnay which came to my head was ati because of some old prebuilt i had with an ati gpu and i didn't even realise till i searched them up that they no longer exist and that amd own them. amd has absolutely no advertising anywhere compared to nvidia which advertise themselves everywhere in the pc games section of the walmart equivalent in my country.

tldr; it's not that people actively avoid amd because of dislike, it's because the casual doesn't know what they offer and nvidia is a "safe" brand.

>>57816782
This.

Also rx 470 is 3 times+ more efficient and has lower memory bandwidth compared to 7970. AMD didnt pull that efficiency not only with the node jump but also with architectural improvements. The new gcn is superior to the old.

>>57818075

>>57818075

>>57818075

I was refuting this a long time ago. HBM2 has been a long time to coming to fruition. This one should run latest games like BF1 in 4K on high settings.

Nvidia has a Tesla version of the 1080 that has HBM. It costs a few thousand dollars.

The original would have been a success if it had more than 4GB and could hit higher clock speeds. There was a lot of quality control issues as well.

>>57818146
^^The original HBM chip (Fury X)

File: wccftech.jpg (52KB, 400x400px)

52KB, 400x400px

>>57795169
How many times are we going to dance this dance?

I want to add that these benchmarks won't mean a whole lot until someone tests 4K only with ultra textures and AA, tessellation, etc. The 490 will have a massive amount of bandwidth available, like more than double that of 1070/1080. That bandwidth won't do anything if it's not needed. Especially anybody who wants to run 3D or multi-screen would utilize the bandwidth.