The RX480 now performs better than a GTX 1070 on the new Resident

what about other non-vulkan gayms?

Sees Titan X on top. YES! NVIDIA STILL WINS!

>>58634654
DEL3.5T THIS!

>>58634654
7 MORE FPS YEAH

>>58634654
Looks like the game runs pretty decently on everything, which it should since environments are pretty sparse and not very open in these titles. Though I read an article this morning claiming that the PC port of this game was a mess, it doesn't appear to be that way looking at frame rates.

Is this all /g/ is about? I mean, do we need to have these discussions every day? Just buy one GPU and shut up about it. We really don't care what random number a random website gives to each GPU.

>>58634723
the demo ran great on my 770 with high settings, idk why any new cards would have a problem running it

>** Update: Nvidia released a new driver which massively impacts performance. The results have been updated but we'd not be surprised to see something similar happening with AMD drivers. hence the results today remain subjective. The game is incredible hard to measure objectively.

Are AMDrones really this desperate?

>>58634701

kekd.

but seriously, this must be either driver not optimised or something? the 1070 is ofc the superior card,

not shitting no the 480, im just stating the obvious,

a few things to note, the 390x is still kicking ass, and its amazing too see how truly fast the Titan XP is.

File: untitled-3.png (37KB, 682x934px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 682x934px

non of this makes any sense...

look at 4k. it has to be driver issues on both amd and nvidia.

>>58635408
the game is a crapcom console port what do you think.

>>58634654
why is fury so bad?

>>58635408
>980ti
>14fps at 4K
I don't give a shit about brands but clearly the GPU is not the biggest influence here

>>58635408
>Titan XP still the only 4K 60fps card on the planet

>>58634728
Welcome to neog

>>58635765

>Until the volta titan and magically the pascal titan will lose performance
>Until fat vega

>>58635722
I noticed that as well. Given the Fury's die is 64CU, and the RX 480 is just 36 CU, and knowing that the IPC increase wasn't even remotely this drastic, it seems there are indeed some major driver issues at hand.

The bright side here for everyone though is that performance for both vendors should be much higher with future driver updates. A game that can hit 120 fps at 1080p and highest settings should have no problem running at 4K with an update or two.

>>58636097
nice so when the goty is out I will play supersampled 4k or 1440p at 60fps kek.

>>58636114
Thats probably going to be the case.
With the way things are now, buying games at release is for fools. Publishers rush deadlines, and "good enough" is the rule of law. Waiting till prices drop, drivers are released, and patches issued is the way to go.

Despite the differences between AMD and Nvidia, the biggest issues still lie with developers and publishers.

>>58635368

Its not driver, ITS THE FUCKING VRAM!

LOOK AT FURY.

>>58636169
I can't be, look at the 4K scores: >>58634636

The Fury X is still behind the R9 390X here, but why did the scaling for it so drastically improve compared to the 8GB RX 480?
Its driver issues, for both vendors. It is a very curious case though.

File: _id1482143191_343178_3[1].png (128KB, 1130x718px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1130x718px

>>58636251

Lets see.
Processing power Fury X > 390X > 480
Vram capacity 390x=480 >Fury X

Conclusion?

>>58634714
For like 200 bucks less, YEAH.

File: unknown.png (94KB, 452x602px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 452x602px

Delete me

>>58636365
The 4GB RX 470 out performs the Fury X at 108p.
Its not VRAM. Its drivers.

>>58636447
>The 4GB RX 470 out performs the Fury X at 108p.

IT USED 4.2GB VRAM AT 1080P HOLY SHIIIITTTT.

>>58634674
>DX11

Retard

>>58636251

The only real explanation why Fury X got beaten by 470 and 980 at the same Vram capacity is.

>Directx 11.

>>58635783
Big vega will be worse than small (the soonest) vega

>dx 11
is this a gaming evolved title?

>>58634840
Which performance does the driver affect? The Nvidia or the AMD cards'

>>58634654
How can AMD fags defend the rx470 beating a fury x?
THE GIMPING IS REAL!!!

>>58638993
dude, I love the 480 as a great value card, but the 480 is not more powerful then a 1070, it is not more powerful then a fury x, and it sure as fuck is not that close to a 1080...

the fuck is even going on with this game to get these results... I mean fucking seriously...

The results are fucking great across the board, but come the fuck on, how are they this weird?

>>58639446
What I find odd is that Nvidia cards are performing as they should relative to other Nvidia cards, but AMD is all over the place.

Like the 1060 is ahead of the 1050 ti, 980 ti is within spitting distance of the 1070, etc.

But on AMDs side the rx470 is faster than a fury x, and fury. That just throws me off so much.