BasardThat's a big IF.

That's a trade off.
One can go less transistors, less instructions per clock and higher clock.
Or more transistors, more instructions per clock, slower clock.

There is no clear "best" way.
Lower clocked Fury X beats stock 980Ti from 1440p and higher res.

john_But it will have a tremendous advantage on power efficiency over RX480.

Wouldn't it be like 30-50w? How is that a "tremendous advantage"?
Also check this out:
www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qoclm/german_site_explores_the_potential_for/

And where we are perf wise with stock 480 (which is at 66% of 1070, according to TPU) :



I can imagine xx60 being a hit, if it has ungodly OCing... But then, neither 1070 nor 1080 are particularly good at it.

If the 1060GTX has the same performance as the RX470; but costs as much as a Rx480; AMD will be getting a lot of orders.

But I doubt nvidia is that shallow and will ramp up it´s 1060 in performance or price (both aren´t necesarry because ,hey, they are nvidia) to level the playing-field against the Rx480.

The 1060 costing 199$ for the 3GB could be a real possibility.
How else are they going to attack the Rx480? (I doubt they can change the design much on a short notice)

MUCH FASTER THAN AN RX 480 !!!! HYPEEEEEE


I would like to see the performance, according nvidia CEO GTX 1080 had Insane (x4) performance over Titan X..

AvidTechUserInteresting that NVIDIA is pushing the release date of the GTX 1060 so far forward. Do they see the RX 480 as some type of threat? Unless they are just really far ahead in terms of preparations for its release, which does seems far less likely, I truly wonder why they would rush to get the card out so soon.

Nevertheless, this "high value and low power usage" face-off is great news for consumers. In Australia, the RX 480 ranges from AU$320-$450 (8GB version), which is very reasonable (here) for a card that can handle decent 1080p performance.

Nvidia hasn't released anything in the $200-300 range for quite a while, so that segment was due for a refresh, regardless of 480.

EroticusPretty cool games , not every one is living in the past and not everyone is fan of Call of Duty, you know...

Total War: Warhammer
Quantum Break
Forza 6

Battlefield 1
Forza Horizon 3
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Gears 4
Scalebound
Watch Dogs 2
Heroes & Generals

You keep listing those games, but how do you know AMD performs better in all of them since half of them aren't even released yet (and Heroes&Generals has DX12 disabled because it was buggy)?

RejZoRIiiiiis it? If 3,5 GB of memory runs at lightning speed and the 0.5 GB of data is sitting inside the slow part, what do you think it's going to happen? It's EXACTLY like car with 1 defective wheel that's dragging it to the side and slowing it down. EXACTLY like that.

Why do you make such a fuss about hypothetical 970 usage? You already have a lot of benchmarks right here on TPU, we know how it performs in the real world. And it performs so well, it cannibalizes 980 sales.

SonicZapExcept that many buyers - me included - don't think 3 GB is enough. 6 GB sounds like it could be the sweet spot though.

What resolution are you playing?
I play on 3440x1400 without any issues on my 780Ti with 3GB of VRAM...

Well, good for you. I wouldn't touch GTX 970 with a 10m pole. In fact I haven't, that's why I have GTX 980...

bugNvidia hasn't released anything in the $200-300 range for quite a while, so that segment was due for a refresh, regardless of 480.



You keep listing those games, but how do you know AMD performs better in all of them since half of them aren't even released yet (and Heroes&Generals has DX12 disabled because it was buggy)?



Why do you make such a fuss about hypothetical 970 usage? You already have a lot of benchmarks right here on TPU, we know how it performs in the real world. And it performs so well, it cannibalizes 980 sales.

Hitman
Forza 6
Quantum Break
Ashes of the Singularity
Total War: Warhammer

Perform pretty good on my 290x.

Prima.VeraWhat resolution are you playing?
I play on 3440x1400 without any issues on my 780Ti with 3GB of VRAM...

Yeah m2 =] 3440x1400 Ultra.

i.imgur.com/Qd9X0mi.png

i.imgur.com/YydfuvT.png

medi01Wouldn't it be like 30-50w? How is that a "tremendous advantage"?

30-50W in this category is significant. If GTX 1060 is even a little faster than RX480, we will start comparing it with custom RX480 and custom RX480 models will have higher power consumption along with higher frequencies. At least until AMD and/or GlobalFoundries fix whatever gone wrong with Ellesmere, in software or manufacturing.

PS. Just saw that 15% extra in performance. Probably at GTA V, but anyway, it counts.

The usual, slightly better or roughly equal performance, less VRAM, cooler, better power efficiency, slightly more expensive.

bugNvidia hasn't released anything in the $200-300 range for quite a while, so that segment was due for a refresh, regardless of 480.

Understood, but it still does seem odd that NVIDIA have brought the release this far forward. "Fall 2016" to "Early July 2016" is potentially 5 months early, which does seem strange to say the least.

NergalIf the 1060GTX has the same performance as the RX470; but costs as much as a Rx480; AMD will be getting a lot of orders.

Ok, let me do some dubious math.

Perf numbers (100% being the 480) by TPU:

1080 - 177%
1070 - (3/4th of 1080... although, I'm not quite sure if that info is correct) is 150%

If it was proportional (and assumption of 1070 being 1080 with about a quarter of units disabled), 1070 should have been 177*.75 = 132%, slower than it is. (so multiplier actually is 0.84, which is 1.12 times better than expected)

So half 1080, should be 177/2 * 1.12 = 99 (curious, lol), so roughly on par with 480. :D

Crap DaddyThe usual, slightly better or roughly equal performance

Wasn't 960 noticeably slower than 380?

AvidTechUserUnderstood, but it still does seem odd that NVIDIA have brought the release this far forward. "Fall 2016" to "Early July 2016" is potentially 5 months early, which does seem strange to say the least.

I think it's one of Nvidia's hobbies. Recently, they've also pushed the 980Ti to rain on Fury X's parade.
But this may be due to better than expected yields. Personally, I think this was meant for a back to school, September(ish) launch. If it was scheduled for November, they'd more likely use Q4 16 instead.
Also, neither the GTX 1080 nor the GTX 1070 have been available on their announcement date (arguably, they're still not available today).

RejZoRIiiiiis it? If 3,5 GB of memory runs at lightning speed and the 0.5 GB of data is sitting inside the slow part, what do you think it's going to happen? It's EXACTLY like car with 1 defective wheel that's dragging it to the side and slowing it down. EXACTLY like that.

You will only notice an effect if you need that last 512MB, the slow part is only used when you run out of the 3.5GB fast memory. I believe most games on 1 GTX970 will run out of GPU power before running out of video memory.
It's more like a broken fifth wheel that only touches the ground when you overloaded your car.

Why are you defending a design cock up? Like seriously? Are you on NVIDIA's payrole by any chance? GTX 970 ain't that slow to be obsolete just yet from GPU side of things, but there are games that utilize a lot of memory. And for those, GTX 970 will nose dive like mad. I just don't know how NVIDIA has fiddled with drivers moderating VRAM usage, because I know they've done something to be very conservative on that end.

Lovely way of showing 15% advantage, so that it looks like 60%:



Interesting, that it is shown to be 42%-ish more efficient, when 1070 looks like 50% more efficient than 480.

RejZoRWhy are you defending a design cock up? Like seriously? Are you on NVIDIA's payrole by any chance? GTX 970 ain't that slow to be obsolete just yet from GPU side of things, but there are games that utilize a lot of memory. And for those, GTX 970 will nose dive like mad. I just don't know how NVIDIA has fiddled with drivers moderating VRAM usage, because I know they've done something to be very conservative on that end.

We're not defending the 970, you're just blowing it out of proportion.
Of the games that nosedive because of VRAM, only those that use between 3.5 and 4GB will be affected by Nvidia's design decision (keep in mind those last 512MB are still faster than going to your system RAM). Those that need more than 4GB would have been a no go regardless.
And if you happen to fall between 3.5 and 4 GB, you just lower the settings a bit.
Ok, I get it, you don't want to deal with this, so you went for the 980. Fair enough, it's your choice, you know what works best for you. But thousands other have looked at the 970 and considered it a good option. And that's that.

Edit: I also don't mean to imply the whole matter should have been kept under the rug. It's been exposed, the benchmarks have spoken, now let it rest.

P4-630I don't think they make the same "mistake" again as many GTX970 owners complained about it.

More like trolls who don't even have 970s.

Real chart would look like this:



to put it into other perspective:



Note that 15% faster isn't too impressive, given how AMD drivers improve over time:
Nvidia past generation GPUs aging terribly - version 2

PumperMore like trolls who don't even have 970s.

Like you? :p

I have one and never had any issues with it. Why would I complain?

Eroticus

LOL dat gap in performance, and i think the RX 480 would still beat it in DX12

bugWe're not defending the 970, you're just blowing it out of proportion.
Of the games that nosedive because of VRAM, only those that use between 3.5 and 4GB will be affected by Nvidia's design decision (keep in mind those last 512MB are still faster than going to your system RAM). Those that need more than 4GB would have been a no go regardless.
And if you happen to fall between 3.5 and 4 GB, you just lower the settings a bit.
Ok, I get it, you don't want to deal with this, so you went for the 980. Fair enough, it's your choice, you know what works best for you. But thousands other have looked at the 970 and considered it a good option. And that's that.

Edit: I also don't mean to imply the whole matter should have been kept under the rug. It's been exposed, the benchmarks have spoken, now let it rest.

"We are not defending it "

BUT 224GB/S > 192GB/S > 26GB/S > 64 > 56 > 2.0 > 1,7 - It's doesn't even matter

When 970 were released it was Stronger than 290x, now it has same performance like 290.




But like we said it's doesn't even matter..



or not ... ?

ViperXTRdat gap in performanc

It's 15% according to that slide.

Anyhow.
15% faster (whatever that means, when nv says that) and about 25% more expensive.
480 would still hold perf/$ crown.

Oh, and at 1425Mhz 480 seems to rival Fury, I wonder how often we'd see that or higher clocks on AIB cards, when they hit (and how much they'd cost :()

Eroticus"We are not defending it "

BUT 224GB/S > 192GB/S > 26GB/S > 64 > 56 > 2.0 > 1,7 - It's doesn't even matter

When 970 were released it was Stronger than 290x, now it has same performance like 290.




But like we said it's doesn't even matter..



or not ... ?

That's really misleading. You are showing the tables that are used to prove that nvidia is purposely gimping older gen cards through its driver releases so they would sell new cards. I fail to see how this relates to the memory fiasco.

CounterZeusThat's really misleading. You are showing the tables that are used to prove that nvidia is purposely gimping older gen cards through its driver releases so they would sell new cards. I fail to see how this relates to the memory fiasco.

16/May/2016 ? I tough new cards came few weeks later.