It's a little bit funny how AMD fanatics and NVIDIA fans slant NVIDIA for its DX12 performance, specially when comparing GTX 1060 and RX 480, but then, everyone fails to notice an elephant in the room:



GTX 1060 at DX12 has a higher minimum FPS than RX 480 which usually translates into smoother gameplay.

Here's another revelation, DX12 works just fine for Pascal:



Thirdly, RX 480 has 5.8 TFLOPs and GTX 1060 has less @ 3.8 TFLOPs, so naturally RX 480 should not be slower than GTX 1060 at least in cases when raw performance (Direct3D 12/Vulkan/Mantle) matters. At the same time NVIDIA did an impeccable job with its drivers in D3D9/10/11 because it always beats more powerful AMD GPUs while having fewer transistors and lower raw performance.

NeDix!mmm i am more shocked by the 380x vs 970 :\

I'm not. D3D12/Vulkan were modelled after AMD GPUs so naturally AMD has had a huge head start in regard to performance in these new APIs while the first NVIDIA's attempt at these APIs was the Pascal architecture. Do you remember it took AMD four+ years to match NVIDIA's tesselation performance? No. Then why should NVIDIA's first attempt at D3D12/Vulkan be as fast as its competitor?

idk who is making these graphs but wow the GameGPU ones are bad... yikes. The scale between each bar is horribly off.. 46fps ave is higher than 47fps ave and then 61fps ave has a large gap ahead of 60fps............

birdieAMD fanatics and NVIDIA fans

Can someone spot the difference? :p

bugI've said it from the beginning, but few were listening: by the time DX12/Vulkan become relevant, both Polaris and Pascal will be obsolete.

Right there with you, I have been since middle of last year. I publicly stated a number of times that by the end of this year, DX12 would still not be mainstream or widely adopted. I got flamed so much it's not even funny. Well who is laughing now?

BOTH camps current GPU's will be obsolete before DX12 actually matters.

btarunrI don't think anybody claims that.

yeah no one has ever claimed that and if they did they did so so they could attempt to misinform the masses

rtwjunkieRight there with you, I have been since middle of last year. I publicly stated a number of times that by the end of this year, DX12 would still not be mainstream or widely adopted. I got flamed so much it's not even funny. Well who is laughing now?

BOTH camps current GPU's will be obsolete before DX12 actually matters.

lol, I was in that party.. could care less about flames...nonetheless flames of those without foresight to read what the market is saying, and said in the past.

But hey... a game or so here and there are improving... go amd! Lol

btarunrI don't think anybody claims that.

Not in this thread. ;)

birdieGTX 1060 at DX12 has a higher minimum FPS than RX 480 which usually translates into smoother gameplay.

www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/tom_clancy_s_the_division_directx_12_pc_performance_review/2

Ill just leave this here then... never trust one single review

ShurikNwww.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/tom_clancy_s_the_division_directx_12_pc_performance_review/2

Ill just leave this here then... never trust one single review

so two reviews vs one review. Almost as if different test benches can reveal different results, hence why we consider the 1060 and 480 equal in performance.

My only question, is when AMD is going to bother releasing a bigger GPU to take full advantage of DX12. All that low level goodness doesnt matter if you are constantly GPU bound.

rtwjunkieBOTH camps current GPU's will be obsolete before DX12 actually matters.

Indeed, remember the first DX11 game BattleForge (yeah, me neither) ... dx11 mode (just the tesselation) was added winter '09, few months after amd evergreen arch debut ... nvidia's fermi came next year as 400 series and full year after evergreen came 500 series with motto "DX11 done right". Fast forward another year to 2011 and you had total of 10 to 15 dx11 games up to that point ... and DX11 was only couple of features tacked on DX10 just as DX10 was couple of features tacked on DX9 - no massive api rework, no huge pipeline change and everything still managed by the driver.
So it took 2 years to adopt incremental api changes in DX11 ... it should take few more for effective DX12 adoption by the devs who (for some reason) yet need to learn how to use it efficiently for both amd and nvidia, because as usual best case for amd is worst case for nvidia and vice versa.

I feel like it'll take more than 2 years for devs to switch from D3D9/10/11 mindset to D3D12. Then it'll probably take even more than that, because the install base of D3D11 is just too large to ignore (also many gamers refuse to switch to Windows 10 to which D3D12 is exclusive) - so at the moment it's financially unfeasible to target D3D12 only (as Quantum Break has already demonstrated). I for one would like devs to embrace Vulkan instead of vendor locked D3D12 but so far only idSoftware and Valve have embraced this open cross platform/cross OS API.

Remember D3D12 and Vulkan are completely different APIs than everything that was before that. To give you an analogy it's like switching from Java/C# to something akin to C or even assembler. It's extremely hard.

Lastly, why do people want to belong to AMD/NVIDIA camps so much? These companies don't give a c r a p about what you think and believe into, yet people vehemently try to praise "their" vendor over the other one. Could we show a little more respect to vendors' best features without turning into a branch of WCCFTech?

qubitI tested it and got blue screens all over. Glorious.

Even when the bsods stopped, the game still didn't work (crashed). Not sure if the game was faulty, dodgy NVIDIA drivers or a Windows fault. Never mind, I haven't bought the game and the trial period has expired, so the point is moot. It's very likely to work the next time I try it in several months time.

It worked in DX11, but even there it sometimes crashed.

Oh. Where can you download the trial?

lol 20% faster minimum and 7% slower in avg in 1080p, if anything this is still a win for Nvidia in my book. Remind me of AMD obnoxious xfire performance a few years back where scaling is more than 100% in avg fps but massive micro shuttering that only AMD fanatics can tolerate, this looks to be the same.

birdieI feel like it'll take more than 2 years for devs to switch from D3D9/10/11 mindset to D3D12. Then it'll probably take even more than that, because the install base of D3D11 is just too large to ignore (also many gamers refuse to switch to Windows 10 to which D3D12 is exclusive) - so at the moment it's financially unfeasible to target D3D12 only (as Quantum Break has already demonstrated). I for one would like devs to embrace Vulkan instead of vendor locked D3D12 but so far only idSoftware and Valve have embraced this open cross platform/cross OS API.

Remember D3D12 and Vulkan are completely different APIs than everything that was before that. To give you an analogy it's like switching from Java/C# to something akin to C or even assembler. It's extremely hard.

Lastly, why do people want to belong to AMD/NVIDIA camps so much? These companies don't give a c r a p about what you think and believe into, yet people vehemently try to praise "their" vendor over the other one. Could we show a little more respect to vendors' best features without turning into a branch of WCCFTech?

That's the exact analogy I made. And sticking to that analogy, just because C can make things run faster doesn't mean everything is written in C. That's why I think not all developers can and will switch to the low-level APIs.
If some choose to be early adopters, good for them. But I'll sit this one out and see what happens.

Prima.VeraOh. Where can you download the trial?

Nah, sorry dude, it was a free weekend on Steam. Simply install and play for a limited time and that time has now expired. :ohwell:

You might not be missing anything though, as one of my mates says this game is a grind and doesn't like it. I never had the chance to find out, lol.

birdie... at the moment it's financially unfeasible to target D3D12 only (as Quantum Break has already demonstrated). I for one would like devs to embrace Vulkan instead of vendor locked D3D12 but so far only idSoftware and Valve have embraced this open cross platform/cross OS API.

Interesting you mentioned it, because both idSoftware and Valve are game engine devs.
Fore example, unreal engine has an experimental DX12 mode and when you turn it on, fps goes from 110 to 80.
And that is going to be most prevalent way of using DX12 :laugh: by turning it on in a ready made engine.
Also interesting to note, async feature in UE4 was implemented by Lionhead Studios ... for a game that was canceled.
In other words, it's a mess :laugh:

qubitI tested it and got blue screens all over. Glorious.

You need to quit piloting that plane of yours (ur avatar). Of course, you see a blue sky (screen) in that thing.

alucasaYou need to quit piloting that plane of yours (ur avatar). Of course, you see a blue sky (screen) in that thing.

Oh, that SR-72 does Mach 6 and is a tad hard to control with my keyboard and mouse. ;) One wrong move and it dives into the ground in the blink of an eye. No console could ever handle it.

they need to roll out the 2080 already

P4-630But nowhere near GTX1070 performance...

"but nowhere as fast as card that costs twice as much (in some markets more than twice)"
Not sure if serious.

qubitI tested it and got blue screens all over. Glorious.

Even when the bsods stopped, the game still didn't work (crashed). Not sure if the game was faulty, dodgy NVIDIA drivers or a Windows fault. Never mind, I haven't bought the game and the trial period has expired, so the point is moot. It's very likely to work the next time I try it in several months time.

It worked in DX11, but even there it sometimes crashed.

"DX12's focus is on enabling a dramatic increase in visual richness through a significant decrease in API-related CPU overhead," said Nvidia's Henry Moreton last year.

Prima.VeraSomething's wrong with nVidia drivers. On 1080p they gain just as same as AMD's, but on 1440p or more, they actually loose a lot. WTH nVidia??

That's why I didn't like Pascal much. You get far too little GPU for your money. A very narrow bus destroys Pascal utterly at anything over 1440p. Ironically the Titan X is the only well balanced GPU, 1070 and 1080 are bandwidth limited.

Pascal's got too much oomph for 1080p, and just doesn't cut it for 4K, while being waaay overpriced for the silicon you're getting. As time progresses, this will become more and more apparent. With every % AMD can squeeze out of driver updates or DX12, they get to use their much wider GPU arch better, it just scales well at any res.

medi01"but nowhere as fast as card that costs twice as much (in some markets more than twice)"
Not sure if serious.

A while ago there were a few in the RX480 thread saying that a binned OC'd RX480 could touch a 1070 performance, thats all.

rtwjunkieRight there with you, I have been since middle of last year. I publicly stated a number of times that by the end of this year, DX12 would still not be mainstream or widely adopted. I got flamed so much it's not even funny. Well who is laughing now?

BOTH camps current GPU's will be obsolete before DX12 actually matters.

Correct, but AMD is already showing promise for DX12 while we haven't got any clue about Volta. Meanwhile AMD is still rocking GCN and Nvidia has burned up its dev cycle starting with Kepler > Max > Pascal. They can't clock any higher (likely) and AMD still can.

As usual the Fury is falling in between a 1070 and 1080... For $140 less than a 1070. LOL 28nm > 16nm?

Vayra86That's why I didn't like Pascal much. You get far too little GPU for your money. A very narrow bus destroys Pascal utterly at anything over 1440p. Ironically the Titan X is the only well balanced GPU, 1070 and 1080 are bandwidth limited.

Pascal's got too much oomph for 1080p, and just doesn't cut it for 4K, while being waaay overpriced for the silicon you're getting. As time progresses, this will become more and more apparent. With every % AMD can squeeze out of driver updates or DX12, they get to use their much wider GPU arch better, it just scales well at any res.

I just wish AMD would get a bigger chip out already. The 480 isnt enough, and crossfire support, much like SLI, is lacking.

Even a 3072 core polaris based chip would be a nice improvement.

TheinsanegamerNI just wish AMD would get a bigger chip out already. The 480 isnt enough, and crossfire support, much like SLI, is lacking.

Even a 3072 core polaris based chip would be a nice improvement.

QFT