- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 12,738 (2.38/day)
- Location
- Glasgow - home of formal profanity
Processor | Ryzen 7800X3D |
---|---|
Motherboard | MSI MAG Mortar B650 (wifi) |
Cooling | be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 |
Memory | 32GB Kingston Fury |
Video Card(s) | Gainward RTX4070ti |
Storage | Seagate FireCuda 530 M.2 1TB / Samsumg 960 Pro M.2 512Gb |
Display(s) | LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC |
Case | Asus Prime AP201 |
Audio Device(s) | On Board |
Power Supply | be quiet! Pure POwer M12 850w Gold (ATX3.0) |
Software | W10 |
Comparing cards using the Deus Ex MD benchmark isn't demonstrative of actual game performance. There are other Deus Ex MD reviews that show Fury X behind 1080. Cherry picking Guru 3D, who AMD fans often slag off for some reason doesn't illustrate anything.
Also, using Doom Vulkan is an excellent gauge for the future. Made with explicit AMD extensions (because Nv don't have them) shows about the best case scenario, IMO, for AMD's future performance). So, given that it's hard to see how much farther GCN can go (and Navi won't have it) and Titan XP (unrealistic card but shows Nvidia's fastest) is far ahead even in Vulkan, it's very hard to see Captain Tom's future.
Then there is the elephant in the room which few have had the reasoning to spot. The AMD resurgence is clearly based on the move from DX11 to DX12 and one game using Vulkan (again with explicit AMD extensions). Using this new paradigm, we can expect no similar performance improvements from AMD over Pascal in these API's.
The situation of graphics cards will remain as it has with DX11. A game developed with assistance from AMD or Nv will favour that card. Hitman and Deus Ex both favour AMD. Both were developed in the Nvidia classic style of, 'lets hamper the competition'. Just like TWIMTBP games tend to highlight Nv abilities at the expense of AMD.
Dx12 etc will help AMD achieve greater parity but given the Titan XP with fewer shaders than Fury X still soundly beats it in everything (faster clocks but like peeps say, no Async or DX12 magic) then you have to wonder how bad it might be when Nvidia bring back a little parallel async compute based hardware...
And yes. I can compare Pascal to Fiji because all a die shrink does is (simplistically) reduce power use and increase the ability to throw on more hardware. Nv used the shrink to keep the die reasonably clean but bring up clocks.
Anyway, it'll be fun when Vega arrives because with Fury X level of cores on 14nm, it should be clocked far higher. That alone with some GCN tweaks should overtake the 1080. But then Nvidia will react with 'something'. 2017 is worth talking about because Vega will give us some solid numbers to discuss but this will ring true - if in 2017, a Titan XP beats Vega in an AMD Vulkan game, AMD are in trouble. If on the other hand Vega beats Titan, AMD will rightly be confident of a rosy future.
Until Vega is out, all of these awful conversations (including mine) are about as insightful as a cat farting. The proof of science is in the testing and we can't test that future till it's here.
Also, using Doom Vulkan is an excellent gauge for the future. Made with explicit AMD extensions (because Nv don't have them) shows about the best case scenario, IMO, for AMD's future performance). So, given that it's hard to see how much farther GCN can go (and Navi won't have it) and Titan XP (unrealistic card but shows Nvidia's fastest) is far ahead even in Vulkan, it's very hard to see Captain Tom's future.
Then there is the elephant in the room which few have had the reasoning to spot. The AMD resurgence is clearly based on the move from DX11 to DX12 and one game using Vulkan (again with explicit AMD extensions). Using this new paradigm, we can expect no similar performance improvements from AMD over Pascal in these API's.
The situation of graphics cards will remain as it has with DX11. A game developed with assistance from AMD or Nv will favour that card. Hitman and Deus Ex both favour AMD. Both were developed in the Nvidia classic style of, 'lets hamper the competition'. Just like TWIMTBP games tend to highlight Nv abilities at the expense of AMD.
Dx12 etc will help AMD achieve greater parity but given the Titan XP with fewer shaders than Fury X still soundly beats it in everything (faster clocks but like peeps say, no Async or DX12 magic) then you have to wonder how bad it might be when Nvidia bring back a little parallel async compute based hardware...
And yes. I can compare Pascal to Fiji because all a die shrink does is (simplistically) reduce power use and increase the ability to throw on more hardware. Nv used the shrink to keep the die reasonably clean but bring up clocks.
Anyway, it'll be fun when Vega arrives because with Fury X level of cores on 14nm, it should be clocked far higher. That alone with some GCN tweaks should overtake the 1080. But then Nvidia will react with 'something'. 2017 is worth talking about because Vega will give us some solid numbers to discuss but this will ring true - if in 2017, a Titan XP beats Vega in an AMD Vulkan game, AMD are in trouble. If on the other hand Vega beats Titan, AMD will rightly be confident of a rosy future.
Until Vega is out, all of these awful conversations (including mine) are about as insightful as a cat farting. The proof of science is in the testing and we can't test that future till it's here.