Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
mGPU optimizations is done on the developer end, if I'm not mistake, AOTS uses explicit implementation, that means its 100% done on developer end. AMD drivers should have very little do with this, outside of functionality.
4 is a given I think all people in tech should be anyways lol
They had silicon way back in April to demo. More than a month later they don't have solid driver optimizations for AotS, their poster child?
It's disappointing the amount of arguing going on this this thread, especially after a moderator's warning. The RX 480 is great news if you're an AMD or an NV fan.
The key takeaway from the RX 480 announcement is the potential for (not confirmed until actual reviews) a 60% boost in performance within the $200 segment. Nvidia won't be able to get away with the 15-25% boost they've been doing for their x60 segment if they want to compete with this card. A rising tide lifts all ships.
At that level of performance, the card falls within 25-40% of the GTX 1070 (not the 10-20% that some AMD fans are fantasizing over, but we'll see in a month or so). If NV cuts a GP104 to make a GTX 1060/ti to compete with the RX 480 at $200, they won't be able to justify the 1070 at $380.
At that level of performance, the card falls within 25-40% of the GTX 1070 (not the 10-20% that some AMD fans are fantasizing over, but we'll see in a month or so). If NV cuts a GP104 to make a GTX 1060/ti to compete with the RX 480 at $200, they won't be able to justify the 1070 at $380.
Does it? 34fps vs around 54 on a 1070, that's 38% slower than it.
The 1070 is 50% faster than it. At least in AotS, going by AMD's own numbers. A 390x is faster than this. Something ain't right
Does it? 34fps vs around 54 on a 1070, that's 38% slower than it.
The 1070 is 50% faster than it. At least in AotS, going by AMD's own numbers. A 390x is faster than this. Something ain't right
The 51% thing is just wrong, read the last posts from last page of this thread it will be very clear very quickly
LMFAO4 is a given I think all people in tech should be anyways lol
You could compare a dual 480 to a dual 390X.
Here's a 1080p Crazy dual 390X and luckily, this same person has a 1080p Crazy with 8x MSAA.
Well, admittedly those do inspire confidence, outside of them having single 390x at 1080p Crazy 4x MSAA sitting at 38.4 fps on average.You could compare a dual 480 to a dual 390X.
Here's a 1080p Crazy dual 390X and luckily, this same person has a 1080p Crazy with 8x MSAA.
Well, admittedly those do inspire confidence, outside of them having single 390x at 1080p Crazy 4x MSAA sitting at 38.4 fps on average.
So, pick your poison trifecta stands strong.
look at this link AMD Announces The Radeon RX 480 Starting At Just $199Oh yes. I should apologize to you, because you posted correct information and I challenged it, right ? Oh wait. No. It's the other way round.
I feel pretty justified in getting angry when you tell me I miss the whole thing spelled out in the thread like I'm some kind of dimwit. I made the effort to read and understand before posting here. If anything, in the future, before accusing me of shit, GO READ THE DAMNED THREAD.
How many superfluous posts did I have to make, pointing out the obvious, hm? How many times did I post the same damn quote, in bold and underlined, font size 7, hm ?
How many times did I post the screenshot of the reply ?
Why did it take 7 or 8 posts for you to finally concede you were wrong ?
So has to be one of the following
1. the drivers are really bad at this point and they know it and got another month to do some optimization for this game.
2. may be they were using the 4gb cards and the 4gb memory is choking at 8x MSAA and crazy settings
3. Crossfire scaling is not 183% and they are just throwing a nice number out.
4. AMD fucked up the dx12 architecture with new front end lol. Which I highly doubt is the case.
I believe 1 to 3 are most likely than the last part.
You could compare a dual 480 to a dual 390X.
Here's a 1080p Crazy dual 390X and luckily, this same person has a 1080p Crazy with 8x MSAA.
Your edit or addition of the edit isn't there.
How do you k or they aren't dual 390s, possibly OC?
It's an old game version as well. Ideally we want to see a recent 1080/1070 review and hope to find a 390x 1080p Crazy preset result. Either that or we can ask someone on the forum to test for us
I could try downclocking my card as close to 1050mhz as possible and test that way
I think there is something to your point about 390x dual would be much higher than 1080FE.
I just went through various reviews where they have a reference 390x and applied the 1.83 crossfire figure.
When doing that a Xfire 390x in AoTS is anywhere between 20%-27% faster than a standard 1080FE.
So one should expect the 480 to have a similar trend rather than just matching 1080FE, considering this is the ideal game application for Polaris.
And I feel these are a better indicator as each individual review will have a better apples-to-apples comparison than what we have seen recently of trying to compare diverse-random results in the online Ashes table.
Also just to say the results skew if not using a reference 390x but a custom AIB as the performance gap increases a fair % (which one should expect).
Cheers
I'll be honest I've never seen a confirmed dual 390x result, but I very clearly remember the performance numbers from when aots first launched, and a 390x was on par with 980ti (approximately) in 1440p
Thats around 38fps with async enabled for both.
So *something* must be very wrong if two cards with 390x performance perform <10% higher than my OC 980ti.
Unless of course I'm getting 183% performance scaling from my overclock
It's disappointing the amount of arguing going on this this thread, especially after a moderator's warning. The RX 480 is great news if you're an AMD or an NV fan.
It still has not been confirmed whether Polaris with the 480 is based upon Hawaii or Tonga.
If it is Tonga that may explain the results, partially anyway.
Cheers
I would imagine Polaris is based on Polaris (with Fiji being the most recent predecessor, not Hawaii or Tonga)
Anyone who is an AMD or Nvidia fanboy is an idiot.
The RX 480 isn't very good news because it shows how noncompetitive AMD's next-gen chips are, 30-40% worse at the same TDP is pretty noncompetitive.
If you're comparing to the 1070 ...then the TDP is not the same. Unless AMD have managed to squeeze 8 pin juice through a 6 pin! The difference in performance (you claim 30/40% ...yet to be confirmed) is offset somewhat by the 50% difference in price ($200/+$400).
Trolling isn't your strong suite
No they both have 150W TDP as far as we know
TDP != power consumption
As far as we know 1070 on default power limit does not exceed 150W in power consumption beyond some margin of error.8 pin v 6 pin ...which one is going to draw the most power ...as far as we know?
8 pin v 6 pin ...which one is going to draw the most power ...as far as we know?
the gigabyte xtreme 980Ti has 2x8-pin + 1x6pin
Does it consume more than a normal 980ti with 8+6 pin ? No.
Yes ...about 47w under load compared to the asus strix
GIGABYTE GTX 980Ti G1 & XTREME GAMING Review - Power, Temperatures, Acoustics
Although lets try and keep it all reverent to the cards at hand rather than exotic OC centric AIB specials.
Yeah and also:You realize Tonga and Fiji are one and the same right ?
I think what CSI was saying is, depending on whether the perf/w improvements were compared to Tonga or Hawaii, the performance we are seeing will either make sense or it will not
I fully disagree there. AMD didn't put exact specs on it but they mentioned TDP 150W. So we can't have card running at 5tflop and then 5.8 tflop have the same TDP. 5.8 has to higher than 150w if we are assuming 5tflop is 150w. So that shows that they are mentioning max TDP here depending on where the card is clocked. Kinda tired People saying that card at its lowest configuration will have 150w TDPNo they both have 150W TDP as far as we know
TDP != power consumption
I fully disagree there. AMD didn't put exact specs on it but they mentioned TDP 150W. So we can't have card running at 5tflop and then 5.8 tflop have the same TDP. 5.8 has to higher than 150w if we are assuming 5tflop is 150w. So that shows that they are mentioning max TDP here depending on where the card is clocked. Kinda tired People saying that card at its lowest configuration will have 150w TDP