So it begins…Currently you are able to pre-order for £193.64 (~AU $354) from Amazon UK (thanks to the weak pound)… which roughly converts to US$263,close to the RRP.
Vat is removed at checkout.
Also some more nvidia price drops:
MSI NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Card (4GB, 1076MHz, 256 Bit, DDR5, HDMI, PCI-E) £191.57 (~AU $347)
Zotac ZT-90204-10P - GeForce GTX 980 AMP OC 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card (ZT-90204-10P) £247.53 (~AU $449)
CamelCamelCamel 
Keepa.
ride the hype train… no need to see how it performs :) lol .. its only $229 after all… oh umm wait a second.. make that close to $479AU lol
Shopping express have GTX 1070 for $649 on special
They will have it on there EOF sale. But they only have 5 in stock at that price, so dont even think about getting one.
Pretty much all reports say its a cooler and less power hungry version of the 390.
For 350 you aren't going to be dissapointed but if you are buying it for VR its not going to be a powewrhouse despite what they are saying.
These things are comparable to a Nvidia GTX 970 in the leaked benchmarks
if thats the case, you can get 970s for 400 or less retail locally.
This is the 8GB version, 4GB version on par with 970 will be 70AUD cheaper
Goodluck with a 280 dollar 970.
adding 4GB will rarely give you better performance except under certain circumstances.
VR is what they are getting at. VR is very memory hungry. This is a OKish VR video card.
When you go above 1080p 4Gb while not critical will become useful. If you are 1080p gaming then yeah 4Gb is more than enough.
The rift and vive is 2160x1200, more than 4 GB is required for that if you are going to run max settings without bottlenecking in the newer games. Granted the power of the 480 limits the usefulness of this but undoubtedly the further in the life of the card the more you will need it and with driver improvements will make more use out of the extra ram.
However if you have a DK1 or DK2 then year you are right no more than 4Gb is required.
Nope thats wrong.
The GPU only has to hold memory for one eye, so its 1080x1200
4GB is plenty for VR right now.
@samfisher5986:
What you are saying us just flat out wrong.
Each lens is dedicated for each eye. They also render an eye buffer which is 1.4x the size of the 2160x1200 resolution so it actually works out to be 3024x1680 or 1512x1680 for each eye, not to mention the 90 hz refresh rate.
Also the headsets have to render two slightly different scenes per frame to ensure depth cues as each eye doesn't see the exact same thing which increases the CPU and GPU demand compared with rendering on a single flat screen.
Look it up this if you don't believe me this is why VR is demanding. If it didn't do that every time you moved your head it would lag like all hell. How do you think you can move your head and it still render things properly (Hint it's already rendered)
The raw demand of VR 90hz gaming is four fold of 1080p 60 hz gaming.
Before factoring in stereo gaming here is the raw numbers.
124 million pixels per second 1080p monitor @ 60 Hz
457 million pixels per second Rift/Vive @ 90hz
498 million pixels per second 4k monitor at 60Hz
Now depending on Stereo rendering those figures can double. VR gaming has a GPU requirements more similar to 4k gaming than 1080p gaming and depending on how stereo is handled can easily surpass 4k gaming requirements.
So you just used a bunch of irrelevent information and to what, try to confuse me?
You still only need enough memory for one eye. The 1.4 render size is only relevant in games that use it, and its dynamically adjusted.
The amount of pixels and 90hz/90fps has nothing to do with memory, its unfortunate you think it does.
So as you can see you are wrong, 4GB is enough for VR when you have the choice. In cards that don't give you the choice, they are also higher end.
What information I gave isn't relevant?
You still only need enough memory for one eye. The 1.4 render size is only relevant in games that use it, and its dynamically adjusted.
So the render size is only relevant when it is used? ummmmm ok then, your computer is only relevant when it is turn on, so if it's off you don't need any video card. When you say dynamically adjusting are you talking about the dynamic adjusting stereo level to reduce eye strain? That comes at a cost and goes completely against your point that it only loads one eye.
The amount of pixels and 90hz/90fps has nothing to do with memory, its unfortunate you think it does.
Hit your Vram max and see what it does to FPS. As for the pixels what on earth do you think it loads into the VRAM?
So as you can see you are wrong, 4GB is enough for VR when you have the choice. In cards that don't give you the choice, they are also higher end.
Games at 4K are already requiring more than 4GB of VRAM and VR is usually more demanding look at GTA V, Shadows of mordor, Battlefield 4, 4k requirements. Sure most VR games now don't require 4GB but plenty of games now require 4K.
hahaha seriously?
So all of this is based on 4k needing more then 4GB.
I suggest you do some research as to the difference between VR resolution and requirements compared to 4k.
Do research before you post and make yourself look silly.
Funny you cant answer anything directly.
As for research I would suggest you start off and look up how textures are loaded into vram and what the role of shaders are. Then come back and explain to me how VR resoltion is magically different from "normal" resolution.
After that look up stereo lens in VR then explain to me how it loading another screen with a slightly different image can somehow miraculously do it with zero cost as you said earlier.
VR resolutions have more in common with 4k then 1080 what cant you underatand about that? 4k is using more than 4gb of vram today.
Nothing you say can change the fact that only one eye is needed to be loaded in memory.
Its not about zero GPU cost, its about zero GPU memory cost.
That would be true if both eyes showed the exact same image. They don't it has to show a slightly different perspective and requires extra overhead to do it.
While some vector and polygon data for each image can be reused you really should be accounting for an extra 50% overhead at a minimum if you want a smooth experience without slowdowns and bottlenecks, the more complicated the scene the bigger that number is and well while 10% is probably true for simple VR games today but when they start getting more complex prepare for the requirements to jump dramatically.
You also have to account for the inefficiencies of the SDK which is still in it's early stage.
Plus the PS4 has 8GB GDDR5 (granted the system reserves 2GB) but later on it the console cycle you will be seeing more and more games that exceed 4GB because they can and Sony is releasing it's own VR as well.
4GB will be fine for awhile but you can't honestly say in the future more than that isn't required. People were having the same discussions with 2GB and 4GB only 2 years ago.
The overhead is in GPU processing power, not memory.
Its unfortunate you went to so much effort when you are incorrect.
It's both. It renders it twice, once for each eye. There is an extra memory cost due to both eyes not being exactly the same. If they were the same there wouldn't be the need to render it twice. There are also plenty of stereo rendering techniques coming out of the woodwork which renders both eyes at the same time the additional cost varies greatly based on the technique used.
8Gb will come in handy in the future. Ask anyone with a 2GB card, they said >2Gb would never be required for 1080. It seems silly for the price of 50 bucks to limit yourself to 4GB.
No… the memory holds game textures etc, there is no need to store those twice.
Its similar to 3D, you don't need double the memory.
I never said double the memory but it requires more memory. I have said 50% more which for a smooth experience and today 10% more is probably enough. The more complicated the scene the more memory it uses as it does have to load more textures, granted most VR things right now are pretty basic. Then there are plenty of inefficiencies in the SDK's plus the demand for better quality textures for VR it is pretty easy to forecast greater than 4GB of video ram being used.
You have been saying the whole time VR just loads the one lens into ram which is just wrong. It loads a lot more than the one lens as it loads the buffer as well for both lens as additional textures due to stereo rendering.
You are still wrong, but now we are at 10%, which is basically nothing and not going to be noticeable.
So we still don't need another 4GB for VR… haha.
Now I said it earlier as well and I also explained why 50% will be required for smooth experience which is everything in VR, VR games are still in it's infancy and fairly simplistic.
Please explain how I am wrong. You are wrong and I explained why you are wrong and just say nothing however that is because you have nothing to work with because you are wrong so you can't draw on anything.
You just keep saying that it only ever loads the single lens, when told about the buffer you came out (Oh thats only important when it's used) also forgetting that both eyes don't see the exact same thing just shut one eye and see how much of your vision gets cut off same deal with VR, not to mention the slightly different perspective.
I guess you were in with the 2GB will always be enough crowd when the 4GB first came out as well.
However just look at this
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p…
Even at 1080p some games are already knocking at 4GB Vram usage and that was a year ago.
Creating a second eye to create the effect needed for virtual reality does not use additional memory, just additional processing power. There is no evidence to show otherwise.
You know all of this doesn't matter, do you know why?
I have a 4GB card and my memory doesn't max out for any of my virtual reality games. In fact my 4GB 290x performs better then the RX 480 8GB in virtual reality and PC games in general, what does that tell you?
Now lets do a test, do you have a HTC Vive? I do.
There is so much actual evidence to show i'm right, and all you seem to be doing is making guesses based on information that is not directly related.
So where does it load the extra textures that are seen only by the second eye? Where does it load the extra buffer that is required for that second eye? Where does it load the textures required for the different perspective of the second eye?
Ahahaha So because none of the VR games which you have played today and they are all basic as right now haven't maxed out your video cards 4 GB graphics means that no VR game will. Ha ok then.
Obviously AMD and Nvidia are both slapping extra ram in there because it will never be required.
The 290X is about as powerful as the 480 but the 480 is more power efficient and cooler. When the AIB boards get released and the drivers mature expect to see very different results due to better drives and overclocking.
I don't really expect the initial 480's to really utilize the extra 4 GB which I said in one of my first posts. However that doesn't mean 8GB won't be useful later on when the driver matures and VR games get more demanding. the OCed 480's should be able to use more than 4Gb Vram easily.
You talk about evidence yet haven't shown squat. Funny that.
You are talking about the future, the 480 already can't play a lot of VR games, what are you waiting for future more graphical intensive games for?
It loads the extra textures from the memory, as its shared memory. This isn't crossfire….
The OC'd cards should be able to use more then 4GB? are you hearing yourself?
Again, you talk about the future when the 480 already can't play some VR games and plays others poorly. Its barely a VR ready card.
What games? Also new card new drivers there usually are issues like that with new cards especially with AMD if there is any gameworks stuff in them.
So according to you it only loads the one lens. But to load the different data the second lens requires it throws that into the memory as well. But it only loads the one lens and no extra memory is required for the 2nd lens. Hahaha ok then buddy. I guess this is kinda like the buffer only being relevant when used.
Kinda missed where I said driver and game maturity would change that. However the 480 might be able to push past 4 GB not by heaps but enugh to justify the extra cost of it. Then again it's hard to say what they will do in the future, they might be able to do great things with driver improvements, It's happened before. the only thing that is certain is GPU and memory requirements will go up not down.
With the same specs as your current card yet runs cooler and with less power. All new cards tend to have issues with games due to driver issues. If the 480 is rubbish your 290X is rubbish as well.
1 No.. its not just the 480 but the 290x and the 390x 8GB has lower performance in VR.
Some of the made for VR games are as follows, this is just some of them that have performance issues.
The Divergent Series: Allegiant VR (unplayable)
Battle Dome
La Peri
Out of Ammo
Pool Nation VR
Vertigo
theBlu
2 Requiring only one set of data is very common, this same idea is used in DX12 dual GPU.
3 Driver improvements are unlikely to improve it, it rarely does besides specific games unless you are talking about DX12 improvements which VR games are not.
4 I'm upgrading my card… because you need a lot more processing power. My 290x is heavily overclocked as well.
Lower performance to what? Steam results mark it .2 worse than a 390 at stock when OCed it does better than it.
The divergent is known as a really buggy game, 980 TI's overclocked have issues.
However everything you are saying is normal for a new card, new cards have issues its been a known fact for ages. I also can't find all the complaints you are talking about.
You were saying it only had to load one lens not that it loaded one data set. It has to load what is relevant for both lenses as well as a buffer. Now your tune changes realize how wrong you were?
So there can be direct X improvements but no OpenVR improvements. Ummmmm ok then. Also FYI VR is starting to use DX 12 mainly for low level hardware access.
Wait for the AIB 480's or the 490's to get released (Actually I usually always wait for the aftermarket) I just sold my 290 for 300 and going to slum it with a 7950 for awhile. Figured with the cheap price of the 480 it won't be long until the price goes through the floor.
Are you talking about Steam VR performance results? Have a source?
You are assuming all these new issues will be solved with drivers, that is unlikely as I've owned AMD cards all my life and it rarely happens.
It's performance problems on some titles with a brand new card, no reason they wouldn't get sorted with driver and SDK updates. Hell new games all the time sometimes have crippling issues with GPU's that require driver and game updates. GPU's generally are utilized a lot better by drivers later on in their cycle, you probably don't notice as there is always new games which require more and more grunt.
As for sources
http://imgur.com/a/zf7Jo
http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-steam-vr-benchmark-most-af…
Yeah it's wccf but it alligns with what others are reporting. Haven't seen anywhere else mention an oc clock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyUgZ2hYbPM
Seem some saying 7 stock and as low as 6.3 but 6.8 has the majority of results.
However it seems that once the non reference coolers come out the 480 will absolutely shine.
Except that the performance differences are identical on all AMD hardware. Unless you are saying AMD will patch all cards, we can safely assume none will.
I suggest you look at this as an example of real 970 performance
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3886/9205/o…
As you can see the 480 performs poorly.
What are you even talking about? Patch all cards? You mean a driver update yeah it happens alot. If you mean OC all cards yeah the manufacturers will and there are already some talked of STRIX and TRI-X releases coming out soon not to mention the other manufacturers. There is heaps of room for OCing due to how little power it chews and how cool it runs.
Heres some more benchmarks of hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/steamvr-performance-test…
http://vrworld.com/2016/02/23/valve-vr-test-nvidia-geforce-w…
Note the 970 in those one doing two points worse than the result there just five months ago, four months ago there were cards scoring .8 behind what you posted. So do you think they might have been able to make some driver improvements as well as overclocking in that time? You don't seem to understand that the cards improve greatly over time and overclocking has a huge impact.
Also the 970 is more expensive than the 480 even with the brand new premium.
When was the last global performance update for multiple games in a driver? It has been a very long time and its very rare and its a result of major issues with the old AMD driver. This is resolved and there isn't much you can do for DX9 or DX11 games. DX12 is where there is still work to be done.
You are completely wrong about these driver performance issues, most of the SteamVR issues where the score is lower then other cards are due to CPU issues.
The RX 480 consistantly performs poorly, just like other AMD cards. This is a global thing.
It also just so happens the 290x beats the RX 480 at stock, most of the cards sold in Australia were Tri-X preoverclocked cards.
I know the 970 is more expensive, my point is that the RX 480 is not VR ready and you dreaming about a driver to fix everything is stupid.
lets say someone purchased a 480 on your driver assumption and it never comes… will you refund him? Because its not likely to come.
Next game due for an update is DOOM which uses open GL.Before that GTA V, Witcher 3, RAGE, batman Arkham knight, AOTS, BF4 and these are just off the top of my head. Look them up it happens ALL the time both Nvidia and AMD do it frequently.
Lol @ CPU issues, go email the hardware review places and go tell them. Clearly you know how to benchmark better than they do. You also know better than Steam as they listed the cards as VR Ready and not just capable, better email steam and tell them they don't know what they are talking about while you are at it.
WTF are you talking about with Tri-x overclocked cards what relevance does it even have?
970 Beats the 480 with DX11, the 480 beats the 970 in DX 12. The amd architecture is better suited for DX 12 hence the better results and yes there is more room for driver improvements, also future games will use DX 12.
It's not just driver assumptions its the assumption that VR games will get more detailed, I also said to wait for the Aftermarket ones as these have so much room for Ocing it's not funny and they will easily push the need for greater than 4Gb vram.
hahaha you seriously think the 480 beat the 970 in DX12? Its way too early to tell that until a game Nvidia is willing to release a profile for comes out, like Battlefield 1. Yes you are right in that AMD cards should technically be better in DX12, but don't jump the gun.
As I said, you are saying VR games will get more detailed, the 480 struggles with current VR games..yet you want another 4GB so you can… what?
The reason I mention Tri-X overclocked cards is because it means most 290x owners have cards that are even better then the 480's then the benchmarks show, because they often use stock cards.
My point is that the 480 is barely suitable for gaming today.
It's not that I seriously think that it is what virtually every benchmark to date is showing. AMD hardware is better suited for DX12 and the results show. DX12 has been out for a year now and the cards have been out for awhile plus you said earlier you don't believe that driver updates/profiles matter much, so what is it?. You are all over the place seriously.
The 480 doesn't struggle with VR games, you are just saying that with nothing to back it up. It is classed as a VR ready card by steam and multiple other places. You got anything that says otherwise?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-ra…
Pretty much all reviews say it trades blows with the 970, yet that would mean the 970 is barely suitable for gaming as well and hell it's more expensive.
Gee I don't know, maybe because I get a better SteamVR score then the 480, and me and many other people I know have performance issues in VR games?
The card is barely VR ready.
Also we don't even have a completed DX12 game yet, for example one that has DX12 dual GPU support.
@samfisher5986:
Ha you are full of it. So many people you know and the card has been out like a week. Hate to break it to you everyone has issues with VR. The SDK is so new and most games out are pet projects with small teams. The ready score basically means you should be able to run VR smoothly not that it translates yet. Was using a 1080 with VR the other day and it struggled at times. Wasnt the GPU's fault.
Look up direct x 12 games there are a bunch out now. AOTS is the main one where AMD completely destroys Nvidia in all benches.
I'm not talking about 480's I'm talking about AMD performance in VR, its poor in many VR games.
AOTS is an AMD game and Nvidia say they don't believe its a good example of actual DX12 performance. There are plenty of Nvidia games that destroy AMD, but I'm not using those examples because its not fair.
Again, you need to wait for something like Battlefield 1
And I have no idea what you mean, you should be able to play VR but it doesn't translate yet?
There are a bunch of games you can't play, you just miss out I guess?
Or if you spend the $1400 AUD on a VR headset… maybe spend a little more and get a card that can play all the VR games?
How is AOTS an AMD game it only uses dx 12. DX 12 suits amd hardware hence the much better redults. There is nothing like gameworks in there.
Proof of this card not being able to play games. You talk about it but dont own the card and have nothing to back it up. Pretty sure it would be easy as to find info of s VR designed card not being able to handle VR.
Stop being full of it snd making shit up. This is just like the single lens thing.
The Fury has issues, the 390x 8GB has VR issues, why would the 480 not have issues when it has a lower SteamVR score?
AMD have games they focus on, Nvidia have theirs.
See this on how AMD have focused on this game http://www.amd.com/en-us/markets/game/featured/ashes-of-the-…
You have yet to provide any evidence of anything, you don't own Virtual Reality.. yet you comment on it.
You should really stop making things up as its clear you don't own virtual reality and you are just trolling.
I'm still laughing at how you think games like Job Simulator in virtual reality need an extra 4GB of video memory… if you had used one you wouldn't be posting this sort of garbage… lol
I asked for proof not bullshit or anecdotal crap. Show some proof.
Of course they focused on it there arent heaps of dx 12 games out now and this is one of the most well known ones. It has nothing to do with AMD and its not like gameworks for nvidia. The game is made by stardock which has zero to do with AMD.
What does me owning vr have to do with anything? I do own it and have followed and sold and traded up since the dk1.
Where did i say games like job simulator require it? I said in the future it would be required I have always said that. VR games are in their infancy and everything out has pretty much been pet projects with poor optimizations and quality. Or do you think job simulator is the pinnacle for VR? well no wonder you think 4gb ram is required. Job simulator could have been made 10 years ago.
You post your photo of your HTC Vive, and i'll post mine.
Until then I don't believe you.
And if the 480 can't run many VR games now, expecting it to run higher quality game sis stupid.
I dont care if you believe I have a vive or not btw the vive isnt the only one out :p
Proof of it not running games? Otherwise be quiet.
Also why have all the hardware review sites not grabbed onto this obvious flaw with the 480? They were all over the power consumption from the pci port like a rash yet forgot to go oh yeah 4gb of that ram is useless.
Guess you know more than all the hardware review sites because you own a vive. Just like you know more than valve and amd and nvidia engineers.
So then you don't own a Vive… I'm glad we got that cleared up.
None of the review sites are reviewing VR games.. nothing I can do about that.
I can provide you proof of low FPS on a 290x, 390x or Fury X.
If this is not ok you obviously think the 480 performs better then these cards.. which it doesn't. This would just prove you are trolling.
There are no review sites, Valve, nvidia or AMD that say the card runs the games I'm talking about.
I was going to boot up my Vive and show you a screenshot of games underperforming, then I realised you can simply look at the store page of a few games.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/448980/
Graphics: Nvidia 980ti or better
So there you go.
Kinda funny you point to a video card with 6GB of ram lol.
Also you are pointing to a game where all through the comments people are complaining that their overclocked 980 TI's are struggling to play it at min res.
So a poorly optimized game that 700 dollar video cards struggle with also has 350 dollar video cards struggle to play. Well paint me surprised.
Except in many cases the 4GB Fury X plays the game where the 290x/390x does not.
One game down, many more to go.
This game lists a higher card as well for example http://store.steampowered.com/app/451520/
But there are many games that list a Nvidia 970 and it doesn't run properly on a 290x/390x, this is because although its meant to be an equivalent the AMD card performs poorly for these types of games for unknown reasons.
Same reason eduke runs like shit on amd. These are pet projects and they dont have time to get it running well on both architectures. So they go for the one with greater market share. Hell some cant even get it running well on nvidia. So while you are busy talking about nothing using more than 4gb ram point to a single AAA VR title. Everything dedicated to VR so far is pretty much a pet project or just a conversion of a current game.
However dx 12 heavily favors amd architecture.
Why is not the point, the point is the poor performance. I think AMD are the better company.
DX12 favours AMD right now, but we don't have any proper DX12 games, they are mostly AMD funded or not implemented completely.
Actually Look for Doom Vulkan benchmarks with AMD and Nvidia, they just released support today, that will be your first answer on AMD architecture.
Yep an extra 30ish FPS in 1080p and is about the same as a 980 (non ti). Probably still some room for improvements as well.
Pretty impressive.
You'll have to wait until an nvidia driver is released so it uses asynchronous compute on Nvidia GPU's. There will be a boost from it as shown in the past, we just don't know how much.
It will be the first time we see something real.
One minute you are saying drivers don't matter the next you are saying wait for a driver update. What is it? You contradict yourself a lot
Also the maxwells aren't great at Async compute and even the Pascals aren't great at it either. That's why DX 12 and Vulkan is so much better for AMD. Just how their architectures are.
Waiting for a magical driver to fix performance is crazy…
Waiting for Nvidia to release a driver so we can see how their asynchronous compute performs in Doom… how is that not logical? id Software specifically said this was happening.
Currently the Nvidia cards are not using asynchronous compute at all. How is that fair?
Also AMD cards are not very good at OpenGL, which is part of the reason for the big Vulcan boost.
Either way we are going to see how well asynchronous compute performs with Nvidia soon as we don't really know at the moment.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Nvidia Maxwell cards don't have ACE's, how on earth can they get a serious performance boost from using Asynchronous Computing? Hell even the Pascal's won't be able to handle async computing near as well as AMD due to their GCN's and that is just how their architecture is. Nvidia has been saying for 2 years they will put Async into the driver and it's still no go.
You also have to realize Nvidia has been paying off developers to not use Async computing. Can't imagine they would do that if their video cards could do it well.
Umm no.. Nvidia cards can do Asynchronous Computing just fine, there are even quite a lot of improvements in Pascal for it.
Just because AMD have hardware inside to do it better it doesn't mean Nvidia cards can't benefit, we have already seen that they can.
We have already seen Nvidia doing Asynchronous Computing and having improvements.
I'm not sure what exactly the point of your post was, yes AMD is meant to do Asynchronous Computing better, we already know that, congratulations on stating the obvious.
The Maxwell's certainly can't async is a detriment. Pascal can but nowhere near as well as AMD cards.
The one thing you are ignoring is AMD cards are better suited for DX12 end of story. The GTX 970 although technically a slower card was trading blows with the r9 390? Why is that? Now Dx12 comes out and all of a sudden its on the other foot.
AMD cards have always been underutilized and Async really takes advantage of that. The Maxwell series card are utilized very well so what is async going to do for them? Absolutely nothing, the Pascals have some room but nowhere near as much as AMD.
AMD compute capability couldn't be fully utilized in DX11 but now that has changed with DX12. Nvidia never had that problem, their architecture is fundamentally different, just throwing Async into something which A) Isn't really designed for it and B) Doesn't really have a use for it isn't going to give huge compute gains.
However please provide proof of Nvidia having significant improvements with gains. However like everything else you have nothing.
I have said many times that AMD will perform better in DX12 and Vulcan, I am questioning by how much because AMD is so behind right now.
Thats why I think waiting for unbiased facts is more important rather then screaming that AMD have basically won the video card wars by being super awesome at DX12 which seems to be the trend among some people despite not having an real unbiased DX12 games yet.
I never said Nvidia had significant gains, we have proof of Asynchronous computing gains already but they are not as good as AMD. However it was not a good example. Doom will be the first example and we will see that when Asynchronous computing is enabled for Nvidia cards.
I am simply saying you could easily be right but you are jumping to conclusions. You are trying to tell me I'm wrong for not jumping to conclusions which is ridiculous.
Show proof of be quiet.
Every time you say there is evidence or proof of something and I ask for it you decide to prattle on about something else.
https://community.bethesda.net/thread/54585?start=0&tstart=0
"We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon."
Happy to be proven wrong about asynchronous compute, we just need Doom to prove it.
You said you had proof, that is literally nothing. Nvidia has talked about enabling Async for 2 years now. They talked about it with AOTS as well.
@samfisher5986:
So?
It proves nothing, and Nvidia have been saying that line for 2 years. It has even less weight now than a different company has said it.
Here you go
Non AMD biased, and without Open GL version issues
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/3DMark-Time-Spy-…
Shows decent gains on Nvidia, and bigger gains on AMD.
Good job backing up everything I have been saying.
I said there would be no benefit with the Maxwells which you have proved. I also said there was room for improvement with Pascal but nowhere near as much as AMD. Also the Pascal doesn't use Async but preemption and a load balancer which gives it the async performance boost. There are limits to the benefit of it. AMD cards have been showing much better performance gains than 10% when using DX12.
So what is your point? I am right about what I have been saying.
This whole time I've been talking about Pascal. Its Nvidia's latest card, who cares about Maxwell, Pascal cards are what you should be buying.
The whole point here is that while AMD has a larger boost, its quite insignificant. The only amazing thing they have done so far is improve their poor OpenGL performance with Doom with Vulcan.
Basically AMD are way behind, DX12 gives them a small catch up.. but they are still way behind.
No you said Nvidia cards can do async compute just fine never said the Pascal. You are the one who said the 970 beats the 480 in DX12 which just isn't the case.
The 480 isn't on par with the 1070 and 1080 it is the equivalent of the 1060. However it is 150 dollars less than the 1060 and the leaked benchmarks (you know the hyped ones where they don't even say the models) isn't exactly showing it smashing the 480 in anything. DX 12 is 5% better (I am a bit skeptical of that but anyways) and 20% better in DX 11.
Yet costs 40% more. Wouldn't call that way behind. They also have the 490 to come.
I guess you think I'm talking about the Nvidia 8800 GT as well then?
I'm obviously talking about the currently released nvidia cards, which is the 1000 series.
I never said the 970 beats the 480, I said its too early to tell, because it is. This is excluding async compute obviously. I'm talking specifically about DX12.
You have your numbers all wrong.
The RX480 is $199 USD and the Nvidia 1060 is $249 USD. Thats not $150 even when converted to AUD, get your facts straight. That extra $50 USD is very worth it unless you are waiting 12 months for Async compute games to become more common.. if not waiting 24 months…
You are a perfect example of someone adopting a new technology with the assumption it matters now.. when it won't matter until AMD's next generation of cards.
The unfortunate thing is the Nvidia 1050 will probably beat the RX480 in many things (but not everything)
@samfisher5986:
Don't strawman. I have specifically talking about Pascal and Maxwell cards, you brought up the 970 series now you are pretending you were never talking about them.
Umm no.. Nvidia cards can do Asynchronous Computing just fine, there are even quite a lot of improvements in Pascal for it.
Soooo you talk about Nvidia cards then specifically point out the Pascal in the next sentence. Ummm ok then.
The RX480 is $199 USD and the Nvidia 1060 is $249 USD
Nvidia reference is 299, AMD reference is 199. Don't compare apples with oranges.
Aftermarket cards vary in price from both comapnies as it's really up to the partners, if you are saying 249 for nvidia cards you might as well say 149 for AMD. We won't know until the hit the shops. For all we know the 249 might be the 3GB version there were rumours about. However 3GB seems kind of stupid on cards this powerful.
The unfortunate thing is the Nvidia 1050 will probably beat the RX480 in many things (but not everything)
Well the 470 will probably beat the 1080 in many things as well with a minor undervolt as well.
I don't know why you are bashing AMD so much, it's obvious the 480 has put pressure on Nvidia and will more than likely bring costs down for everyone. The competition is great for consumers.
I think once the 1060 is out and benched then all the AIB cards from AMD will come out, exciting times really. I can't think of why there has been all the silence about aftermarket coolers unless they were waiting for the 1060. Whichever card can overclock the best will likely win the battle of the 480 vs 1060 in the long run.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1060-retail-launching-july/
Nvidia 1060 is $249.
When I was talking about the 970 I wasn't talking about async compute, obviously.
The 470 will beat the 1080? I assume you misspoke and mean the Vega… nobody knows anything about vega yet.
I'm only bashing AMD where they deserve it. I still prefer them as a company to Nvidia by a mile.
Either way Nvidia is miles ahead of AMD at the moment and unless you are buying an RX480 and waiting 12 months you are going to get poor performance in many games.
Nvidia 1060 is $249.
Do you read your own links? This is from your own link.
GeForce GTX 1060 Founder’s Edition Launching Next Tuesday, 19th Of July For $299
The GTX 1060 will officially go on sale this upcoming Tuesday, 19th of July at $299. We could see non-reference designs sell for less than $299. Nvidia’s suggested retail price for its AIB partner cards is $249. However with the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 we have yet to see any cards sell for the official MSRP that Nvidia has announced for its AIB partner cards.
The 1060 is 100 dollars more, you can't buy a card for less than that. In fact you would struggle finding a card for 299 now as there is always the early adopted tax but regardless.
The 470 will beat the 1080? I assume you misspoke and mean the Vega… nobody knows anything about vega yet.
Misspoke about as much as you touting the 1050 being able to beat the 480. Hypocrite
Either way Nvidia is miles ahead of AMD at the moment and unless you are buying an RX480 and waiting 12 months you are going to get poor performance in many games.
In the top end of town currently thats true. In the mid market no chance. 480 is a great card for the price, Nvidia having more powerful cards doesn't change that.
http://www.game-debate.com/news/20655/amd-radeon-rx-480-benc…
That is with DX11 alone, with DX12 and Vulkan things get even better for the the cards.
We don't see 1070/1080 for their MSRP because there is a shortage…
If that will happen with the 1060 I don't know, but it doesn't change the price.
You could say the same about the RX480…the 4GB version has been impossible to get since release, it might as well not exist as its harder to get then any of the Nvidia cards.
And the 8GB version is frequently overpriced due to stock issues.
That doesn't change the $199 USD price… except according to you.
The 1050 is coming out in the future and I'm making a guess on what it can do. The 470 would be worse then a 480 so you are all over the place.
The 480 is barely a great card for the price.
In july 2015 you could buy a 290x for $400 AUD, it performs better then a RX480.
If we pretended that there was enough stock the RX480 should sell for $319, thats an $81 saving for a card that performs worse 12 months later.
The RX480's that are available are around $449. So in most circumstances except 4k resolution and other specific scenarios you are paying $49 more for a card that performs worse. You wouldn't buy this card for 4k and other scenarios because its not powerful enough for it.
reference vs Reference. AMD hasn't said prices for aftermarket models does that mean I should interpret them as free? Also how often do you ever see aftermarkets cheaper than reference? If it happens its long into the lifecycle of the product.
You could say the same about the RX480…the 4GB version has been impossible to get since release, it might as well not exist as its harder to get then any of the Nvidia cards.
You have been abe to pick up the 8GB for close to the RRP. Granted there are stock shortages at times but even with the 480 being harder to get your hands on the markup is still less than Nvidia.
The 1050 is coming out in the future and I'm making a guess on what it can do. The 470 would be worse then a 480 so you are all over the place.
Oh figured we were just talking from our ass so I jumped in on it. Nothing to back up what I said as theres no figures on anything but you can still state the 1050 will be on par with the 480. using that logic the 470 will be as powerful as the 1080.
The 480 is barely a great card for the price.
Virtually every review site disagrees with you.
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/231134-amd-radeon-rx-480-r…
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-radeon-rx-480-shoots-for-value-at…
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/06/amds-new-radeon-rx-480-bui…
http://4k.com/gaming/amd-radeon-rx-480-4k1440p-gpu-review-pl…
So you know better than all the review sites which say it's great value for money right? The worst I have seen is people say it's disappointing as it's not ground breaking performance with the reference but the price is groundbreaking.
As for the price look at nvidia for comparrison but you are quite literally in a thread where you could get it for 350. Lol heaps of research you did there.
https://www.pccasegear.com/category/193_1837/graphics-cards/…
No discounts an inflated price due to scarcity at a fairly expensive shop 380.
AMD doesn't price the same way as Nvidia, so it doesn't work that way.
You've been talking out of your ass this whole time…
The review sites are comparing whats good today… the 290x is no longer being sold.
If the 1050 and 1060 were released already you might expect something different from review sites, but as it wasn't at the 290x is no longer sold, thats the result.
Nvidia doesn't price that way either. it is up to the partners how the aftermarkets get priced not Nvidia. Show an example where an aftermarket card has sold for what Nvidia said it would? They always lowball it and it never eventuates until EOL.
Going by that it means Nvidia cards have dropped the ball as well the 1070 and 1080 are out and the benches of 1060 are out as well.
The 1060 is released today lol, comment in a few days when all the benches and exact pricing comes out. However even the leaked benches (Which are usually marketing gimmicks anyway) Showed the AMD was still better bang for buck.
Nvidia and AMD do it differently, even their distributors do it differently. If you ask a computer shop who overprices their cards in a stock shortage, its already Nvidia.
AMD have always been the bang for buck, but it has always come with reasons why its a value for money card. In this case one of those reasons is that its weaker then a 3 year old card that sold for $400 AUD last year.
Well the 290x trades blows with the 480.
Are you going to start slagging the 1060 off because it's not going to beat the 970 or 980?
Different card the x90X series (So flagship model) going against the x80 series which is the middle. Not to mention reference vs Aftermarket cooling. AMD aren't releasing their flagships until later.
However whatever the case the 480 demand is way higher than what AMD predicted, the custom cards are on the way. It's only going to be a few weeks before we see the true potential of the 480.
The 1060 would compete with a 960…
The 290x is better then you think as most of the models sold in Australia were overclocked models for unknown reasons. All the benchmarks I've seen of the 290x beating the 480 were with a stock clocked card…
Actually the 480 beats the 290x in most games. They trade blows depending on the game. The 290x isn't that superior.
The 290x didn't see many reference designs because of how hot they ran.
So with Nvidia you compare apples with apples but with AMD you are comparing Apples with oranges. This is the equiv of a 380 in the new generation of cards and a 280 the previous generation.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8g…
The 290x 4GB beats the 480 8GB in many games, and matches many. Yes the 290x is beaten by a few frames in a few
However.. you are forgetting that this is a stock clock 290x, the overclocked versions sold in Australia performed a lot better because of the higher clocks and no thermal throttling.
But yes, I would agree its not "that superior" just superior enough, especially given it was $400 July 2015…
If you were like me and purchased a 290x on the release date 3 years ago… you might understand how I think $319 for a 4GB card similar to the 290x is very average.
Also if you didn't realise, most people buying the 480 are buying the 8GB version so they are getting even more ripped off.
A few frame rates? Just look at anything using vulkan and DX12 it's not a few. They trade blows in DX11.
Can you actually prove this? Or tis this something else pulled from your ass?
As for ripped off price per performance the 480 is the best performing card out there. If people are getting ripped off they are getting ripped off with everything.
480 has 3 frames in tomb raider (DX12) in 1080p only, 290x wins at 4k.
480 matches at 1080p then loses to the 290x in Hitman (DX12)
And this is a stock 290x… the overclock would mean that the 290x matches the 480 in tomb raider (DX12)
So what does the 480 beat the 290x in again? Not much if anything.
What are you asking me to prove?
The 480 has to be the best performing card for value out there, they don't sell the 290x anymore obviously but they can be purchased second hand for $200
Well actually point me to something to look at. You know proof whenever I claim something I post something to back it up. You don't, the 290x price of 400 dollars in july from memory the 290x was a 700 dollar plus card when released.
I don't believe anything you say, you have been wrong so much, if you claim something prove it. You said the 290x is the better card, nothing you have posted points to that.
The 290x at stock ran much hotter than the 480 at stock. If you are going to get into OCing the 290x will lose vs the 480, even on the reference the 480 shows more room for Ocing.
do what does the 480 beat the 290x in again? Not much if anything.
You just said things the 290x was beaten in, but Doom for one.
So now you are comparing second hand prices of an old flagship to a new mid budget card. Not only that I sold my 290 (standard not x) for $290 about 2 weeks ago. Where are all these second hand 200 dollar 290x's ??? Gee even used 290x were selling for 350+ in may, yet you could score one for 400 new a year ago in July lol.
Umart sold the 290x for $400 last july, soon after the 390x's were released.
The review shows proof of the 290x beating the 480…Have a look.. duh.
All the 290x's with custom coolers could overclock very well. You only ran into heat issues if you wanted to up the voltage. This is where the 480 would be beneficial, but most people don't overvolt their GPU's.
You ask where all the 290x's for cheap are?
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/
I don't know how you could see used 290's going for $350+ when the 390's were going for those prices…
Once again proof. Point to the 200 dollar 290x.
You are so full of it,even the 290's sell north of 200 there and the 290x people want 300 for and sell for around that.
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/search.php?searchid=316415… Just to help you look you know.
More proof of selling north of 200
http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=AMD+290x&_i…
Well thats been proved bullshit. Any proof of the 400 dollars in July?
Your search doesn't work.
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1200544&h…
Res is $200. Obviously it can be bid past that but thats what they are worth, demand is outstripping supply at the moment.
And eBay is a horrible choice for prices, everything is overpriced.
You'll have to do your own research. It was at Umart Online last July.
Also http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125…
The 1060 with custom cooler on release day is $289 USD which puts it at less then that in a few weeks once things settle.
Obviously and it was. That is like saying the opening bid is the final price.
$429.. pretty great price for a 1060.
You are such a hypocrite, you were slagging off the 480 because it was a rip off yet the 1060 trades blows with the 480.It gets beaten in all DX12 titles and gets absolutely demolished in Vulkan Tombraider is the only DX 12 exception. With DX11 they trade blows and is more expensive.
Then you go hey check it out more expensive card with samish performance (actually looks a little worse but early days) but great price lol.
Now I am not saying the 1060 is a bad card as it is quite good but if you call the 480 a ripoff and the 1060 great value you need your brain examined.
Seems worth it to me
Umart Online:
Cheapest 1060: $429
Cheapest RX480: $449
Until stock levels settle it looks like the 1060 is best at the moment.
We won't know more until the future.
However the 1060 performs about the same as a 290x and you can pick that up for 200 dollars second hand from OCAU. What a (profanity) letdown ripoff.
You really don't see what a hypocrite you are?
I haven't seen the 1060 vs 290x, link?
I was comparing it to the RX480..
Steam VR, 24% increase
GTA V: 33% increase
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-review-launch/
Obviously I'm picking the results out but VR to me is very important, there are plenty of games where they perform the same or in Doom Vulkan where the 480 wins.
Considering the 1060 is cheaper then the RX480 in many places….
That's the reviewers guide benchmarks lol. Thats pretty much where nvidia tweaks the settings for the 1060 and tweaks it to the detriment of AMD cards or do you actually believe the 1060 can out muscle the 480 in DX12?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/19/nvidia_geforce_gtx…
They pit the 1060 FE against the 480.
They sum it up nicely
The Bottom Line
The GeForce GTX 1060 is simply overpriced at the Founders Edition asking price of $299. However, at $249 custom add-in-board partner video cards make a lot of sense. It will be interesting to see what is offered. The AMD Radeon RX 480 is going to end up competing well with the GeForce GTX 1060 with the ~$240 8GB model. This is certainly a battle that will heat up the forums with debate for months to come.
The problem is most of the aftermarket card are more expensive now. Certainly is the case with ASUS and MSI these days. THE 480 is a good card and so is the 1060. I think the 480 is the better value card (granted not with the stock shortages currently going on) However once prices settle it is in AMD's favour in the price for performance department (However not enough where you would regret getting either)
What has really excited me as I am sure that AMD forced Nvdia to drop the price of the 1060 by a significant amount. The 480 was amazing value compared with what we have seen in the past.
problem is you're comparing an EOL 3.5Gb card with a brand new 8Gb card. I dont trust Nvidia to support 900s for any length of time that justifies a $400 spend. People with GTX770/780s will know what I'm talking about.
![[Backorder] XFX RX 480 8GB £193.64 (~AU$354), MSI GTX 970 £191.57 (~AU$347), Zotac GTX 980 £247.53 (~AU$449) Shipped @ Amazon UK](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/73/255173.jpg?h=9156b637)
buying without even seeing the benchmarks? not so sure thats a good idea, might know by tonight though..