-162°
EXPIRED
Sapphire AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB £169.99 @ Amazon
Sapphire AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB £169.99 @ Amazon

Sapphire AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB £169.99 @ Amazon

Buy forBuy forBuy for£169.99
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
This performs better than the 1060 3GB especially in future proof apis.

The 1060 3GB has 10% less cores than the 6GB version and half the VRAM.
Novideo false advertising at its finest.
Can't understand why they are hot..

43 Comments

Novideo false advertising at its finest.Can't understand why they are … Novideo false advertising at its finest.Can't understand why they are hot..



You'll probably fail to grasp why your deal gets very chilly too then.
Edited by: "johnthehuman" 19th Aug 2016

This is an okay price but:

- It's not better than a 1060 (assuming the 3gb one is 10% below the 6gb)
- Putting "stupid 1060" is your post isn't very constructive
- It's a medicore stock cooler

Nvidia could possible get in trouble for false advertising yet again?
Whoopsy.

Damn, I cant make up my mind what GPU to buy.

I might just save up for the PS4 Neo instead as it has the same performance as an RX480 I believe?
Edited by: "epiphany1273" 19th Aug 2016

Wonder if the OP has a preference for AMD by any chance? Just guessing....

As to the deal, it's just OK not amazing IMHO, the 470 should be closer to £150 to differentiate it more from the 480, as for most it will be worth the extra £10-£20 for the additional performance.

RE the 1060 3GB, I think it will struggle a bit in current and coming games thanks to that 3GB framebuffer, I don't really think any new cards should be coming out in 2016 with only 3GB onboard, but Nvidia has historically always been a little stingier with the VRAM (like the 780 vs 290). Still providing it's price reflects it's limitations vs the 6GB one I guess it's ok....

Seems to be a game of 'Spot the Fanboy' in all the graphics card posts recently.

Why can't we all be happy that both NVIDIA and AMD have strong new offerings that cause competition? It will ultimately benefit us as the consumer.

Aradria

This is an okay price but:- It's not better than a 1060 (assuming the 3gb … This is an okay price but:- It's not better than a 1060 (assuming the 3gb one is 10% below the 6gb)- Putting "stupid 1060" is your post isn't very constructive- It's a medicore stock cooler




I was told the RX 470 is less than 10% slower than the 480 which matches the 1060 (since AMD's latest drivers have improved performance by 8-10%) in DX11 but races ahead in new games.

There is every chance the RX470 matches the 3GB 1060 and will race ahead in DX12 versions of games like Battlefield One (The reason I am considering a GPU or console right now)

I think I should just wait until the game releases. LOL

good card, great for 1080p gaming, should get a good 3yrs out of it. voted cold by accident. sorry

No thanks, poor design (1fan model), poor fps for a new generation card considering price. Nvidia 1060 cost a little bit more but perfoms better, runs cooler and uses less energy.

The witcher 3 1920x1080 Max quality Hair works off
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 73 fps
AMD Radeon RX 470 59 fps

Mirror's Edge Catalyst 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16x
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060: 78.3 fps
AMD Radeon RX 470: 65.2 fps

Rise of the Tomb Raider 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop) (DX12) 66.5 fps
AMD Radeon RX 470 (DX12) 54.3 (min: 49) fps

XCOM 2 1920x1080 Maximum Preset (8xMSAA instead of FXAA) AA:8xMS AF:16x
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 30.9 fps
AMD Radeon RX 470 24.5 fps

The Division 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16x
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 59.6 fps
AMD Radeon RX 470 53.3 (min: 32) fps

Doom (2016) ultra settings
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 99.7 fps
AMD Radeon RX 470 80 fps

notebookcheck.net/MSI…tml
notebookcheck.net/Nvi…tml
eurogamer.net/art…iew
gamersnexus.net/hwr…e-4
kotaku.com/amd…075

mchcreations

No thanks, poor design (1fan model), poor fps for a new generation card … No thanks, poor design (1fan model), poor fps for a new generation card considering price. Nvidia 1060 cost a little bit more but perfoms better, runs cooler and uses less energy. The witcher 3 1920x1080 Max quality Hair works offNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 73 fps AMD Radeon RX 470 59 fps Mirror's Edge Catalyst 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060: 78.3 fpsAMD Radeon RX 470: 65.2 fpsRise of the Tomb Raider 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop) (DX12) 66.5 fps AMD Radeon RX 470 (DX12) 54.3 (min: 49) fpsXCOM 2 1920x1080 Maximum Preset (8xMSAA instead of FXAA) AA:8xMS AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 30.9 fpsAMD Radeon RX 470 24.5 fpsThe Division 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 59.6 fpsAMD Radeon RX 470 53.3 (min: 32) fps Doom (2016) ultra settingsNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 99.7 fps AMD Radeon RX 470 80 fps http://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-Radeon-RX-470-Gaming-X-4-GB-Review.171114.0.htmlhttp://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-1060-Desktop-Review.169419.0.htmlhttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-radeon-rx-470-reviewhttp://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2544-sapphire-rx-470-platinum-review-benchmark-vs-480-gtx-1060/page-4http://kotaku.com/amd-radeon-rx-470-review-almost-the-next-best-thing-1784946075




You are comparing the 6GB version of the 1060 which is 10% faster and near £100 more than the RX470.

LOL

This is why Nvidia are misleading consumers - confusing people.

Also I heard Doom runs 20% faster than the comparable Nvidia card when Vulkan is used.
Edited by: "epiphany1273" 19th Aug 2016

epiphany1273

I was told the RX 470 is less than 10% slower than the 480 which matches … I was told the RX 470 is less than 10% slower than the 480 which matches the 1060 (since AMD's latest drivers have improved performance by 8-10%) in DX11 but races ahead in new games.There is every chance the RX470 matches the 3GB 1060 and will race ahead in DX12 versions of games like Battlefield One (The reason I am considering a GPU or console right now)I think I should just wait until the game releases. LOL


The 480 certainly does not match the 1060 in DX11...

mchcreations

No thanks, poor design (1fan model), poor fps for a new generation card … No thanks, poor design (1fan model), poor fps for a new generation card considering price. Nvidia 1060 cost a little bit more but perfoms better, runs cooler and uses less energy. The witcher 3 1920x1080 Max quality Hair works offNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 73 fps AMD Radeon RX 470 59 fps Mirror's Edge Catalyst 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060: 78.3 fpsAMD Radeon RX 470: 65.2 fpsRise of the Tomb Raider 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop) (DX12) 66.5 fps AMD Radeon RX 470 (DX12) 54.3 (min: 49) fpsXCOM 2 1920x1080 Maximum Preset (8xMSAA instead of FXAA) AA:8xMS AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 30.9 fpsAMD Radeon RX 470 24.5 fpsThe Division 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 59.6 fpsAMD Radeon RX 470 53.3 (min: 32) fps Doom (2016) ultra settingsNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 99.7 fps AMD Radeon RX 470 80 fps http://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-Radeon-RX-470-Gaming-X-4-GB-Review.171114.0.htmlhttp://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-1060-Desktop-Review.169419.0.htmlhttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-radeon-rx-470-reviewhttp://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2544-sapphire-rx-470-platinum-review-benchmark-vs-480-gtx-1060/page-4http://kotaku.com/amd-radeon-rx-470-review-almost-the-next-best-thing-1784946075



it would be better to quote the 1060 3GB fps rather than the 6gb as it's much more that "a little more expensive"

personally, i'd take the nitro 480, does everything i'd need it too but that's based on my needs. Asking "should i get...." needs to include costs, current spec, expectations because you'll never answer everything
Edited by: "corrazy" 19th Aug 2016

lukec123

The 480 certainly does not match the 1060 in DX11...




When it released it never but two driver updates have put it on par from reading peoples views on Reddit.

Anyway, whatever - I have decided to save up for a PS4 Neo as I am not going to get any reliable info here and only really want BF1 anyway.
Seems there are a lot of misconceptions regarding PC graphics card. LOL. Too much for my little brain to handle.
Edited by: "epiphany1273" 19th Aug 2016

epiphany1273

You are comparing the 6GB version of the 1060 which is 10% faster and … You are comparing the 6GB version of the 1060 which is 10% faster and near £100 more than the RX470.LOL



Unfortunately the 3GB models was anounced less that 24h ago so no reviews available. Performance impact, according to NVIDIA, should be about 5% (quoted from anandtech).

GTX 1060 6GB GTX 1060 3GB
CUDA Cores 1280 vs 1152
Texture Units 80 vs 72
ROPs 48 vs 48
Core Clock 1506MHz vs 1506MHz
Boost Clock 1709MHz vs 1709MHz
TFLOPs (FMA) 4.4 TFLOPs vs 3.9 TFLOPs
Memory Clock 8Gbps GDDR5 vs 8Gbps GDDR5
Memory Bus Width 192-bit vs 192-bit
VRAM 6GB vs 3GB
FP64 ene-32 vs ene-32
TDP 120W v 120W
GPU GP106 vs GP106
Transistor Count 4.4B vs 4.4B
Manufacturing Process TSMC 16nm vs TSMC 16nm

epiphany1273

When it released it never but two driver updates have put it on par from … When it released it never but two driver updates have put it on par from reading peoples views on Reddit.


Haha no, I wish that was the case. The "up to 10%" was for one game, Rise of the Tomb Raider. Similar to how Nvidia GameReady drivers increase performance for games just after launch date. The 480 has had some minor performance improvements with drivers since release yes, but is still 2% behind the 390X.

On average, a 1060 is 13.72% faster than a 480.
On average, when using DX11, a 1060 is 15.25% better than a 480.
On average, when using DX12, a 1060 is 1.02% worse than a 480.
On average, when using Vulkan, a 1060 is 27.13% better than a 480.
AMD won in 11.36% of DX11 titles, 71.43% of DX12 titles, and 50% of Vulkan titles.
The most commonly reviewed games were AotS, Hitman, RotTR, the Division, GTA V, and the Witcher 3.

I'm sure the 480 will see further performance improvements in the future with driver updates and become an even more competitive card to the 1060 like with the 390 vs 970, but as for right now the 1060 is the clear winner. Faster overall performance, lower temperatures, lower power consumption, higher overclock potential. Not to mention actually being in stock.

I would say when deciding between the two to just get whichever is cheapest, which unfortunately for AMD in the UK is the 1060 when comparing AIB models.

Original Poster

mchcreations

Unfortunately the 3GB models was anounced less that 24h ago so no reviews … Unfortunately the 3GB models was anounced less that 24h ago so no reviews available. Performance impact, according to NVIDIA, should be about 5% (quoted from anandtech). GTX 1060 6GB GTX 1060 3GBCUDA Cores 1280 vs 1152Texture Units 80 vs 72ROPs 48 vs 48Core Clock 1506MHz vs 1506MHzBoost Clock 1709MHz vs 1709MHzTFLOPs (FMA) 4.4 TFLOPs vs 3.9 TFLOPsMemory Clock 8Gbps GDDR5 vs 8Gbps GDDR5Memory Bus Width 192-bit vs 192-bitVRAM 6GB vs 3GBFP64 ene-32 vs ene-32TDP 120W v 120WGPU GP106 vs GP106Transistor Count 4.4B vs 4.4BManufacturing Process TSMC 16nm vs TSMC 16nm


How can it be 5% if it physically has 10% less cores and 50% less RAM.

Yall comparing the 6gb 1060 lmao.

mchcreations

Unfortunately the 3GB models was anounced less that 24h ago so no reviews … Unfortunately the 3GB models was anounced less that 24h ago so no reviews available. Performance impact, according to NVIDIA, should be about 5% (quoted from anandtech). GTX 1060 6GB GTX 1060 3GBCUDA Cores 1280 vs 1152Texture Units 80 vs 72ROPs 48 vs 48Core Clock 1506MHz vs 1506MHzBoost Clock 1709MHz vs 1709MHzTFLOPs (FMA) 4.4 TFLOPs vs 3.9 TFLOPsMemory Clock 8Gbps GDDR5 vs 8Gbps GDDR5Memory Bus Width 192-bit vs 192-bitVRAM 6GB vs 3GBFP64 ene-32 vs ene-32TDP 120W v 120WGPU GP106 vs GP106Transistor Count 4.4B vs 4.4BManufacturing Process TSMC 16nm vs TSMC 16nm



Sorry,but £200 for a 3GB card - if I spend that sort of money will it be fine in two years time??

I see games pushing over 3GB with my GTX960,so why not save up for a bit longer and get a GTX1060 6GB for £230 if you want a GTX1060??

Seems a pointless way of saving money.

calv1987

good card, great for 1080p gaming, should get a good 3yrs out of it. … good card, great for 1080p gaming, should get a good 3yrs out of it. voted cold by accident. sorry



"should get a good 3 yrs out of it"

You're lucky enough to get a year out of it before DirectX 12 games start coming out.

>tfw AMD does better in DX12

topkek

Original Poster

lukec123

Haha no, I wish that was the case. The "up to 10%" was for one game, Rise … Haha no, I wish that was the case. The "up to 10%" was for one game, Rise of the Tomb Raider. Similar to how Nvidia GameReady drivers increase performance for games just after launch date. The 480 has had some minor performance improvements with drivers since release yes, but is still 2% behind the 390X.On average, a 1060 is 13.72% faster than a 480.On average, when using DX11, a 1060 is 15.25% better than a 480.On average, when using DX12, a 1060 is 1.02% worse than a 480.On average, when using Vulkan, a 1060 is 27.13% better than a 480.AMD won in 11.36% of DX11 titles, 71.43% of DX12 titles, and 50% of Vulkan titles.The most commonly reviewed games were AotS, Hitman, RotTR, the Division, GTA V, and the Witcher 3.I'm sure the 480 will see further performance improvements in the future with driver updates and become an even more competitive card to the 1060 like with the 390 vs 970, but as for right now the 1060 is the clear winner. Faster overall performance, lower temperatures, lower power consumption, higher overclock potential. Not to mention actually being in stock.I would say when deciding between the two to just get whichever is cheapest, which unfortunately for AMD in the UK is the 1060 when comparing AIB models.


"On average, when using DX11, a 1060 is 15.25% better than a 480.
On average, when using DX12, a 1060 is 1.02% worse than a 480.
On average, when using Vulkan, a 1060 is 27.13% better than a 480."

Incorrect. The 480 is way better than the 1060 in Vulkan as shown by Doom.
Plenty of "dx12" games right now were originally built for dx11 and just use dx12 as a wrapper.

Muffinss

"On average, when using DX11, a 1060 is 15.25% better than a 480.On … "On average, when using DX11, a 1060 is 15.25% better than a 480.On average, when using DX12, a 1060 is 1.02% worse than a 480.On average, when using Vulkan, a 1060 is 27.13% better than a 480."Incorrect. The 480 is way better than the 1060 in Vulkan as shown by Doom.Plenty of "dx12" games right now were originally built for dx11 and just use dx12 as a wrapper.


In Doom yes, the result is skewed because of The Talos Principle's possibly incomplete implementation of Vulkan I believe. 480 is certainly better in DX12 though you could also say the result is more skewed in their favour due to AMD working alongside the developers in some of the games benchmarked e.g. Hitman, AOTS

lukec123

The 480 certainly does not match the 1060 in DX11...



the difference is minimal. And to be fair the pricing from both sides for this gen of g/card is horrendous.

AlexFromAU

"should get a good 3 yrs out of it"You're lucky enough to get a year out … "should get a good 3 yrs out of it"You're lucky enough to get a year out of it before DirectX 12 games start coming out.>tfw AMD does better in DX12topkek



ive been running an r9 280 for 3yrs and its still going ok. struggles a bit in some games but i drop one or two settings down slightly and we're good to go. Theres no reason the 470's wont last a good 3yrs+ for 1080p gaming.

calv1987

ive been running an r9 280 for 3yrs and its still going ok. struggles a … ive been running an r9 280 for 3yrs and its still going ok. struggles a bit in some games but i drop one or two settings down slightly and we're good to go. Theres no reason the 470's wont last a good 3yrs+ for 1080p gaming.



You're right, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about getting 3 years out of a GTX 1060, apologies!

calv1987

the difference is minimal. And to be fair the pricing from both sides for … the difference is minimal. And to be fair the pricing from both sides for this gen of g/card is horrendous.


Yeah, that's really bizarre. For the last ~2 months, it seems like these new cards have cost nearly 20% more than expected. But there's simply no reason for it. Nothing has happened in the last few months that could possibly have affected British prices. It's a complete mystery.

AlexFromAU

"should get a good 3 yrs out of it"You're lucky enough to get a year out … "should get a good 3 yrs out of it"You're lucky enough to get a year out of it before DirectX 12 games start coming out.>tfw AMD does better in DX12topkek


Look out guys we got a meme lord.

DX12 IS immature, the drivers are immature, the game development for DX12 is immature.

So far we have one real Vulkan game which is the extremely well built and optimised Doom. It is too early to base your purchases based on API.

BetaRomeo

Yeah, that's really bizarre. For the last ~2 months, it seems like these … Yeah, that's really bizarre. For the last ~2 months, it seems like these new cards have cost nearly 20% more than expected. But there's simply no reason for it. Nothing has happened in the last few months that could possibly have affected British prices. It's a complete mystery.



The sarcasm is strong in this one. haha

BetaRomeo

Yeah, that's really bizarre. For the last ~2 months, it seems like these … Yeah, that's really bizarre. For the last ~2 months, it seems like these new cards have cost nearly 20% more than expected. But there's simply no reason for it. Nothing has happened in the last few months that could possibly have affected British prices. It's a complete mystery.





Its just demand more than anything you are implying

catbeans

Look out guys we got a meme lord.DX12 IS immature, the drivers are … Look out guys we got a meme lord.DX12 IS immature, the drivers are immature, the game development for DX12 is immature.So far we have one real Vulkan game which is the extremely well built and optimised Doom. It is too early to base your purchases based on API.



Funny 'cause more DirectX 12 is being adapted faster than any other previous DirectX API.


Edited by: "AlexFromAU" 19th Aug 2016

AlexFromAU

Funny 'cause more DirectX 12 is being adapted faster than any other … Funny 'cause more DirectX 12 is being adapted faster than any other previous DirectX API.



Is it? How's that?

It still doesn't stop it being an immature build, with immature drivers and games companies programming immaturely for it.

catbeans

Is it? How's that? It still doesn't stop it being an immature build, with … Is it? How's that? It still doesn't stop it being an immature build, with immature drivers and games companies programming immaturely for it.



Immature drivers? You realise all the stuff that gives gains for DirectX 12 titles are on a physical hardware level?

For example (DX12 features):

- AMD has asynchronous compute engines, which is used through a hardware scheduler, can do Resource Binding, Tiled Resources Tier 2 and Typed UAV Loads, and that's physical. Nvidia cards can't do this on the hardware level, it's not possible without new hardware.

- Nvidia cards can do Conservative Rasterization and Rasterizer Ordered Views, AMD cards can't do this because it is yet again, another piece of hardware required on the video card.

Drivers won't improve anything, because DirectX 12 is different from previous DX API's because it's become low-level which gives more access to the hardware rather than being passed through the drivers.

en.wikipedia.org/wik…t3D

AlexFromAU

Immature drivers? You realise all the stuff that gives gains for DirectX … Immature drivers? You realise all the stuff that gives gains for DirectX 12 titles are on a physical hardware level? For example (DX12 features):- AMD has asynchronous compute engines, which is used through a hardware scheduler, can do Resource Binding, Tiled Resources Tier 2 and Typed UAV Loads, and that's physical. Nvidia cards can't do this on the hardware level, it's not possible without new hardware.- Nvidia cards can do Conservative Rasterization and Rasterizer Ordered Views, AMD cards can't do this because it is yet again, another piece of hardware required on the video card.Drivers won't improve anything, because DirectX 12 is different from previous DX API's because it's become low-level which gives more access to the hardware rather than being passed through the drivers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D



Yes but. Direct X will get updated they dont just release one version. Drivers effect the card as much if not more than how it interacts with the API. You just have to look at the mess the latest AMD drivers have been including DX12, or those DX12 games that the RX480 randomly runs terribly on.

Yes AMD Async hardware is great, it sucks that Nvidia missed out, but they do have some Async features like you said so at least its something and it was a trade off for other aspects of architecture, we will see what Nvidia can do with them (in future driver updates (_;) ) That is still one specific part of the cards architecture, game engines and DX12.

catbeans

Yes but. Direct X will get updated they dont just release one version. … Yes but. Direct X will get updated they dont just release one version. Drivers effect the card as much if not more than how it interacts with the API. You just have to look at the mess the latest AMD drivers have been including DX12, or those DX12 games that the RX480 randomly runs terribly on. Yes AMD Async hardware is great, it sucks that Nvidia missed out, but they do have some Async features like you said so at least its something and it was a trade off for other aspects of architecture, we will see what Nvidia can do with them (in future driver updates (_;) ) That is still one specific part of the cards architecture, game engines and DX12.




You just completely disregarded what I said.

A driver update won't add hardware which doesn't exist, because that's not possible.

You just have to look at the mess the latest AMD drivers have been … You just have to look at the mess the latest AMD drivers have been including DX12



...what mess has AMD created with DX12 drivers? I have a Fury X, no problems here.

or those DX12 games that the RX480 randomly runs terribly on.



What DX12 games the RX 480 run terribly on?

AMD Async hardware is great, it sucks that Nvidia missed out, but they … AMD Async hardware is great, it sucks that Nvidia missed out, but they do have some Async features like you said so at least its something and it was a trade off for other aspects of architecture, we will see what Nvidia can do with them (in future driver updates (_;) ) That is still one specific part of the cards architecture, game engines and DX12.



Correction: Nvidia does NOT have any async features, their async-compute is being emulated on the CPU.

Nvidia never missed out on async-compute hardware, their Fermi processor had it, but it ran hotter than the sun and used too much power, so their hardware scheduler was removed (called GigaThread).

Edited by: "AlexFromAU" 19th Aug 2016

Muffinss

How can it be 5% if it physically has 10% less cores and 50% less … How can it be 5% if it physically has 10% less cores and 50% less RAM.Yall comparing the 6gb 1060 lmao.



Because for it to perform 10% it should have 10% less of everything. And that's is not the case.

One of the main factors of the perfomance are clock speeds and these are the same. Memory is half, but memory speed is the same that really matters. So unless a game demands more thant 3GB you won't notice any difference on that.

Shame about cuda cores but rest is perfectly fine and it's worth the difference in price with the 6gb model in my opinion. Until very recently we've been playing with 512gb-1GB memory and we did manage. Probably +3GB are only neccesary for 4K, VR and a few games that render massive amount of info like GTA.

epiphany1273

Nvidia could possible get in trouble for false advertising yet again?


Why? If people are too lazy to check the specs of a card that is their fault.

Agharta

Why? If people are too lazy to check the specs of a card that is their … Why? If people are too lazy to check the specs of a card that is their fault.




Most people are not clued up enough to know what the difference is between a 1060 and a 1060.

It is actually quite a problem what Nvidia has created for themselves here.

Why did they not call the 970 a 980 then??

heck, why didn't AMD just call the 470 the 480??

I tell you why, because it is misleading to the majority of the general public.

epiphany1273

Most people are not clued up enough to know what the difference is … Most people are not clued up enough to know what the difference is between a 1060 and a 1060.It is actually quite a problem what Nvidia has created for themselves here.Why did they not call the 970 a 980 then??heck, why didn't AMD just call the 470 the 480??I tell you why, because it is misleading to the majority of the general public.


AMD have two RX 480 cards with different RAM speeds and amounts.
I agree it's silly but they both are doing it. Caveat emptor.

Agharta

AMD have two RX 480 cards with different RAM speeds and amounts.I agree … AMD have two RX 480 cards with different RAM speeds and amounts.I agree it's silly but they both are doing it. Caveat emptor.



However, the difference in VRAM bandwidth doesn't make it a different card, because both of them have the same number of tflops and compute units.

What makes the GTX 1060 3GB different from the 6 GB version is that the 3 GB actually has less CUDA cores than the 6 GB version, which therefore makes a different video card.
Edited by: "AlexFromAU" 20th Aug 2016

AlexFromAU

You just completely disregarded what I said.A driver update won't add … You just completely disregarded what I said.A driver update won't add hardware which doesn't exist, because that's not possible....what mess has AMD created with DX12 drivers? I have a Fury X, no problems here.What DX12 games the RX 480 run terribly on?Correction: Nvidia does NOT have any async features, their async-compute is being emulated on the CPU.Nvidia never missed out on async-compute hardware, their Fermi processor had it, but it ran hotter than the sun and used too much power, so their hardware scheduler was removed (called GigaThread).



AlexFromAU

You just completely disregarded what I said.A driver update won't add … You just completely disregarded what I said.A driver update won't add hardware which doesn't exist, because that's not possible....what mess has AMD created with DX12 drivers? I have a Fury X, no problems here.What DX12 games the RX 480 run terribly on?Correction: Nvidia does NOT have any async features, their async-compute is being emulated on the CPU.Nvidia never missed out on async-compute hardware, their Fermi processor had it, but it ran hotter than the sun and used too much power, so their hardware scheduler was removed (called GigaThread).



No but Drivers , drive hardware so they can improve how hardware runs. You have stated yourself Nividia main Async feature is on the GPU, meaning drivers and updates can affect its Async, which is apparently currently disabled by drivers (though I may be behind).

If you have been following news, reviews and benchmarks, then you know what problems and games I am talking about, let's not play that game.

"Nvidia does NOT have any async features, their async-compute is being emulated on the CPU." So it does have Async it just doesn't have an Async schedular chip , or A sync shader chips.

Yes Nvidia missed the boat with Async, they had it on previous cards, but years ago. No one really expected Async to become a huge thing, it was pretty out of the blue last year when Pascal was already well into development and to design a chip (In this case a scheduler) takes too long, so this generation missed out.

epiphany1273

Most people are not clued up enough to know what the difference is … Most people are not clued up enough to know what the difference is between a 1060 and a 1060.It is actually quite a problem what Nvidia has created for themselves here.Why did they not call the 970 a 980 then??heck, why didn't AMD just call the 470 the 480??I tell you why, because it is misleading to the majority of the general public.


Hey Ferrari100, welcome back again! Thank you for using your signature trademark to make it easy to recognise you.

I need some graphics card advice, and you're the best AMD shareholder for the job. I was thinking about picking up a Nvidia GTX 1070. Do you happen to know if AMD has anything competitive in the £300-999 market at the moment?

catbeans

No but Drivers , drive hardware so they can improve how hardware runs. … No but Drivers , drive hardware so they can improve how hardware runs. You have stated yourself Nividia main Async feature is on the GPU, meaning drivers and updates can affect its Async, which is apparently currently disabled by drivers (though I may be behind). If you have been following news, reviews and benchmarks, then you know what problems and games I am talking about, let's not play that game."Nvidia does NOT have any async features, their async-compute is being emulated on the CPU." So it does have Async it just doesn't have an Async schedular chip , or A sync shader chips.Yes Nvidia missed the boat with Async, they had it on previous cards, but years ago. No one really expected Async to become a huge thing, it was pretty out of the blue last year when Pascal was already well into development and to design a chip (In this case a scheduler) takes too long, so this generation missed out.




I'm sure you know that Nvidia's latest cards have generally been more efficient than AMD, right?

Well the reason being is that in Maxwell, Nvidia gutted out their cards and removed all the hardware scheduling and double precision, which is the reason why a 580 is faster than a 980 at double precision.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8526/67748.png

Now, the hardware scheduler includes asynchronous compute, so when they removed that, they increased their video card "efficiency" by removing hardware, because hardware requires power and generates heat

Unless Nvidia can do async-compute on a hardware level with Volta and still maintain their efficiency, I can't see it happening.

This is the reason why AMD's cards have always ran hotter and required more power, but it's also the reason why AMD cards are excellent at mining (Bitcoin, etc) and perform better in DX12.

Agharta

AMD have two RX 480 cards with different RAM speeds and amounts.I agree … AMD have two RX 480 cards with different RAM speeds and amounts.I agree it's silly but they both are doing it. Caveat emptor.




However they are not different core counts which is the exact problem here.

Case in point, you never realised it.

I will stick with consoles. To much foul play in PC gaming.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text