Jump to content

Graphics Card

Guest

By Guest,
in Off Topic

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Is anyone planning on getting a new Nvidia or AMD graphics card or waiting until they become non-reference?

 

And any thoughts on the GTX 1080?

Link to comment

Gagoloth

Gagoloth

Posted
Posted

I say wait until AMD release's what they have been working on first. Then compare both of them. But honestly its going to be quite difficult for amd to match the new 1070 & 1080. 

 

They only way i can see amd matching them is doing something with HBM. 

 

But as of right now id say the chance amd will match them with price and performance is very slim. The 1080 and the 1070 will be very hard to compete with. 

Link to comment
BringtheNoise

BringtheNoise

Posted
Posted

Current road maps for AMD don't show HBM in the 400 series of cards (irony it was in the 300 series 390 Fury and Nano gpu's).

 

AMD had HBM (they were actually the first to market with it actually in the high end 300 series), but 1st Gen HBM was limited to 4 GB's of memory per GPU (the 390 R9 Fury X2's had 8GB of HBM via 4GB per GPU chip).

 

2nd Gen HBM is suppose to have fixed the size limit, but AMD seems to have skip'd it when transfer'n over to Finfet 14nm (from the older soi 28nm and 32nm).

 

I'm hoping that by the time they release the 500 series the will have figured out how do 2nd or 3rd Gen HBM with FinFet (would be nice to have a low power GPU with 8GB's of 4096bit interface memory).

 

I'm still waiting to see the true spec's of there Zen cpu's (real world silicon test and comparison). They truly went stupid when they went to 2 ipc's on the bulldozer (socket FM2 A series and AM3 FX cpu's)... well only about half a year left before real world performance on that is shown....

 

To be honest once the AMD 400 series of cards become available and the price drop's on the 300 series nano's that will be a good option for people that don't have 4k monitors (as 1080 with AA and AF should be fine with 4Gigs of HBM).

Link to comment
BringtheNoise

BringtheNoise

Posted
Posted

WCCF Tech (not sure how good they are at predictions and spec's) lists both AMD and Nvidia to be looking at Global Foundaries 14nm FinFet and 2nd Gen HBM.

 

If they are correct then the 400 series will probably have Gen 2 HBM along with 14nm finfet....

 

Both Companies could have cooler running, lower power consumption, and faster performing cards in there line up...

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-greenland-gpu-hbm2-14nm/

 

Usually I read Fudzilla and a couple of other sites for info (when I remember to look).

Link to comment
27X

27X

Posted
Posted

Getting nVidia @ 14 probably isn't going happen unless tesla turns out to be a giant pain in the ass like Pascal did, since TSMC finally got their shit together after being legally threatened.

 

If Pascal sells well enough and there are no hitches after Tesla tapeout, it's somewhat unlikely you'll see a three part lifetime for Pascal like Maxwell was. nVidia has 87% of the discrete desktop market and they'd probably like to keep it that way.

 

Essentially the difference will be AMD will be more efficient at processing power-per-dollar by a rather wide margin with the added benefit of true asynchronous rendering on dx12. Since dx12 is cgoing to be a guaranteed standardized platform thanks to consoles, AMD will remain competitive by offering a cheaper and low-bullshit direct alternative. nVidia doesn't have anything to counter async except scheduled pre-emption, which will only provide dx12 benefits if the developers specifically code for it.

 

On the other hand, nVidia has built in native HDR/10+2 color support and the most efficient color/raster compression there is right now, and a very serious brute force power envelope. Nordic and Guru have already reported bedrock-stable 30% overclocks on reference parts with stock cooling. AMD is going to be hard pressed to compete apples to apples. Combine that with essentially what is the end for the need for Vsync, and you have some pretty amazing IQ at very high framerates.

Link to comment
bjornk

bjornk

Posted
Posted

 

 

any thoughts on the GTX 1080?

Marginally faster than a 980TI and seems like it runs pretty hot.

 

 

25 to 40% at 4K and 70-100% faster at 1080 is not marginal

 

+15 FPS in Skyrim, +5 FPS in Witcher 3@4K etc. is marginal to me.

 

 

and 100+ C on load IS hot.

Link to comment
27X

27X

Posted
Posted

He purposefully left the fans for the 1080 on 20% and literally capped the Boost at reference while running the Ti at +20% boost with full fans, and as stated two sites that did more than one run with more than one set of cards got completely different results. Shocking.

 

His test isn't even a kind of objective, and seeing as I own two Titan Xs and a 4K monitor and incidentally have both Skyrim and Witcher 3 running at 60 flat in 4K or 35-45 with only one card, I can safely say he's quite literally talking out of his ass, particularly seeing as A this isn't 1080 TI and B my benches aren't even kind of close to his. He's either purposefully throttling the 1080 or his 980 fan shroud is made of vibranium, and I'd be interested to know where his magical heat resistant immune 980 came from, cause I can assure you his fan speed is not anywhere at defaults, and none of that covers that the official overhead room for the GP104 is 30%, which mean one click of the Boost button in Afterburner renders this entire benchmark moot by quite a bit.

 

Buyer's remorse is a hell of a drug.

 

He also says the nVidia chipset is fully async compatible and it's not. Pre-emption has to be actively scheduled at pre-render, and AMD doesn't have to deal with any of that.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Antrox

Antrox

Posted
Posted

Lol why would anyone consider AMD at this point? Benchmarks for the 1080 came out the other day and 390x Fury was blown to pieces by it, even the Titan X couldn't keep up. AMD has yet to pull a miracle out their asses.

Link to comment
Antrox

Antrox

Posted
Posted

GTX 1080 looks pretty good but I'll probably skip on upgrading. I probably won't get a 1080 TI either, make the upgrade when the next line comes out after that. The performance increase to me just isn't worth it over the 2 980 TI's I have now. 

Yeah no need for you infact SLI right now for the 1080 is struggling a bit.

Link to comment
27X

27X

Posted
Posted

Lol why would anyone consider AMD at this point? Benchmarks for the 1080 came out the other day and 390x Fury was blown to pieces by it, even the Titan X couldn't keep up. AMD has yet to pull a miracle out their asses.

 

Because it will cheaper by about 30%, it will be fully DX12 compliant, not "mostly compatible", and it will be much more efficient and cooler per-watt than the nVidia counterpart. Also if you don't care about 10/12/14 bit color or HDR color mapping and just want to shoot people in the face, there's your inexpensive means to upgrade.

 

The biggest issue AMD actually faces isn't power-to-power comparison, it's shitty drivers and slow upgrade performance over the cards' lifetime. The reason nVidia has almost 90% of the desktop market is because their shit generally works like it should most of the time, barring the two high profile driver fuckups via GXP over the last few years.

Link to comment
Antrox

Antrox

Posted
Posted

 

Lol why would anyone consider AMD at this point? Benchmarks for the 1080 came out the other day and 390x Fury was blown to pieces by it, even the Titan X couldn't keep up. AMD has yet to pull a miracle out their asses.

 

Because it will cheaper by about 30%, it will be fully DX12 compliant, not "mostly compatible", and it will be much more efficient and cooler per-watt than the nVidia counterpart. Also if you don't care about 10/12/14 bit color or HDR color mapping and just want to shoot people in the face, there's your inexpensive means to upgrade.

 

The biggest issue AMD actually faces isn't power-to-power comparison, it's shitty drivers and slow upgrade performance over the cards' lifetime. The reason nVidia has almost 90% of the desktop market is because their shit generally works like it should most of the time, barring the two high profile driver fuckups via GXP over the last few years.

 

Yes, 30% cheaper and 30%-50% less performance... My point exactly.

Heres all of the benchmarks. Keep in mind this all from the reference card. One can only assume once other companies start to manufacture their cards, it will be much faster and more cool.

 

17456d.png
Capturea9d3d5.png
Capture10d93c.png
Capture6ecbb.png
Capture4f63ea.png
56a62b3.png
5660b5b4.png
fsafa.png

 

Link to comment
27X

27X

Posted
Posted

Under dx12 and vulkan AMD will run as good or better than the nVidia equivalent unless whatever devs present feel like scheduling preemption, while nVidia's marketing team is rather famous for getting devs to play ball via $$$ or even up to sending engineers on site to help with code, it's not a guaranteed thing by any stretch as we've seen with Alien Isolation, Total War and Ashes of the Singularity.

Link to comment
Gameplayer

Gameplayer

Posted
Posted

Man my take away from what I've seen just in this thread is that for a 1080p monitor I would never see less than 60FPS, with any of the games I play at any moment.

 

So whatever if your playing 4K games and you cant see value in 5-15 FPS increase on a single card IDK that's your deal I guess.

I can understand from a cost standpoint but not from the standpoint that its not a remarkable gain which in fact it certainly is.

Link to comment
Slammer64

Slammer64

Posted
Posted

As good as the 1080's look, I'll wait till a 1080 Ti comes out, right now my 980 Ti is running just fine with the new 4K UHD monitor I bought. Besides, that'll give them time to work any bugs out of the hardware and firmware.

Link to comment
Antrox

Antrox

Posted
Posted

Agreed.  Don't forget about drivers.................I seriously doubt the drivers will be up to snuff to milk the card for max performance for 2-3 months after the card is on the market.

Of course not. The GPU hasn't even been released yet. Those benchmarks are just from the reference models. If I had a 980 Ti i'd wait too. But instead i'm stuck with a dying 970 and currently can't afford an upgrade atm.

Link to comment
Antrox

Antrox

Posted
Posted

Um........did you actually read my entire post????  I said "after" the card was on the market.   :s

Yes i did. But even then how do you know? The people who currently have access to the card haven't had any problems with the drivers yet. The only things that have been reported to be a problem so far is: DX12, VRAM, and Clock Speed.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use