That's the thing though. People are looking at the scripted benchmark which shows AMD in a good light as it's heavily GPU bound, whilst neglecting the actual benchmarks of the game itself. The game itself is much more CPU intensive, especially once you get to Prague, and there NVidia gets the edge due to it's superior DX11 driver. Of course I expect DX12 to change this. This game really needs DX12, and not just for AMD because the CPU scaling isn't that great. Also, the game is heavy on compute, so asynchronous compute should definitely help out a lot I'd wager.
Why do you keep repeating this? AMD has no competitor to GTX1070/1080 because Vega isn't out so where are you getting the comparisons that NV has the edge? GTX1060 loses to RX 480 in every single benchmark of this game I've seen online, scripted or not.
Even PCGameshardware doesn't paint NV in a good light at all, unless we are talking about 1080/Titan XP.
- $400 R9 290 beats $700 780Ti = HUGE NV fail
- R9 290 and GTX970 are nearly tied = Fail because GTX970 was a 390 competitor and 290 came out a year earlier for barely more $. 390 beats 970 easily.
- $550 980 barely beats a $330 390 = HUGE fail because when 980 cost $550, for at least 6+ months it was possible to buy R9 390 CF or R9 295X2 or R9 290/X CF for barely more $. GameGPU's prelimary testing had R9 295X2 and 980 SLI performing similarly. That's insane because R9 295X2 cost $600-650 when just a single 980 was $550.
- RX 480 easily beats the 980 in every DE:MD review online! In less than 2 years AMD released a card for $240-250 that beats NV's "marketing flagship" GM204 in huge games like Doom and DE, but the 980 used cost $550 and was touted as a future-proof DX12 (next gen games) design. Remember how on this very forum we were told that GCN 1.0/1.1/2.0 lack proper DX12/12_1 features set of Maxwell 2.0? Notice how Fury beats RX 480 in
all modern games and Fury was a direct 980 competitor based on price.
So far when we reflect back on last couple generations over 2-4 year period:
Performance wise:
7970 won the generation > 680
7970Ghz/R9 280X won the generation > 680/770
R9 290 won the generation > 780
R9 290X won the generation > 780Ti
R9 390 won the generation > 970
Fury won the generation > 980
NV's only shining SKU that can be praised that was released in the last 4 years is the 980Ti and nothing else. Everything else was overpriced and/or aged horribly given its pricing premiums.
The main reason the 980Ti looks good in those benches is they are using a version that boosts to to 1.4-1.45Ghz. Once TPU adds DX12 games into their testing suite, 970/980 will join the lamb slaughter of NV's historically outdated/failed architectures (660->680, 770->780Ti, 950/960, soon 970/980 will be added). In modern titles, 980 is already struggling to beat a 1Ghz 390. Pfff.
Another manual run with
RX 480 getting 60 fps average and 1060 only 53 fps. All the benches leaked online are probably the best case for NV because if DX12 adds more performance, GCN is going to benefit more from it than Maxwell or Pascal.
The fact that 1060 is already losing to RX 480 in big titles like Doom and DE:MD is a sign that we don't even need to wait 1.5-2 years to see that 1060 is unlikely to age well, continuing the tradition of 2012+ NV GPUs. I mean it doesn't matter for guys who keep upgrading every 12-15 months or buy flagship cards every year but the trends are clearly emerging that NV no longer builds cards that last (or alternatively, their cards might last but you'd have to pay a big premium upfront then like 980Ti for $650). Ironically, GeForce 5 and 7 also aged like dogs but that was brushed aside or ignored because of how spectacular GeForce 8 was. Looking back now from GeForce 5 to now, NV has an awful lot of GPU architectures that completely fall apart once next gen games arrive.
If AMD manages to win in BF1, Civ 6, Gears of War 4, things will get ugly for 1060 in a hurry. It's hard to criticize GTX1070/1080 right now from a performance perspective since we don't have an AMD's generation equivalent. Much like GTX780 for $650 sure looked great at first and was praised, the minute AMD released a $400 R9 290, the 780 3GB looked like an overpriced and VRAM gimped turd. Sure enough, it also aged horribly.
Facebook
Twitter