With AMD's Ryzen + Vega, and Intel's CPUs + Vega, what's left for nvidia?

[Muhammed]

New I don't think so, pclab tested with updated drivers in the same spot and 1080Ti sill didn't beat Vega, and they also compared cpus in test showing AMD advantage.

Then there is clearly a bug in their test system, as I just gave you 3 other sources with results showing NVIDIA winning over AMD.

Here is a fourth one: (note only the 1060 and 1080 are tested with the new driver)
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/#diagramm-forza-7-3840-2160

 

[kondziowy]

Dude, we were talking cpu overhead, not gpu perf in 4K. Look at 1080p results that you posted above.

Thus, AMD RX Vega in Forza 7 is still stronger when there is a CPU limit. In the GPU limit, however, Nvidia has again taken the lead compared to Vega.

I don't know what you are trying to prove, I only said cpu overhead is fixed and it's up to developers to use the tools they have. And I'm not arguing about gpu performance. The same was proven by computerbase in other DX12 games like e.g. Gears of war like a year ago.

 

[Muhammed]

New Dude, we were talking cpu overhead, not gpu perf in 4K. Look at 1080p results that you posted above.

PCPcer also tested 1080p, and found NVIDIA to be faster. ComputerBase results are only valid for the 1060 and 1080 (as they are the ones tested with updated drivers).

 

[SirDinadan]

I have covered Forza Motorsport 7 with various dGPU setups and AMD cards were always faster than their NV rivals. In our latest RX 580 vs GTX 1060 @ 4K ultra the Polaris card was more than 25% faster. Really don't know how the results can vary so much from site to site.
Forza Motorsport 7 in Prague - GTX 1060 | R9 390X | RX 580

PS: sorry for the off, just realized that the original topic is a bit different and the conversation diverted to DX12, frame times, etc

 

[kondziowy]

If you want GTX1060 to look better, you probably need to apply 8xMSAA.
Holy shit nice video though.

 

[PeterScott]

This guy^ gets it.

Forum speculation and fanboy-ism run amuck with these AMD announcements. As an AMD shareholder, seeing announcements like this is great. But I also know that this is a long term play for AMD, and something that is much needed to keep them viable. NVidia and Intel have for far too long owned their respective spaces without any viable competition. It is good to see AMD bring the fight back. That being said, NVidia has been unstoppable over the last 2-3 years. I mean just look at their stock price.

Unfortunately that happens on both sides. This thread has fallen back to nothing but mud slinging each way. Now we have a situation where games can tilt heavily in favor of NV or AMD, so people can cherry pick games all day long to support the argument that their side is "better". It is irritating to see the forum degenerate into that kind of cherry picking.

Techspot Posts handy Charts like this, that demonstrate how rife for cherry picking the results can be, despite overall being near equal. IMO we should really only look at these results in their totality, not cherry pick if we want to make any kind of reasonable comparison:

But my point was simply about market inertia Vs forum overreaction to every new product announcement. I would love to see AMD storm back, but that simply isn't the way the market works. It has to be won through consistent performance over long periods of time to change the trajectory.

I am VERY happy to see AMD have competitive products in more segments, but the OP is consistently getting carried away thinking this will quickly lead to AMD dominance, and NVidia downfall.

 

[Muhammed]

I have covered Forza Motorsport 7 with various dGPU setups and AMD cards were always faster than their NV rivals. In our latest RX 580 vs GTX 1060 @ 4K ultra the Polaris card was more than 25% faster.

Thanks for the video, it's an honor to meet you in person, your channel is very very nice. I've been following it for quite some time.

Really don't know how the results can vary so much from site to site.

Your tests were done with 0XMSAA, all of the other links I posted had 4XMSAA/8XMSAA.

If you want GTX1060 to look better, you probably need to apply 8xMSAA.

Yep, AA tanks performance on AMD hardware in this game, it's a must have though IMO, as this is the only AA option supported in the game, without the game is full of jaggies which are seriously distracting.

 

[kondziowy]

Yep, AA tanks performance on AMD hardware in this game, it's a must have though IMO, as this is the only AA option supported in the game, without the game is full of jaggies which are seriously distracting.

Provided you have better cpu to compensate. Otherwise performance will tank on Nvidia hardware.

 

[SirDinadan]

Thanks, guys. I plan to investigate the perf hit of MSAA and other AA techniques. Unfortunately, we are still without a Vega GPU, and that's where all the buzz is.

 

[Muhammed]

New Thanks, guys. I plan to investigate the perf hit of MSAA and other AA techniques. Unfortunately, we are still without a Vega GPU, and that's where all the buzz is.

I am hoping you could start by benching the 1060 vs 580 @8XMSAA and 4XMSAA in Forza 7, that would be neat.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Thanks, guys. I plan to investigate the perf hit of MSAA and other AA techniques. Unfortunately, we are still without a Vega GPU, and that's where all the buzz is.

Your videos are excellent, you got a YT subscriber out of it.

 

[kondziowy]

It would be better to test settings for ~144fps +2xMSAA/4xMSAA, instead of all ultra, since game engine is perfectly capable of doing that.

 

[rgallant]

Again, nothing but typical forum over-reaction. There is massive inertia in the market, many people just keep buying what they have always bought.

It really takes continuous, superior execution over time to really move the market, and/or a competitor that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. Unfortunately for AMD, they are on the wrong side of both of those markers.

Back before the Mining craze when RX-480 vs GTX-1060 were selling as gaming cards. AMD had slightly better perf/dollar, yet IIRC NVidia outsold them something like 10:1. Check Steam HW Survey. 14.9% of the entire Steam User base in running a GTX 1060, and 0.3% is running an RX 480. That is 50 Times more GTX 1060s! vs the "competitive" RX 480.

Check Ryzen, AMDs first competitive CPU in a decade, with big core count advantage over Intel. Check Steam HW survey, during the whole year since Ryzens release, AMDs CPU market share had a continuous gentle decline. Mindshare and inertia at work.

NVidia has a massive mindshare advantage that won't be overcome by AMD finally having a competitive product.

The assumption that a couple of products swing the market is simply wrong.

Do you not think mindshare has been not reset to 0 or paused after the Meltdown bug?
intel is redoing it's cpu's [ some released in 2018 maybe ?] and NV gpu's are mostly paired with a intel cpu
once all the patches\bios are installed and work 100% . Then benches will be redone , it could be a whole different mindshare re balance if more NV gpu's are paired with more AMD cpu's.

eg. I'm not likely to get a bios update and if I had to trash my system worried about hacks , I would not buy another intel chip with the same issue , so that would be a shift to a AMD CPU for me and MAYBE my first ever AMD GPU.

we should know in what 30-90 days if any major shifts in mindshare have taken place imo.

 

[DaveSimmons]

> Do you not think mindshare has been not reset to 0 or paused after the Meltdown bug?

Nope, people are not selling all their intels to run into the arms of Ryzen, and I'd be surprised if there has been a significant change in market share.

Gamers aren't running cloud farms they're playing games. Microsoft is saying a less than 10% hit to intel CPU performance for home users which means a 4.5 GHz stock turbo 8700 or 5 GHz overclocked 8700K is still going to be a monster gaming CPU. And the 8700 is still 65 watts TDP for people like me who care about that.

If I was buying today instead of last month I'd still pick the 8700 non-K.

There's no reason to expect that 10% to favor AMD over nvidia, so the 1080ti will still be top of the heap.

 

[Genx87]

AMD didn't have a competitive CPU to add to the equation in 2010, nor did they have the best mobile APU on the market. And, intel and AMD didn't have a semi custom partnership, which would also indicate closer cooperation, which means more AMD GPUs in intel SKUs, which is a completely different landscape than when intel avoided AMD GPUs like the plague, most likely due to the "bitter rival" mentality. Intel also had a licensing agreement with nvidia in 2010, which they no longer have.

That is the spirit. This whole thing is so absurd. This thread is the same we have had in the past. All that happened was Nvidia grew while AMD shrunk. Intel shipping with an AMD GPU is going to do what exactly? Intel already owns the majority of the GPU market. And they accomplished that with a horrible GPU. How aggressive do you expect Intel to get with this?

 

[Genx87]

That's nonsense. The many people buy what is on the shelf. The masses aren't going out with "oh i got to get me a nvidia!", on their brain. The only mindshare they have are from fanboys. This a world with the attention span of single cell with yesterday practically forgotten. Nvidia's brand means nothing to the average consumer. Nvidia was popular because thats what OEMs put on the shelf. Now they will have to share a large part of that shelf with Vega because of the strength of Ryzen APUs, Ryzen mobile APUs, Vega M and KL G. You keep talking desktop while the biggest market of concern for nvidia is mobile.

Do you really believe the people in the market for this chip care which GPU sticker is plastered on the laptop? It is one of the reasons why AMDs APU did dick all to hurt Nvidia back the last time we had this conversation.