So your saying that gpuz is gpu itself power not the card power?
That would make sense. We need a link..
GPU 'only' power =/= card power. GPU-Z even updated that note for Polaris cards to distinguish the difference.
See W1zzard's response here, before he changed the description for Polaris cards:
https://m.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qk17o/my_xfx_480_power_draw/
I love mine, I actually toyed with the idea of replacing the 780's (they are long in the tooth) in the 3930K rig with a pair of watercooled 480's but that didn't make sense in the longer term. I plan to slide two of the HOF 980TIs down to it whenever Vega (or something tempting) comes along to move into my main pc. I may just replace the 3930K entirely if Zen looks good.YBS1, how do you like the RX 480 in your 6700k rig? From your sig, I can see you have the $$ to spend on very good quality parts.
Piss poor nVidia performance longevity as of late (see 780's referenced above) is what swayed me to choose the 480 over the 1060. Though the 1060 does seem to be a good card for the price and had I found one of the mini models and known of a waterblock available for it before I was able to grab a 480 I may have went that direction.When I built my third rig below, also 6700k, I already owned a GTX 1080 and a GTX 980TI SC so perhaps the attraction of the newly released Polaris chip was enough for me to choose an RX480 vs a GTX1060.
The mini model 1060 rocks. No idea why one would choose a 480 over it. The 480 beats it in only a handful of games and, even then, its not a runaway.
The mini model 1060 rocks. No idea why one would choose a 480 over it.
The 480 beats it in only a handful of games and, even then, its not a runaway.
And that was in the same post, you know the RX 480 is faster in many 2016 games and still wondering why anyone would buy it over the 1060 ???.
Many games? Did you read the Hardocp review of that overclocked behemoth of a 480 card that looks like it was dug up from a time capsule from 2005? It looses to the GTX 1060 consistently while also pulling more power, generating more heat, being louder with triple fans, and also costing more money. Where is the value of this card compared to a GTX 1060 6GB mini? It aint there unless you play Doom exclusively...
Regarding the usage of DX11 or DX12 in our reviews, we use whichever API is faster in each game if we have the option.
According to testing we have done DX11 performs faster on both AMD and NV GPU cards in our test system. To date, we have not experienced DX12 providing faster performance in the games that support DX12 patches.
Here is our Deus Ex DX12 Review - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/11/18/deus_ex_mankind_divided_dx12_performance_review/
Here is our BF1 DX12 Performance Preview - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/24/battlefield_1_video_card_dx12_performance_preview
Here is our Rise of the Tomb Raider DX12 Reivew - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/03/28/rise_tomb_raider_dx11_vs_dx12_review
Here is our Gears of War DX12 Review - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/11/23/gears_war_4_dx12_performance_review/
We won't use DX12 until we have tested the game to find out if it performs faster or not, or his hindering performance, to this date, it hinders performance for us on any GPU in these games.
I have not yet tested The Division with the DX12 patch, that will be done, but I haven't had a chance to get to it yet. I know everyone wants things immediately, but that isn't always possible.
I also have not yet tested DX12 in the Multiplayer aspect of BF1, only campaign mode, so that is also something to be done, again haven't had a chance to get to it yet. I did note in the review DX12 in Multiplayer BF1 is yet untested.
To summarize, to date, DX12 hinders and hurts performance in the games we have tested, so we are simply using the fastest API for the best performance at this time. When that changes, and DX12 actually makes a difference, then we will use it. We test and look at each game on a game by game basis.
I hope that helps clear up the API confusion.
But you had all this time to run these tests for this article even though the outcome of what you just stated would have obviously affected the outcome of this article, positive or negative. Sorry, but what you wrote is a giant "we don't want to change things that may happen to affect the outlook of our preconceived notions". Using potentially flawed or incomplete data sets and then openly admitting to the act as you so did is terrible journalism. Thanks for your time though.
What a complete lack of understanding and reading comprehension inferring and twisting what I wrote. Not going to take the bait.