threw in a few new titles
Kepler is falling behind, not because of drivers but because of the console effect. You don't see either babeltech or hardware canucks mentioning this.
Yes I am.
DO you think if you optimize for a 7970 in a driver that it would optimize for the 280x and 380x? Yes it would.
That's not a real architectural update/ that's what I call a refinement.
If you optimize for Kepler would the same optimizations work for Maxwell?
No.
If you optimize for Maxwell does the Kepler cards see increases? no.
Pretty simple to see and I must add, a good way to sell cards and move technology forward..
Now NV need to design more GCN-like hardware or fall behind.
This is all due to the console effect.
I think you should start a thread, with specific links, facts and such, that proves the console effect or it has no reason to be in this thread.
Thanks
No it absolutely would not. I think what you're really implying is that GCN generations are so similar that driver optimizations apply to every iteration in the same way. this is patently false the 280X consistently slightly outperforming the 380X until the very newest games started releasing is good proof of this there is also plenty of other evidence to show that GCN generations are not a one size fits all thing when it comes to optimization.
Do you honestly think the fact that 95+% of all mainstream games are designed to run as well as possible on AMDs GCN architecture utilized on the PS4 and Xbox One has no effect on PC owners who have GPUs running similar hardware?
Yes I am.
If you can explain to me the specific differences between a 7970, 280x and 380x, mabe I would understand. I know the clocks, memory controllers and such are somewhat different but what else.
I would say a driver for gtx680/gtx780/780ti is comparable to a driver for 7970/280x/290. would you?
Where does Maxwell fit?
The console effect doesn't need links from "reputable sources" because, pardon my French, the tech media is made up of amateurs.
I know that there are dramatic changes to the ACE's between all GCN iterations,not even taking into account the Vast differences in the front ends of them.
This is why we've seen the GTX 780 Ti go from a dominant position to trailing the R9 290x in these newer titles.
I'm afraid your final question makes no sense to me could you please clarify?
I don't think its a dramatic change or vast differences.
I believe that the links provided a different picture. A picture of a company moving to optimize for Maxwell, not a console.
Considering that I am discussing the topic at hand, I am not derailing the thread.
The topic is "Has NVIDIA forgotten Kepler" and I am answering that question. You may not like my answer but I do have the right to speak freely on these forums.
PC Gamer had an article up in 2013 which discussed this: http://www.pcgamer.com/how-amds-hardware-in-next-gen-consoles-will-affect-pc-gamers/
Red Gaming Tech discussed it here: http://www.redgamingtech.com/exclus...n-architecture-performance-the-future-part-1/
who has the better architecture in this case?
Well this is a thread that says "Hey, discuss this topic, but ONLY use this data to do so", so technically speaking, you're off topic.Considering that I am discussing the topic at hand, I am not derailing the thread.
The topic is "Has NVIDIA forgotten Kepler" and I am answering that question. You may not like my answer but I do have the right to speak freely on these forums.
OK let me ask you this the 980 and 970 are both Maxwell architecture however the 970 has a memory system that has a .5 GB section that runs slower than the rest . Nvidia optimizes this per game for the 970 by making sure it's never loaded with data that needs to be accessed quickly,if optimizations were universal for every card in the same architecture,why would they need to do this? because gpu's even within the same architecture are unique and need to be optimized with attention to those unique qualities there are alot of things to take into consideration.
Well this is a thread that says "Hey, discuss this topic, but ONLY use this data to do so", so technically speaking, you're off topic.
However, what we can conclude from the article is this:
When AMD makes a chip, they will continue to extract more and more performance from it at a greater rate than Nvidia.
And that when Nvidia makes a chip, it's not forward looking. It's very current looking and will not last long.
It's also more targeted to lower resolution gaming vs AMD targeting higher resolution.
So if you want a 1080p chip for today that won't last long and you want to buy another video card in 2 years, get Nvidia.
Until Nvidia changes, that's how it will be.
The R9 290x will have been better than the GTX 780 Ti GTX 980, and don't worry, it could pass the 980Ti one day too consistently.
I'm going to ask you guys to please discuss the data in the linked article...