Fair point then.
I am excited about more Vulkan, would love to see the effect on something tiny like a 750 ti.
Then you aren't in the market for a 480 anyway. If performance is your #1 goal you aren't looking at a $200-250 card.
My point is, its very hard to UPSELL someone to a 1070 from a 480 when it is almost twice the price for only 25% more performance.
Anyway very off topic, just wanted to point out that trying to compare performance on a $200-250 card vs $400-450 one is silly.
CuriousMike said:via Imgflip Meme Generator
Anyone have any idea why there are varied reports of maxwell performance with the 980 ti?
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/doom-...-vulkan-versus-opengl-performance-comparison/
They seemed to have gotten a nice boost with the 980 ti, but guru 3d saw no boost with the 1070..
What's going on? Are someones results just broken?
Apparently enabled certain AA mode disables Vulkan or something to that effect? Is that it?
I wonder if any reviewers are also going to test the power consumption. Ive always wondered the fact that if the GPUs (regardless of IHV) are utilized further more hence the increase in FPS, surely the power consumption would have gone up.
Unbelievable gains for AMD. nVIDIA on the other hand not too much but then again the cards already performed exceptionally well (even my GTX780 holds up pretty well).
iirc, enabling AA disables async compute.
Just going to leave this here.
http://imgur.com/a/hMBMH
280x updated with vulkan comparison... over double.
When people say amd cards have longer legs and performance over time, this is what people can point to.
you never had a choice to begin with don't lie or make up "reasons"http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2510-doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-rx-480-gtx-1080
Apparently the GTX 1070/1080 will only see meaningful performance increase at 1080p, and none at 4K.
The GTX 970 sees ZERO performance increase at all levels.
Wow, I mean what does this mean?
Really wish the RX 480 was a cool card, I'd have gone for it. As things stand, I have no choice but go for the GTX 1060 due to the power/temperature.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2510-doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-rx-480-gtx-1080
Apparently the GTX 1070/1080 will only see meaningful performance increase at 1080p, and none at 4K.
The GTX 970 sees ZERO performance increase at all levels.
Wow, I mean what does this mean?
Really wish the RX 480 was a cool card, I'd have gone for it. As things stand, I have no choice but go for the GTX 1060 due to the power/temperature.
Really i have no idea of what is going on, there are people reporting gains on maxwell and kepler and people reporting zero gains, maybe they are only gaining on nvidia if you are cpu bottlenecked.
you never had a choice to begin with don't lie or make up "reasons"
But that doesn't make sense. By all accounts, the people making gains are those whose CPU utilization was low before, and is being maxed out now. For those who were already CPU Bottlenecked (high CPU usage), the gains would be little...no?
What's that supposed to mean? If it was a 120W card it would produce lower temps. I'd get it. As it is now, it's a 160W card. My prebuilt will get murdered with the temps. 120W is the limit cause my 960 just about gets on fine.
Reference blowers throw ~100% of the heat out of the case.
and that is why you are lyingI know that full well, but what good is it if it runs at 80C+ as the reviews show and end up getting thermal throttled? It's still better to get an aftermarket GTX 1060 that runs at 60C.