So there's a few factors that give the RX 480 a future proof edge. Deny all you want, I'll see you guys in 2017 and call out how you were all wrong, again.
How about this, enjoy and justify the purchase of your 'RX 480s' in the (many) proper threads and let people who opted for the faster (overall) and more power efficient card today enjoy their as well, without thread derailing and FUD.
Man sweepr reminds me alot of Rollo i think it was back in the day.....
Facts and historic evidence isn't FUD buddy.
It's neither derailing, on topic in-fact, because your thread title has "faster than the RX 480", which is clearly missing information, because it ain't faster in DX12/Vulkan.
Edit - It seems you think these market share numbers are cumulative? They are just based on number of units shipped that quarter, so Nvidia shipped 77% of the desktop discrete cards in Q1'16.
Oh, yes it is. This thread is not about Kepler/Maxwell vs GCN 1.0/1.1 over time, so leave your off topic out.
It is faster overall, based on countless different reviews including DX11/DX12/OpenGL/Vulkan games, which is the most relevant metric unless you only play the DX12 titles where AMD has an edge. It also draws less power and you can buy custom (slightly OCed) versions for $249 right now. For that alone it's a great card, and many people couldn't care less about your ad nauseam 'it will age worse than AMD', 'check again in' (insert random number of years) posts.
Would you recommend that over the 1060?
If not, then why not? Right, future proof.
Oh, yes it is. This thread is not about Kepler/Maxwell vs GCN 1.0/1.1 over time, so leave your off topic out.
They shipped 77% of the cards sold within OEMs PCs, thoses numbers do not include the retail market, so that s mainly low costs GPUs.
JPR said:JPR’s AIB Report tracks computer add-in graphics boards, which carry discrete graphics chips (GPUs). AIBs used in desktop PCs, workstations, servers, and other devices such as scientific instruments. They are sold directly to customers as aftermarket products, or are factory installed. In all cases, AIBs represent the higher end of the graphics industry using discrete chips and private high-speed memory, as compared to the integrated GPUs in CPUs that share slower system memory.
No, but for other reasons like VRAM, power consumption, etc. Future proofing is one factor, not the only factor, and your 'historic evidence' about 2012-2013 VGAs doesn't count as proof that the same will happen to Pascal or future NVIDIA cards, neither does it belong to this thread.
"historic evidence" of AMD card being more future proof means nothing now, as they all depend now on devs, its not directly on AMD or Nvidia hands, actually i think that just gona get worse for both now, the only thing that may be safe its wharever is on the next console.
Anyway, nvidia cards having less Vram did affect in the long run, 2GB particually killed the GTX770, and 3GB affected the GTX780s, specially in the last 2 years, since the PS4 was launched games started to use way more VRAM than before.
I just dont think it is necessary to bash every positive comment about the 1060 with the "its going to suck in the future" mantra.
See, is that fud?
It's all the fortune tellers got, they're desperate.
Who said the future? Its already happening now in new games.
*pointless graphs removed, again*
Did you read the post I quoted?
Yes, it is the definition of FUD. You're trying to convince people that choosing this card would be a bad option over time based on 'historic evidence' relative to different architectures, all while ignoring its advantages over the competitor today.
Are you ignoring all benchmarks now of current games?
Doom is using GCN-Only Vulkan extensions in order to use those shader intrinsics, Async only on AMD, killed Kepler performance vs OpenGL even trought the patch was to make "older cards" perform better, and launched a half-baked patch at the best possible time for AMD, just before the GTX1060 reviews got out so they can call the RX480 more future proof, and they are making AMD publicity on twitter.
Anyone that calls Dooms "neutral" is biased and i cant take it seriusly. /period
What appears to have happened is that NVIDIA optimized their OpenGL driver/worked with id mainly on the OpenGL path ahead of the launch so that it could deliver a good day 1 experience for customers, and they achieved this goal.
AMD's launch day performance was terrible and even after they got that initial patch in, their cards badly under-performed in OpenGL relative to what the hardware really should have been able to do.
It's clear that AMD went all-in on the Vulkan code path, sacrificing day 1 OpenGL performance. This hurt them when the RX 480 first launched but it allowed them to make a lot of PR noise when id finally released the Vulkan renderer. The big underperformance of their GPUs in OpenGL made the gains in going to the Vulkan renderer (which has additional "secret sauce" thanks to Async Compute support and use of GCN-specific shader intrinsics) look even bigger than they should have been had their OpenGL driver been properly done.
This big gain allows AMD to market to people that once Vulkan/DX12 is ubiquitous, its hardware is really going to shine.
I suspect we will see id improve the Vulkan codepath to better take advantage of Pascal (adding async compute support should give another 5% boost or so and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other optimizations to be done to take better advantage of NVIDIA's hardware), but who knows when that updated renderer will arrive.