Now We All See the Genius of AMD Going Lowend First

[railven]

Did you also forget that Dark Souls III ran like crap on consoles as well? Particularly on Xbox One a lot of people complained of 25fps or lower. It wasn't that great on Nvidia hardware either.

Inertia is a powerful thing, and it takes time to overcome, also game development cycles are long, sometimes 3+ years long. A game like Dark Souls started their development on Nvidia but seeing how many issues they had with developing on Nvidia hardware I would be surprised if their next title is done on Nvidia.

Exactly! And Dark Souls 3 was most likely rushed to market. It probably had 2 years dev time since it came out only a year after Dark Souls 2. Dark Souls 1 and 2 used the same engine, Dark Souls 3 got the engine from Bloodborne a PS4 exclusive. You know that angle you guys are arguing that AMD having its hands in the consoles will translate to amazing results.

Yet Dark Souls 3 released terrible on PC, and even worse on Radeon cards. Where the minimum recommendations were bumped up almost two tiers above NV's.

These aren't even outliers either. And I wouldn't be surprised if the next Dark Souls uses the exact same engine.

We're already seen the proof to the contrary. BF1 will probably be the biggest game release of the year and it also appears to be developed using all the latest technologies AMD introduced.

Probably because AMD has their hand in it. So like I said, unless AMD is directly involved in it, I doubt devs/studios will go out of their way to use all the fancy features on those console "Radeons."

PC market is tiny compared to consoles. Nvidia also counts on people to not notice how poorly Kepler aged. rx480 is selling like hotcakes.. rx470 and rx460 will upgrade many people to the latest tech.

Hardware maybe, software sales not so much. Were console software sales are stagnating or dropping, PC software sales are growing. NPR is even branching out to try to start tracking digital sales. I wouldn't be surprised if PC software sales are within 20% of console software sales.

EDIT: Never in my life would I have imagine to be able to buy certain games almost day 1 on PC. Games that have historically never left the consoles. There is a huge audience for these games. Squaresoft just released a RPG on PC, the kind that would normally only see light of day on a console or handheld. Namco is probably going to bring Tekken 7 same day for PC. SFV, day 1 on PC. The newest Tales title, day 1 PC. Consoles are losing a huge chunk of their once exclusive library. The console affect might not be as strong as people think it will be when devs no longer have to use a console as the lead platform.

Polaris gives AMD the opportunity to take over the mainstream. If they manage to pull it off, than what I am saying is a foregone conclusion. I do think that Nvidia got caught off guard personally. Enthusiast community is blindsided by the 1080/1070, but 1080/1070 don't matter when it comes to install base discussions, and what hardware a developer is more likely to target.

That's the same story. "Now wait and see." I'm tired of waiting. When I buy my GPU I want to know today , not 6 months or longer down the road, it will be amazing. I don't go to review sites and go "damn look at DOOM Vulkan, wish I bought a Radeon." And "but Vulkan is the future." Future decided on one game. Really? "DX12 is the future. 2017 is right around the corner, if I put money on the list AtenRa spewed almost every other post end of 2015 I'd be broke.

Wake me up when AMD's claims and glory come into affect.

 

[sirmo]

Exactly! And Dark Souls 3 was most likely rushed to market. It probably had 2 years dev time since it came out only a year after Dark Souls 2. Dark Souls 1 and 2 used the same engine, Dark Souls 3 got the engine from Bloodborne a PS4 exclusive. You know that angle you guys are arguing that AMD having its hands in the consoles will translate to amazing results.

Yet Dark Souls 3 released terrible on PC, and even worse on Radeon cards. Where the minimum recommendations were bumped up almost two tiers above NV's.

These aren't even outliers either. And I wouldn't be surprised if the next Dark Souls uses the exact same engine.



Probably because AMD has their hand in it. So like I said, unless AMD is directly involved in it, I doubt devs/studios will go out of their way to use all the fancy features on those console "Radeons."



Hardware, software sales, not so much. Were console software sales are stagnating or dropping, PC software sales are growing. NPR is even branching out to try to start tracking digital sales. I wouldn't be surprised if PC software sales are within 20% of console software sales.



That's the same story. "Now wait and see." I'm tired of waiting. When I buy my GPU I want to know today , not 6 months or longer down the road, it will be amazing. I don't go to review sites and go "damn look at DOOM Vulkan, wish I bought a Radeon." And "but Vulkan is the future." Future decided on one game. Really? "DX12 is the future. 2017 is right around the corner, if I put money on the list AtenRa spewed almost every other post end of 2015 I'd be broke.

Wake me up when AMD's claims and glory come into affect.

I don't know how much more proof you need. When I bought my gtx780 I was debating between it and a 290x. but benchmarks showing gtx780 being only slightly slower and using less power made me decide to go for gtx780 instead. Probably the worst $500 I ever spent on a piece of hardware. Had I gone with the 290x I would still not need to upgrade.

 

[railven]

I don't know how much more proof you need. When I bought my gtx780 I was debating between it and a 290x. but benchmarks showing gtx780 being only slightly slower and using less power made me decide to go for gtx780 instead. Probably the worst $500 I ever spent on a piece of hardware. Had I gone with the 290x I would still not need to upgrade.

I own both a 780 and 290X. As much as people love to claim NV is degrading performance the 780 has no issues running games at 2560x1080. (Because my GF prefers NV she'd rather use the 780 over the 290X. Go figure).

Am I saying the 290 isn't faster than the 780? No. But when the majority of games played, at least in my household - which I admit consumes a lot of videogames media, I'm not really worried. Vulkan can make the 290X 200% faster than the 780, but as long as OpenGL still gives that 780 acceptable performance, I don't think people are going to suddenly dump their cards or run out and buy AMD cards.

Now, think about it if the 290 scored the way it does today against the 780 back when it launched. You think we'd be arguing. Hell no.

 

[Bacon1]

An HD 7950!? MINIMUM!? Where as NV side, lowly GTX 750 Ti.

Sure those might be the specs, but look at actual performance

7950: 45 / 41
750 Ti: 28 / 25

So almost twice the performance on the AMD card.

750 TI / 370 should have been minimum, at least the 370 hits 30fps minimum and could be synced there for good experience which the 750 Ti can't even hit 30 avg.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page2.html

Heck the 7950 can hit 30 sync'd @ 1440p where the 750 Ti can't even hit 15 avg.

TLDR? Minimum specs mean jack all

 

[AtenRa]

The problem with your argument is it can be perfectly twisted to match your opponent's point: in the next 6-12 months, not everyone using GCN cards will play DX12 games even if several titles are about to launch. It falls perfectly within the "it's just one game" discourse we've seen on this very forum.

These are transitional times, from one platform to another, with games launching using old APIs and getting patched for the next ones. It will end soon, new titles will get first day support for new APIs, and this should have been the argument of choice against what railven said.

Instead you chose to project customer behavior in a way that is at least strange, as many of these AAA titles spread like wildfire in young gaming communities. Ironically this same projection comes as a counter argument against the GCN low API advantage, as I've already explained above.

Want an even more piercing argument? If 1st day experience is what gamers really appreciate, how does the landscape change once titles become reliant on their low level API implemenation, and Nvidia finds itself scrambling to "help" game developers optimize their render path while AMD benefits from developer default expertise as the go to training platform (consoles, MS DX12 documentation)? We've already seen this happen, with some forumites claiming it is the developer's duty to code better for the Nvidia path, while others chuckle as their old GCN cards are cruising.

I believe railven is right, 1st day experience will be the deciding factor.


Play old games and upgrade often. I can only smile.

Im not a PR for AMD to say what will always portrait their products in the best possible way. Im always talking about my personal experience and others, so the fact is that not everyone plays new games day 1.

Day 1 performance is only relevant to people playing the game day 1 and corporate PR that take day 1 reviews and post them 6 months later, without mentioning any performance changes from Game patches or new drivers.

Also there are games that people play for many months, even years. Those like Civilization, simulation games like Formula 1 and Dirt Rally, online multiplayer games like BattleField etc, day 1 performance should not be the deciding factor those but how dGPUs and game performs in the duration of the time you are actually gonna play the game.

 

[railven]

Sure those might be the specs, but look at actual performance

<snip>

7950: 45 / 41
750 Ti: 28 / 25

So almost twice the performance on the AMD card.

750 TI / 370 should have been minimum, at least the 370 hits 30fps minimum and could be synced there for good experience which the 750 Ti can't even hit 30 avg.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page2.html

Heck the 7950 can hit 30 sync'd @ 1440p where the 750 Ti can't even hit 15 avg.

<snip>

TLDR? Minimum specs mean jack all

Now good luck finding some "reputable" Version 1.0 benchmarks, before the patches and fixes.

 

[AtenRa]

I will not be one of those whiners that complain about crappy bf1 full of bugs.
Therefore i am not going to buy bf1 until after one month or until 80% bugs is filtered out.

Its not only about performance but many games is simply far to buggy from day one because of the TTM pressure on the devs.

Playing from day one gives a crappy experience that kind of last. Not a smart move imo.

Yeap, the last 2-3 years more and more games were released in "BETA" state, day 1 gameplay on those games was unacceptable to put it middle. Some of them even after 4-6 months were having problems and i can remember Batman that was even canceled for the PC a few months after release.

But, there are people that play day 1 and those want the best performance they can get in that time frame. Im not against it but im not always getting every game I like on day 1. Perhaps i will not have the time or i could play another game at the time etc.

 

[Erenhardt]

Now good luck finding some "reputable" Version 1.0 benchmarks, before the patches and fixes.

Gamegpu.ru does release day tests.

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/dark-souls-iii-test-gpu

It is even worse for nvidia than the 1.0.3 version linked above.

 

[railven]

Gamegpu.ru does release day tests.

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/dark-souls-iii-test-gpu

It is even worse for nvidia than the 1.0.3 version linked above.

Still aren't showing version 1.0 benchmarks. (Hint you might not ever find any. Game had day 1 patch because engine was so broken. PC version was delayed 3 weeks outside of Japan. From Software went on record saying they weren't happy with the PC performance.)

Think of it, game got patched twice in 2 days of launch. Woof. I'm glad I wasn't a fan of Dark Souls until waaaay after. Even with the 1.02 patch people were reporting <20 FPS later in the game. Not the start where it's just you and some rocks.

Anyways, this is getting beyond off topic. If people want to submit to the holy console effect, I recommend you stay way from non-AAA titles on your Radeons. I'd hate for you guys to have the experiences I had. Even more so stay way from some MMOs. That driver overhead shows up really quick.

 

[3DVagabond]

I really don't even see why we are arguing about this. It's very simple.

If you play mostly older games and also upgrade at least every year or two nvidia is probably the way to go, they are focused on dx11 performance and do it well, better than amd right now there is no argument there.

If you like to play new games with cutting edge features(dx12) and want a card that will continue to get better and perform well for years as more dx12 games come to market then the Rx480 starts to look really good. As amd is focused on dx12 performance and implementation of new dx12 features.

Basically you like to live in past buy nvidia, you want new features and a card that will stay competitive for years buy amd.

Which ~$200 nVidia card is better in DX11 than the 480? The 970 is ~$50+ more and doesn't. And it gets really trashed in (the majority of) DX12/Vulkan games.

 

[realibrad]

Which ~$200 nVidia card is better in DX12 than the 480? The 970 is ~$50+ more and doesn't. And it gets really trashed in (the majority of) DX12/Vulkan games.

No. If you live in the past AMD is better. If you are buying cards every year then Nvidia has shown to have faster cards. Going Nvidia means more upgrades.

 

[boozzer]

No. If you live in the past AMD is better. If you are buying cards every year then Nvidia has shown to have faster cards. Going Nvidia means more upgrades.

that is true. If you buy every year and money is no object, nv is the gpu to buy for the last 3 years. for people who wants the fastest every gen no matter what, nv is the way to go. amd hasn't had the performance crown since 7970.

 

[3DVagabond]

that is true. If you buy every year and money is no object, nv is the gpu to buy for the last 3 years. for people who wants the fastest every gen no matter what, nv is the way to go. amd hasn't had the performance crown since 7970.

Interesting though that people who defend having to upgrade often with nVidia as "they just have to have the best performance today" never seem to buy AMD when it's the best performance today. Then it's like, "Wait for nVidia, they'll come out with something faster."

Face it, people have brand preferences and biases. That's fine. It's even fine when they tell us what it is that makes them prefer that brand. But trying to make it sound like it's an unbiased rational decision is where I disagree.

Look at the performance of the Fury X in Doom today. There's no 1080 in that bench but the Fury X would meet or beat that too. If you're buying today Fury is a $400 card now. If you had it for months already then you are still all set. And it's not like you would have suffered in actual game play experience.

 

[boozzer]

Interesting though that people who defend having to upgrade often with nVidia as "they just have to have the best performance today" never seem to buy AMD when it's the best performance today. Then it's like, "Wait for nVidia, they'll come out with something faster."

Face it, people have brand preferences and biases. That's fine. It's even fine when they tell us what it is that makes them prefer that brand. But trying to make it sound like it's an unbiased rational decision is where I disagree.

Look at the performance of the Fury X in Doom today. There's no 1080 in that bench but the Fury X would meet or beat that too. If you're buying today Fury is a $400 card now. If you had it for months already then you are still all set. And it's not like you would have suffered in actual game play experience.

still only 1 game as of right now. the performance of amd 100% depends on whether vulkan API becomes widely use for games or not.

for main stream and mid range, amd has been super bang for buck though. ever since 290.

 

[3DVagabond]

still only 1 game as of right now. the performance of amd 100% depends on whether vulkan API becomes widely use for games or not.

for main stream and mid range, amd has been super bang for buck though. ever since 290.

It's matching it in DX12 already as well (excluding the broken DX12 RotTR). Just not destroying it. Look at all the people who believe that the 1070 is such an awesome performance value though.

People have bought 780's and upgraded to 980's. If they had an AIB 290X they would have had the same gameplay experience all along. It's looking the same for Fiji.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I own both a 780 and 290X. As much as people love to claim NV is degrading performance the 780 has no issues running games at 2560x1080. (Because my GF prefers NV she'd rather use the 780 over the 290X. Go figure).

Am I saying the 290 isn't faster than the 780? No. But when the majority of games played, at least in my household - which I admit consumes a lot of videogames media, I'm not really worried. Vulkan can make the 290X 200% faster than the 780, but as long as OpenGL still gives that 780 acceptable performance, I don't think people are going to suddenly dump their cards or run out and buy AMD cards.

Now, think about it if the 290 scored the way it does today against the 780 back when it launched. You think we'd be arguing. Hell no.

No, people only dump their cards when Nvidia offers better performance. If it's AMD, who cares? Some games are still running acceptably after all. Doesn't matter that the competitor is consistently doing exceptionally.

TIL: Performance advantages only matter when NV is ahead.

 

[zinfamous]

No. If you live in the past AMD is better. If you are buying cards every year then Nvidia has shown to have faster cards. Going Nvidia means more upgrades.

I thought DX12 was the future?

why buy nVidia today when you already know that it can't handle tomorrow, and it won't for the next 2-4 releases of pascal-based chips?

This part of your statement makes no sense.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Indeed. AMD has provided me with a card, for the price of $270 that isn't going to be worth replacing until a finfet HBM2 card hits the market, and that was well worth its MSRP at launch two and half years ago too. I'm kind of annoyed that my card performs so well. I'd like to buy something new, but it's a waste.

Just can't say the same about NV cards sold back then.

 

[nkdesistyle]

I have bought nvidia 1080 but i must admit. This is me being as honest to myself as I can be. If feels like GCN has started showing its life. The architecture that was thought of years ago but its compute power never fully utilized. Nvidia cards always performed according to their compute power and now Vulkan and Dx12 are doing just that for AMD. Good for AMD and good for all those people that just get more and more from their AMD card. If Vega shows improvements I am dead certain I will be picking that up. AMDs console strategy is finally starting to pay off it seems and we are still not fully there yet but another 6 months we will have more and more title and then vega drops and it will be that much better for its launch when most games tested might just be dx12 titles.

 

[frozentundra123456]

nah bro, here's how it works around here:

a few hundred 1070/1080s bought day 1 and being sold out for a month + at gauging prices from nVidia and further gauging from sellers = look how popular they are! Everyone wants one!

Several thousand 480s selling out day one and trickling out here in thereat now 20x+ the sales volume of 1070/1080, at AMD's MSRP with a handful of sellers price gauging: Failure from AMD! No one really wants one because I can't get one and clearly AMD couldn't handle this launch!

This is basically what I am seeing from the usual suspects around here.

Don't know why people care about this part of the industry.

In fact to me the case is the exact opposite. nVidia was bashed unendingly for having an insufficient supply of cards and ripping off the consumer, (there was even a thread about the "paper launch" when in fact there were a limited number of cards available) but when it happens with the 480, it is because the card is so fantastic and such a great value.

 

[3DVagabond]

Obviously neither company can meet demand. It's just easier to meet demand on a $700 card than a $240 one. Or it should be.

 

[nkdesistyle]

In fact to me the case is the exact opposite. nVidia was bashed unendingly for having an insufficient supply of cards and ripping off the consumer, (there was even a thread about the "paper launch" when in fact there were a limited number of cards available) but when it happens with the 480, it is because the card is so fantastic and such a great value.

we are comparing 240 dollar card to 700. Atleast you have seen amd not allow pricing raping by the retailers. Like on nvidia cards.They are still selling close to msrp.

 

[Bacon1]

Indeed. AMD has provided me with a card, for the price of $270 that isn't going to be worth replacing until a finfet HBM2 card hits the market, and that was well worth its MSRP at launch two and half years ago too. I'm kind of annoyed that my card performs so well. I'd like to buy something new, but it's a waste.

Just can't say the same about NV cards sold back then.

Yep, my 290 was exceptional value. Worked great then, and still works amazing today. I only replaced it with a Fury because it was on sale cheap and ~35-40% upgrade and I need it with my new monitor. If I'd kept my old monitor I'd still be rocking that 290 until Vega.

 

[lukart]

The GTX 1060 reviewers guide recently leaked. It contains a comparison of RX 480 with GTX 1060 in a bunch of titles, including AoTS. Assuming reviewers are able to replicate such results across a wide variety of titles, and assuming the relative power draw between RX 480 and GTX 1060 are as claimed, NVIDIA has a lower power, generally better performing product than AMD does.

well reviewers guide was a bit missleading with alot of games going 15% higher compared to RX480.
The all games average performance lead is 5-8% over RX480 depending on where you will read.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I own both a 780 and 290X. As much as people love to claim NV is degrading performance the 780 has no issues running games at 2560x1080. (Because my GF prefers NV she'd rather use the 780 over the 290X. Go figure).

Am I saying the 290 isn't faster than the 780? No. But when the majority of games played, at least in my household - which I admit consumes a lot of videogames media, I'm not really worried.

So the 780 (which has be DECIMATED performance-wise in recent titles compared to the AMD equivalent) is "good enough" but the 480 isn't? You can't have it both ways. Either Kepler bombing is a tragedy or the 480 is good enough for most 1440p or less gamers.

Go look at the Steam stats and see all those gamers with 1080p displays. Look at all those gamers with GTX 960s or 950s. Each one of those could get a massive upgrade with a 480 or 470 for near the price of their previous Nvidia card. That is a clear win for a huge segment of the market.