I think you are attributing something to him that isn't there. He's being analytical. Nothing more or less.
You might not notice but there are plenty of times where he recommends nVidia over AMD. That's because it's what his analysis tells him. He was a big 970 and 980 ti proponent when they were first released. I used to disagree with him because I factored in the likelihood that AMD's performance would improve over time relative to what it was then. Although neither of us accuse the other of being biased. We simply disagree.
Wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood someonebut I wasn't criticizing him for the message but the way he presents it. That is just my opinion and not a fact. I am proponent of neither company, one of my rigs had a radeon card and the other a nvidia card. I only come here when I am shopping for upgrades looking for information.
The problem with GTX 1080 is that it is ROPs bottlenecked. It has exactly the same amount of ROPs as GTX 1070, that is why it is possible to OC GTX 1070 to its levels.
GTX 1080 will not be able ever to achieve its full potential just because of the amount of ROPs. GTX 1070 on the other hand is able to achieve its full hardware potential.
About GTX 1060, I already have spoken. And my calculations are correct. 1280 CC is 66.67% from 1920 CC.
Wanna steam game bet? I'll give you great odds: 65% or less than a GTX 1070 (based on techpowerup at 1080p) and I'll gift you any $60 or cheaper game. 70% or better vs. a GTX 1070 and you gift me any $60 or cheaper game. Performance in between 65% and 70% is a wash.
I dont get where the $250 pricetag on a 3GB 1060 is coming from. That card is very likely to have a BoM that is 20% less than the 480. A smaller die, less power = less VRMs, only 3/4 of the memory chips, smaller pcb, cheaper thermal solution, etc. Nvidia could easily set MSRP to $199 and still make bank. Could even go $189.
Like i said before.1070 cant use 64rops because it only have 1920SP.It can use only 48Rops with 1920SP.
Pixel fillrate is much lower than GTX1080 but both have 64rops and should have same results..1080 have 33% more pixel fillrate.48rops vs 64rops=33%more also 1920SP vs 2560SP=33%more.
And BTW 1060 can only USE 32Rops with 1280SP.
TPU lists a peak gaming power measurement of 118W for GTX 960, compared to 184W for GTX 980. The GTX 1080 matches the 980 exactly in power usage.
Does this mean we should expect the same figure (roughly 120W) for GTX 1060? Maybe. The GTX 960 ran at the same clock rate as the 980, and leaks indicate that the 1060 will likewise share the same clock rate used by the 1080. But there's one important difference: while GM206 was half of a GM204 in pretty much every respect, GP106 has a memory bus 75% as wide as that of the GP104, and with a clock rate just as high as the GTX 1070. The memory controller is often one of the more power-hungry aspects of a video card. This means GTX 1060 might go in closer to 130W peak gaming than 120W. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
GTX 1060 FE will definitely beat reference RX 480 in perf/watt, based on what we've seen so far. Depending on how AMD fixes the power management issues, it might be closer than most people are assuming; undervolting could get RX 480 down from ~160W to 130-140W. (Pushing too much voltage has been AMD's Achilles heel for a long time.) Most people will eventually be buying AIB cards instead of reference for both RX 480 and GTX 1060, so it'll be interesting to see how this competition shakes out in both raw performance and perf/watt.
A hypothetical P10 card with GDDR5X, better binning, and more precise voltage settings could match GTX 1060's perf/watt or perhaps even beat it. Higher memory clocks mean higher power consumption (this is one reason HBM is so efficient: it uses a very wide and slow memory bus). Switching from 8GB/s GDDR5 to 10GB/s GDDR5X would let AMD drop the memory clock from 2000 MHz to 1250 MHz while simultaneously increasing bandwidth by 25%. That could make a substantial difference.
Whatever man. You're set in your ways. I certainly hope you didn't expect anyone to just keel over and follow your opinionated advice blindly. People have their own minds.
A bit rich coming from the person who is paid in goods to advertise nvidia products!
For RS, the only measurement is perf/$. But if everyone thought like that, we would all be driving 4 cylinder 1000cc cars!
Bingo. This "perf/$" is just an excuse for an underwhelming product.
Look at this:
With a Pascal card you can safely overclock without violating the warranty as long as you dont touch the overvoltage setting.
With a Polaris card you will lose your warranty immediately when you touch any setting in the AMD own "Wattman" tool.
How do you count this?
lol what? Since when?
Right. But this "race to the bottom" concept has no winner but the company with the most money.Also, there are no bad products, only bad pricing.
Right. But this "race to the bottom" concept has no winner but the company with the most money.
Come back and tell us that when AMD doesnt exist anymore because they couldnt make any money.
Was just going to post that link. They state the card should start at $250. Does that mean the 3gb or 6gb. I was starting to guess the 6 would be a total of $250.
A bit rich coming from the person who is paid in goods to advertise nvidia products!
Using phrases like, money spent better elsewhere and nothing special are not necessarily indicative of cold hard facts, rather they are his opinions. :wub: I get alot of info from RS but his preachy manner is irritating and discounts the value in what he says.
Was just going to post that link. They state the card should start at $250. Does that mean the 3gb or 6gb. I was starting to guess the 6 would be a total of $250.
Then again the 6gb could cost more than $250 leaving their 1070 at $400 and up.
This makes sense to me too. It fills in the other section between the 480 and 1070 until the AIB 480 cards come in. I'll be interested in seeing how it really performs against the 480 so I'll be reading and watching all those reviews like I did last week.It looks like it could be 249.00 MSRP for the 3GB model and 299.00 MSRP for the 6GB model. This makes the most sense and fits right into a missing segment of the market. This might even leave room for a 1060Ti at 329 to 349.00 range?, a further cut GP104 with shaders somewhere between 1280 and 1920. Maybe 1600 shaders if the architecture allows such a cut.
inb4 3GB is enough when its on an nvidia card. a 3GB 1060 at $250 is rubbish. unless boost is well over 1700. Because even if it matches a 980, its still going to lose at 1800 boost in dx12. with 3GB its a complete failure. NVM custom 480s will be closer to 980
But it will sell...
inb4 3GB is enough when its on an nvidia card. a 3GB 1060 at $250 is rubbish. unless boost is well over 1700. Because even if it matches a 980, its still going to lose at 1800 boost in dx12. with 3GB its a complete failure. NVM custom 480s will be closer to 980
But it will sell...
You should never, ever undercut a competitor when you have an advantage (this time for NV is perf/W).