• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 1 RX480 VS GTX 1060

thelastword

thelastword

Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxsIOV2AjMc

Using DX12, RX480 never drops below 60fps, has a much higher ceiling then the GTX 1060 and can have a framerate discrepancy in excess of 15fps at times.

Using DX11 GTX1060 catches up but even in DX11 the framerate of the RX480 never goes below 60fps. So the recommendation is DX12 RX480 and DX11 GTX 1060.

It's amazing how putrid AMD's DX11 drivers were and still are to an extent, they just have not caught up to Nvidia in that regard even though they have improved upon it. So everytime you see a DX11 title performing better on AMD hardware, you just have to imagine how much better it could run with better drivers with less CPU overhead.

AMD's issue has never been about it's hardware, it has always been about it's software being worse. I think they would have been in a much better place if they had focused on that last gen. Even their OpenGl performance is putrid. You have amazing hardware AMD, you better wakeup and show what they're capable of.....
 
M

michaelius

Banned
It's amazing how games with AMD partnership seem to lose performance in DX12 mode on Nvidia cards without adding any additional rendered objects when the DirectX 12 is supposed to increase performance.
 
Bolivar687

Bolivar687

Banned
I'll never understand these benchmark threads, irrefutably showing AMD has identical or superior DX11 performance, and we somehow conclude they have terrible DX11 drivers.

From Far Cry Primal and The Division to Hitman and Mankind Divided, AMD cards have had better performance under both APIs across many of 2016's biggest titles. We're still seeing older AMD cards like the Fury X beating out their younger Nvidia counterparts like the 1070 at DX11 in this game.
 
V

viHuGi

Banned
RX 480 is a little gem man, can´t wait to see what this card can do on PS4 Pro with low level API and insane optimization!

When will more games support Vulkan?
 
L

Latimer

Banned
viHuGi said:
RX 480 is a little gem man, can´t wait to see what this card can do on PS4 Pro with low level API and insane optimization!

When will more games support Vulkan?
Click to expand...

It will do a lot resolution wise..performance wise it's being held back by the CPU.
 
thelastword

thelastword

Banned
Latimer said:
Hope Nvidia can improve their DX12 performance.
Click to expand...
By the looks of it AMD has to improve their DX12 performance too, because DX11 on Nvidia is sometimes faster than DX12 on AMD. It just goes to show how impressive their DX11 optimization/drivers really are....
 
V

viHuGi

Banned
Latimer said:
It will do a lot resolution wise..performance wise it's being held back by the CPU.
Click to expand...

yes i know but i am talking more about better visuals AF shadows and so on, i never expected games to jump from 30 to 60, mainly because even devs would not allows such competitive scene when some players play at 30 others at 60, they rather give us a better looking game with similar performance.

Since most games have online modes these days it would make no sense BUT i´m pretty sure God of War will run at 1080p60 based on the demo that was running at 40s or high 30s so if they have it unlocked at 1080p on Pro should achieve 60fps with better visuals.
 
C

ColdDeckEd

Member
Bolivar687 said:
I'll never understand these benchmark threads, irrefutably showing AMD has identical or superior DX11 performance, and we somehow conclude they have terrible DX11 drivers.

From Far Cry Primal and The Division to Hitman and Mankind Divided, AMD cards have had better performance under both APIs across many of 2016's biggest titles. We're still seeing older AMD cards like the Fury X beating out their younger Nvidia counterparts like the 1070 at DX11 in this game.
Click to expand...

To be fair the fury x is a monster of a card, it's just the 4gb of hbm hold it back from being a 4k card.

Also that benchmarks is little suspect, how about a more reputable site like pcper, tech report, hardocp.
 
R

Ricky Ricardo

Member
viHuGi said:
yes i know but i am talking more about better visuals AF shadows and so on, i never expected games to jump from 30 to 60, mainly because even devs would not allows such competitive scene when some players play at 30 others at 60, they rather give us a better looking game with similar performance.

Since most games have online modes these days it would make no sense BUT i´m pretty sure God of War will run at 1080p60 based on the demo that was running at 40s or high 30s so if they have it unlocked at 1080p on Pro should achieve 60fps with better visuals.
Click to expand...

LOL

ComeOnSon.gif
 
M

Massa

Member
thelastword said:
AMD's issue has never been about it's hardware, it has always been about it's software being worse. I think they would have been in a much better place if they had focused on that last gen. Even their OpenGl performance is putrid. You have amazing hardware AMD, you better wakeup and show what they're capable of.....
Click to expand...

They did. Mantle/DX12 is the result.
 
thelastword

thelastword

Banned
Bolivar687 said:
I'll never understand these benchmark threads, irrefutably showing AMD has identical or superior DX11 performance, and we somehow conclude they have terrible DX11 drivers.

From Far Cry Primal and The Division to Hitman and Mankind Divided, AMD cards have had better performance under both APIs across many of 2016's biggest titles. We're still seeing older AMD cards like the Fury X beating out their younger Nvidia counterparts like the 1070 at DX11 in this game.
Click to expand...
Which is the point really, do you know how much better the fury would perform in these titles if their CPU overhead was less and their DX11 drivers better. It always baffled me when some Nvidia cards use to perform better than the fury when it had a larger bus, better memory etc...AMD always had the better hardware imo, but crippled by their software. DX12 is kinda showing that and it's really a question of "what could have been"...

viHuGi said:
RX 480 is a little gem man, can´t wait to see what this card can do on PS4 Pro with low level API and insane optimization!

When will more games support Vulkan?
Click to expand...
It's the very reason I posted this thread. Very nice performance on the RX480..... 3200x1800p checkerboarding is really possible here at a locked 60fps on the .Pro.
 
L

Lkr

Member
is this an AMD optimized game like the last few Battlefields? I remember back in the day BF2 was nvidia optimized, even came with drivers on the disc lmfao

have both companies released drivers for this game? its not out to the public yet so i assume they haven't tweaked too much yet
 
L

LCGeek

formerly sane
thelastword said:
Which is the point really, do you know how much better the fury would perform in these titles if their CPU overhead was less and their DX11 drivers better. It always baffled me when some Nvidia cards use to perform better than the fury when it had a larger bus, better memory etc...AMD always had the better hardware imo, but crippled by their software. DX12 is kinda showing that and it's really a question of "what could have been"...
Click to expand...

It's not practical for AMD to invest in better DX11 drivers. Someone as knowledgeable of you should be aware it would require a game to game to specific solution and quite frankly AMD doesn't have the means for that. Devs as some already have can exploit DX12 or Vulkan better as they really should be owning up to game performance and not using relying on manufacturers to do the job they should be doing to begin with.

Here's a topic on it from overclock.net

Blaming them when devs aren't stepping in nor consumers to give them the means just seems to be piling on in useless unproductive manner like people have been since 2013 on this issue.
 
V

Visualante2

Member
With weak pound coupled with inflation. I don't know if I can justify an RX480. Seems like a fantastic card. Surprised more people aren't fluid with their GPU choice.

edit. Still on a 7870 Twin Frozr
 
A

Akronis

Member
LCGeek said:
It's not practical for AMD to invest in better DX11 drivers. Someone as knowledgeable of you should be aware it would require a game to game to specific solution and quite frankly AMD doesn't have the means for that. Devs as some already have can exploit DX12 or Vulkan better as they really should be owning up to game performance and not using relying on manufacturers to do the job they should be doing to begin with.

Here's a topic on it from overclock.net

Blaming them when devs aren't stepping in nor consumers to give them the means just seems to be piling on in useless unproductive manner like people have been since 2013 on this issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the above, the problem is coding DX12 is supposedly much much harder to match performance compared to DX11. I'd imagine DX11 will be around for a very long time as a result.
 
L

LCGeek

formerly sane
Akronis said:
Agreed with the above, the problem is coding DX12 is supposedly much much harder to match performance compared to DX11. I'd imagine DX11 will be around for a very long time as a result.
Click to expand...

Sadly AMD is going to be in a nasty spot till they eat a shit sandwhich. I totally agree on exploiting DX12 for performance. Yet if you ask me which is worse trying to get devs themselves to exploit DX12 or asking AMD to rewrite the DX11 drivers in a big way like nvidia did, one of these is infinitely more practical.
 
B

Besthelboy

Banned
My 290 is still getting a locked 60 FPS on ultra settings on most new games, albeit at 1080p but it's still very impressive. AMD really brings out great graphics cards.
 
A

Akronis

Member
LCGeek said:
Sadly AMD is going to be in a nasty spot till they eat a shit sandwhich. I totally agree on exploiting DX12 for performance. Yet if you ask me which is worse trying to get devs themselves to exploit DX12 or asking AMD to rewrite the DX11 drivers in a big way like nvidia did, one of these is infinitely more practical.
Click to expand...

Yup, devs needs to step up and bite the bullet. Transition is going to be super rough for consumers as well though :/
 
J

J_ToSaveTheDay

Member
Running this game with High Settings across the board, with only Texture Filtering stepped up to Ultra. HBAO and Temporal Anti-Aliasing (TAA) enabled. Vsync is on so things stay locked at 60fps. DX11, not DX12.

It's rock-solid. I haven't seen a single dip in any of the campaigns so far. However, in one Operations match -- I believe it was on the French countryside map, there was a busted up windmill and farm at the top of a hill? In any case, in the opening section of that map, as it transitions to section two and goes from the charred hilltop down into the ravaged city, I got drops down to the low 50's, but that's the only drop I've seen so far. The drop was pretty maintained as I approached the city from the hilltop, I'm guessing it was long-rendering a lot of shadows and lighting which caused the performance issue, but it cleared out once I actually hit the city limits and started roaming thru the city streets. I'm on a gaming laptop so the mobile CPU clock speed is probably a bottleneck here.

Playing on an MSI GS63VR Stealth Pro laptop. Specs:

- i7-6700HQ @ 2.6Ghz
- GTX 1060 6GB
- 16GB DDR4 @ 2600Mhz
- 512GB m.2 SSD

Was already impressed with how this laptop handled Doom (Ultra, 1080p, 90+fps) and Gears 4 (High, 1080p, 65-90fps)... But I really think this game is taking the cake in visual presentation for me. Just amazing looking game, and really fun to boot.

Seems nVidia is waiting on an official driver release right now, too, probably more focusing on the actual Friday release rather than the Early Enlister release? If drivers can somehow smooth out that single section where my framerate dipped, I'll be exceedingly pleased, though it wasn't enough of a sustained drop that it disrupted my gameplay.
 
G

gypsygib

Member
Is there a detailed explanation on why DX11 performs so much better than DX12 on Nvidia cards. I always hear stuff about better drivers and inferior software async compute but is there a particular reason?

Surely, Nvidia should be able to leverage the CPU optimizations of their DX11 drivers into the DX12 drivers and limit async (if that is the issue) while utilizing other DX12 features. Can't imagine async being the only significant GPU benefit of DX12 and there's no reason for CPU optimization to be worse in DX12 for Nvidia cards than in DX11. I would expect it to be better.

Judging from all the benchmarks I've seen, advertising DX12 ready is total BS, sure it runs but I couldn't say it works.
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
michaelius said:
It's amazing how games with AMD partnership seem to lose performance in DX12 mode on Nvidia cards without adding any additional rendered objects when the DirectX 12 is supposed to increase performance.
Click to expand...
That happens :( until nVidia release a driver update for the game.

BTW this game in the ideal scenario needs to run close in performance in both APIs.
 
V

V_Arnold

Member
I just love how we have gone from the nvidia-commando (we know the names) of "Duh, 1060 is +20% faster than rx480, PERIOD", to calling on on AMD for performing better under DX12 :D You just gotta love it.

RX480 seems more future-proof than 1060 is, end of story here. (And that I think is a valid conclusion to have when we look at DX12/Vulkan benches).
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
ethomaz said:
That happens :( until nVidia release a driver update for the game.
Click to expand...
I don't think Nvidia stands to gain as much as AMD from DX12 at the moment. Their DX11 drivers are on point and they lack some of the hardware features necessary to take full advantage of the DX12 API.
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
V_Arnold said:
RX480 seems more future-proof than 1060 is, end of story here. (And that I think is a valid conclusion to have when we look at DX12/Vulkan benches).
Click to expand...
Can list the DX12/Vulkan games please? Doom Vulkan for example right now runs better on nVidia.

SapientWolf said:
I don't think Nvidia stands to gain as much as AMD from DX12 at the moment. Their DX11 drivers are on point and they lack some of the hardware features necessary to take full advantage of the DX12 API.
Click to expand...
nVidia Pascal has more DX12 hardware features than AMD Polaris... they both didn't support full DX12 but nVidia is one or two layers ahead in support.
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
Honestly even as someone who's really pulling for AMD I'm not going to use day one as the metric. You have to wait for at least a week or two to see what performance looks like with new drivers and such rolling out.

There's also the fact the 1060 is constantly going on sale for low 200's sometimes even sub 200 like on newegg currently with the Master pass deal. While the cheapest 480 8Gb I can find is $249.99 before the mass pass deal. But it's still a higher price than the 1060.
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
V_Arnold said:
In what world? Last time I checked, 480 was WAY ahead of 1060 in Vulkan Doom benches. New patch?
Click to expand...
Yeap... after last driver nVidia (last I mean the driver released last month) runs better on Vulkan than AMD even without async support.
 
V

V_Arnold

Member
ethomaz said:
Yeap... after last driver nVidia (last I mean the driver released last month) runs better on Vulkan than AMD even without async support.
Click to expand...

I could not find any benchmarks after july. (Not to mention, many AMD players also gained even more performance with 16.9.2, namely r9 390, 470,480 users.)
 
E

Engell

Member
SapientWolf said:
I don't think Nvidia stands to gain as much as AMD from DX12 at the moment. Their DX11 drivers are on point and they lack some of the hardware features necessary to take full advantage of the DX12 API.
Click to expand...

Nvidia will never have as big gains as AMD in DX12, mainly because AMD sucked so incredibly hard at DX11 and OpenGL. So basically AMD fan boys are rejoicing that after being left in a pit of despair for the better part of 6+ years they finally see some light at the end of the tunnel. (fair enough, you deserve it after all them years of sub-par drivers)
In the end, yes rx480 will properly end up being faster than the 1060 in BF1, but it is clear the game is not optimized for nvidia in DX12 mode as it should at minimum give about the same performance as DX11(both on pascal and maxwell).

My guess is that some of the good performance you are seeing on AMD hardware can also be attributed to the consoles that currently feature AMD GPUs therefore the DEV would try to optimize heavily for this.
 
R

RenegadeXV8

Banned
Aztechnology said:
Honestly even as someone who's really pulling for AMD I'm not going to use day one as the metric. You have to wait for at least a week or two to see what performance looks like with new drivers and such rolling out.

There's also the fact the 1060 is constantly going on sale for low 200's sometimes even sub 200 like on newegg currently with the Master pass deal. While the cheapest 480 8Gb I can find is $249.99 before the mass pass deal. But it's still a higher price than the 1060.
Click to expand...

Well you're comparing the price of a 3GB 1060 to an 8GB 480. The cheapest 6GB 1060 on Newegg is $249.99, and you can find an aftermarket 4GB 480 for $199-219 now.
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
RenegadeXV8 said:
Well you're comparing the price of a 3GB 1060 to an 8GB 480. The cheapest 6GB 1060 on Newegg is $249.99, and you can find an aftermarket 4GB 480 for $199-219 now.
Click to expand...

No I was more referring to a specific deal that had popped up that had a 6GB card really close to $200. Sub 200 was not correct. I apologize.

But on the flip side now. 480 4GB $180 with BF1. Dats some good stuff.

Basically, just in deals happen all the time. I just was seeing way more deals on Nvidia cards than AMD cards in general.
 
Coulomb_Barrier

Coulomb_Barrier

Member
Seems to follow the same trend - AMD's 480 and cards in general faster in DX12 (and Vulkan), Nvdia's 1060 better in DX11.

In this game the 480 is faster period, as in DX12 mode it's faster on that card than the 1060 in DX11.
 
A

aka_bueno

Member
All I know is I'm getting 60fps locked at ultra 1080p with my GTX1060 6GB + i7 6700 and it's glorious. SP and MP. The first MP match I did was a 64player operation and didn't see the frames drop. So good.

Glad to see both cards are running this game beautifully and that the game is so well optimized!
 
S

SLHellbound

Banned
Went from a 750 Ti to a Rx 480 8GB and while I paid more than I should have because of the hype train when it first hit the market. I am still happy with my purchase. Next is to replace my 6300 and I should get more performance out of the 480. BF 1 looks fantastic, glad to see this will run smooth.
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
V_Arnold said:
I could not find any benchmarks after july. (Not to mention, many AMD players also gained even more performance with 16.9.2, namely r9 390, 470,480 users.)
Click to expand...
NVidia 372.xx drivers.

12062

12063

12064
Click to expand...

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22533-snabbtest-doom-med-vulkan

That without async compute not implemented in the Vulkan patch for nVidia yet... they are looking with nVidia to release the new patch with async compute for Pascal.

BTW OpenGL and Vulkan support have close performance in nVidia that shows how bad the OpenGL support in AMD is while nVidia supports both APIs pretty well and ahead AMD.
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
ethomaz said:
NVidia 372.xx drivers.



http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22533-snabbtest-doom-med-vulkan

That without async compute not implemented in the Vulkan patch for nVidia yet... they are looking with nVidia to release the new patch with async compute for Pascal.

BTW OpenGL and Vulkan support have close performance in nVidia that shows how bad the OpenGL support in AMD is while nVidia supports both APIs pretty well and ahead AMD.
Click to expand...

Ugghhh... Transparent graphs on dark theme no likey.
 
L

LelouchZero

Member
Fascinating to see that unlimited console optimization power is still a misleading fantasy almost 3 years into this generation.

The PS4 and X1 struggle to run this game, but the PS4 Pro should be able to maintain 1080p at 60 fps, possibly with minor drops to the 50s at the most alongside improvements to the visual fidelity, potentially sporting Ultra settings or a balance between the High and Ultra settings available on PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alan Wake 2 PC Re-Tested: Massive Perf Boost on GTX 10-Series 'Pascal' GPUs
37
2K
Monserrat replied
What the fuck is the issue with DirectX 12?
2
65
11K
Ronin_7 replied
Let's talk about stuttering by shader compilation...
28
3K
Vergil1992 replied
AMD announces frame generation for all DX11 and DX12 games
2 3 4
169
12K
Crayon replied
Baldur's Gate 3 PC - DF Tech Review - Graphics Analysis + Optimised Settings
Opinion Analysis
25
5K
Mister Wolf replied
Top Bottom