Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Gaming > PC Gaming (Also, Advice Needed)

PC Gaming (Also, Advice Needed) (Page 5)
Thread Tools
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2016, 07:17 PM
 
There are two obvious things they can do in software:

* Recalibrate the power limit. Right now it is set at 150W yet the card can consume a bit more - ergo, the power limit is poorly calibrated. Recalibrate this so it is correct and the problem goes away, at the cost of not being able to sustain max boost clocks in some games. Reading between the lines, AMD thinks the issue is that the 8GHz memory in the 8GB variant is the culprit here, that that feature uses too much power. Perhaps the chip itself needs to settle for a little less, 105W instead of 110W. AMD says that the chip is supposed to use 110W, leaving 40W for the VRAM, which matches reasonably well with what I know about VRAM power consumption - I would actually have pinned it a little bit higher still, at 45W, and maybe I was right.
* Undervolt. Every test I've read shows that the voltage can be dropped by 0.2V with maintained stability, which also leads to better performance as the chip doesn't heat up as much and can stay at boost clocks longer. 0.2V is a LOT. Safety margins is nice and all, but this is too much. They could at least drop it a bit.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2016, 11:21 PM
 
We'll see. I definitely have my popcorn ready for this. Right now word is the 1060 is rolling off the assembly lines as we speak, w/ 6GB of RAM and equal performance, and Nvidia is targeting the same price point.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2016, 05:18 AM
 
1060 is a cut-down GP104, the same chip as in the very expensive 1080. If it truly costs the same, then either yields are horrendous so making a chip half disabled makes sense, or nVidia is will to lose money to keep AMDs market share down.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2016, 06:19 AM
 
Rumors now say that the reason AMD went with Samsung/Global Foundries is that they can get twice the number of wafers during 2016 as nVidia can get from TSMC. If that is true, it explains why nVidia is charging the money it does for their cards: They are severely supply-constrained.

The GP104 in 1080 and 1070 is 50% larger than the Polaris 10 chip in RX 480. This means that in case of zero defects, AMD can make three times as many chips during 2016 - but they won't have zero defects, and that makes the situation even worse. Every defect will hurt nVidia more, because a bigger chip is destroyed by it - ie, the mm2 of a wafer that is lost per defect is bigger. Even worse, AMD is generally quite good at designing chips to minimize the effect of defects, while nVidia is comparably poor.

Also note that Polaris 11 is even smaller, about half the size of Polaris 10. At this rate, AMD will be able to include them in cereal boxes.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2016, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
1060 is a cut-down GP104, the same chip as in the very expensive 1080. If it truly costs the same, then either yields are horrendous so making a chip half disabled makes sense, or nVidia is will to lose money to keep AMDs market share down.
The latter, obviously, yields are at 75%. The wafers cost Nvidia ~$300, cut (on average) 12 ways equals... $25. So each actual GPU is roughly $48. Any GP104, whether it's a 1080, 1070, or 1060, is $48 TPS. Different board partners pay different amounts for them, but they all pay on different scales, depending on the model and ASIC quality. Even if they were ALL 1060s, NV isn't going to "lose money", unless you're talking about lost opportunity cost of them all being 1080s, but that doesn't make sense given they planned all along for this single process to net them all 3 SKUs (it's quite possible there will be no x50, aka. GP106, this generation). The 1060 was always going to be made. They were simply saving the announcement for the Polaris release.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Jul 4, 2016 at 01:59 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2016, 02:08 PM
 
I don't follow your math - a 300mm wafer holds way more than 12 chips, and costs more too - but yes I mean that they lose money compared to what they could have sold them for, not the marginal cost of the silicon.

Where do you get the yield and price figures from?

There are leaked chip IDs for a GP106 (the traditional midrange chip, predecessors used fully-enabled in the 960 and the 660), GP107 (lower-end, commonly used in laptops, the MBP has used that level in the past), GP108 (idiot-level cheapskate chip, worse than integrated) and GP102. That last is a level of chip not used by nVidia since the 8800GT (G92), in between the big DP number crunchers and the performance-level graphics cards. Of course nVidia could cancel these chips, or delay them (GK106 was late and that slot was filled by a third-tier GK104, the 660 Ti, for a long time) but it looks like it is coming at some point.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2016, 02:40 PM
 
Oh, and AMD may be able to make more chips, but selling them is an entirely different matter. Given their propensity for shooting themselves in the foot, it's very likely that, after the buzz over the 480 subsides, and the AMD faithful finish buying theirs, their market will tank (much like it did with their Fury line), leaving them with a whole lot of chips with few orders.

I can imagine what it's like as an RX 480 owner, they must feel like beta testers at this point, rather than buyers of a finished product. AMD even took to social media begging for owner input to help fix the voltage bug, asking for them to test lower voltages in Wattman, in an attempt to decrease the chance a customer's PC will be fried by their new GPU, while still providing enough power to keep it functioning. Apparently that's what they get for not thoroughly testing their product beforehand, they simply must not have had enough time and money to do proper R&D (or even worse, their engineers honestly thought overvolting a PCI-E slot to such an extraordinary degree was acceptable). While some 960s and 750TIs will run out of spec momentarily, it isn't nearly to this level.

Until AMD truly fixes this, and updates all the cards already in the channels, no one should buy a Polaris-based card, and it's truly awful that customers are having to do their research for them to nail this down. Whether through ignorance or idiocy AMD has placed a lot of their customers' computers at risk, at a time when their company is practically on life support as it is. Incredible.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2016, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I don't follow your math - a 300mm wafer holds way more than 12 chips, and costs more too
Not according to the shareholder report. 12 is the typical top-SKU yield, not the absolute amount one could cut from a single wafer. While, like every other company, they have to pay for duds (many of those, I'm assuming, will be 1060s) as well, they don't pay as much. Either way, that's also factored into the average cost.

As for the GP106, there are placeholders, for sure, because they always plan for them, but Volta will come on sooner in the cycle than Pascal, since it will also be on the same node process (and they're going to milk this shrink for all it's worth), and they may simply wait until then.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2016, 05:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Oh, and AMD may be able to make more chips, but selling them is an entirely different matter. Given their propensity for shooting themselves in the foot, it's very likely that, after the buzz over the 480 subsides, and the AMD faithful finish buying theirs, their market will tank (much like it did with their Fury line), leaving them with a whole lot of chips with few orders.
Fairly certain that the plan here is OEM sales. nVidia's reputation there is terrible after the patent trolling.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I can imagine what it's like as an RX 480 owner, they must feel like beta testers at this point, rather than buyers of a finished product. AMD even took to social media begging for owner input to help fix the voltage bug, asking for them to test lower voltages in Wattman, in an attempt to decrease the chance a customer's PC will be fried by their new GPU, while still providing enough power to keep it functioning. Apparently that's what they get for not thoroughly testing their product beforehand, they simply must not have had enough time and money to do proper R&D (or even worse, their engineers honestly thought overvolting a PCI-E slot to such an extraordinary degree was acceptable). While some 960s and 750TIs will run out of spec momentarily, it isn't nearly to this level.
They're not overvolting the slot, only the motherboard can do that - they're drawing too much current. The risk there is that motherboard traces will overheat with time, thereby damaging the motherboard, but it doesn't happen this quickly.

Something has gone wrong very late in the process, because the card was certified by the PCI-SIG. They tested it and found it acceptable. There is significant variation between cards, probably production variation.

The 960 in particular draws much more current than the 480, but only momentarily. Averaged over time it stays under the limit or (in the case of some Asus boards) just over. This is a different issue from averaging over the limit.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2016, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I have 8GB more memory on the way to bump me up to 16GB as one of the theories was a memory leak caused the game to page too often.
That did the trick. With Windows 10 and only JC3 running, my memory usage was 8.3GB. Paging caused stuttering issues, but with 16GB it's all clear. I also used MSI's afterburner to OC my R7-265 so now I can actually enable a few pretty things.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2016, 01:06 PM
 
Tom's is partially backing down from their claims. You can go read them if you like, but basically: The card is still outside PCIe spec, but because of a wrinkle in the specs, it will not burn out your motherboard. The spec says that no card should pull more than 5.5A over 12V, but the number of power delivery pins for 12V was increased from 4 to 5 a long time ago. Because any motherboard must be able to support 5.5/4A over each pin (to support old PCIe 1.0 cards) but must also support delivery over 5 pins (to support modern PCIe 3.0 cards), the motherboard must support 5.5*5/4=6.875A. Which the card stays below, by 0.1A or so. Your motherboard won't burn unless you're using something from the Pentium 4 era (in which case your warranty is out since long anyway).

In further news, some tests reveal that the PCIe connector is also massively over-designed, so it won't die either.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2016, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That did the trick. With Windows 10 and only JC3 running, my memory usage was 8.3GB. Paging caused stuttering issues, but with 16GB it's all clear. I also used MSI's afterburner to OC my R7-265 so now I can actually enable a few pretty things.
Glad to hear it. Pretty much all modern AAA games seem to be memory hogs these days.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 03:16 AM
 
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 03:32 AM
 
10% faster is where both nVidia and AMD like it to be. Remains to see what they charge for them, and if there is availability.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 09:38 AM
 
Update from AMD: New driver on Thursday. Default will be to change the power draw distribution so more power comes from the power plug but keep the power draw - ie, it will behave like a 960 (for instance). Optionally you can set it to a special mode to drop the power limit by some amount and always stay below 150W.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Jawbone54  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 01:01 PM
 
AMD couldn't afford to botch this, and they did. I hope they survive.

Glad the memory upgrade did the trick for you, Laminar.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 01:17 PM
 
Oh, I do hope they survive, I don't dislike AMD, I simply feel that their products aren't up to the same standard as NV and their QC leaves a lot to be desired.

The 1060 appears to be launching at the $250 price point for the 6GB card. If so, RIP RX 480.

Also, on the top end, the new Titan P will have a full Pascal chip and HBM2, and will likely be in 2 flavors, with 12 and 16GB models, starting at $999. I'll definitely have to get one of those... or two.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 01:32 PM
 
That page doesn't mention price. I would guess that the full GP100 with HBM2 would cost MUCH more than $999. A 400-450mm2 chip with GDDR5X, maybe possibly but probably not.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2016, 08:03 PM
 
Yeah, the 12GB w/ 3072-bit bus for $999, and a 16GB w/ 4096-bit bus for $1299, that's the rumor. I expected them to be more too, @$1249 and 1499, respectively.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2016, 06:08 AM
 
I don't think it is the full GP100, I think that it is maybe the rumored GP102 with GDDR5X memory and nerfed FP64 performance.

But even if so... $999 when the 1080 costs as it does? Nah.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2016, 11:18 AM
 
So the 1060 paperlaunched. Supposedly 980 performance at $300 ($250 regular, but you will likely only get Founder's Edition at first), based on a GP106 with 1280 shaders and 192-bit memory (from which we can deduce that it has 48 ROPs), launches July 19th.

Nothing remotely like benches yet, but if true, this does look bad for AMD.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2016, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I don't think it is the full GP100, I think that it is maybe the rumored GP102 with GDDR5X memory and nerfed FP64 performance.

But even if so... $999 when the 1080 costs as it does? Nah.
The Titan P is apparently a full GP100 w/ HBM2, all sources are stating this. However, as we get more info, the prices are varying anywhere from $999 to $1299 for the base 12GB model. I am inclined to believe the latter will be closer to the mark, and still isn't a terrible value for what you get, since that would be pretty darned close to the performance of 2 1080s (~90%, without SLI headaches).

Originally Posted by P View Post
So the 1060 paperlaunched. Supposedly 980 performance at $300 ($250 regular, but you will likely only get Founder's Edition at first), based on a GP106 with 1280 shaders and 192-bit memory (from which we can deduce that it has 48 ROPs), launches July 19th.

Nothing remotely like benches yet, but if true, this does look bad for AMD.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Preview: Pascal with GP106 | PC Perspective

Founder's and AIB versions should be available at launch, today was just a spec announcement, and it's ~2 to 8% faster than the RX 480 in benches (at normal boost clocks), so far, while offering far superior performance per Watt (120W TDP).



Yeah, it looks grim for AMD, if this lines up there's no reason an enthusiast would choose a 480 (unless they're just a diehard anti-NV person). Hopefully the OEM market will be more kind and Vega can help (if they get a chance to release it).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2016, 05:15 PM
 
I think that the 4GB 480X still makes excellent sense at $200, but the 8GB variant is going to be in trouble. AMD can't deliver equal performance and expect to sell, they need to either deliver more for less or act in a different segment.

There is one good reason to pick a 480, however, and that is Freesync. It is available on all sorts of displays in all segments, while G-sync is expensive and focused on gaming displays. If you want top quality 1080p gaming, the Radeon solution is both cheaper and more flexible. I am currently in the market for a new display, and I am quite happy to be rocking a 290 instead of a 970 right now - it is a feature on the sort of displays I'm looking at, while G-sync is much more limiting.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Jawbone54  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2016, 06:00 PM
 
Gaming on this PC for the past year and a half has ruined FPS on console for me.

I hopped back onto Battlefield 4 on the PS4 a few nights ago and realized how terrible aiming is with a controller. I never wanted to be that guy railing on the Internet about M&K superiority, but good grief, it's night and day. I played one match, hopped onto Doom (PC), and loved every second.

Side note: Doom's single-player is amazing.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2016, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think that the 4GB 480X still makes excellent sense at $200, but the 8GB variant is going to be in trouble. AMD can't deliver equal performance and expect to sell, they need to either deliver more for less or act in a different segment.

There is one good reason to pick a 480, however, and that is Freesync. It is available on all sorts of displays in all segments, while G-sync is expensive and focused on gaming displays. If you want top quality 1080p gaming, the Radeon solution is both cheaper and more flexible. I am currently in the market for a new display, and I am quite happy to be rocking a 290 instead of a 970 right now - it is a feature on the sort of displays I'm looking at, while G-sync is much more limiting.
"More flexible"? I have both types of setups and G-Sync is noticeably more robust with a larger sync "window". I'm not following what you mean by "limiting"? Are you talking about the variety of G-Sync displays available? They're available from 1080P to 4K, priced at $370 and up. While that's more than Freesync panels, the difference isn't as great as it once was.

I'm not sure why anyone would buy a 4GB card now, unless they're really strapped for cash and can't wait to save another $40-50. Games that exceed 4GB, for max eye-candy, are already out and it's only going to get worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2016, 03:54 AM
 
I mean that there are many more Freesync displays available. My priority list goes something like

1) not TN. IPS is great, if you have something else I'll take a look
2) somewhere in the 24-27" range, I don't want anything bigger on my desktop
3) 4K. More is still tricky to make work, and I don't want less.
4) enough ports that I'm not locked in when attaching different computers. I never know what I want to connect in a few years.
5) not idiot expensive.

It is very easy to find good options with Freesync. I haven't found one with Gsync that fulfills even the important points. Just saying "no TN" eliminates most of them.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2016, 07:17 AM
 
Forgot this bit.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not sure why anyone would buy a 4GB card now, unless they're really strapped for cash and can't wait to save another $40-50. Games that exceed 4GB, for max eye-candy, are already out and it's only going to get worse.
$200 cards are not for max eyecandy, and I don't think that memory requirements will increase all that quickly now - we're already up to the level that we're filling up the PS4/Xbone consoles. Also recall that very few people actually upgrade every generation, and the most common card of the last generation - the GTX 970 - has effectively 3.5GB video RAM. Most of the other popular cards - the 290 series, the 980, the 960, the 370 and 380 series and all the Fijis - are 4GB RAM.

Bottom line is that I think you'd be held back by ROPs, memory bandwidth and shader power of the 480X before memory capacity becomes an issue.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2016, 03:22 PM
 
Given the state of console ports in PC gaming, there's no reason to not have all the settings at max, if you're shopping for an enthusiast GPU. With this new gen $250 will get that for you at 1080p, @60fps, and that's remarkable. Hobbling yourself to save $50 isn't good value for money, IMO.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 12:39 PM
 
Too early to sound the RX480 death knell?

From Videocardz.com:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 03:10 PM
 
Isn't that the same site that said the 480 would come clocked over 1.5GHz and handily beat a 980? Yes, too early, wait until it is released.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 02:38 PM
 
We're much closer to 1060 release than when that particular 480 rumor came down (which was more than a month before release).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 02:39 PM
 
Hey, at least AMD has Vulcan... and the 3-4 titles that plan on implementing it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
We're much closer to 1060 release than when that particular 480 rumor came down (which was more than a month before release).
6 days before launch the "leaked benchmarks" said the 480 matched or beat the 980 at 1080p.

AMD RX 480 Gaming Benchmarks Leaked, Rivals Fury & 980 - Full Specs & Hands-On Preview Surface
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Jawbone54  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 03:53 PM
 
Vulkan is apparently responsible for huge FPS gains on Doom.
( Last edited by Jawbone54; Jul 15, 2016 at 12:22 PM. Reason: Not Spock.)
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
6 days before launch the "leaked benchmarks" said the 480 matched or beat the 980 at 1080p.

AMD RX 480 Gaming Benchmarks Leaked, Rivals Fury & 980 - Full Specs & Hands-On Preview Surface
I see no mention of 1500MHz there, in fact it plainly says 1266MHz.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Vulcan is apparently responsible for huge FPS gains on Doom.
I would have been shocked if ID didn't support Vulkan, they do take pride in their work and have always tried to make their graphics engines as efficient and flexible as possible, unlike most other devs.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2016, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I see no mention of 1500MHz there, in fact it plainly says 1266MHz.
No, but the performance numbers were there. The 1500 MHz was actually a day or two later:

AMD RX 480 Can Hit 1.5Ghz+, New Overclocking Tool With Voltage Control Coming
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2016, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
No, but the performance numbers were there. The 1500 MHz was actually a day or two later:

AMD RX 480 Can Hit 1.5Ghz+, New Overclocking Tool With Voltage Control Coming
We still haven't seen the cards with better voltage regulation and hefty cooling solutions they're talking about in that article (the >$300 RX480s), those are the ones they claim can reach those frequencies.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2016, 03:45 PM
 
I mean the requirement that it could reach 1.5GHz came days later - I don't believe it can stably reach those frequencies yet (though it wouldn't surprise me if chips from a more mature process can do so in a few months or so).
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 11:53 AM
 
AMD is relying on a barely sufficient 6-phase design for the RX 480 while the better Nvidia-based cards have 10 or more (my 980TI Lightnings have 16). That makes a big difference in maintaining higher frequencies.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 02:27 PM
 
By the same measure, the GTX 1060 - which uses a 3 phase design - should be utter garbage, then?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
By the same measure, the GTX 1060 - which uses a 3 phase design - should be utter garbage, then?
Yep, I'd never recommend a Flounder's Edition 1060, board partners are in the process of releasing much better 10 and 12 phase cards for the same $$ as the FE.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 11:06 AM
 
Some 1060 reviews are dripping in, although not from my preferred reviewers. Seems to be some 10% faster than a 480. Those extra ROPs really help, it seems.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Jawbone54  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 11:32 AM
 
I'm selling some old photo equipment and my 970, and looking for y'all's opinion.

I should have enough money for one of two options:
1. A 1070 and a second 1440p display.
2. A 1080, staying with my single 1440p display.

I've never had a dual-display set-up, but considering the amount of editing and studying that I do on my home computer, it would make sense. For instance, I often have MusicBee, a Bible study program, Microsoft Word, and OneNote all open at once. On the other hand...

Originally Posted by P View Post
Don't worry too much about it. The 1070, its replacement, is further cut down from the 1080 than your 970 is from the 980, and they increased the price by $50. And its not available yet.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 02:02 AM
 
If you're wanting to use the 2nd monitor for gaming, don't. If you can't go 3 displays, stick with 1. Having 2 splits games in the worst possible place, right in the middle. If you're going to go with 2, I have a 3rd option to propose, get a decent 40" 4K TV instead of a monitor and place it directly above your present monitor on a VESA arm. Just get a 4K TV that has a true 60Hz refresh, and a gaming mode for lower latency, and you'll be set. The Samsung JU6500 seems to be the choice of many for this, it has 4:4:4 chroma (for clear text) and is less laggy than others in its class. Also, you'll have access to all the TV's streaming services, right at your computer desk. Samsung UN40JU6500 40-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV

Then get a 1070 and hook them both up to it and game to your heart's content. (Yes, you can use the 40" TV for PC gaming too, and you can also hook up a console as well, of course, if that's your thing, due to the monitor's plethora of HDMI ports.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Also, you'll have access to all the TV's streaming services, right at your computer desk. Samsung UN40JU6500 40-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV
Woah, that TV is $830 on Amazon. Why is it so cheap on that site? Refurb?
     
Jawbone54  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If you're wanting to use the 2nd monitor for gaming, don't. If you can't go 3 displays, stick with 1. Having 2 splits games in the worst possible place, right in the middle. If you're going to go with 2, I have a 3rd option to propose, get a decent 40" 4K TV instead of a monitor and place it directly above your present monitor on a VESA arm. Just get a 4K TV that has a true 60Hz refresh, and a gaming mode for lower latency, and you'll be set. The Samsung JU6500 seems to be the choice of many for this, it has 4:4:4 chroma (for clear text) and is less laggy than others in its class. Also, you'll have access to all the TV's streaming services, right at your computer desk. Samsung UN40JU6500 40-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV

Then get a 1070 and hook them both up to it and game to your heart's content. (Yes, you can use the 40" TV for PC gaming too, and you can also hook up a console as well, of course, if that's your thing, due to the monitor's plethora of HDMI ports.)
Not a bad idea at all.

I didn't intend on using the second screen for gaming — only productivity. The only alternate setup I've ever considered for gaming purposes was something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator...N05AABVD52BTQR, but 21:9 support is still spotty, even for titles like Overwatch.
     
Jawbone54  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Woah, that TV is $830 on Amazon. Why is it so cheap on that site? Refurb?
Looks like it's because it's the 2015 model, instead of the more recent JS7000 (found it in the reviews).

The 2015 TV looks like a much better value, at a glance.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Woah, that TV is $830 on Amazon. Why is it so cheap on that site? Refurb?
Nope, last year's model (model clearance). Definitely the better value over the 2016, and the specs are nearly identical.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2016, 10:49 AM
 
The Amazon listing specifies 2015 model. What's the difference between it and the link you posted?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,