Gtx 1060

[Deleted]

Is it worth to upgrade for me? I now have a Gtx680 Phantom 2GB + amd fx6100..All games i play(WoW,Witcher 3,Fifa and so on..) run on high/ultra Settings in 1920*1080.I would upgrade to a Gtx1060 then. what you think would it be a big upgrade or is my cpu then the problem with the 1060?

thanks

The Cpu is most likely your issue when playing wow, other games you mentioned should gain a decent amount by upgrading your GPU

[Vash The Stampede]

its much more than a small amount

in any given area you can spend time finding hidden items after you've dispatched the enemies

I think it took me either 20 or 25+ hours (forgot which) to beat the 2013 TR for the first time with a 87% completion at the end

A lot of those hidden items are useless, and the way to go about solving it is just time consuming. The game is like 90% copy and paste objectives with 10% being something I care about. Also to me, the game looks graphically the same as the previous Tomb Raider game, but runs smoother on my PC. I generally don't run my games with AA, cause I feel it's a waste of system resources for something I don't really notice too much.

But when it comes to benchmarking, it's a game people always include and I wonder why. It does get a 7.9 on MetaCritic.

[Life-Binder]

Quantum Break Steam DX11 results are in

(this graph also shows DX12 results for QB):

[Deleted]

That graph actually proves what a lot of us says for a long time, Nvidia performs better at the moment in DX11 but its hardware or should we say lack of hardware is crippled in DX12, that chart just shows that Nvidia offerings are not promising.

Mean look at the R380 in DX12, its only 10 FPS off Nvidia 1060 in DX12, thats actually pretty damning for a card that is suppose to be more powerful, though good for the game to be better when on steam then through the W10 store, MS still has a lot of answer for for that platform.

Games like Dues ex does show that AMD offerings are stronger and with DOOM, you still forget that a lot of big AAA games that are being released are all DX12 or Vulcan, cryengine is being fitted with DX12 and Vulcan this year, UE4 is basically DX12 and as Bethesda owns ID games, they should have access to the DOOM engine.

If was a buyer now and is not invested in certain existing games and intend to continue buying new games, I would take a look at what games are being released and under what engine, a lot of the offerings in the near future are all DX12 and some games with Vulcan implementation, this chart and the DOOM results for Vulcan don't paint a pretty picture for Nvidia.

[Life-Binder]

that chart shows that 970 under DX11 is faster than 480 under DX12 ...

a 970 !

supposed AMD gains from low-lvl API are so far non-existant except in just 2 cases - Doom Vulkan and Hitman (an AMD tailored game)


everywhere else Nvidias DX11 is >= AMD DX12 and Nvidias DX11 >> AMDs DX11

Games like Dues ex does show that AMD offerings are stronger

uh-huh

lot of big AAA games that are being released are all DX12 or Vulcan

all of them are only DX12, there isnt a single Vulcan game coming out

Vulcan will be iD software niche like OpenGL


and DX12 implementation has been abysmal in all the latest AAA games like Deus Ex or BF1 beta .. worse frames and frametimes than DX11 (even on AMD cards), stutter and glitches/crashes

the same was with RotR on release

and now we see the same again with QB

you are far better off with DX11 in all those games which sucks if you are on AMD since AMD still sucks on DX11


DX12 has so far been 1 huge flop

it will need several more years until it does what its supposed to do and all the devs learn how to code it

until then DX11 will continue to be superior (sicne its much easier for the devs to write for and also can be improved by the drivers) and work right away on release day, unlike DX12

[Deleted]

The Dx11 is probably a working API within the game, but the performance with AMD thats either DX11 or DX12 in this game doesn't change, but for Nvidia, it changes drastically, do you not see the point?

Also for Dues Ex, odd as it sounds, but thats the only chart I've come across that shows Nvidia being above AMD,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNF8c9y9GxE

The results seem to differ a bit there however with BF1, isn't that game a Beta at the moment as you said? I am seeing mixed results in terms of good performance or questionable performance in general with that, something that comes with a Beta...

DX12 only suffers badly for Nvidia, for AMD it has granted some boost or some or hasn't changed performance strangely enough, but to say DX11 works right away I am not sure if I can take you seriously with that, that means performance will stagnate and performance gains with more visual gains is evident in games like DOOM which looks great and performs great.

ROTR should of been decent, mean nixxes worked on it but its not producing great results though wouldn't surprise me if the core devs just didn't work on the PC version at all (something the PC industry is currently facing more and more) and left a great deal of development work that shouldn't be theres on to them.

Also for Vulcan releases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_6, and number of other engines have added this in, but there isn't a big game that is coming out that isn't using either one of these APIs for this year.

There is another game coming out, Dishonoured 2 using the same engine.... Like I said, Bethesda owns the damn company, they can use the damn engine.

DX12 imo hasn't been a flop, its exposed the hardware makers the weakness in their hardware, even if the games had more DX12 optimisation into their titles, Nvidia will still produce the results as we see now, that won't change unless it makes them think more about their designs in the upcoming GPUs but since Async engines requires additional silicon on the chip, I am unsure if Nvidia will go this route and try convince devs to stay DX11.

Like I said, more and more games will be released with DX12 considering a lot of the engines are being fitted with both DX12 and Vulcan.

[Artorius]

I am not sure if I can take you seriously with that

Took a while for you to get to this conclusion.

It's the same conversation all over again, people who care about technology and the development of the market will defend Vulkan/DX12 while people who don't care about it and just want to play their games will say that it doesn't matter since Nvidia's DX11 performance is good.

They'd be all defending it if the scenario was the opposite one in which AMD does poorly in newer APIs while Nvidia excels in them, but since this isn't the case with current products they choose to downplay Vulkan/DX12's importance saying things like "AMD is only getting better results with it because their DX11 performance is bad".

We, as powerless gamers, could get better games if they could utilize hardware better. But instead of promoting the development of the market, people choose to defend stagnation because their preferred company has issues with newer APIs.

Nvidia will gladly have better hardware in their next series so they can do things properly without software gimmicks, so I hope this meme dies.

[Life-Binder]

there is no need to defend Vulcan or DX12, they're great when utilized properly by amazing devs who really know the hardware and code .. so far there has been pretty much 1 such dev - iD

but theres no need to deny reality either and pretend like DX12 has also replaced DX11 on the market

thats just blindless to the current situation


as of now, as a gamer/consumer, DX11 is your main API and what you should be looking at, because DX12 implementations have been trash

if you only play on DX12 right now (especially on release) - you will be stuck with worse (or at best equal) frames rates, stutter, sometimes worse loading times and glitches/crashes, even on AMD


I dont care what is the future in X years, I want my games to work near-flawlessly with high fps NOW, and on release days/week, not much later (if that isnt your position also then you are insane)

right now DX11 can provide that, DX12 (as done by the devs) - cannot .. and that automatically makes Nvidia better atm because their DX11 is 10 out of 10 (again, it even outperforms AMDs DX12, even though AMD has DX12-tailored hardware - explain that)

why should you care about dx12 when 480 under dx12 cant even beat 970 under dx11 ?


if devs cant do proper DX12 then maybe they should take their time internally to learn low-lvl APIs and then make new DX12-only games from scratch, properly

instead of what is being done now

[Deleted]

The huge issue with your statement is, it only applies to older games, and yes that counts as NOW, but the games coming THIS YEAR have DX12, people buy hardware to play games that have just come out or coming out and the chart you presented shows that Nvidia does worse on DX12, I don't buy new hardware to play Crysis 1.

There are a number of people that do buy hardware when it comes to these forums to improve their WoW experience but as we have noticed, many of the same gamers also buy new games that are coming out within a few months time from now and want their hardware to be ready for it, and all of the big games coming out have DX12, which is something you can't seem to understand.

If was looking forward to Dues ex, going AMD is the safer option, if QB never came out on steam then staying AMD would of been a safer bet, if I wanted to play Doom, going AMD was the safer option and you can download the free demo for that by the way, BF1 will have DX12 and is not out yet but the finished product will likely mean AMD is the safer bet. Dishonoured 2 is coming out this year around November, going AMD is the safer bet, gears of war 4 is sadly will only be on W10 store and again AMD is likely the safer bet, those who buy the XB1 version can try it out on their PC or vice versa, these are some very big games coming out soon or have come out in some form of way.

A lot of older games do not require RX 480 performance to reach 60 FPS as they are likely well above it, which is also true for the 1060 for 1080p gaming and will already have played said older games, the only real outlier to this are MMOs and GTA5 which has been out on steam for quite a while now.

Also again I question your line of thinking that DX11 on Nvidia is 10/10, its just a bit better then AMD but to say that, dunno really, even the 1060 hitches on QB at high settings on DX11 and brings it under 60 FPS, thats not 10/10, a card as powerful as the 1060 should do more then that, theres plenty of games that do not do well and performs badly.

The performance of games even on DX11 is not great and they out number the ones that do perform well, also devs do know how to use DX12 type features, have you seen how a number of the console games look, performance is still at 30 FPS or there abouts but games like uncharted 4 destroy most PC games at the max settings, the issue at the moment is almost non of the devs are doing the whole work them selves for all platforms and spend equal time on the PC version as they do on consoles.

Doom is the only Title I can say that is well made this current year, everything else is not great and to get around it, you are required to brute force it using what is rather expensive hardware.

Also interestingly, been taking a look at what older games that people will still likely buy thats relatively recent that don't favour AMD cards or show Nvidia has a very strong lead under DX11 when using high - ultra settings and drop it below 60 FPS, GTA5, Witcher 3.

Otherwise the performance of most modern games that have been released do not show a large gap between the 2 GPUs under DX11 when above 60 FPS when you can't crank the settings any higher and this is where AMD hardware comes in, if the DX12/vulcan, its the only 1 with the potential advantage for more visual fidelity while retaining performance under DX12.

One thing I will say for the Nvidia 1060 under DX11 for QB, is that seems some settings favour it over the RX480 when turning all settings to medium, under which settings they were though I am pegging at global illumination for this as the culprit for the RX480 performance deficit but both still are above 60 FPS, going to say the Nvidia cards probably don't suffer performance hits as badly when turning said setting up.

[Life-Binder]

the games coming out NOW, recently/this year have that crappy nigh-unplayable DX12 (Deus Ex, BF1, QB, RotR on release etc.)

those games have the superior DX11, not old games

when that changes - give me a call

If was looking forward to Dues ex, going AMD is the safer option,

nice try, I linked you the benches above which have 1060 beating the 480 .. and this despite it being an AMD Gaming Evolved title

there are literally only 2 games where 480 can claim something decent over 1060 - Hitman DX12 and Doom Vulcan .. thats it

the finished product will likely mean AMD is the safer bet
if QB never came out on steam
Dishonoured 2 is coming out this year around November, going AMD is the safer bet
gears of war 4 is sadly will only be on W10 store and again AMD is likely the safer bet

lol you're just writing fanfictions at this point




btw :
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
0.97%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
0.61%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060
0.60%


AMD Radeon RX 480
0.19%

I bet devs also look at these numbers since the PC versions of their games will run on these cards

[Remilia]

I wish people would stop quoting Steam's HW survey. The biggest flaw is we don't know the method of survey, from Valve themselves, not some random person's speculation.

[Artorius]

I wish people would stop quoting Steam's HW survey. The biggest flaw is we don't know the method of survey, from Valve themselves, not some random person's speculation.

Even in the best case scenario, Steam's hardware survey hardly means anything since most of the PC gamers don't even need Steam anyway.

PC gaming strength is in lightweight games like League of Legends, DoTA, HotS, Hearthstone, CS:GO, WoW/other MMOs, Diablo III, Minecraft and Rocket League. This chart for example is pretty telling.

The most popular GPU vendor is Intel, and they probably have more than 75% of the market. If anything, developers should be optimising for Intel's iGPUs since that's what the market is. Ah, and people are mostly using crappy Laptop CPUs as well, so we should be glad that Vulkan and DX12 exist.

[Zenny]

That graph actually proves what a lot of us says for a long time, Nvidia performs better at the moment in DX11 but its hardware or should we say lack of hardware is crippled in DX12, that chart just shows that Nvidia offerings are not promising.

Nvidia is not "crippled" in DX12 or Vulkan. You can't extrapolate general performance from one game. Nvidia gains in Doom, Time Spy and Ashes of the Singularity. A properly coded Vulkan/DX 12 game should offer better performance on both AMD and Nvidia hardware. The problem with these new API's is that it puts a lot of responsibility in the hands of the developer, and I'm sure we are all certain that developers never release buggy games.

It's funny that you bring up Deus Ex when it sucks on both AMD/Nvidia hardware with the gameplay actually being worse on AMD:

http://techreport.com/review/30639/e...kind-divided/3

Just look at that frame-time.

Oh, and I see we are discounting Steam hardware survey now? Despite it being the source of around 80% of the PC gaming market?

[Artorius]

Oh, and I see we are discounting Steam hardware survey now? Despite it being the source of around 80% of the PC gaming market?

I'd be surprised if it reached 50%, much less 80% lol.

League of Legends alone by itself is more popular than Steam, and people don't need Steam to play LoL:

[Bigvizz]

I'd be surprised if it reached 50%, much less 80% lol.

Still far more than any other metric I've seen...Does league of legends report hardware usage of their users?.....

[Zenny]

I'd be surprised if it reached 50%, much less 80% lol.

League of Legends alone by itself is more popular than Steam, and people don't need Steam to play LoL:

I guess all those publishers selling 80%-90% of their games on Steam really, really, care how many LoL players there are.

LoL also made 1.6 billion dollars in revenue last year while Steam had over 3.5 billion dollars in sales from April-December alone, not including downloadable content and microtransactions from F2P games (MMO's, Dota 2, Counterstrike), the 3.5 billion dollar figure was also calculated from using the minimum prices of games for the time period, so the correct number will likely be quite a bit higher. https://medium.com/steam-spy/steam-s...f5a#.z727nantq

Concurrent users for steam is also at 12 million, while the highest LoL has reached is 7.5 million. But I think the overlap between people who play LoL and use Steam is quite high and for the rest I guess it doesn't matter, most game developers are not going to give a shit about people that only play LoL the whole day.

[Deleted]

Upgraded from 5870 CF to Zotac 6gb 1060. My PC used to be a sub heater for my room, now its a cool air conditioning unit.