Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA 381 Linux Beta vs. Linux 4.11 / Mesa 17.1 Radeon Comparison

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by humbug View Post
    the R9 fury should match the gtx 980
    Ummmmm
    Radeon R9 Fury $350
    GeForce GTX 980 $500

    Also, the R9 did beat the 980 on several of the tests, (while on others, was slower)... and thats with a known bug slowing it down. While being $150 cheaper.

    EDIT:
    Found out I was wrong on price of 980... it was a discontinued card and the price service was serving me the scalp price.
    Last edited by ua=42; 19 April 2017, 02:26 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Both prices are bullshit. Gtx 980 and fury sell for 200 to 300 € depe,ding on the shop if you go for used models. Getting brand new ones is tough here and often costs you double because they are so rare now. I got my used fury x a year ago for 350.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by humbug View Post
        A good reminder of how much further the MESA drivers still have to go for AMD
        the R9 fury should match the gtx 980
        the rx 480 should match the gtx 1060
        the r9 290 should match the gtx 970

        and hopefully in kernel 4.12 amdgpu drm is enabled for gcn 1.1 so we can say goodbye to the r9 290 regressions
        If you look at DOOM (Vulkan), the 480 can land a spot between the 1070 and 1080 on Windows. The issue here is that both the driver and the game optimization have to work in concert to reap all the benefits. For OpenGL however, your assumption is correct.

        Comment


        • #24
          The R9 Fury has more in common with the 1080 as its a 8.5tflop card, unfortunately drivers and software optimizations are limited to just Tomb Raider it seems. Shame but thats life.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by theriddick View Post
            The R9 Fury has more in common with the 1080 as its a 8.5tflop card, unfortunately drivers and software optimizations are limited to just Tomb Raider it seems. Shame but thats life.
            No it's not, the R9 Fury is an 7.2Tflop card.
            It's a difference between R9 Fury and R9 Fury X.

            Comment


            • #26
              In some cases the RX 480 already performs as it is supposed to: Between 970 and 980 but under 1060 - at least for OpenGL that's a valid result. With well-optimized AMDGPU + Mesa drivers as well as well-designes vulkan games it should beat GTX 1060.
              In some szenarios it's even coming short of the GTX 960 which is a shame - there's still some room for improvement even though the open drivers really had come a long way from being unplayable on modern games to performing quite well on triple-A (AAA) titles.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by cRaZy-bisCuiT View Post
                In some cases the RX 480 already performs as it is supposed to: Between 970 and 980 but under 1060 - at least for OpenGL that's a valid result. With well-optimized AMDGPU + Mesa drivers as well as well-designes vulkan games it should beat GTX 1060.
                In some szenarios it's even coming short of the GTX 960 which is a shame - there's still some room for improvement even though the open drivers really had come a long way from being unplayable on modern games to performing quite well on triple-A (AAA) titles.
                Thanks for explaing that with triple-A you meant AAA, i would never have figured it out.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by aufkrawall View Post
                  Left 4 Dead 2.
                  Super smooth here, only a couple micro-stuttering at the beginning of the level. Almost all video options to the max, triple buffering enabled (GTX 1060, i5, nvidia 378.13). I don’t play this game so the shaders weren’t already in the nvidia cache.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Yes, radeonsi still has some headroom and could be improved.

                    I'd like to see performance per dollar. That can be pretty interesting.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by stqn View Post
                      Super smooth here, only a couple micro-stuttering at the beginning of the level. Almost all video options to the max, triple buffering enabled (GTX 1060, i5, nvidia 378.13). I don’t play this game so the shaders weren’t already in the nvidia cache.
                      I don't know then. It's definitely not an issue with my installation or CPU, for example Shadow Warrior runs fine with high fps.
                      No difference between Tumbleweed, Leap and Arch here.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X