Wednesday, July 4th 2018

AMD Beats NVIDIA's Performance in the Battlefield V Closed Alpha

A report via PCGamesN points to some... interesting performance positioning when it comes to NVIDIA and AMD offerings. Battlefield V is being developed by DICE in collaboration with NVIDIA, but it seems there's some sand in the gears of performance improvements as of now. I say this because according to the report, AMD's RX 580 8 GB graphics card (the only red GPU to be tested) bests NVIDIA's GTX 1060 6GB... by quite a considerable margin at that.

The performance difference across both 1080p and 1440p scenarios (with Ultra settings) ranges in the 30% mark, and as has been usually the case, AMD's offerings are bettering NVIDIA's when a change of render - to DX12 - is made - AMD's cards teeter between consistency or worsening performance under DX 12, but NVIDIA's GTX 1060 consistently delivers worse performance levels. Perhaps we're witnessing some bits of AMD's old collaboration efforts with DICE? Still, It's too early to cry wolf right now - performance will only likely improve between now and the October 19th release date.
Source: PCGamesN
Add your own comment

219 Comments on AMD Beats NVIDIA's Performance in the Battlefield V Closed Alpha

#1
las
Vya Domus said:
Who says that's the case ? You ?
Yeah I don't care about low and mid-end GPU's :roll:
Posted on Reply
#2
Vya Domus
I No said:
The horror ....1% difference from a Reference card vs an AIB one.....
Well I would have shown the 4K one but apparently in the virtual world he lives where anything outside 1080p does not exist that's irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#3
I No
Vya Domus said:
Well I would have shown the 4K one but apparently in the virtual world he lives where anything outside 1080p does not exist that's irrelevant.
No one in their right minds would spend $250 and expect 4K out of that GPU...
Posted on Reply
#4
Vya Domus
I No said:
No one in their right minds would spend $250 and expect 4K out of that GPU...
Which is relevant because of what ? GPU grunt is GPU grunt , the 580 has more of it.

Today's game at 4K is tomorrow's game running at 1080p in terms of load , things evolve.
Posted on Reply
#5
I No
Vya Domus said:
Which is relevant because of what ? GPU grunt is GPU grunt , the 580 has more of it.
Dude if you have the money for a 4k panel your GPU buget must be over $250. Otherwise is just like buying a Mercedes with a VW Polo engine.. Wtf... They can render those resolutions but hell no they can't damn play it... Seriously that's a 1080p card and it will die as a 1080p card and at that resolution it's on par with the competition. Give it a rest
Posted on Reply
#6
Vya Domus
I No said:
Dude if you have the money for a 4k panel your GPU buget must be over $250. Otherwise is just like buying a Mercedes with a VW Polo engine.. Wtf... They can render those resolutions but hell no they can't damn play it... Seriously that's a 1080p card and it will die as a 1080p card
It's telling because it shows which card is more powerful in absolute terms. This BF5 alpha benchmark or whatever isn't relevant now but that's going to become the norm once support for Pascal weakens.
Posted on Reply
#7
I No
Vya Domus said:
It's telling because it shows which card is more powerful in absolute terms. This BF5 alpha benchmark or whatever isn't relevant now but that's going to become the norm once support for Pascal weakens.
And what is the guarantee that AMD's support will stay the same?..... Those charts and graphs are the way they are because some of the games favor AMD or nVidia by a long margin that's what skews the results. The cards are the same it just comes down to price... Get whichever is cheaper they both perform the same overall, 1% isn't ground breaking and that might be well within the margin of error...
Posted on Reply
#8
Vya Domus
I No said:
And what is the guarantee that AMD's support will stay the same?
That's the thing , it doesn't need to stay the same , due to architectural design choices GCN suffers less from lack of optimizations. "Fine wine" or whatever fanboys called was wrongfully attributed to "improvements over time from drivers" , nothing actually improves , it's rather about the lack of improvement on Nvidia'as side after a while.

I No said:
1% isn't ground breaking
No , it's not ground breaking, but it's there to the absolute horror of few that scrabble to find explanations on how their dear color is still superior.
Posted on Reply
#9
MuhammedAbdo
Vya Domus said:
You mean this imaginary alpha build victory ?
No I mean this:
A week ago and in 27 games, the 1060 is 3% faster overall. Despite the mystical delusions of FineWine and despite DX12 and Vulkan games.



Vya Domus said:
whatever isn't relevant now but that's going to become the norm once support for Pascal weakens.
Pascal support weakens? LOL! That's the most pathetic justification I've heard in a while!
Posted on Reply
#10
Vya Domus
MuhammedAbdo said:



Pascal support weakens? LOL! That's the most pathetic justification I've heard in a while!
Justification? Of what ? What am I trying to justify exactly.
Posted on Reply
#11
dozenfury
It seems odd to run comparison benchmarks on an closed alpha or give much credence to them. Performance numbers for games this far before launch, and without launch drivers, aren't really indicative of much imo. And I would say that for either red or green numbers for any game this far before release. About the only takeaway I'd have is that it BF V seems to be coded to like more memory and it seems to be working well with DX12.

Also keep in mind DX12 was beyond buggy with BF 1 and most players including me went back to DX11 just to even get the game to be stable. It's an example of why numbers this early are kind of like taking a bite of food that's half cooked and trying to decide how good it will be when it's finished.
Posted on Reply
#12
Xaled
This just proves onve again that nVidia's leadership is just fake ..
No problem nVidia will soon bribe DICE so they let AMD cards run slower.
Posted on Reply
#13
I No
Xaled said:
This just proves onve again that nVidia's leadership is just fake ..
No problem nVidia will soon bribe DICE so they let AMD cards run slower.
Oh you must have some inside information, please share with the class.
Posted on Reply
#14
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
MuhammedAbdo said:
No I mean this:
A week ago and in 27 games, the 1060 is 3% faster overall. Despite the mystical delusions of FineWine and despite DX12 and Vulkan games.


2% of that is because of Frostpunk (which clearly has problems on AMD hardware). When they remove it, the difference is 1%. Then if we compare specific titles between HardwareUnboxed compared to TechPowerUp, like Hitman, TPU shows a 4% advantage RX 580 versus HardwareUnboxed's 1%. How can that be? They use the same processor with TPU at 4.8 GHz versus HU at 5.0 GHz. Only answer I can come up with is the test GTX 1060 has higher clockspeeds.
Posted on Reply
#15
Xaled
I No said:
Oh you must have some inside information, please share with the class.
you dont need to have an inside guy when games that are being developed with nVidia become shitty after were amazing when were being developed with AMD. for instance: Battlefield.
Posted on Reply
#16
R0H1T
We need more tiki torches, let's burn'em at the stake!
Posted on Reply
#17
cucker tarlson
FordGT90Concept said:
2% of that is because of Frostpunk (which clearly has problems on AMD hardware). When they remove it, the difference is 1%. Then if we compare specific titles between HardwareUnboxed compared to TechPowerUp, like Hitman, TPU shows a 4% advantage RX 580 versus HardwareUnboxed's 1%. How can that be? They use the same processor with TPU at 4.8 GHz versus HU at 5.0 GHz. Only answer I can come up with is the test GTX 1060 has higher clockspeeds.
Frostpunk is a great new game, it should be included and it's AMD problem that they can't optimize it. 580 is a better card overall (extra +2GB vram) , regardless of the 2% advantage of the 1060.Stop cherry picking games you children. As for the power draw discussion: it's a vaild point that 1060 has noticeably lower power draw, but as long as you're below 200W, AIB cooling solutions will make this a moot point, they can deal with 190W-200W and not even break a sweat. It starts to be a real issue when comparing 200W card like 1080 vs 300W card like, cause apart from extreme air coolers like Lightning Z, ordinary AIB coolers are starting to become insufficient after you approach that +250W mark.
Posted on Reply
#18
Krzych
Closed Alpha... Thats digging very deep for a cheap drama. Although thats understandable when there are no new products and no big releases so there are no real topics to cover and get views from. There are no good leaks even, let alone products.
Posted on Reply
#19
cucker tarlson
Krzych said:
Closed Alpha... Thats digging very deep for a cheap drama. Although thats understandable when there are no new products and no big releases so there are no real topics to cover and get views from. There are no good leaks even, let alone products.
I bet adoredtv is already preparing a video on this :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#20
HD64G
To make things clear about DX12, its main purpose is to get off the weight of the game engine from CPU (as much as possible) and offload it to GPU. So, when CPU is very powerful, less gains there are to get in FPS. And it usually benefits AMD GPUs more because they have more raw power and they are bottlenecked easier by the CPU. Their drivers used to have more cpu overhead also and so, another possible gain from this for older games not well optimised at least. So, for a new game based on DX11 to have much faster performance on AMD GPUs, it is a sign of not good optimisation for nVidia which is weird as I previously said for a game sponsored (=partly paid) by the green team.

FordGT90Concept said:
2% of that is because of Frostpunk (which clearly has problems on AMD hardware). When they remove it, the difference is 1%. Then if we compare specific titles between HardwareUnboxed compared to TechPowerUp, like Hitman, TPU shows a 4% advantage RX 580 versus HardwareUnboxed's 1%. How can that be? They use the same processor with TPU at 4.8 GHz versus HU at 5.0 GHz. Only answer I can come up with is the test GTX 1060 has higher clockspeeds.
In fact Steve from HU who reviewed them said that both of them were oced if I remember well.
Posted on Reply
#21
cucker tarlson
HD64G said:
So, for a new game based on DX11 to have much faster performance on AMD GPUs, it is a sign of not good optimisation for nVidia which is weird as I previously said for a game sponsored (=partly paid) by the green team.
Lol, except it doesn't cause it's not even in its beta stage atm.
Here's what's gonna happen - the game launches in october, nvidia wins by +5% in dx11, amd wins by +5% in dx12, both gtx 1060 and rx580 run 1080p/60 no problems. Amd fanboys keep complaining about gameworks even though they're so demanding that rx580 gets 35 fps and 1060 gets 40 fps and neither 580 nor 1060 owners even think about enabling them seriously but adoretv has new "material" to work with.

Xaled said:
you dont need to have an inside guy when games that are being developed with nVidia become shitty after were amazing when were being developed with AMD. for instance: Battlefield.
Here's a soothing tune for you

Posted on Reply
#22
Xaled
cucker tarlson said:
..
Here's what's gonna happen - the game launches in october, nvidia wins by +5% in dx11, amd wins by +5% in dx12, both gtx 1060 and rx580 run 1080p/60 no problems. ..
it is 2018/h2 and nVidia fans are still thankful for getting 1080/60 from a 300-400$ card!!..
Posted on Reply
#23
cucker tarlson
Xaled said:
it is 2018/h2 and nVidia fans are still thankful for getting 1080/60 from a 300-400$ card!!..
Well I'm glad AMD fans cherish the fact that they at least have Vega for that.
Posted on Reply
#24
Divide Overflow
Coming soon: Battlefield V now with nVidia Hairworks mandatory implementation!
Posted on Reply
#25
looniam
cucker tarlson said:
I bet adoredtv is already preparing a video on this :laugh:
i think jim is still editing 18 hours of "content" about some NDA stuff. :p
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment