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
Tom_
That is embarrassing for NVIDIA.
Posted on Reply
#2
cucker tarlson
You know what I find funny? When the game comes out and nvidia matches/beats amd, people who took the bait with this fake benchmark will say that nvidia broke performance on amd with gameworks.
I'm still seeing new headlines quoting this article today and morons who don't read into the thread and are just going by the title and op.
Posted on Reply
#3
INSTG8R
cucker tarlson said:
You know what I find funny? When the game comes out and nvidia matches/beats amd, people who took the bait with this fake benchmark will say that nvidia broke performance on amd with gameworks.
I'm still seeing new headlines quoting this article today and morons who don't read into the thread and are just going by the title and op.
You know what I find funny? The Green team digging up every benchmark they can to try to reassert their “dominance”. Can’t let AMD get ahead even if it is just 2FPS...
Posted on Reply
#4
cucker tarlson
Read this thread again,from the OP to the last post of mine.
Posted on Reply
#5
HD64G
Whoever doubts about DX12 and Vulkan dominance from CGN over Pascal should have a look here (recent test on latest drivers):

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,12.html (BF1@DX12: 580 gets 106FPS vs 1060's 82FPS @1080P)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,10.html (SF2@DX12: 94 vs 85)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,11.html (ROTR@DX12: 81 vs 78)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,13.html (DE MD@DX12: 71 vs 63)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,14.html (W2C@Vulcan: 86 vs 66)

So, BFV being on the same engine as BF1 SHOULD play much better on 580 vs 1060. If it goes on sale and results show otherwise, it will be a proof that the collaboration with nVidia caused that difference. For anyone willing to debate on this, only arguments and facts on topic please, or else negligence will be my only answer.
Posted on Reply
#6
cucker tarlson
lol at "much better". 580 is like 5% faster than 1060 in BF1. 78 fps for 580 in dx12, 73 fps for 1060 in dx11.

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_radeon_rx_580_vs_geforce_gtx_1060_9_gbps_msi_gaming_x?page=0,8
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_radeon_rx_580_vs_geforce_gtx_1060_9_gbps_msi_gaming_x?page=0,7

but I guess it seems like a huge difference looking through your red glasses.


yes, very genarally speaking gcn is better in vulkan and dx12, but the difference usually comes down to a few percent. 1080 still manages to beat match V64 in BF1. This is stock 1080 FE (10gbps) vs AIB vega. AIB 1080 with 11gbps memory would pull ahead.


https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_asus_radeon_rx_vega_64_strix_gaming_oc_red_is_bad?page=0,7
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_asus_radeon_rx_vega_64_strix_gaming_oc_red_is_bad?page=0,6

btw this thread was never about gcn vs pascal in dx12, why did you make it about that ? Discussing 580 vs 1060 performance is splitting hairs. whatever you can play on 580, you can play at he same level of smoothness and visual quality with 1060, and vice versa. 1060 does it with a smaller chip and less powerful hardware, cause on paper rx580 should be noticeably faster with a bigger die, 14nm process and 8 gigs of 256-bit memory.
Posted on Reply
#7
INSTG8R
cucker tarlson said:
lol at "much better". 580 is like 5% faster than 1060 in BF1. 78 fps for 580 in dx12, 73 fps for 1060 in dx11.

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_radeon_rx_580_vs_geforce_gtx_1060_9_gbps_msi_gaming_x?page=0,8
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_radeon_rx_580_vs_geforce_gtx_1060_9_gbps_msi_gaming_x?page=0,7

but I guess it seems like a huge difference looking through your red glasses.


yes, very genarally speaking gcn is better in vulkan and dx12, but the difference usually comes down to a few percent. 1080 still manages to beat match V64 in BF1. This is stock 1080 FE (10gbps) vs AIB vega. AIB 1080 with 11gbps memory would pull ahead.


https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_asus_radeon_rx_vega_64_strix_gaming_oc_red_is_bad?page=0,7
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_asus_radeon_rx_vega_64_strix_gaming_oc_red_is_bad?page=0,6

btw this thread was never about gcn vs pascal in dx12, why did you make it about that ? Discussing 580 vs 1060 performance is splitting hairs. whatever you can play on 580, you can play at he same level of smoothness and visual quality with 1060, and vice versa. 1060 does it with a smaller chip and less powerful hardware, cause on paper rx580 should be noticeably faster with a bigger die, 14nm process and 8 gigs of 256-bit memory.
Yet here you are just proving my point again...Can’t let Red get one up on you at any cost..Just stop with your self rightousness when you just continually prove my point...
Posted on Reply
#8
efikkan
Yeah, every game which doesn't favor AMD is obviously proof of foul play by Nvidia.:rolleyes:

There will always be some games where one architecture performs slightly better or worse, sometimes it comes down to small details in the shader design, and it doesn't mean one hardware architecture is better than the other. This is why good reviews rely on a wide selection of representative games, unlike some people who find the edge cases to prove their own agenda.

There is not anything in either Direct3D 12 or Vulkan which inherently benefits GCN, and the games we've seen so far doesn't even use Direct3D 12 natively without and abstraction layer, so judging architectures based on edge cases is just ridiculous.
Posted on Reply
#9
MuhammedAbdo
HD64G said:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,12.html (BF1@DX12: 580 gets 106FPS vs 1060's 82FPS @1080P)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,10.html (SF2@DX12: 94 vs 85)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,11.html (ROTR@DX12: 81 vs 78)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,13.html (DE MD@DX12: 71 vs 63)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1050_3gb_review,14.html (W2C@Vulcan: 86 vs 66)
All of these games have awful DX12 implementation, DX11 runs better than DX12 on all hardware.

You want a better comparison? factor in all of the DX12 games, games like Forza 6, Forza Horizon 3, Halo Wars 2, Gears 4, Gears Ultimate, Civ 6 .. etc. GTX 1060 is on top in all of them.
Posted on Reply
#10
Vya Domus
INSTG8R said:
Yet here you are just proving my point again...Can’t let Red get one up one you at any cost..Just stop with your self rightousness when you just continually prove my point...
I always wondered why are these people so annoyed that they just can't let go. We have 6 pages of comments calling out that the news story is fake and irrelevant but paradoxically they find themselves coming back endlessly with the puniest justifications.

I typically try to stay away from maymays on TPU but I can't contain myself this time.

Posted on Reply
#11
HD64G
cucker tarlson said:
lol at "much better". 580 is like 5% faster than 1060 in BF1. 78 fps for 580 in dx12, 73 fps for 1060 in dx11.

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_radeon_rx_580_vs_geforce_gtx_1060_9_gbps_msi_gaming_x?page=0,8
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_radeon_rx_580_vs_geforce_gtx_1060_9_gbps_msi_gaming_x?page=0,7

but I guess it seems like a huge difference looking through your red glasses.


yes, very genarally speaking gcn is better in vulkan and dx12, but the difference usually comes down to a few percent. 1080 still manages to beat match V64 in BF1. This is stock 1080 FE (10gbps) vs AIB vega. AIB 1080 with 11gbps memory would pull ahead.


https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_asus_radeon_rx_vega_64_strix_gaming_oc_red_is_bad?page=0,7
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_asus_radeon_rx_vega_64_strix_gaming_oc_red_is_bad?page=0,6

btw this thread was never about gcn vs pascal in dx12, why did you make it about that ? Discussing 580 vs 1060 performance is splitting hairs. whatever you can play on 580, you can play at he same level of smoothness and visual quality with 1060, and vice versa. 1060 does it with a smaller chip and less powerful hardware, cause on paper rx580 should be noticeably faster with a bigger die, 14nm process and 8 gigs of 256-bit memory.
Frostbyte engine works better for AMD in general (as you said) and helps their arch even more when DX12 is activated (which allows for slower CPUs to not lose many FPS due to part of COU and RAM usage loaded on GPU and VRAM). As SHOULD be in BFV which IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. So, my post is very much on topic while your answer isn't at all. After all, not all gamers own top CPUs. DX12 and Vulcan are made mainly for the ones who don't and work much better for them.
Posted on Reply
#13
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
efikkan said:
Yeah, every game which doesn't favor AMD is obviously proof of foul play by Nvidia.:rolleyes:
The vast majority of games out there are created on NVIDIA hardware. The fact AMD manages to get a victory at all in price/performance is significant.

MuhammedAbdo said:
All of these games have awful DX12 implementation, DX11 runs better than DX12 on all hardware.

Worst case scenario for D3D12 is that it uses D3D11 calls so even though it's technically D3D12, it performs like D3D11. A lot early D3D12 games did this--especially games that released as D3D11 and were updated to support D3D12 (The Division comes to mind). Software that's developed for D3D12 from the ground up will see a significant improvement in performance and reduced CPU load across GCN-based cards and Pascal-based (because of async compute) cards. Maxwell and Kepler cards see a minor improvement (mostly because of reduced CPU load).

MuhammedAbdo said:
You want a better comparison? factor in all of the DX12 games, games like Forza 6, Forza Horizon 3, Halo Wars 2, Gears 4, Gears Ultimate, Civ 6 .. etc. GTX 1060 is on top in all of them.
The aggregate is RX 580 is a little bit faster with 2 GiB extra VRAM. Both cards will drive 1920x1080 at 60 fps fine.
Posted on Reply
#14
cucker tarlson
You can't get any point past a person's mind when all they wanna hear is confirmation of what they believe. We come back to disprove the story ? Sure,cause the pcgh video left so much unexplained....

HD64G said:
Frostbyte engine works better for AMD in general (as you said) and helps their arch even more when DX12 is activated (which allows for slower CPUs to not lose many FPS due to part of COU and RAM usage loaded on GPU and VRAM). As SHOULD be in BFV which IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. So, my post is very much on topic while your answer isn't at all. After all, not all gamers own top CPUs. DX12 and Vulcan are made mainly for the ones who don't and work much better for them.
Again,only theoretically. Look at Hitman, the game that was dx12 from grounds up. dx12 does nothing for a much fatster rx480 paired with a slower i3/i5 CPU, it's only after they use overclocked 4690K that a faster card pulls away.
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/radeon_rx_480_vs_geforce_gtx_970_test_na_kilku_procesorach?page=0,10
in rotr, even in dx12 mode with 4790k, rx480 cannot performa as well as it should.
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/radeon_rx_480_vs_geforce_gtx_970_test_na_kilku_procesorach?page=0,13
The more I look at the results the more I think there has to be some sort of flaw in design or driver support for gcn cards that dx12 can thoeretically help, but not always does cause it's not able to. They can look great tested on i7's and i9's, but the story about dx12 being able to carry those compute monsters on slow cpus is not true in many cases.
Posted on Reply
#15
INSTG8R
Vya Domus said:
I always wondered why are these people so annoyed that they just can't let go. We have 6 pages of comments calling out that the news story is fake and irrelevant but paradoxically they find themselves coming back endlessly with the puniest justifications.

I typically try to stay away from maymays on TPU but I can't contain myself this time.


Pretty much bang on mate! Usual suspects that just won’t give up. Almost Whataboutism...
Posted on Reply
#18
MuhammedAbdo
INSTG8R said:
Not like I’m on board with this game but I’d get 72fps @1440 so I have nothing to complain about. Oh and I’d have a higher minimum FPS than a 1080Ti.
Did you test the same area as Swesclocker or the same sequence?? or is it the AMD mentality to brag about numbers pulled out of thin air every time benchmarks are posted?
Posted on Reply
#19
cucker tarlson
INSTG8R said:
Not like I’m on board with this game but I’d get 72fps @1440 so I have nothing to complain about. Oh and I’d have a higher minimum FPS than a 1080Ti.
complains about people pulling various charts and splitting hairs about nvidia's performance,brags about how his amd card has better min. fps in alpha charts. :laugh:


good grief....
Posted on Reply
#20
Vya Domus
Also something that bugs me : "Alpha"

The game is a mere 2-3 months from release , built on the same engine as the previous iteration with no obvious big changes. Whoever seriously believes the end product is going to come with major shifts in terms of performance from any of the two vendors is deluding himself.

MuhammedAbdo said:
or is it the AMD mentality to brag about numbers pulled out of thin air every time benchmarks are posted?
Is it Nvidia mentality to give a damn ?

I don't get you , if you feel like you have provided us with irrefutable proof for whatever the hell is it that you are trying to prove why are you still bothered by that ? You are borderline trolling to say the least.
Posted on Reply
#21
cucker tarlson
Vya Domus said:
Also something that bugs me : "Alpha"

The game is a mere 2-3 months from release , built on the same engine as the previous iteration with no obvious big changes. Whoever seriously believes the end product is going to come with major shifts in terms of performance from any of the two vendors is deluding himself.
Took you long enough to realize that.

the game looks amazing,even in alpha. Will probably be my first BF game

Posted on Reply
#22
INSTG8R
cucker tarlson said:
complains about people pulling various charts and splitting hairs about nvidia's performance,brags about how his amd card has better min. fps in alpha charts. :laugh:


good grief....
Well why don’t you just post another link to another green victory for me....you know, keep up your fight against those 2 FPS...It really seems to bother you :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#23
MuhammedAbdo
Vya Domus said:
The game is a mere 2-3 months from release , built on the same engine as the previous iteration with no obvious big changes. Whoever seriously believes the end product is going to come with major shifts in terms of performance from any of the two vendors is deluding himself.
I am sorry if you have fish memory. but NVIDIA always gets it's performance targets even after the game is long released, examples: Forza 7, Destiny 2, and Hitman DX12. So don't worry, pretty soon NVIDIA will be ahead come final release. And NO there are big changes in the engine now, more particles, and more destruction. Optimizations will be made for both, and wait .. there is more, NVIDIA will introduce some of those optional GameWorks things you are always so butt hurt about. Probably some PCSS+ and HFTS shadows like StarWar Battlefront 2, some Ansel is also likely.
Posted on Reply
#24
efikkan
FordGT90Concept said:
The vast majority of games out there are created on NVIDIA hardware. The fact AMD manages to get a victory at all in price/performance is significant.
The majority of top PC games are console ports, and the console sales still makes up much of the sales for many of these developers, which is why there are more AMD partner games than there are Nvidia partner games in this segment.

FordGT90Concept said:

Worst case scenario for D3D12 is that it uses D3D11 calls so even though it's technically D3D12, it performs like D3D11. A lot early D3D12 games did this--especially games that released as D3D11 and were updated to support D3D12 (The Division comes to mind). Software that's developed for D3D12 from the ground up will see a significant improvement in performance and reduced CPU load across GCN-based cards and Pascal-based (because of async compute) cards. Maxwell and Kepler cards see a minor improvement (mostly because of reduced CPU load).
At this point games should be developed for Direct3D 12 or Vulkan exclusively, there is no point in supporting pre-Fermi an pre-GCN for new top titles, and pre-GCN cards dropped driver support a while ago anyway. Windows 7/8 support is probably the only reason to have legacy support, but if by doing so you have to design a bad engine, then you should only support the old API.

It's pointless to simulate the old API through an abstraction layer. Sometimes these abstractions can perform worse than the old API, because the new APIs are designed around a different approach. The point of the new APIs were to leverage lower level control over the hardware, and re-adding wrappers to abstract that away defeats the whole purpose. Utilizing these APIs properly requires entire new engines built from the ground up to leverage this new level of control, and since this is painstakingly hard, we probably wouldn't see any widespread proper adaption of these APIs anytime soon. Most developers will continue to use abstractions to deal with the new APIs, and might even continue to do so. Games are unfortunately mass-produced trash these days, not only in terms of recycling the same concepts, but also in terms of code. They are usually stitched together before the shipping date, and then they move on to the next title.
Posted on Reply
#25
INSTG8R
MuhammedAbdo said:
Did you test the same area as Swesclocker or the same sequence?? or is it the AMD mentality to brag about numbers pulled out of thin air every time benchmarks are posted?
Dude seriously? you’re the one spamming link after link trying to discredit results and make sure your precious Green Team is winning. I just looked at one set of benches and that was my takeaway. So if anyone is attempting to pull results out of thin air here it’s been you...Oh and guess who came out on top on that bench between the 1060 and 580? Or do you need to post a dozen more links to try to discredit those results too?
Give it up man you’re really trolling at this point and it’s sad. Your NVIDIA mentality is rather pathetic at this point.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment