The Pc games I intend to play are either indie games, HD re-releases or older big name titles that don't demand too much for today's standards. Like I said at the beginning, my biggest concern is emulator performance, but now I feel I have a decent idea on what to expect. I'll try it out and post on my experience with it then.
Is the Rx 560 worth it?
|
01-05-2018, 07:54 AM
I used an RX 460 before I bricked it trying to unlock the extra shaders like an idiot. It was replaced with a GTX 1050 Ti.
I noticed no difference whatsoever in performance. OpenGL on the Nvidia card had the same speed drops with very high settings (2x and 4x SSAA at 3x Internal Resolution) as the AMD card did with Vulkan. However, the Nvidia card ran significantly cooler than the AMD card, by about ten degrees under heavy load (57 degrees vs 67 degrees). It also lacked the coil whine of the AMD card, which may have just been luck of the draw on my part. 01-05-2018, 07:59 AM
(01-05-2018, 07:54 AM)extherian Wrote: the Nvidia card ran significantly cooler than the AMD card, by about ten degrees under heavy load (57 degrees vs 67 degrees) This most likely has more to do with the AIB cooler design than the actual GPU core itself.
Dolphin 5.0 CPU benchmark
CPU: Xeon E3-1246 v3 (4c/8t Haswell/Intel 4th gen) — core & cache @ 3.9GHz via multicore enhancement GPU: Intel integrated HD Graphics P4600 RAM: 4x8GB Corsair Vengence @ DDR3-1600 OS: Linux Mint 20.3 Xfce + [VM] Win7 SP1 x64 01-05-2018, 08:20 AM
(01-05-2018, 07:54 AM)extherian Wrote: However, the Nvidia card ran significantly cooler than the AMD card, by about ten degrees under heavy load (57 degrees vs 67 degrees). It also lacked the coil whine of the AMD card, which may have just been luck of the draw on my part. Temperature != heat generation (or power use). A higher temperature delta actually transfers heat energy faster - if it's not so high that there's a disadvantage (at higher temps some stuff like leakage current may increase, but "67 degrees" isn't really "high" it doesn't really make sense to spend the energy/noise cost of spinning a fan faster to keep it at a lower temperature. Apparently, a radeon rx480 (same process, same architecture, so likely similar to the 460) doesn't throttle until 90 degrees. So in performance terms there's no difference whatsoever for any temperatures lower than that. 01-07-2018, 03:37 AM
All right, so I got it and tried it out on a few games and it worked really well. I could push the settings a nice amount, made things a lot cleaner looking with MSAA (4x) and anisotropic filtering (2x), maybe I could do more, but I didn't notice a difference so I didn't feel the need to go for more.
I knew I was gonna get a lot of mileage out of it the moment the Axel fight in KH2 didn't become a slide show the moment the lava floor kicked in, it was so surreal to me that I died just a few seconds in. So bottom line, this card will deliver a nice experience. 01-08-2018, 03:19 AM
(01-05-2018, 07:59 AM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: This most likely has more to do with the AIB cooler design than the actual GPU core itself. I was comparing XFX's fanless RX 460 with Palit's fanless GTX 1050 Ti, so they should be comparable in terms of cooling performance. Both have massive heatsinks with two heatpipes attached to the GPU chip. Quote:A higher temperature delta actually transfers heat energy faster - if it's not so high that there's a disadvantage (at higher temps some stuff like leakage current may increase, but "67 degrees" isn't really "high" it doesn't really make sense to spend the energy/noise cost of spinning a fan faster to keep it at a lower temperature. Since these GPUs are fanless, the lower temperature comes at no cost in terms of noise, save for the lack of coil whine on the 1050 Ti which is mostly down to luck. As for longevity/heat, I'm new to PC hardware so I get worried when I see my i5 7600 hit 65 degrees under heavy load. My boss at my last IT job always said that no CPU should be run at over 40 degrees for any length of time, so we had the fans in our servers screaming along at full blast 24 hours a day. Hard to know who to believe, really. 01-08-2018, 06:11 AM
I can guarantee that he spent more on replacement fans than he would have done on replacement CPUs if he'd been okay with 80°C.
OS: Windows 10 64 bit Professional
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5900X RAM: 48GB GPU: Radeon 7800 XT 01-08-2018, 06:28 AM
All modern CPUs throttle before they start damaging themselves, and they tend to throttle more in the 80-90 celcius range.
Any lifetime improvements below that are probably lost in the noise of other issues causing failures, and at 40 degrees even the small leakage current decreases (which tend to cause chips to be slightly more efficient power-wise at lower temps) would be lower than the extra power used by the fans themselves. That's before we even look at possibly lifetime issues with running the fans at a higher load... So yes, sounds pretty pointless. So long as you keep stuff below the temperatures they throttle at it's pretty much the same. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)