Hacker News Reader

Comment by NotQuantum | Hacker News Reader

I think I read that OpenCL on the 480 finally caught up to OpenCL on the 1060. I believe CUDA still works better.

- Either 480 vs 1060 was a garbage comparison (480 is AMD's flagship while 1060 is nVidia's lightweight GPU) and OpenCL is way way behind CUDA in blender render performance (to the point that I would call that news clip a bullshit clickbait news item).

- or AMD 480 is not AMD's flagship 400 series offering, in which case why they haven't released one?

edit: anyway I just read some of the details of 580 and it makes me sick how pathetic AMD is. They went from 200 to 300 series by pure rebranding and practically zero tech advancement. And now they're doing the same thing going from 400 to 500. (Which means a 580 is really a 380 or 390 in terms of improvements over an 8GB 290X).

On the other hand, my 3 year old R9 290X runs a heavily optimized OpenCL code at the 70% of the speed at which my brand new Nvidia 1080 runs the equivalent code. 1080 costs close to 1000 euro, while R9 could probably be found second hand for a hundred, while 480/580 is faster than 290X and costs 300 eur brand new.

Oh boy. That means it quite possible if an 8GB 290X is benchmarked against a 580, the 290X comes out on top.

I'm not a big fan of nVidia either. I think nVidia and AMD used to compete on GPU technologies; now they compete on shenanigans.

Here's the article: https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Source/Render/Cycles/...

Regarding your edit, hasn't Nvidia done that multiple times too? Didn't they skip the 800 series (it was mobile only) and weren't the 100 series rebranded 9000 series and the 300 series rebranded 200 series?

I wouldn't be surprised if they have. Their proprietary CUDA gimmicks are much worse. But with AMD supporting the OpenCL open platform, there is some hope of do-no-evil. But they keep disappointing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com