1060 vs 480. Won't nvidia lower the gap in Dx12 games with future driver updates?

When DX12 because more mainstream and Nvidia release decent drivers for DX12 the cards will probably be on par with eachother or very close to eachother.

As Nvidia updates and Devs get more optimised with integrating DX12 into games the gap will probably get closed in time. It's still pretty early doors for DX12 so lots of time for things to all fall into place in terms of Nvidia cards working better in DX12 compared to DX11

It will be a challenge for Nvidia, especially if games decide to use Async compute and Vulkan a lot more.

It won't be a walk in the park for them, as some users make it look like that a bit.

AMD has a clear advantage with DX12, Async compute and Vulkan. They have the bigger chance to capitalise on that.

Hey,
Part of what is overlooked is that NVidia is generally squeezing more performance out of DX11 games due to their superior DX11 drivers.

So part of AMD's DX12 increase is due to the new API enabling better usage of their GPU natively by the game engine.

*If asking about a purchase, then I would hands down recommend an RX-480 8GB model (which also gives 2GB more VRAM.. some games are getting VERY memory happy. surprisingly so actually.).

The XBOX One and PS4 use a GPU that is almost IDENTICAL so that's what game developers are going to optimize for more easily. There are OTHER ways to improve performance and AMD is doing this as well. Basically bits of code that drill down to the hardware better that are used on the consoles but not on PC currently.

These code optimizations are more likely to end up being used for AMD's hardware. NVidia can certainly do the same thing and likely will but considering these will end up in the GAME ENGINE the chances for NVidia to optimize drivers to pull ahead are diminishing with DX12 and Vulkan.

If I had to pull numbers out of my ass then I'd expect the RX-480 to eventually average closer to 20% better than the GTX1060 in near-future games but there's just too many things going on.

NVidia beating them in future games however, on average, is just NOT going to happen.

(I bought my GTX1080 recently. If AMD had a similar GPU I would have considered it very strongly. But I had enough of waiting.)

Yes there is most major games come with an option of DX versions to run in, to both allow for compatibility with older hardware and for optimisation

Not very likely. Here are the reasons:
1) nVidia does not have async. computing in hardware
2) RX480 and other GCN cards will continue to be optimized for in the next few years, as it is the hardware in game consoles, while nVidia will start to optimize for their next generation cards next year already.
3) nVidia cards are generally hated for fast aging and losing performance when next generation arives. This might be intentional- to sell more often- or unintentional- due to low VRAM nVidia likes to put on a lot of their cards. They also often limit new features/optimizations to the latest generation to give it advantage.
4) AMD has seriously stepped up their driver game- just have a look what they have done in half a year: http://videocardz.com/64496/amd-preparing-crimson-relive-driver-update . It is reflected in latest benchmarks, where reference RX480 has already caught up with GTX1060 6GB in DX11, and leads more in DX12: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html

The transition is pretty slow because games take a while, and arguably the tools are barely mature now. Most "DX12" games are tacking on DX12 but didn't design for it from the start, especially threading the main game code thread, so may perform worse.

DX11 is needed to be compatible with the majority of hardware and systems without Windows 10 so that's a problem too. It's much better to just deal with DX12 or Vulkan alone, and future games will.

Setting for DX12?
Yes, but only in a few games right now. Only a couple are even recommended as said due to issues.

If still "confused" then read this:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html

I still say get the RX-480 8GB model. Perhaps an Asus Strix or similar with dual-fan design.

Only thing I'm worried about is developers' transition to using Async compute and Vulkan in games. They are phenominal potential and you won't need a great CPU to run them extremely well.

However, developers actually don't seem too arsed, no matter how great Async computing and Vulkan might be.

The developers of DOOM and Gears of War 4 show how great both features can be. I've played both, and It's unbelievable how well optimised they are and how in-depth the graphics settings are compared to other triple AAA titles. Those are true examples of what games can be in 2016 and forward.

Which other games will follow? That is the skeptical part.

Newer DX11 titles actually run decently on the RX 480, since AMD really improved there drivers for CPU overhead in gaming. It's the older DX11 titles with CPU overhead which tend to favor Nvidia's gpu's.

I only disagree with #3.
(and BTW I linked that Hardware Canucks info above as well)

My GTX680 served me really well for four years. It compared favorably to AMD's HD7970 and had less issues; plenty of reviews have confirmed this though there is some confusion because AMD upped the frequency of the HD7970 to 1GHz later. It was also noticeably faster in systems with weaker CPU's due to AMD's poor DX11 drivers. (and still is)

The 2GB of VRAM wasn't an issue until a handful of games recently either, but that's time for an upgrade anyway.

I also doubt this "hate" extends to enough people to notably impact sales. I don't know where it's coming from frankly based on my experience and looking at plenty of performance reviews over the last several years. It feels mostly unwarranted.

NVidia isn't intentionally making older cards perform worse either. It just doesn't work that way unless you cherry pick specific examples like the over-use of Tessellation in a couple titles.

(with that argument, AMD could be said to gimping DX11 to force people to newer cards. The truth is that AMD doesn't have the finances to do what NVidia did with DX11 drivers. It's very expensive. It's also good for AMD as it makes their DX12 performance look even better so that's kind of a weird thing... )

NVidia's newest cards may not be as future proof, but they also didn't put in transistors that took years to get utilized. ASYNC Compute is excellent on paper but AMD (or is that ATI?) failed to realize how long it would take before they got utilized. They could have done OTHER things at the time like NVidia did.

AMD screwed up even bigger with its CPU design though. They bet on multi-threading catching on quicker and optimized for that with shared resources between "cores" that gimped things for most programs. Ironically, if you still have an FX-8350 it's starting to get even better as games use DX12 and Vulkan though those will be a while to become mainstream.

None of this changes my recommend of the RX-480 8GB however so we can just agree to disagree on point #3.

#3 is a common theme on internet, with multiple examples of mostly Geforce 7xx generation being faster and more expensive than Radeon R2xx on launch, but losing to them in 2016. Also, examples of 7xx cards losing performance with new drivers. GTX770 and GTX780 having just 2-3GB of VRAM, vs competition having 3-4GB sure did not help as well. 9xx series now are not optimized for DX12, although are very similar in architecture to series 10xx. This year, nVidia also released Gefore1060 3GB, which is fast right now, but already lacks VRAM in some games, so it can be expected it to age and start loosing performance extremely fast. With this in mind- #3 can be considered a myth/joke, but with some truth in it.

They only work in a specific amount of GameWorks titles which are usually poorly optimised titles anyway.

You can enable them on AMD graphics cards too but the impact in performance is probably a bit heavier.