![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should bring your 970 to Canada sometime, piddly 3.5 GB card would require me bring a large heater in my room so there's $200 along with power usage of heater. The FuryX looks so tempting cause I can use it to target my feet
Even better, you can run the rad out of your case, put it on the floor, and set your feet right ontop of it.
Hahaha, thats good one. Maybe I'll do the same when the winter finally arrives here with my Fury X
Back to topic: It feels like everybody is missing the point with this test. It is a Nvidia sponsored Unreal Engine 4 game where Nvidia traditionally has been running circles with AMD cards in DX11.
Like this:
Nvidia cards are roflstomping AMD counterparts in DX11. Now lets add in DX12 to that still nvidia sponsored UE4 Engine and we suddenly get this:
Btw, those are all custom cards with the exception of Fury, Nano and TX
Now the tables have evened out considerably and AMD card are actually beating their counterparts from Nvidia like 290 vs 780Ti and 970, 390X vs 980, 280X vs 770, 380 vs 960 etc. how the hell did this happen
Sure the 980Ti is still the king of the hill but that doesn't downplay the fact that AMD got considerable boosts with their older cards. But because Fury X didn't win 980Ti, people conclude that DX12 is not doing anything for the AMD lineup even tough they can just look at the data. My gues is that "most" people just looks at the top of the chart and see 980Ti sitting there so they conclude that there's nothing to see here and then come to forums to say that AMD loses even in DX12 but the reality is that AMD only looses the Top of the line battle and wins in every other category.
It feels like the whole driver overhead bottleneck which haunts AMD in DX11 is gone from AMD drivers when using DX12. Of course there's only two data point so we still can't make any final conclusions but I for one actually like these turn of events. It evens the playing field when comparing nvidia and amd cards. Now you can't just flat out say that 970 is the better card when compared to 390 as 390 might actually get quite big performance boost in DX12 games when looking at these initial DX12 results.
Nvidia cards are roflstomping AMD counterparts in DX11. Now lets add in DX12 to that still nvidia sponsored UE4 Engine and we suddenly get this:
Now the tables have evened out considerably and AMD card are actually beating their counterparts from Nvidia like 290 vs 780Ti and 970, 390X vs 980, 280X vs 770, 380 vs 960 etc. how the hell did this happen
It feels like the whole driver overhead bottleneck which haunts AMD in DX11 is gone from AMD drivers when using DX12. Of course there's only two data point so we still can't make any final conclusions but I for one actually like these turn of events. It evens the playing field when comparing nvidia and amd cards. Now you can't just flat out say that 970 is the better card when compared to 390 as 390 might actually get quite big performance boost in DX12 games when looking at these initial DX12 results.
When you have people using the data as a 'final conclusion' then you're going to get a proportionate response from the other side, too. If DX12 games start hitting the market with results like these then I think you'll start to see more of a movement towards AMD. AMD loves their hype machine. If they were actually being quiet through all of this (See: Rob Hallock, Richard Huddy, AMD's official benchmarks) then I would actually be more inclined to trust the data. The more AMD hypes something, the more skeptical I become.
The patch was delayed within days of the Async stuff popping up. Presumably, ARK has been working on their DX12 patch for months. Nvidia itself has been working with UE4, as well. It seems really unlikely that Nvidia would just now realize they had performance issues in DX12 + ARK at the same time the news breaks about async, which is also 2 weeks after the Ashes benchmarks went live.
Although TO BE FAIR maybe they never actually tested it on AMD cards this entire time, so they never realized how much faster AMD hardware actually was... lol.
That's not a solution, it's a band-aid... More like a non-solution.
The patch was delayed within days of the Async stuff popping up. Presumably, ARK has been working on their DX12 patch for months. Nvidia itself has been working with UE4, as well. It seems really unlikely that Nvidia would just now realize they had performance issues in DX12 + ARK at the same time the news breaks about async, which is also 2 weeks after the Ashes benchmarks went live.
That would mean Wildcard Studios, Epic Games, and Nvidia are like the 3 stooges. "Hey guys we're about to release this DX12 patch tomorrow, let's go ahead and benchmark it first. Oh shit it runs like crap on our sponsored hardware!"
If Nvidia had such a heavy hand in ARK, as people are implying, they would have been well aware of their performance problems from day one. And they never would have promised a DX12 patch this early, only to subsequently delay it. Just because it's news to us, doesn't mean it's news to them; surely the people designing the game, the people designing the engine, and the people designing the hardware would have seen this issue earlier on.
The patch was delayed within days of the Async stuff popping up. Presumably, ARK has been working on their DX12 patch for months. Nvidia itself has been working with UE4, as well. It seems really unlikely that Nvidia would just now realize they had performance issues in DX12 + ARK at the same time the news breaks about async, which is also 2 weeks after the Ashes benchmarks went live.
That would mean Wildcard Studios, Epic Games, and Nvidia are like the 3 stooges. "Hey guys we're about to release this DX12 patch tomorrow, let's go ahead and benchmark it first. Oh shit it runs like crap on our sponsored hardware!"
If Nvidia had such a heavy hand in ARK, as people are implying, they would have been well aware of their performance problems from day one. And they never would have promised a DX12 patch this early, only to subsequently delay it. Just because it's news to us, doesn't mean it's news to them; surely the people designing the game, the people designing the engine, and the people designing the hardware would have seen this issue earlier on. I mean they are literally the 3 groups of people responsible for the entire thing.
The patch was delayed within days of the Async stuff popping up. Presumably, ARK has been working on their DX12 patch for months. Nvidia itself has been working with UE4, as well. It seems really unlikely that Nvidia would just now realize they had performance issues in DX12 + ARK at the same time the news breaks about async, which is also 2 weeks after the Ashes benchmarks went live.
That would mean Wildcard Studios, Epic Games, and Nvidia are like the 3 stooges. "Hey guys we're about to release this DX12 patch tomorrow, let's go ahead and benchmark it first. Oh shit it runs like crap on our sponsored hardware!"
If Nvidia had such a heavy hand in ARK, as people are implying, they would have been well aware of their performance problems from day one. And they never would have promised a DX12 patch this early, only to subsequently delay it. Just because it's news to us, doesn't mean it's news to them; surely the people designing the game, the people designing the engine, and the people designing the hardware would have seen this issue earlier on. I mean they are literally the 3 groups of people responsible for the entire thing.
. It's all in the branding dude!
There seems to be issues with AMD drivers with high CPU usage, this has nothing to do with parallel execution of ops, there should be no CPU involvement when doing calculations that are solely based on the GPU. This problem seems to be not localized to certain applications either its pretty wide spread. I wouldn't call the drivers shit but optimization wise yeah they are behind with Dx11 drivers, now is that because they decided to focus on Mantle and Dx12 drivers, possibly. I say this because if we look at Fiji, its running across similar (similar not same issues) as Maxwell when we look at Dx 12 benchmarks which we don't see on any other GCN hardware.
So why aren't more people upset about AMD selling underperforming console-based tech on the PC market? They had to suffer through 2 generations of weak performance for it to finally payoff in DX12... Right before they replace their card with a new 16nm model. But hey, at least they get to showoff Deus Ex for a few months until Pascal/Greenland.
Sounds like You used it with crappy cpu. But using crossfire sure explains a lot.
And I don't know anyone who even said a word about some super fluidity effect.
So why aren't more people upset about AMD selling underperforming console-based tech on the PC market? They had to suffer through 2 generations of weak performance for it to finally payoff in DX12... Right before they replace their card with a new 16nm model. But hey, at least they get to showoff Deus Ex for a few months until Pascal/Greenland.
And this is an insider's perspective. I owned AMD exclusively since 2007. I suffered through the worst of it and continued to suffer up to the moment I pulled the 280X out of my rig. It looks like I still made the right decision since the Fury X continues to get smoked by the 980 Ti even in DX12.
edit: I'm only half serious about AMD's DX11 performance over the years. They've been mostly competitive and DX12 is good news for anyone keeping a Hawaii-based card for another year or two.