Recent content by Mahigan

Yeah, back in the day we used to fanboi on those cards in the 3dfx forums. They were "god-like" to us (the 200SBi boards that is).

I remember those cards from back in the day. I still have a Quantum Obsidian X-24 with the Medusa cable. It's basically a sandwiched variant of one of those Obsidian 2 200SBi boards. This brings back memories :)

Oculus are the ones who specced the R9 390 as being the minimum spec for VR. Valve followedsuit. So AMD is simply quoting them as it pertains to VR. I would assume that gaming wise... Polaris 10 is geared for 1440p gaming. You folks are unreal.

AMD are not budget producers. Polaris 10 replaces the Radeon R9 380 series. Basically... Polaris 10 brings R9 390 series performance down to the R9 380 series market segment. Vega 11 will be the RX 490 series while Vega 10 will be the RX Fury series. AMD are not budget producers... they simply...

Polaris 10 is the RX 480 series or RX 480 and RX 480X. Vega 11 is the RX 490 series or RX 490 and RX 490X while Vega 10 is the Fury and FuryX replacement.

Read the original article from VentureBeat and not the interpretation from Ars. Koduri: It’s an architecture codename. It’ll still be Radeon something something on the box. But we didn’t have a consistent architecture name like our competitors do. It was hard, because for people, including...

Pardon me if I come across as frustrated but I am. Since around July of last year I've been discussing these topics and all along the way I've received massive amounts of push back only to be proven right every time. I've corrected my knowledge, learned quite a lot along the way and have been...

You disagree on what basis? Please share with us your thorough knowledge on the topic which leads you to disagree? What specific aspects of AMDs architecture inhibits it from applying driver optimizations in order to alleviate API bottlenecks under DX11? Folks keep shifting the goal posts...

This was from Dan Baker...

Doom is an OpenGL/Vulkan title.

AMDs DX11 performance is a recent development for AotS. It is due to AMDs driver work and not due to anything on Oxide's end. What it shows is that AMD can optimize DX11 drivers but the manpower it takes to do so, and AMDs financials, don't really allow for AMD to do this routinely. The Star...

Maybe I misunderstood what you stated but it seemed to me that you stated that Asynchronous Compute + Graphics was not enabled in the drivers at first, when it was. The feature was available in NVIDIA's driver. Asynchronous Compute + Graphics worked. When I say worked, I mean that Maxwell was...

I have a class right now but in order to start answering you I'll start with Dan Baker's response: It did work but conformance and performance was dreadful.

Are they doing it with DX11? If so then how can it be that Kepler can run PhysX when it does not support mixing Graphics and Compute together in parallel? Is Kepler executing concurrently instead? Most probable. Maxwell appears to execute in parallel, however, from the graphs I've seen from...

True, But what we do know is that originally, AotS attempted to run Asynchronous compute + graphics on Maxwell using the exposed driver feature. The result was an unmitigated disaster. Maxwell dropped performance into single digit-land. This prompted Oxide to code a separate path for the...