I don't know how much progress you'll make trying to have a reasonable conversation with unreasonable people, but you're responding to people who believe that the SMS developers are lying about AMD not optimizing their drivers *and* who don't understand how optimizing drivers would have anything to do with performance.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Project CARS Devs Address AMD Performance Issues
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Well, you were going to explain to us dummies how AMD was going to optimize NVidia's Physx to run on their graphics cards, when its an NVidia product that won't run on non-NVidia products by design. Remember?
We're apparently too dumb to understand how AMD, who has no control over an NVidia product designed to lock AMD out, a product that is very inefficient on CPU's by design, is going to be fixed by AMD.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion based on the facts, but not entitled to their own facts.
The more pressure put on AMD to handle their issues pro-actively, the better it is for us AMD users, and the more competition for market share with nVidia.
Hearing stories of AMD not being there for video game devs turns people away from your gaming GPUs. If they need resources, let go of talking heads like Richard and get two more driver engineers.
I want to hear positive AMD stories, like AMD did with DICE worked alongside them to create their own API. It doesn't have to be that "grand" of a project, just hearing a developer getting their own personal engineer to smooth out performance before launch, and having the drivers ready at launch or very shortly after launch.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
They would have to pony up a license for GameWorks and co-develop a solution with nVidia.
Well, now you've just outed yourself as a LIAR! That's not a baby, its a computer!
This isn't rocket science RC, and I think you're being rather disingenuous, perhaps trying to justify using NVidia GameWorks yourself.
AMD and NVidia are graphics cards manufacturers, not game developers. They aren't supposed to be making and sponsoring video games, at least in my opinion. They are supposed to make great video cards, and ensure that they operate well on modern standards and selling them at a reasonable price to consumers.
AMD is making by and large superior video cards that are more powerful than their NVidia counterparts from a pure hardware standpoint, which is why miners were all using AMD components because frankly the NVidia products were like buying a four-banger Honda motor vs a Chevy V8. The only thing the four-banger had going for it is that it was fuel efficient, and, here's the kicker, sometimes sabotaging its competitor... and this is a problem for consumers.
NVidia is not offering "better service", what they are doing is effectively paying off a few developers that are willing to sacrifice their integrity and alienate part of their audience, in exchange for effectively being paid by NVidia to cripple the graphics card manufacturer's competitors artificially.
NVidia puts out there that this is the deal: We will give you a free game engine and free engineers that will help you, the developer, actually develop the video game, in exchange that you accept that the video game will be designed to artificially nerf non-NVidia products by design. That's not customer service, that's anti-competitive bullshit that is bad for the industry, and isn't about making NVidia products and the gaming industry better, but about trying to cripple competitors via software to make up for their otherwise mediocre to poor performance to dollar ratio.
If you yourself are willing to sign up for such an arrangement as a developer, its pretty hard to pretend to be unbiased by saying "Hey look, I have AMD hardware too". NVidia is offering to pay a chunk of your development in exchange for crippling their competitor, and you're acting like the problem here is that AMD isn't offering you a similar deal. These are not deals that we, as consumers, want to see happening AT ALL! The developer needs to develop the game and NOT sell out development to GPU manufacturers on the condition of crippling competitors. Otherwise, if they both played that game as you suggest, we would have libraries of titles that you'd have to either play on a AMD computer or a Intel comptuer or a NVidia computer to get good performance out of, since each would cripple their competitors artificially.
Correct, this was already pointed out ages ago. NVidia controls the licensing costs and would have absolutely no motivation to work with AMD on improving the performance of NVidia's product on AMD hardware. AMD would have to LITERALLY be retarded to enter into such an agreement, as NVidia would obviously promote its own self-interest by creating high licensing fees and limited support in order to sell more NVidia cards and reduce the sale of their ONLY real direct competitor's AMD cards. This is common sense.
Now what AMD said they would be willing to do, is invest their time and money in creating a openCL port of Physx, so that it would be truly manufacturer neutral. NVidia, as we know, would not agree to such an arrangement, and instead is still focused on trying to buy out developers by offering them to offload some of their development costs to NVidia in exchange for marketing NVidia in their games/boxes/etc and using software designed to cripple non-NVidia hardware.
Most developers know that this is a cancer on the video game industry and unethical behavior, but there are clearly a few that take the bait, and yes you are right we should be pissed at the developer too and I thought I expressed that I am. Especially when they were so dishonest about why the game runs like shit without an NVidia card.
Exactly, we have to stick to facts, and the fact is that this is NOT an AMD issue.
It has been clearly demonstrated that even with an NVidia card, if you set Physx to run on the processor, the performance is horrific. If its horrific with an NVidia card installed, using the CPU for physx, then its not a GPU driver issue on AMD's side. AMD cannot in any shape or form force Physx to run on AMD hardware, as its an NVidia product that is designed NOT to run on AMD hardware. Therefor it is, and has been clearly demonstrated to be, a simple problem with NVidia's Physx running like total shit on processors and NVidia forcing Physx to run exclusively on processors if a non-NVidia video card is detected.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
Agreed, it's computer science, the superior of all sciences.
That's a fine opinion to have.
From a brute force standpoint, or math crunching standpoint, AMD has stronger chops. I agree with this all the way up to: sabotaging competitors performance.
Do you have source code that proves this? Simply having separate code for separate devices is an extremely common practice for programmers, not everything is abstract as you guys believe it is. When something is broken in an abstract layer though, i.e. in DX11, the driver teams work around those issues and post driver updates.
Even my program WOLF has a code pipeline just for AMD GPUs, Intel GPUs, and nVidia GPUs, to display their GPU information in native vendor colors.
This is something you believe, but if you can't provide a verifiable source, then you can't claim it as fact. That's why we have the word "fact", because it's an entirely different idea. It even sounds completely different than beliefs.
You are totally allowed to your beliefs. So again, not to take away from your frustration, I totally get your frustration. I am a developer and avid gamer (mind you I am not a game developer as of yet) and it frustrates me so much not being able to help. I have an intense passion for coding, I would love to tinker with some open source drivers for AMD. Of the two main GPU companies, I would expect AMD to one day allow the open source driver as they have that reputation of being open standards. nVidia is a very closed proprietary setup where they work day and night to make their products work the best. Something we all know. This is Linux vs. Windows all over again. I love toying with Linux, but when I need to get work done, with decent performance and stability, program compatibility, and enterprise needs, I use Windows.
Again this is all hearsay.
You can't jump straight from poor performance on AMD Radeon GPUs to being a conspiracy with nVidia at the center. Any QA guy worth their muster would tell you that.
nVidia aren't paying for anything, nor is it their intention. I am not in active development yet.
I was illustrating experience with GameWorks.
I was illustrating a background in programming.
I was illustrating ownership of products affected by the issues at hand.
I was also illustrating ownership of products not affected by the issues at hand, to establish at least an immediate knowledge of both vendors.
GameWorks is the .NET FrameWork to the 3D World. Just having access to such a library though does not make a crappy developers good. And doesn't stop a developer for doing their due diligence with AMD (in this particular case they tried beforehand with AMD.) In addition, GameWorks runs on AMD hardware through a plethora of examples. Plenty of basic GameWorks titles that had basic features such as HBAO+ run better on the R9 290X than the GTX 780 Ti.
I do want to see things like GameWorks getting used, because we have made terrible strides in forcing developers to incorporate advanced graphical feature sets. Most of the time that it is"too hard" which to me translates as "publisher wants this out now and we don't have time to do this".
Let me guess though, you were crazy about Mantle? That "open source" API that only works on AMD hardware? That probably changed the development direction in DX12? That now everyone will benefit from? The same reason you probably liked Mantle is the same reason that I like GameWorks. I want to see easier access to these complex feature sets, and hopefully, one day, GameWorks will be the redundant item and an open library will exist.
The person who started all of this hate towards GamesWorks is Richard Huddy. He is lizard in a human suit full of bologna, snake oil cologne, and half-truths who happens to also be on AMD's payroll.
Despite that, you are entitled to believe that. Just know, almost every console port has been broken at launch for nVidia too, regardless of GameWorks inclusions.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
So:
If nothing changes in ProjectCARs, other than minor tweaks (post-launch bug fixes).
If GamesWorks is left alone.
Roy Taylor gets a driver fix from AMD (in - progress)
You gain the same performance as Windows 10 (25~50% more perofrmance), if not more.
It is still nVidia's fault?
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
In addition the post above:
I think if you are going blame nVidia for all of AMDs issues, I think you should start giving credit to all of AMDs successes to nVidia. After all, each time AMD releases a driver fix, AMDs performance usually increases too. GameWorks still included in the title. Since driver fixes are not an admission of responsibility, so by that logic, AMDs performance was increased by GameWorks.
I think if you are going blame nVidia for all of AMDs issues, I think you should start giving credit to all of AMDs successes to nVidia. After all, each time AMD releases a driver fix, AMDs performance usually increases too. GameWorks still included in the title. Since driver fixes are not an admission of responsibility, so by that logic, AMDs performance was increased by GameWorks.
You're talking about something that hasn't happened yet, and again, why does performance suffer so extremely on NVidia graphics cards when all we do is change the setting to use the processor for Physx calculations?
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
Okay, so if/when AMD resolve the issue with a driver, we can revisit your thoughts on who you think deserves to take responsibility.
I think you meant, why "doesn't" nVidia graphics cards performance suffer, and that can be a few valid reasons.
Some possible explanations:
A.) It's running on an Intel CPU.
B.) It's running on an overclocked Intel CPU.
C.) AMD decided to primarily pursue Mantle as a resolution, which translated well for games using the Mantle API. Mantle also lit a fire under nVidia to try and stay competitive, so they began work on the DX11 driver overhead.
D.) Fire being lit, DX11 driver overhead has been aggressively targeted by nVidia for well over a year now.
We [AMD gamers] suffered drastic performance issues on Dying Light's launch if we used AMD processors and Techland had to address this specific combination of AMD CPU + AMD GPUs. My laptop ran Dying Light at 1080P with a GTX 860M better than the FX-8370 @ 4.8 GHz and the Devil 13.
Side Note: Still unable to use AA in that game and CrossFireX. The ability to disable one GPU in the Devil 13 was removed as well
Source (C): WCCF
Deathroned
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2015
- Messages
- 554
RagingCain and crew the problem is with Nvidia Fanboy Studios(SMS), an amd user on guru 3d tried different drivers even the ones sms said has 30-40% performance advantage results were the same. forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=398947&page=5
Its clear to me that nvidia is scared and afraid of the 390x they pulled this stunt.
Its clear to me that nvidia is scared and afraid of the 390x they pulled this stunt.
Ah, ok you're not understanding and must have come into the conversation late. No, I mean exactly what I said.
Project Cars runs like ASS with an NVidia graphics card with NVidia drivers if all you do is change a setting forcing the processor to handle Physx calculations. Physx will not run on AMD hardware by NVidia's design, so on AMD cards its, you guessed it, running on the processor. Physx, an NVidia product, runs like shit on the processor. AMD has no control over this.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041594894&postcount=123
1) Even with NVidia hardware, we see large performance losses when Physx is set to run on processor. AMD can only run Physx on processor, by the design of NVidia. This is a problem with NVidia's product.
2) AMD providing a hypothetical driver update to improve performance can and will be separate to the performance hit incurred by running Physx off the processor which is what we're bitching about here (as we see even on NVidia computers toggling on/off). NVidia and AMD both often see some performance improvements over time in games, but AMD can't fix how poorly Physx runs on processors, but they may gain some FPS with other optimizations.
3) If AMD had "less optimized drivers" in general, aside from the obvious Physx issue, we wouldn't see stellar performance in non-NVidia shillware games... but we do! If the problems with AMD hardware are limited to NVidia sponsored/developed games, then how can we possibly come to any other conclusion, especially if you bothered to read the article posted regarding NVidia by design always trying to compensate for their lackluster overpriced hardware via proprietary software that at least incidentally, if not on purpose, runs like crap on non-NVidia hardware... and yet you think AMD has to fix that? It doesn't make any sense to me.
NVidia sponsored game = AMD performance is poor
Non-NVidia sponsored game = AMD performance is usually superior on a apple$ to apple$ basis
Project Cars runs like ASS with an NVidia graphics card with NVidia drivers if all you do is change a setting forcing the processor to handle Physx calculations. Physx will not run on AMD hardware by NVidia's design, so on AMD cards its, you guessed it, running on the processor. Physx, an NVidia product, runs like shit on the processor. AMD has no control over this.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041594894&postcount=123
1) Even with NVidia hardware, we see large performance losses when Physx is set to run on processor. AMD can only run Physx on processor, by the design of NVidia. This is a problem with NVidia's product.
2) AMD providing a hypothetical driver update to improve performance can and will be separate to the performance hit incurred by running Physx off the processor which is what we're bitching about here (as we see even on NVidia computers toggling on/off). NVidia and AMD both often see some performance improvements over time in games, but AMD can't fix how poorly Physx runs on processors, but they may gain some FPS with other optimizations.
3) If AMD had "less optimized drivers" in general, aside from the obvious Physx issue, we wouldn't see stellar performance in non-NVidia shillware games... but we do! If the problems with AMD hardware are limited to NVidia sponsored/developed games, then how can we possibly come to any other conclusion, especially if you bothered to read the article posted regarding NVidia by design always trying to compensate for their lackluster overpriced hardware via proprietary software that at least incidentally, if not on purpose, runs like crap on non-NVidia hardware... and yet you think AMD has to fix that? It doesn't make any sense to me.
NVidia sponsored game = AMD performance is poor
Non-NVidia sponsored game = AMD performance is usually superior on a apple$ to apple$ basis
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
Why does the game run fantastic for both AMD and NVIDIA in Windows 10?
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
As there been any follow or verification of this issue?
What were the same results at 1080, in lieu of 4k?
Which CPU was this i5?
What frequency was it pegged at?
Were all four cores in use?
What was average CPU usage before and after?
What troubleshooting steps were attempted to resolve the issue?
Which driver versions were in use?
Which PhysX versions were in use?
What OS was in use?
Why does performance not tank on Windows 10 for AMD users the same way, i.e. PhysX running on the CPU?
These are just questions I would need resolving before making an informed conclusion.
The STEAM community is not known for it's particularly high tech IQ, but if someone was willing to demonstrate issues that are reproducible and measurable it would make it more credible.
I wasn't aware that it does, but if we accept that this is a Physx performance issue on CPU, then we have to ask if Windows 10 would address that?
According to this article, the game is in fact way too CPU intensive even with their high-end NVidia rig: http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/project-cars-pc-performance-analysis/
If W10 implementation fixes the problem of the CPU being overloaded due to better multi-threading, then you'd see less performance loss from running Physx on CPU vs GPU since the CPU bottleneck would be somewhat reduced.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
I can't deny that optimizations for CPU usage are simply a matter of time. That's just coding 101. The more you see the same code over and over, the more you think of better ways to write things.
However, without looking at the code, you, nor I, nor DarkSide for that matter, can make a claim that a game is "way too CPU intensive." That's opinion dressed as facts.
We can of course suggest to dev to take a look at it, of course. Taking on x number of operations per second for PhysX in both AMD and NVIDIA machines just takes away from general purpose resources else where. It's a give and take relationship. This is more than likely what's happening is that AMD GPUs need a little more CPU performance for rendering in DX11.
PCARS is by far the best looking racing game I have ever seen. Much like Crysis was the best looking FPS of it's time.
Things that would alleviate this would be allowing more fine tune control over the amount of operations calls or physx calls that the game could use, i.e. not a static number. Not all CPUs perform the same after all. AMD had issues with Crysis 2 tessellation due to vast amounts of objects that had unnecessary (objects not even on screen such as water) amounts of tessellation. Allowing AMD users to keep tessellation under 11 (out of 32) in DirectX was the magic sweet spot for performance.
I whole heartedly think adjusting the PhysX ops / sec would be a satisfactory resolution that would benefit both nVidia and AMD users in terms of performance without sacrificing eye candy. The developer and I though may not see eye to eye, or they may have another issue they are actually contending with by keeping it static.
So what AMD can do, is reduce the DX11 overhead, and it will improve performance on this and many titles.
I don't know how anybody can get any work done on Windows. Especially programming stuff. I spend more time banging my head on my desk than writing lines of code.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
I got a chuckle out of that. Suffice to say I am an Exchange Administrator by day, indie developer by night!
I currently triple boot Mountain Lion, Debian 8, and Win 8.1, on my laptop. I proudly puff out my chest and tell people I was trained in college in the art of Vi / Nano and GCC.
RagingCain
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 23
Just a masochist. Haven't booted in it for a long time.
Deathroned
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2015
- Messages
- 554
Just a masochist. Haven't booted in it for a long time.
Shouldnt you go back to Nvidia.net since you make baseless useless assumption.
www.overclock.net/t/1555683/reuters...ideo-games-to-self-driving-cars#post_23910145
Huddy made some pretty damning accusations, and Nvidia's response (that I've heard) was essentially "nuh-uh". To add fuel to the fire, they've flat out contradicted themselves.
See for yourself:
Maximum PC
(around 10:15) They straight up deny having any "black box" dll's with closed source, saying it's a flat out lie.
Pc Perspective:
This denying it ever happened when they themselves admitted to it prior certainly erodes trust that they're being truthful. Furthermore, Huddy's accusations are SPECIFIC, like 10x the amount of polygons used past what is visible for Batman's cape in Arkham Asylum, the dog hairs in CoD Ghosts, the water under the level that isn't even visible in Crysis 2, etc.
You could be right in that Huddy isn't being truthful either, but where's the proof of this? So far I have testimony from him that at least SOUNDS like he's being honest, and Nvidia caught backpedaling and changing their statement. Let's see some real dirt on AMD if they're the ones being dishonest about this (if it's been already posted in this thread, I missed it).
D
Deleted member 162929
Guest
Hey guys, I bought AMD hardware but want to use Nvidia hardware technologies.
Where's the line form to fill out my 'Nvidia is the Devil - Self-Entitlement 101' form?
Where's the line form to fill out my 'Nvidia is the Devil - Self-Entitlement 101' form?
D
Deleted member 162929
Guest
And here's a response from Nvidia:
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/co...eworks_project_cars_and_why_we_should/crc3ro1
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/co...eworks_project_cars_and_why_we_should/crc3ro1
Which doesn't make any sense, since using the modifier to offload physx to the CPU from the GPU on NVidia systems causes a huge performance drop, and what an idiotic response regarding opening up Physx.
They only have the source available for viewing on the CPU side, not the GPU, and people aren't asking for the ability of developers to design their products to be optimized on NVidia cards, they are asking for it to be open source so that it can be ported to OpenCL for example so that competitors can implement it in a manufacturer agnostic way... which is ridiculous to pretend he doesn't understand that.
It doesn't have to be open source. AMD and Intel can write their own physics modelling software in whatever framework they want and hand it over to developers to use.
Why does nvidia always have to do all the heavy lifting?
And ultimately, the reasoning is obvious. AMD graphics cards on developer neutral titles have been kicking NVidia's ass by and large for quite some time now, they simply are superior hardware for each niche save for perhaps the ultra-frugal HTPC/laptop options. NVidia is attempting to level the playing field not by investing in technology, but by offering to reduce the development costs for developers in exchange for accepting that NVidia's "help" isn't exactly free of charge and is used to cripple their competitor in order to help sell more NVidia cards and reduce that performance gap. Yes, AMD could do the same thing, but it would require a culture shift in the company, would be a horrible development for consumers, and ultimately isn't even necessary since by and large they have the hardware performance advantage as it is.
1) They already do, they use open source physics engines that don't care if its NVidia, Intel, or AMD its running on.
2) Stop and THINK for just one second. THINK. Do you really want AMD to fully pull an NVidia and pay off publishers to use a proprietary AMD physics solution or other engine that is designed to cripple NVidia cards?
That would divide your game library in half, half of which work well for AMD cards and half of which work well on NVidia cards, only because the software is designed to screw over the competitor... *facepalm*
That would literally divide the PC market into two, being as different from one another as XBox and PS4 are... that's really what you advocate here? That sounds like a good idea to you?
D
Deleted member 162929
Guest
Because better to point fingers in every other direction, except those to actually blame. Don't ant to admit to having buyer's remorse or anything.
Darn that dastardly Nvidia, always keeping the AMD man down!
lol, rage first... accuracy never.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2346...0541659871/?insideModal=1#c613957600543261874
PhysX source code for both host and device* is included on Nvidia's github repository.
* if you can't understand why this is done, you simply don't understand PhysX or CUDA enough to make more than wrong/ignorant statements
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2346...0541659871/?insideModal=1#c613957600543261874
PhysX source code for both host and device* is included on Nvidia's github repository.
* if you can't understand why this is done, you simply don't understand PhysX or CUDA enough to make more than wrong/ignorant statements
D
Deleted member 162929
Guest
Well, looking at their marketshare and financials - maybe (or obviously) their approach to things isn't working. Maybe they need a culture shift in the company, one way or another.
Right, because its just coincidence that dollar for dollar AMD cards generally beat NVidia performance, with the exception of NVidia sponsored shillware games... right. Coincidence.
Fanboy all you want, I've been on Nvidia a long time (currently on a 670) simply because they have more antialiasing options than AMD. The accusations of what they're doing, if true, are harmful to gamers in general and the whole gaming ecosystem. It's always good to call out companies pulling bullshit. If you weren't so blinded by your bias, you could see how this is a problem. But yeah, keep being a company cheerleader, that's what helps move things forward, right?
D
Deleted member 162929
Guest
And yet AMD for all their 'superiority', withers away on the vine.
Never mind the fact their cards get less performance per watt than Nvidia's (which means they need more power and thus more heat and thus more fan spinning and thus more noise); a clear sign of inferior engineering/design. Never mind their abysmal Linux driver support. Never mind the fact they could make their software game technologies better and easier to code for; thus enticing more devs to actually use their solutions (but, but, but, mah open source!).
Aside from all of that - you can get their cards, with more raw performance, for cheaper. Well, you get what you pay for.
It's time all of you start directing your anger towards AMD for continually being incompetent; instead of trying to shift the blame to everyone else but AMD.
D
Deleted member 162929
Guest
I have no loyalty to Nvidia - I just care about who can give me the the best card, with the best efficiency in operation - while the most gaming features/compatibility, within my price range. If ISIS was in the GPU business and could give me that - I would buy from them in a heartbeat. It just so happens Nvidia has checked all those boxes for me.
What I do have a problem with, is people running around circle jerking and trying to get everyone to their cause of misplacing blame on those who don't deserve it; while holding those who actually are to blame up on some golden pedestal.
That generalization is like comparing a Honda 2.0 liter fourbanger to a Chevy V8. The Honda may be more fuel efficient, like say a 2GB 750Ti, but I'll take the more powerful option like a 3GB 280 for the same price any day. Oh, and you said that NVidia cards run cooler and quieter than AMD competitors? Interesting... a shame facts don't support that, since NVidia typically uses cheap inferior coolers.
295x2 $650 vs Titan X $999 Thermal Imaging... oh, and look at that graph, notice how the extra $350 gets you LOWER performance and louder fan noise? Oops!
295x2 Load DBa: 38
Titan X Load DBa: 40
It's still working against you if you don't realize it. The points brought up by Huddy are saying that Nvidia has already sabotaged performance on multiple games for BOTH Nvidia and AMD, but they do it because it will hurt AMD more than them. So Nvidia might take a 20% hit, while AMD takes a 50% one. So in other words, there are plenty of games you could be playing 20-30% slower without even realizing it because of their practices than if they weren't pulling all this backroom bullshit. I'm not trying to champion AMD, but seeing a company intentionally pull shit that hurts EVERYONE is just inexcusable.
Well "dollar for dollar" is because AMD cannot command the kind of market price that nvidia does.
It is generally true though that AMD has a performance advantage at high-resolution settings.