Why is AMD so incompetent?

Why is AMD so incompetent?

Other urls found in this thread:

3dmark.com/3dm/12838370
3dmark.com/aot/117403
3dmark.com/3dm/8225435?
3dmark.com/aot/38872
3dmark.com/aot/122615
guru3d.com/news-story/quick-test-directx-12-api-overhead-benchmark.html
3dmark.com/aot/26856
youtube.com/watch?v=lQzLU4HWw2U
twitter.com/AnonBabble

3 . 5 G I G S
.
5
G
I
G
S

Funny how, somehow, 3.gigs from nvidia is beating 8gigs from AMD

only with an AMD cpu

As much as I want to hate AMD for being incompetent fucks for their drivers and cucking my hd7950/i5 750, I just want to say at least they haven't killed any GPUs.

I honestly can't tell who's the worse choice anymore...

And an Intel i5

There are no good choices. You either get gouged and fucked by the Nvidia kikes or put up with AMD shooting themselves and then you in the foot every five minutes.

SAVE US BASED INTEL

Don't worry amdrones will tell you that dx11 driver overhead and driver multi-thread is a meme.

I must say that I'm an amd user but i can't fucking defend things like this.

Just look at this pic 16.6.2 (latest driver) negative scaling using multi-thread on dx11.

I5 2500+HD7970 here, I'm actually getting slightly worse performance than my friend with an i7 860 and gtx670.

I'll probably upgrade to zen + gtx1070 if prices are alright, I want off this radeon meme

Absolute bullshit. Even with the dank driver overhead maymay, there's no scenario where a 670 even comes close to a 7970. Either you're a lying shill, your card is faulty or your system is fucked.

ah, didnt notice that

Amd is fine but you need as much single thread performance as you can get.

Then it'll perform great...

i'll like review sites to use more than just the highest end cpus to test the cards so amd will be forced to fix the driver.

Gta v, he gets almost 5 more fps than me on same settings. I get average low 50s, with some dips into low 40s, he gets mid to high 50s, with some dips into high 50s.

Battlefield 4 is roughly the same if I use mantle, or 3-4fps slower if I use dx11.

I'm pretty disappointed, but I try to enjoy the performance I'm getting because honestly, it's enough.

But like I said, I'd like to try nvidia next time because his 670 was quite a bit cheaper.

Also this. I've seen reviews where they tested shit like r7 260x or 270x with an i7 4770k and shit.
Wtf.

DELETE

Driver overhead + cpu bound game and you'll get that problem.

I've more fps on arma 3 with a 7950 + intel (oc) than a friend with a 290x + 8350 (stock).

I love AMD. I bought 5000 shares last year at $1.80/shr and sold recently at $4.75/shr. AMD is brilliant.

Some dips into high 40s*

It makes me sad though, knowing that if we both had an i7 4770k or 6700k that my card would destroy his.

>mfw i3 3220+r7 260x

Did I fuck up?

...

Kek

If they were so brilliant you wouldn't have sold your shares

Afaik only 970 has that memory problem, but i'm starting to think that some cheap vram for the window manager could be useful on certain configurations/circumstances.

Yeah like r7 240 4gb ddr3 from sapphire is amazing value for gaming pc, it's 4gb!

Well pinch my nipples they actually make this shit?

Why?

>calling amd shit when Nvidia tries to kill your car at least twice per year

NVIDIA CARD DAMAGING DRIVERS OVER LAST 5 YEARS:
364.72 WHQL
364.67 BETA
364.51 WHQL
364.47 WHQL
320.18 WHQL
267.52 WHQL
196.75 WHQL

AMD CARD DAMAGING DRIVERS OVER LAST 5 YEARS:
15.11 WHQL

>all those 364
jesus fuck why didnt they just scrap the drivers and build it from the ground up again

So? not op and I'm an amd user still i want this fixed.

Posting that is like posting 3.5 or amd pcie specs

I would say issues on nvidia drivers are not an issue for me, amd driver overhead is (And fortunately 15.11 doesn't caused any issues for me)

Well as i said we're not discussing 3.5 fiasco, faulty killing drivers, pci-e out of spec problems, 2d acceleration bugs, Opencl compiler bugs, gameworks, vulkan, dx12...

we're discussing driver overhead and related negative mt scaling under dx11.

3DMark doesn't seem to have a way to search for API overheard results to compare against that I can find. However I did use Google to find some stuff hidden away on the site. The image to the left is my overclocked R9 290. I found a result for a 480 on a slightly lower spec CPU and I also found one for a 970.

480
3dmark.com/3dm/12838370
970
3dmark.com/aot/117403

Notice the jump in DX11 performance for the 970.

The fact my overclocked R9 290 beats the 480 out in DX12 is also interesting. But it is a lower spec CPU so that obviously has an impact.

Oh and here is one for a 980 that beats my score but only by a small margin in DX12. I would need to see more 480 API overhead scores to make a fair judgement however.

Shit I forgot the link

3dmark.com/3dm/8225435?

>364.72 WHQL
>364.67 BETA
>364.51 WHQL
>364.47 WHQL

I will never understand how someone who browses Sup Forums can be this stupid.

Only 364.47 was busted. Windows overwrote 2 of the inf files with a default VGA driver after the nvidia driver fucked up. The other 3 worked fine if you ran DDU to remove windows VGA drivers as well as the nvidia ones.

...

Welcome to 3 years ago op? We already all knew fx series is garbage.

Is the same shit amd caps at ~1 million draw calls while nvidia does over 2m.

look a 770 3dmark.com/aot/38872

tip you can use inurl:3dmark.com/aot/ plus the graphic card you want to search for on google ie: inurl:3dmark.com/aot/ 770.

3dmark.com/aot/122615
fury x + 5820k 1.075.581 on dx11-mt

Aaaand i'm fucking sad now i've heard that there will be some hardware inside the 480 that will reduce overhead on dx11 but seems that it wasn't true :S

i7-5960X + R9 290X = 935.122 mt (1.075.955 st) draw calls on dx11.

guru3d.com/news-story/quick-test-directx-12-api-overhead-benchmark.html

Actually it's Crysis 3 that's incompetent, shill. Still peddling your driver overhead meme, eh?

>fx series
How about Intel i5? That's getting bottlenecked too in some more cpu intensive titles, more on AMD cards.

3dmark.com/aot/26856

Fuck this shit I'm canceling that Nitro 480 I had on preorder and getting a MSI Gaming X 1070 (If I can find one cheap enough).

>using a outdated benchmark and drivers from 2 years ago
get fucked also dx11 is dead

>crysis 3 is very demanding on the system
Yes, we know. It's why it's still used for many benchmarks.

>being forced to use windows10
I bet you love being pounded in the ass by Microsoft while AMD strangles your dick

28 FPS CPU bottleneck, holy shit.

It's sad because with AMD drivers, even the i5 is bottlenecking, putting the gimped 970 6 fps ahead of the 390

Hey, no need for a guy to be greedy. I took my profits and got out. So what you want, but the AMD execs did a great job of pumping up the stock price.

I remember when 320.18 killed my GTX 480.

I remember when crimson killed my HD7970

>implying you can even understand my post
You're clearly retarded. TW3 is THE benchmake game. Anyway, no modern game has core loading nearly as bad as Crysis 3. Even Fallout 4 can use hyperthreading.

You're the idiot who uses a 950 at 4k and then calls the situation "demanding."

except it didn't .

using afterburner with crimson was the issue.
crimson alone or afterburner alone did nothing .

>I'd like to try nvidia next time because his 670 was quite a bit cheaper.
Do you live under a rock?

Agree with that, they pulled a great bait and switch with the 480

But still, prices will only go up because more products still launch, which is going to be much more in the spotlight than a silly power issue that'll be fixed with drivers

AMD is using a nice trick, put more memory than needed on a 1080p card to market it as a better card

Yup dumb people see 8 gigs and they're like OMG WHAT A DEAL.

Then a 3.5 gig card beats it hilariously.

AMD can't compete at 1080p though, there's more cpu load at 1080p so unless you're going for unlocked i7 or i5 with a high end AMD card then you'll be losing out.

You do realise that the 970 is a 4gb card, don't you? But yeah, all memes aside I feel bad for people who fell for the budget AMD meme since most reviewers use 5960x, 5820k, or 6700k.

Normies (the market of 480) will eat it up. Keep in mind this has been done before

This.

Only the enthusiast tier market even follows review sites and shit, most people just buy what ever

>AMD can't compete at 1080p though, there's more cpu load at 1080p so unless you're going for unlocked i7 or i5 with a high end AMD card then you'll be losing out.
You cherry pick benchmarks and then generalize like a retard.

90% of games show absolutely no evidence of your meme.

Here is a DX12 title, the near future of gaming.

i got a GT610 for my old P4 machine. werks just fine, can run some games with a 30eur card. and another GT610 for the extra display ports on my moms PC.

Good thing the 480 is here now to completely and utterly blow le 3.5 meme card out of the water, at a lower price too.

What cpu?

>dx12 the future of gaming
You sound brainwashed

Idk about US, but gtx970 was still 40 aud cheaper than the rx480. 970 wasn't reference either.

my 7850 2gb card works just fine with my 8350 though

youtube.com/watch?v=lQzLU4HWw2U

looking at price / performance, AMD is pretty much king. For the top spot Nvidia and AMD are neck and neck.

I buy AMD because they contribute to open source instead of making shitty windows only proprietary shovelware.

1080 is a joke

>I buy AMD because they add nothing of value to the world with their shit contributions

Funny how your little open source king didn't even bother with Vulkan but is all over that closed source DX12.

No one said it doesn't, it'll just work much much better on a cpu with stronger ipc.

Like an overclocked i5 6600k

>supporting nvidia are jews

>looking at price / performance, AMD is pretty much king. For the top spot Nvidia and AMD are neck and neck.
Unrelated topic, unrelated pic, no overhead info no cpu info.

>I buy AMD because they contribute to open source instead of making shitty windows only proprietary shovelware.
Nvidia linux drivers are on par with windows it sucks that they're closed source but there's nothing near their performance under linux.

Amd closed source drivers are a joke, amd open source drivers (blobs required) are pretty good but still far behind windows drivers (that are not that good)

1080 is a joke
>It's expensive as fuck but it's a fucking beast.

What cpu did they use to measure performance?

Don't forget you'll be held back even by a haswell i5

My fellow posters, ROTR is a gameworks title, and that table is missing how super-overclocked the 970 is.

Compare apples with apples once non-reference 480s are out.

That pic is totally off topic too, we're talking about dx11 overhead but people is still trying to talk about dx12, benchmarks done with the highest ends processors only or just trying to turn this into an amd/nvidia battle.

Just got one of these in my rx 480 box wtf is this,m?

Shit, I hope I'm getting one too

>Copyright 2012

Comparing AMDs newest card with a 2 year old one. Nice to see theyre keeping up

Years of practice.

No you didn't.

No you won't.

asking how amd is bad on an nvidia infested game
what is next? asking why a f1 car is so bad on a rally course?

>proprietary and as such unverifiable benchmarks
>video games

Got any proof with amd infested games?

getting off dx12 hardware to dx11 hardware

ya dun goofed

the funny part with this is those started right when leather drag queen of nvidia ceo said they are working on the async problem..
till today the drivers are a complete lottery for many people

show me something amd has remotely close to gameworks
i dare you i double dare you

If more reviews would have included weaker CPUs on their benchmarks maybe amd would have fixed this already.

So what you're trying to say is that amd has no dx11 hardware?

i mean 6000, 7000, 200, 300, 400 series have near the same draw calls on dx11 and negative mt scaling (you can't fucking defend this).

because they're a company who market all their products to poorfags. seriously, all their marketing is always something like

"hey look at these benchmarks, we beat nvidia with our new new gpu and it's cheaper!" just look at the fury x marketing.

it's cheaper for a reason. also they're like 2bn in debt. i doubt they have the funds to employ a massive dedicated day one driver team like nvidia. nvidia are just better straight up if you have the money.

You mean mantle, don't you? Which is completely incompatible with nvidia GPUs, and any preGCN AMD gpu.

At least gameworks works on older nvidia GPUs.

Did you know that mantle is broken since 16.5.2 (16.5.3, 16.6.1 and 16.6.2) crashed every time with mantle amd said to me to stop using mantle and use dx11 instead.

Anyway we are going out off the topic again...

the 390 is the 290
it was released in 2013

Didn't they say they were going to use a hardware fix for the 480? What happened to that?

gameworks is cancer and should die

What? No. They're releasing a driver fix today. It was only a software/firmware issue.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Doesn't seems to increase performance nor draw calls on dx11 titles.

mantle evolved into vulkan, and it totally works with nvidia, you stupid little midget

Vulkan is lot more than just mantle.

so? mantle is deprecated. it's all about vulkan now. it's how vulkan started

the 480 was rushed out onto the market with some batches having shitty asic quality so they had to overvolt all chips to get as many units out to the public as possible and so all those gpu's work as intended. they're fixing it with software by reducing the core voltage. some cards will die though.

Not the power draw, the overhead issue.

no. vulkan was being developed under a newer form of opencl well before amd donated some of the mantle code. the vulkan project was started with mantle code but the stuff from the project before was also merged into vulkan so it's nothing like mantle anymore, it's evolved a lot.

who cares anyway, devs have no incentive to develop for vulkan over dx12 anyway. it was the same with opencl. go windows or go home.

They said they're going to make an announcement today, not a driver. Who knows when they will fix this fiasco.