Caporegime
Afterburner didn't work for me, was still going up and down, up and down.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Change.org petition to add an option to disable power saving in GPU settings
- Thread starter sammarbella
- Start date
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 22
Did you open OverDrive in Crimson settings?
If you did, even if you didn't change any settings inside THAT'S the problem.
The only solution is to uninstall drivers and reinstall them and for the God sake...DON'T TOUCH OVERDRIVE ANYMORE!!!
Then AfterBurner will have success locking GPU clocks and timings.
Did AMD tell people they were doing that ? Cause thats not done by accident.
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 22
Obviously it was not done by accident.
There was no public statement about this new aggresively enforced power saving behavior.
There is a clear shift in AMD GPU top priority from performance to power saving.
I guess this new "green" policy is set to fight the AMD GPUs image as power hungry and high heat hardware generators.
All the marketing around the next AMD GPU arch (ads and PR shows) expose it as a power saving hardware marvel and no word is still said about performance.
It's fine but ppl normally buy dedicated GPUs for their performance not to power saving.
An option to choice between performance and power saving should be the best solution for customers and AMD image as "green" brand.
Last edited:
Soldato
It's a bug effecting some user configuration nothing more.. Not all users are effected, so therefore it wasn't amd intension for this.
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 22
It's not a bug, it works perfectly for his intended purpose: FORCE power saving at any cost (performance).
Ofc it doesn't affect all user setups, only the users who play games and playback multimedia content are affected.
Users who only use desktop 2D softwares like office or software who only requieres high CPU usage are not affected, the usual lower 2D power state of GPU clocks and voltage is fine for them.
I have nothing against the power saving per se i only ask an option to avoid it when performance must be the furst priority if customer choose it.
I don't like to be FORCED to poer save at all cost without drivers option.
Soldato
Out of the Friends I know running GPUs 7950, fury, furyx 290x and 290 non of us are effected by this.. I have asked them to show me there hwinfo64 results from playing a game all have rock solid core and memory clock.
It's a bug...
It's a bug...
It's not a bug, it works perfectly for his intended purpose: FORCE power saving at any cost (performance).
Ofc it doesn't affect all user setups, only the users who play games and playback multimedia content are affected.
Users who only use desktop 2D softwares like office or software who only requieres high CPU usage are not affected, the usual lower 2D power state of GPU clocks and voltage is fine for them.
I have nothing against the power saving per se i only ask an option to avoid it when performance must be the furst priority if customer choose it.
I don't like to be FORCED to poer save at all cost without drivers option.
You are correct, sammarbella, that AMD changed or tweaked their power management algorithm when Crimson was introduced, but I do not think they intended performance to be affected when compared to the old power management algorithm.
They simply looked at their algorithm and found several areas that they felt could be tweaked in order to save more power without harming performance. See them boasting about that here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXLXPiJpVGs. However, they must have introduced unintended bugs into the algorithm when they made these changes or were mistaken that they could save power in these areas in the first place.
The fact that they have finally acknowledged this problem as a bug in the latest release notes suggests that it is not working as intended. Also, it seems to only affect a significant minority of games which is why some people may not be affected.
I fully support your petition though and believe that they should at least have given the option to disable power management on a per-game basis since they could not fix the issue in a timely manner and it would enable customers to work around similar bugs if they occur in the future.
You are also quite right to continue the petition as it forces AMD to take notice and shows that customers are unhappy and that more should have been done, much more quickly, to mitigate this problem. As you say, words are just words and we'll only stop badgering AMD once the fix is in our hands and it doesn't break anything else; this is why I signed.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Yes it is, that's why it's in the known issues of our latest Crimson 16.2 release notes. We're going to fix it.
Last edited:
*****WARNING, HUGE IMAGE*****
They did announce it. And it's only supposed to be active when gpu power isn't needed (cpu bound or fps capped). I personally haven't ever had problems with stutterting with it. Only problem is that sometimes clocks just don't raise at all, after they have dropped. There are actually games like world of warships where I get exactly 73fps (cpu bound) with clockblocker (1100 core), or normally without (core at about 600). Same game experience, just 3 degrees lower temperatures, and more silent game play.
I think crossfire is where the biggest problems are and that really needs to be taken care for.
I still like the idea of full power performance profile, and that's why I signed. Actually AMD could go one step further, and add a slider that would let user set how aggressive power saving method he wants.
They did announce it. And it's only supposed to be active when gpu power isn't needed (cpu bound or fps capped). I personally haven't ever had problems with stutterting with it. Only problem is that sometimes clocks just don't raise at all, after they have dropped. There are actually games like world of warships where I get exactly 73fps (cpu bound) with clockblocker (1100 core), or normally without (core at about 600). Same game experience, just 3 degrees lower temperatures, and more silent game play.
I think crossfire is where the biggest problems are and that really needs to be taken care for.
I still like the idea of full power performance profile, and that's why I signed. Actually AMD could go one step further, and add a slider that would let user set how aggressive power saving method he wants.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I've posted this here before, but if anyone is experiencing clock fluctuation then you should be able to resolve the issue by using either Catalyst 15.7.1 WHQL or Catalyst 15.11.1 Beta as a temporary solution.
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 22
And also in the 16.2.1 Crimson drivers released TODAY:
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson_Edition_16.2.1.aspx
That's why i think aknowledgement of a problem means nothing if the next drivers "solution" is to include it again under "know issues" in changelog.
Still waiting for a "a future Radeon Software update".
Maybe next driver? Who knows?
Ofc the use a pre-Crimson driver "solves" the problem introduced in Crimson drivers.
Caporegime
Telling people to go back to an 8 month old driver, what a fail!.
And also in the 16.2.1 Crimson drivers released TODAY:
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson_Edition_16.2.1.aspx
That's why i think aknowledgement of a problem means nothing if the next drivers "solution" is to include it again under "know issues" in changelog.
Still waiting for a "a future Radeon Software update".
Maybe next driver? Who knows?
Ofc the use a pre-Crimson driver "solves" the problem introduced in Crimson drivers.
A minor update to Crimson 16.2 has been released, Crimson 16.2.1.
This is identical to 16.2 with the addition of a Far Cry Primal Crossfire Profile.
What a fail!.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 22
As crossfire user i always welcome working CFX profiles.
AFIK the only difference in this new minor release (16.2.1) is the addition of Far Cry Primal CFX profile.
I think it's good for AMD customers to have game support since launch day.
Speaking of CFX profiles, a completely bug-free Fallout 4 CFX profile is still a dream:
The usual solution for CFX problems is still the same: disable it!
Caporegime
Its just bloody stupid that you have to download the 16.2s again, and re-install them, again, just for 1 Crossfire profile.
They used to do little CAP files you could just download, couple of ks, that you could just install, now you have to go through the rigmarole of unstalling the drivers, then redownloading them again (300+mb), then, reinstalling them again, just for that couple of ks, what an absolute ******* joke.
They used to do little CAP files you could just download, couple of ks, that you could just install, now you have to go through the rigmarole of unstalling the drivers, then redownloading them again (300+mb), then, reinstalling them again, just for that couple of ks, what an absolute ******* joke.
Last edited:
That is true, those profile downloads were a lot better than whole new driver version. Dunno why AMD can't use some sort of patcher if there is only minor difference. Perhaps this should be asked them, and maybe they could even deliver it.
Caporegime
Yeah, they started the little CAP files, so you didn't have to wait a month for the next driver that would have it in (when they only did 1 driver a month), as everyone was complaining about it, was ideal that.
How is adding that little profile, into the exact same drivers you already have on, so you have to redownload them again, un-install them, then re-install them again, better ?
No wonder Nvidias smashing them to bloody bits.
Who the hells running them really, is it this guy ?
No, i didn't.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 22
Don't try it, a performance black hole is located right there...
I'm fully aware that this Petition is not going to reach it's goal acting alone.
The only thing making AMD fix this an other things is the public exposition.
Any article on a tech/review site has more force than my rant in some forums or any customer complaint survey filled in AMD site.
Like this one:
XFX Radeon R9 Fury Triple Dissipation Video Card Review
So AMD if you don't fix it for current customers you should at least fix it to sell some cards in the future.