The Fury X coped just fine with GameWorks effects when they were usable and coped very well once AMD released new drivers.
-
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.
AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
The Fury X coped just fine with GameWorks effects when they were usable and coped very well once AMD released new drivers.
As someone you has enjoyed PC games for over 15 years, and had Nvidia and Ati, I did not know any of that.
Maybe that's the reason, to the average Joe, 80% of Nvidia customers will just get blasted with marketing.
Example I have a big group of friends, and all of them, think AMD is crap, 2 of them own 980tis and the rest with 970 and 760 ect.
its Apple, android all over again.....they don't know any better (Nvidia is king in their eyes)
Don't believe everything you read on the internetz. Sometimes people let bias dictate their thoughts
Yeah, lets wait and see what happens tomorrow. I think I will benchmark it with 16.1 and then do it again with 16.1.1 and post any differences. I hope it has a benchmark utility like the last one coz that will make it easier and quicker. I dont usually benchmark but this could be interesting either way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,211
Don't believe everything you read on the internetz. Sometimes people let bias dictate their thoughts
It has or is all happening though. It just can't be proven 100% if it's intentional or not. We know how this goes though
so no point in going over it again.Don't believe everything you read on the internetz. Sometimes people let bias dictate their thoughts
Yes they do Greg
It has or is all happening though. It just can't be proven 100% if it's intentional or not. We know how this goes though
About time that it was investigated one way or another by an independant authority to see once and for all whether any of this is true.
Who would have thought that 6 months ago VW, Audi and others were knowingly misrepresenting their emission test results.
Definitely one for Panorama methinks!
Last edited:
Who would have thought that 6 months ago VW, Audi and others were knowingly misrepresenting their emission test results.
Probably half the motoring trade and the government testing labs too.
This would be a genius piece of comic writing but unfortunately I think you are being serious.
Put your argument forward in a logical way backed up by proof and people may take you seriously.
Hint - NVidia don't go out of their way to screw their customers.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I used only the examples that were commonly known to be true precisely for the reason that proving it is tiresome and to avoid the kind of completely daft replies like yours.
Why don't you google for the original spec on DX10, the articles about MS removing features, Assassins creed getting a patch to DX10.1 because AMD supported it(basically all the stuff removed from the original 10 put back in later), which AMD supported and Nvidia didn't, the performance improvement and that this patch was pulled at Nvidia's request.
Oh, let me guess, tessellating water invisible to the user and flat surface road pylon things in Crysis 2 hasn't had a half dozen articles proving it either, right? Nvidia users got flat pylons tessellated to insane levels(for a flat surface ANY tessellation is too much, let alone the amount they used) and the sole reason for this was it hurt AMD hardware more than Nvidia... but the point stands, it still reduced performance on Nvidia cards for no IQ benefit at all. These examples are extremely well known, everyone knows they are true, they aren't debatable. There is a single reason to over tessellation a flat surface with no improvement in the IQ at all, one, with literally not one other possibility.
Nvidia does this time and time again and now that Nvidia has an architecture that doesn't support key performance enhancing DX12 effects, games that literally have DX12 support are having it removed for desktop because it will improve AMD hardware more than Nvidia. That is Nvidia screwing it's customers, Nvidia customers gain lets say for example 10 fps and AMD customers gain 20fps, to prevent the AMD gains they hold back the Nvidia gains on purpose. How is that not screwing over your own customers?
Why don't you google for the original spec on DX10, the articles about MS removing features, Assassins creed getting a patch to DX10.1 because AMD supported it(basically all the stuff removed from the original 10 put back in later), which AMD supported and Nvidia didn't, the performance improvement and that this patch was pulled at Nvidia's request.
Oh, let me guess, tessellating water invisible to the user and flat surface road pylon things in Crysis 2 hasn't had a half dozen articles proving it either, right? Nvidia users got flat pylons tessellated to insane levels(for a flat surface ANY tessellation is too much, let alone the amount they used) and the sole reason for this was it hurt AMD hardware more than Nvidia... but the point stands, it still reduced performance on Nvidia cards for no IQ benefit at all. These examples are extremely well known, everyone knows they are true, they aren't debatable. There is a single reason to over tessellation a flat surface with no improvement in the IQ at all, one, with literally not one other possibility.
Nvidia does this time and time again and now that Nvidia has an architecture that doesn't support key performance enhancing DX12 effects, games that literally have DX12 support are having it removed for desktop because it will improve AMD hardware more than Nvidia. That is Nvidia screwing it's customers, Nvidia customers gain lets say for example 10 fps and AMD customers gain 20fps, to prevent the AMD gains they hold back the Nvidia gains on purpose. How is that not screwing over your own customers?
The thing with DX10 is true. They released a *******ised version since Nvidia's hardware for that generation did not fit the original spec. the original DX10 spec then became DX10.1. And Nvidia would not have new hardware ready for another year.
It has or is all happening though. It just can't be proven 100% if it's intentional or not. We know how this goes though
Well this probably isn't the thread for it either and I did try to get the thread back on topic but if you and DM have anything to back up those claims, I am happy to read it, otherwise I will have to put it with the conspiracy theories claims like many other things
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,211
Well this probably isn't the thread for it either and I did try to get the thread back on topic but if you and DM have anything to back up those claims, I am happy to read it, otherwise I will have to put it with the conspiracy theories claims like many other things
Don't believe everything you read on the internetz. Sometimes people let bias dictate their thoughts
In what way was this getting the thread back on topic. There is nothing about Polaris at all.
In fact this comment asking me to back things up could be a troll as well as you know the last thread got shut down which had plenty of evidence in it but went nowhere.
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with this statement.
Crysis2 was their first DX11 work,
Some people use the fact that the water was invisible and yet still rendered as a reason for a delbrate act of sabotaging AMD performance, the thing is the ocean in any engine is global, the environment always sits over such a body of water,
There are ways to cull it's Tessellation but it has not always been an option and I'm not sure they had that ability back then.
As for those over tessellated blocks ect... Those are assets created in things like 3DS-MAX, if not done correctly or incompetently they can end up like that.
Crysis2 to me does not look like something that's deliberate.
Cytek programmers are very visible on the cry-dev forum, they don't like features that are vendor specific and have rejected request for engine level Gameworks and TressFx implementation, explaining their dislike of vendor locked features.
It's why they have an open source physics backend, namely bullet.
With GW assets it's a different matter, either Nvidia programmers are incompetent or they know exactly what they are doing.
Some people use the fact that the water was invisible and yet still rendered as a reason for a delbrate act of sabotaging AMD performance, the thing is the ocean in any engine is global, the environment always sits over such a body of water,
There are ways to cull it's Tessellation but it has not always been an option and I'm not sure they had that ability back then.
As for those over tessellated blocks ect... Those are assets created in things like 3DS-MAX, if not done correctly or incompetently they can end up like that.
Crysis2 to me does not look like something that's deliberate.
Cytek programmers are very visible on the cry-dev forum, they don't like features that are vendor specific and have rejected request for engine level Gameworks and TressFx implementation, explaining their dislike of vendor locked features.
It's why they have an open source physics backend, namely bullet.
With GW assets it's a different matter, either Nvidia programmers are incompetent or they know exactly what they are doing.
Read what I said, DX11 and Tessellation was new at the time, tessellated watter under landmass is not uncommon even today.
Over tessellated assests could easily be a result of not understanding it in it's early days or just limitations of the technology at the time, if you look at those assets they have very smooth edges, that requires a lot of polygons, skill through lack of knowledge or simply the inability of the software to area cull can explain the reason for the mass of polygons in the asset.
Last edited:
Completely agree with this, except the bit in red, I don't think it is that simple, as you know you don't just fire up cryEngine and out pops a finished game, it is a tool that lets you configure and adjust loads of different things to get the results you want. you really think that you start up hairworks and it instantly draws geralts hair, of course not. I'm my view it is the developers that are making these mistakes not NVidia.
Cue the call of the not so rare red team member shouting that NVidia are paying them to do it. All I can say is it seems that NVidia have massive clout seeing as they supposedly can bully everyone including Microsoft into doing what they want, just so they can hurt AMD more than themselves.
As they say "Money Talks" and Nvidia have a hell of a lot more than AMD. There also seems to be too much of this going around at the moment for everything to be a conspiracy theory. I cannot see the Nvidia driver engineers being incompetent, so that only leaves one choice left.
Where there is smoke.......