AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

[mahius]

So is Justin Bieber, Apple, cigarettes and crappie cars amongst many other things. Sales are what they are and can be got in many ways (like when Intel paid companies to not use AMD processors in laptops, was that AMD selling bad because there products was vastly inferior or back scene corruption?) Still 970 wasn't that big a deal in my mind but let's be honest, sales aren't always an indicator of quality.

Low blow, the 970 thing is often blown out of proportion and is likely not the worst thing NV have done. I check VRAM usage when optimising settings for games and only 1 has ever gone above 3.5GB at 1080p, it's not much of an issue. The remaining 0.5GB is there, but it's relatively slow. I bought my 970, both after the knowing about this small issue and after the AMD 300 series launched. At the time (given pricing) it was the recommended option and it has yet to fail me to this day.

FYI, in that one game where it went above 3.5GB, the RAM usage was 4GB. Game was Space Engineers, post-planets patch (optimisation dropped).

Apologies for discussing something unnecessary to the thread.

Anyhow where are all the DX12 games? There's plenty of DX12 support so that won't be new from Polaris, but we've yet to really see DX12 in full swing.

 

[Overlag]

since Polaris is the best card and cards coming this generation from the world class leader Nano I understand that people are afraid that thought they did a good buy with the 980ti or the 970 but now they know they didnt.

The future is brighter with Polaris, HDR enabled screens is now becoming a reality with AMD Technology with AMD Sync and DX12 games thanks to AMD´s work with Mantle anyone with half a brain knows who the world leader is in graphics.

Better faster cooler and brighter, Polaris GPU
The brighter option

Do you work for AMD or something?

 

[Dave2150]

Low blow, the 970 thing is often blown out of proportion and is likely not the worst thing NV have done. I check VRAM usage when optimising settings for games and only 1 has ever gone above 3.5GB at 1080p, it's not much of an issue. The remaining 0.5GB is there, but it's relatively slow. I bought my 970, both after the knowing about this small issue and after the AMD 300 series launched. At the time (given pricing) it was the recommended option and it has yet to fail me to this day.

FYI, in that one game where it went above 3.5GB, the RAM usage was 4GB. Game was Space Engineers, post-planets patch (optimisation dropped).

Apologies for discussing something unnecessary to the thread.

Anyhow where are all the DX12 games? There's plenty of DX12 support so that won't be new from Polaris, but we've yet to really see DX12 in full swing.

How long do you expect to keep playing at such a low resolution? Might as well get a console, since they run at the same level of resolution.

The whole point of PC gaming (IMO) is to have greater resolution and details and a higher FPS.

 

[Gregster]

How long do you expect to keep playing at such a low resolution? Might as well get a console, since they run at the same level of resolution.

The whole point of PC gaming (IMO) is to have greater resolution and details and a higher FPS.

You run a single 390 (non X) at 1440P Dave?

 

[Dave2150]

You run a single 390 (non X) at 1440P Dave?

MSI 390X @ 1440P, on a 144Hz Freesync display. Very happy with it, freesync range of 40-144Hz, I configure my settings so I don't go below 40FPS and it's all smooth as butter [email protected] also helps with the minimum FPS quite a bit.

 

[Gregster]

MSI 390X @ 1440P, on a 144Hz Freesync display. Very happy with it, freesync range of 40-144Hz, I configure my settings so I don't go below 40FPS and it's all smooth as butter [email protected] also helps with the minimum FPS quite a bit.

So you are happy lowering settings to get playable frame rates but want to have a pop at people who play at 1080P? I would give more credit if you was running a pair of cards to maintain settings but you might as well game at 1080P if you are always lowering settings. You do make some silly statements at times.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Do you work for AMD or something?

I'm pretty sure he would fail the drug testing portion of applying for such a job

 

[Overlag]

So you are happy lowering settings to get playable frame rates but want to have a pop at people who play at 1080P? I would give more credit if you was running a pair of cards to maintain settings but you might as well game at 1080P if you are always lowering settings. You do make some silly statements at times.

If it works for him why does it matter?

I run 1440p @ 144hz on a 7970 "fine".

 

[Gregster]

If it works for him why does it matter?

I run 1440p @ 144hz on a 7970 "fine".

I personally feel if you are happy with what you use, great stuff. I just don't like people who judge others on what they use.

 

[james.miller]

'1080p is a peasant res' Dave in turning down settings to run at 1440p shocker.

That's pretty funny.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Dave has called 1080p a peasant resolution, I'm not sure about others here but I've pretty much given up with people who say things like that just for the sake of it. He also said people buying high end cards like 980Ti for 1080p were fools, even though we have new games like Tomb Raider that push even that resolution pretty hard.

Almost as bad as reading the comment section on wccftech sometimes..

 

[Insanties_birth]

Low blow, the 970 thing is often blown out of proportion and is likely not the worst thing NV have done. I check VRAM usage when optimising settings for games and only 1 has ever gone above 3.5GB at 1080p, it's not much of an issue. The remaining 0.5GB is there, but it's relatively slow. I bought my 970, both after the knowing about this small issue and after the AMD 300 series launched. At the time (given pricing) it was the recommended option and it has yet to fail me to this day.

FYI, in that one game where it went above 3.5GB, the RAM usage was 4GB. Game was Space Engineers, post-planets patch (optimisation dropped).

Apologies for discussing something unnecessary to the thread.

Anyhow where are all the DX12 games? There's plenty of DX12 support so that won't be new from Polaris, but we've yet to really see DX12 in full swing.

Well I was more indicating that sales aren't everything a lot of the 970 sales came off brand power and if it was AMD who had that issue I think we'd never hear the end of it and there would have been far more mud slinging. I did go on to say the 970 didn't have a huge difference from the 390 anyway.

Dx12 is indeed taking its time to get itself out there. Quite disappointed at the slow uptake considering a lower level api should be easier to program for I would have thought.

 

[Mtom]

Well I was more indicating that sales aren't everything a lot of the 970 sales came off brand power and if it was AMD who had that issue I think we'd never hear the end of it and there would have been far more mud slinging. I did go on to say the 970 didn't have a huge difference from the 390 anyway.

Dx12 is indeed taking its time to get itself out there. Quite disappointed at the slow uptake considering a lower level api should be easier to program for I 2ould have thought.

I wonder if the release of Pascal will suddenly change the number of DX12 games / DX12 patches to the already released ones. OFC i'm not into conspiracy theories.

 

[Gripen90]

I like

 

[elrasho]

'1080p is a peasant res' Dave in turning down settings to run at 1440p shocker.

That's pretty funny.

LOL tbh though 1440p does look a lot better than 1080p

 

[Relentless81]

Does it really though,I found it quite to appreciate the difference the difference for the performance hit and completely understand why people prefer high settings at 1080p

 

[james.miller]

LOL tbh though 1440p does look a lot better than 1080p

really?

1440p, low details, no AA, 40fps (Dave's own words) vs 1080p, full detail 4x AA 60fps.

still think 1440p looks better?


I'd take the later every day of the week.

 

[muziqaz]

really?

1440p, low details, no AA, 40fps (Dave's own words) vs 1080p, full detail 4x AA 60fps.

still think 1440p looks better?


I'd take the later every day of the week.

the only reason I use 1440p or 4k is because AA filtering is completely broken or non functional in 99% of the games today. I do have 2 cards so there is no performance drop when going 4k anyway, so if I compare I compare 1080p max settings with AA, and 1440p/4k max settings without AA. And 1440p/4k wins hands down every time.

 

[james.miller]

Well it will do and if you're running 1080p on a 4k display then the upscaling will bork it enough anyway or are you running VSR on a 1080p display? VSR/DSR are great if you have the grunt. I played stalker again recently and tried VSR on that (there's a game with broken aa) and it looked really good, but my little 970 couldnt cope at 5120x2160.

obviously, more is better. but this its really about increasing resolution at the cost of texture quality, AA (not sure i agree that it's broken in practically every game out there but still) and/or FPS. Clearly everybody should be picking 1440p/60 over 1080/60. That's a given.

 

[muziqaz]

Well it will do and if you're running 1080p on a 4k display then the upscaling will bork it enough anyway.

obviously, more is better. but this its really about increasing resolution at the cost of texture quality, AA (not sure i agree that it's broken in practically every game out there but still) and/or FPS. Clearly everybody should be picking 1440p/60 over 1080/60. That's a given.

Every game I played I see how it looks at 1080p, and I say - no thanks, all of them has AA non functional :/