Well that looks like a colossal waste of time performance wise, most benches are under 2% difference, it better make the card a lot quieter.
-
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 Radeon R9 290X with Hawaii GPU pictured, has 512-bit 4GB Memory
- Thread starter LtMatt
- Start date
Well that looks like a colossal waste of time performance wise, most benches are under 2% difference, it better make the card a lot quieter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Now you know why the official benchmarks are all quiet mode 
From what I can see of it games devs are going to continue using DirectX come what may as most of the market supports it. What financial incentive do they have to use Mantle as well if NVidia are not going to support it, all it is going to do is cost the devs money, work and time. Games may run a little better on it, but it does not pay the devs bills.
Well that looks like a colossal waste of time performance wise, most benches are under 2% difference, it better make the card a lot quieter.
There is something odd I have noticed about all these bench/leaked figures.
If you have a review comparing a stock Titan against a stock GTX 780, we all know the Titan will win. If you look closer at the review the Titan will in nearly every game test. Now here is the interesting bit, there will be a couple of game benches where the GTX 780 will come out on top for whatever reason.
The question is why has the GTX 780 not won a single bench against the R9 290X ?
Is someone not giving us the whole picture.
Sounds like a margin of error problem Kaap.
You've missed the point of Mantle completely. Instead of burning huge amounts of a system's CPU/GPU power "pushing through" the inefficiency of DX, you can use that power to run better graphics. You also benefit low end systems. There is never enough rendering power on any system, more can always be used. Freeing up power used for DX is one way of increasing what's available for the game.
That inefficiency overhead is why a £1500 PC isn't doing much better than a £300 console.
Even if the performance gains mantle brings are small, 5-10% it will be massive for me personally. My main game is Battlefield 4 and will be for a long time so perfect for me. That extra performance will really help my setup at 1440p using the Ultra preset+x4 AA. I don't think the only benefit will be a small boost in performance though, i think there will be other benefits to come with it.
I've heard from a reliable source that it will open up better image quality options and optimizations that were previously unavailable because of the demands they placed on the game engine/cpu/gpu.
Not saying mantle on BF4 will offer extra image quality though. That might be for other titles further down the line. But that's what ive heard from a reliable source in the know.
That's pretty cool. So a new form of AA or are we talking something else?
I didn't ask for specifics im afraid so it could be either or. Not sure he would have known or told me anyway. But he was saying that its not all going to be about pure performance increases. Either way he wouldn't have said it if there wasn't any truth to it.
Last edited:
I just did some looking and forbes had quite an interesting read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/10/08/why-amds-mantle-matters/
So because of the timed PR agreement, AMD could have quite a few more devs on board but not allowed to say. This could be quite big and if it is more than just grunt, good times ahead for AMD.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,088
- Location
- London
Do you think you would really require loads of AA at 4K res?
Ryan at PCper reckons you still need AA to get rid of the jaggies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,088
- Location
- London
Well that's a bit poo... I bet Ryan's one of those really anal 'I can see a clear difference between 62 and 64fps' kind of guys 
Well that's a bit poo... I bet Ryan's one of those really anal 'I can see a clear difference between 62 and 64fps' kind of guys
Well going from my screenies earlier, I can't tell the bloody difference and at 4K, it should be even harder. SSAO looked the same as HBAO, which looks the same as 0 MSAA
There is a big difference between paying for optimization and paying for sabotage/neglection.
The thing is if you are not going to go all in at 4K you may as well save your money and use a 1600p monitor.
Not maxing out a 4k monitor is a bit like doing the shopping in a Ferrari.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,257
- Location
- UK.
^^ 290X looks like a beast from those leaked benchmarks. It's good news, as obviously Nvidia feeling the pressure and going to release an even better GeForce to counter, thank you AMD 
Competition brings the best out in company's. I wander which of these new GPU's will be reviewed first?
Competition brings the best out in company's. I wander which of these new GPU's will be reviewed first?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,264
- Location
- Cornwall
Sure, there's a difference, but not sure how big. It still boils down to making it run better on your hardware than your competitor. Either through boosting your performance or sabotaging theirs.
Also, because I don't really follow that sort of thing, what games did Nvidia pay to sabotage AMD performance on and how do we know about it (I'm assuming the developers of the game released some official statement or something)?