• 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 "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

opethdisciple said:
If it is... Why is this news now?
Click to expand...

Because now you can buy 8 cores and 16 threads for £320.

Previously you needed £1300 for a 6900K, so it wasn't high up on anybody's list.

Also, games were not native Vulkan/DX12. Just now we're beginning to see decent DX11->DX12 conversions after several patches (RoTR being one of them) and decent AMD drivers that can make use if those extra cores.
 
akarypid said:
Because now you can buy 8 cores and 16 threads for £320.

Previously you needed £1300 for a 6900K, so it wasn't high up on anybody's list.

Also, games were not native Vulkan/DX12. Just now we're beginning to see decent DX11->DX12 conversions after several patches (RoTR being one of them) and decent AMD drivers that can make use if those extra cores.
Click to expand...

Sweet! Makes me feel better for spending the money!
 
opethdisciple said:
If it is... Why is this news now?
Click to expand...
As @akarypid said, now we can buy an 8/16 with good IPC for £320. So the reviews are not limited to one off like it has happened with the last two enthusiast lines of Intel CPUs.

See the reviews with the 6900K for example. They were one off last year. They never compare it on every review like it happens with Ryzen to scratch their heads about the performance.
Last month alone we have more Ryzen reviews than three years of Haswell-E and Broadwell-E.

And because of that everyone started asking how the performance is like that.

Hence when I say everything runs better with the 6800K @ 4Ghz /1700X at stock speeds, compared to the 6700K @ 4.7, with both the Nano or the FuryX, I am classed as a lunatic I have no idea what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
As @akarypid said, now we can buy an 8/16 with good IPC for £320. So the reviews are not limited to one off like it has happened with the last two enthusiast lines of Intel CPUs.

See the reviews with the 6900K for example. They were one off last year. They never compare it on every review like it happens with Ryzen to scratch their heads about the performance.
Last month alone we have more Ryzen reviews than three years of Haswell-E and Broadwell-E.

And because of that everyone started asking how the performance is like that.

Hence when I say everything runs better with the 6800K @ 4Ghz /1700X at stock speeds, compared to the 6700K @ 4.7, with both the Nano or the FuryX, I am classed as a lunatic I have no idea what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

Loon!!!

---

I joke! I'm a loon too. Set up my 1700 today. :p

Now just need an AMD GPU.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
That's true, polaris has dedicated hardware to help with Tessellation.

Even then Hairworks hits performance so damn hard. I'll never forget how great it felt to get SLI 980Ti so I could max the game at 1440p with Hairworks.

Then came Tomb Raider and Pure Hair, a 4fps hit for better hair was great.
Click to expand...

Purehair is used in ROTTR - sadly AMD shut up about it being used in the game and Nvidia kind of trolled them slightly about.
 
Panos said:
As @akarypid said, now we can buy an 8/16 with good IPC for £320. So the reviews are not limited to one off like it has happened with the last two enthusiast lines of Intel CPUs.

See the reviews with the 6900K for example. They were one off last year. They never compare it on every review like it happens with Ryzen to scratch their heads about the performance.
Last month alone we have more Ryzen reviews than three years of Haswell-E and Broadwell-E.

And because of that everyone started asking how the performance is like that.

Hence when I say everything runs better with the 6800K @ 4Ghz /1700X at stock speeds, compared to the 6700K @ 4.7, with both the Nano or the FuryX, I am classed as a lunatic I have no idea what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

Well more like the last one enthusiast line - the Core i7 5820K went as low as £250 at one point,and was only slightly more than a Core i7 6700K. Remember all the threads about people asking which one was better??

Intel decided to increase the price of the Core i7 6800K over the Core i7 5820K though and it made less sense to even consider one over the i7 6700K. Intel only has themselves to blame since they decided to jack prices up with BW-E.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Purehair is used in ROTTR - sadly AMD shut up about it being used in the game and Nvidia kind of trolled them slightly about.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the first Tomb Raider used the AMD TressFX and almost everyone was up on their arms that should be disabled when using Nvidia cards and testing performance?
Some ever got their pitchforks for the sacrilege to use such AMD technologies on the title which weren't AMD exclusive but NV had to improve their drivers to handle it. Instead Nvidia tech should be used (PhysX then) to run only on NV cards.........
 
Panos said:
Wasn't the first Tomb Raider used the AMD TressFX and almost everyone was up on their arms that should be disabled when using Nvidia cards and testing performance?
Some ever got their pitchforks for the sacrilege to use such AMD technologies on the title which weren't AMD exclusive but NV had to improve their drivers to handle it. Instead Nvidia tech should be used (PhysX then) to run only on NV cards.........
Click to expand...

At launch I think there were some performance issues on Nvidia cards,but there was a driver update which was released soon after IIRC. Personally I thought it was great it was cross platform - I had a GTX660 at the time and it seemed to run fine even on that,so I kept it on for my playthrough. I remember some people were excessively complaining about the odd issue here and there,but I thought it worked reasonably well.
 
Panos said:
295X2 beating TXP on DX12, by 30%+ in a Gameworks game. Gold :D
Click to expand...

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Look at 8 minutes onwards - it seems like the Titan XP they used against he R9 295X2 had like 30% to 50% worse GPU utilisation!!
Click to expand...

Yep there's 'a bug' as he says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRCK7RfbUg&t=9m20s

AdoredTV is right. Nvidia needs to sort that out before Vega. Their driver can't feed their card fast enough, whereas the AMD driver can..

EDIT: I wonder if this is due to the GPU architecture, meaning that async compute stuff really provides for that huge an impact. If that's the case and we're seeing the true limit of the Pascal architecture (i.e. it's a hardware limitation and that's the best their software can do), then it would be really bad for NVidia... Having said that, the difference seems to huge for that to be true so maybe it's just the NVidia software (which CAN be fixed).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom