Will you buy game titles that are optimised for and by AMD ?
-
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.
Borderlands 2 PhysX can be forced to run on the CPU
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Will you buy game titles that are optimised for and by AMD ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- London
Plays just fine on AMD, hardly nerfed in favour of Nvidia.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, but the point is, games optimised by AMD aren't ALSO deoptimised for Nvidia unlike the reverse which happens frequently.
AMD helped Codemasters put DX11 into Dirt 3, it runs better on Nvidia hardware, all that effort AMD put in and helped the company helped EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO PLAYED THE GAME, regardless of the hardware they had.
AMD optimised games are merely games AMD help to optimise, they don't help game companies optimise purely for AMD in any way outside the norm, helping them find performance problems and working with them on drivers. They took one of the Stalker games which was an Nvidia title, which was a crash pile of turd and had no special Nvidia features, Nvidia ignored it, the Stalker guys asked AMD for help adding dx11 to it. AMD obliged, it turned into an AMD supported game rather than Nvidia, it got more stable, had new features added, and Nvidia users also got all the benefit.
IF AMD add features for AMD only I'll be the first to criticise, AMD's help with game dev's help all gamers, Nvidia, AMD and even people with Intel gpu's. Nvidia help with a game, Nvidia users suffer reduced framerate, AMD users suffer a more pronounced framerate drop and I don't think they give a crap about Intel.
Wait until later on in the game when the PhysX effects really kicks in - that's when the CPU based performance cripples.
From what I can tell that video is the start of the game.
It still works on AMD cards but just without the PhysX. If you want to miss out on playing the game with your friends as some kind of principle point then that is your choice of course.
I read something about some kind of hack allowing it to work on AMD GPU's. Not sure in reality how effective it is at rendering the same IQ on the points later down the line where the difference between on/off is quite a lot. (e.g. the Nvidia PR video).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- London
Game is so boring (for me) though, i'll try an drag myself to the busier parts later on
Wouldn't of thought if I oc to 5ghz it should be that crippled? As others have said, it would be great if there was a PhysX/OpenGL hack.Game is so boring (for me) though, i'll try an drag myself to the busier parts later on
I'm not sure mate if it's *THAT* bad on a heavily OC'd CPU as I can't test it myself.
A user on here somewhere (can't find
) did say it was fine and running smoothly on "medium" until they actually "got into the game a few hours in" or words to that effect.Read above regarding the mod as well... be good if it does work.
Last edited:
5-6 FPS less
In SLI maybe yes. A simple google search shows nvidia users with single 680's complaining about 30-40 fps. But a 7950 can max sleeping dogs for £230 with 60+ fps. So explain how paying nvidia prices gets you what you pay for lol.
Nah for single card still as well mate. The difference is not gigantic although big enough to be considered noticeable.
Link:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22735398&postcount=201
Have a look at my thread though for SLI 680 performance in Surround (max setttings):
Minimums of 4; Averages of 11 ish
Also speaking generally:
eh hmmm, 680 cheaper than 7970 when I and many other 680 others bought eh hmmmm... albeit not now! Or even close! Granted.
Last edited:
Nah for single card still as well mate. The difference is not gigantic although big enough to be considered noticeable.
Link:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22735398&postcount=201
Have a look at my thread though for SLI 680 performance in Surround (max setttings):
Minimums of 4; Averages of 11 ish
Also speaking generally:
eh hmmm, 680 cheaper than 7970 when I and many other 680 others bought eh hmmmm... albeit not now! Or even close! Granted.
lol, 11fps average. I said 7950 not 7970 btw
And even then the cheapest 680 on ocuk is 370, cheapest 7970 is 300.
lol, 11fps average. I said 7950 not 7970 btw
And even then the cheapest 680 on ocuk is 370, cheapest 7970 is 300.
It doesn't matter anyway I was just referring to your original point to which the following is of interest:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...&postcount=201
7950/7970 even/faster on Extreme AA respectively although as I show on the link above not game breakingly so
. That's now not back for the first month of 680 release when the opposite was true where the 680 was cheaper.
Anyway off topic and all that
.
For the money you save getting an AMD card you can always get a cheap nvidia second hand nvidia card for physx as well if you are that bothered. Sell all those game codes and get a cheap nvidia card thats what I say 
I think the physx effects look especially good on borderlands 2 because the rest of the games graphics are so poor
Whats that expression, lipstick on a pig or something
I think the physx effects look especially good on borderlands 2 because the rest of the games graphics are so poor
Whats that expression, lipstick on a pig or something
It doesn't matter anyway I was just referring to your original point to which the following is of interest:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...&postcount=201
7950/7970 even/faster on Extreme AA respectively although as I show on the link above not game breakingly so
That's now not back for the first month of 680 release when the opposite was true where the 680 was cheaper.
Anyway off topic and all that
Well many 680 users are complaining of low fps using extreme AA on other forums.
The only reason the 680 was cheaper on release is because nvidia released it at that price to try and win sales. AMD lowered the prices straight away so 7970 has been cheaper over a larger time period than the 680 has.
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that mate, I'm just saying that when the 680 came out it was cheaper so all the "waiting to see what Kepler does" sales went only one way
.I personally wouldn't play Sleeping Dogs on a single card with Extreme AA whether is be Nvidia or AMD. Performance is bad on both but that's just me
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that mate, I'm just saying that when the 680 came out it was cheaper so all the "waiting to see what Kepler does" sales went only one way
And I was just pointing out that it works both ways. You said extreme AA isn't game breaking for sleeping dogs. Physx isn't gamebreaking on AMD, I could easily put in a £20 9800gt and run it high lol and the combo of a 7970 with a cheap physx card would still be cheaper than a 680.
That guy who I quoted who said you get what you pay for is a moron.
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant the difference between 680/7970 performance in that game is not as was being made out and not the difference between playable/unplayable. It's unplayable on both IMO with extreme AA just 5-6 FPS better (maybe more depending on the Nvidia card OC) on AMD.
True.
It's far too early to be shouting PhysX's praises from the rooftops. This is the only game so far that I can think of where it's been implemented and actually adds something decent rather than token
.