Do AMD provide any benefit to the retail GPU segment.

[humbug]

I don't like either of the control panels.
Nvidia's looks really dated, but I sort of like the simplicity.
AMD's looks better and less dated, although it is starting to look a little dated now (IMO). What I dislike the most about AMD's is that it looks like it was made for a smartphone or tablet with everything being ****-off great big buttons that look like I'm going to be dabbing at them with my fat fingers rather than a mouse pointer. Make it about 1/4th or 1/8th of the size and I think it would seem much more reasonable and useable.

I've not used the GeForce Experience thing so I've no idea what that's like.

Maybe what both of them need is the ability to use skins (like Afterburner) including community made ones. Maybe then everyone could find something they liked and it would take the burden off of AMD and Nvidia.

What I dislike the most about AMD's is that it looks like it was made for a smartphone or tablet with everything being ****-off great big buttons that look like I'm going to be dabbing at them with my fat fingers rather than a mouse pointer.

That's probably no coincidence given there is an AMD Smart Phone CP app, because of course there is.... actually jokes aside it is pretty good, apart from monitoring tools and GPU setting remotely from the app it also streams your desktop or from PC game to your Smart TV, Tablet, Phone, Laptop, and all at the same time.

 

[humbug]

Just reading up on it now, v5 you can have up to 4 players streamed locally over Wifi, like a 4 player LAN party.

I mean, that's ^^^^ a nice bonus.... bring the family together for a 4 way LAN party.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Just reading up on it now, v5 you can have up to 4 players streamed locally over Wifi, like a 4 player LAN party.

I mean, that's ^^^^ a nice bonus.... bring the family together for a 4 way LAN party.

But does it need to look like that on my PC? I'm fine with the smartphone/tablet looking interface on a smartphone or tablet.

Does sound quite nifty that though, even if I doubt I'll ever use it.

 

[humbug]

But does it need to look like that on my PC? I'm fine with the smartphone/tablet looking interface on a smartphone or tablet.

Does sound quite nifty that though, even if I doubt I'll ever use it.

No... i know what you mean and i'm with you on that, when my PC starts mimicking phones is when i lose the will to live.

 

[Man-In-A-Teapot]

No... i know what you mean and i'm with you on that, when my PC starts mimicking phones is when i lose the will to live.

Well, at least most of the PC games aren't like the F2P mobile games with relentless in-app purchases. I don't game on my phone, just have 2 pinball games on it that I 've not played in over a year.

 

[TheRealDeal]

I don't like either of the control panels.
Nvidia's looks really dated, but I sort of like the simplicity.
AMD's looks better and less dated, although it is starting to look a little dated now (IMO). What I dislike the most about AMD's is that it looks like it was made for a smartphone or tablet with everything being ****-off great big buttons that look like I'm going to be dabbing at them with my fat fingers rather than a mouse pointer. Make it about 1/4th or 1/8th of the size and I think it would seem much more reasonable and useable.

I've not used the GeForce Experience thing so I've no idea what that's like.

Maybe what both of them need is the ability to use skins (like Afterburner) including community made ones. Maybe then everyone could find something they liked and it would take the burden off of AMD and Nvidia.

Come on mate there is no comparison. Nvidia last put some effort into there's just before the Dinosaurs went extinct. AMD have made major changes to there's and keep adding to it. Both are easy to use but the market leader with all that cash should be proving a better experience.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Come on mate there is no comparison. Nvidia last put some effort into there's just before the Dinosaurs went extinct. AMD have made major changes to there's and keep adding to it. Both are easy to use but the market leader with all that cash should be proving a better experience.

What? I don't like either, that's my opinion. You're welcome to your own, but that's mine.

 

[TNA]

What? I don't like either, that's my opinion. You're welcome to your own, but that's mine.

No. You have to say AMD one is better!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Having used both, the AMD software is just more functional and the UI is better because the Nvidia software hides settings under obscure menus. For example, I tend to undervolt and use custom curves, and have to use third party tools like MSI Afterburner to do so with my current dGPU - the AMD software integrates this as standard functionality.Even their CPU software is far more functional than the Intel equivalent.

Since MSI Afterburner is coded by a Russian guy development nearly ended due to the financial sanctions on Russia. This almost left Nvidia dGPU owners without a way to do things with their dGPUs. This should be part of the standard driver suite. With Nvidia having higher margins than Apple, you would think that they could be bothered to add this instead of relying on MSI, etc to fund development.

 

[TNA]

Having used both, the AMD software is just more functional and the UI is better because the Nvidia software hides settings under obscure menus. For example, I tend to undervolt and use custom curves, and have to use third party tools like MSI Afterburner to do so with my current dGPU - the AMD software integrates this as standard functionality. Since MSI Afterburner is coded by a Russian guy development nearly ended due to the financial sanctions on Russia almost leaving Nvidia dGPU owners without a way to do things with their dGPUs. This should be part of the standard driver suite.

Yeah, I prefer AMD’s one also. No idea why Nvidia do not update their’s. That said, it bothers me less these days as I hardly ever have to launch it.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, I prefer AMD’s one also. No idea why Nvidia do not update their’s. That said, it bothers me less these days as I hardly ever have to launch it.

I use it because I run a custom undervolt curve on my current card.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Yeah, I try to use both as little as possible.

I do prefer doing the fan curve, clocking and undervolting in Afterburner though, rather than in the driver's. Mostly because I use both AMD and Nvidia cards so Afterburner gives me a consistent interface (and I like the graphs).

In fact, can you do everything in Afterburner with 7900 cards or are there some bits you can only do in the driver's? Cuz that would allow me to reduce the install "level".

 

[humbug]

Having used both, the AMD software is just more functional and the UI is better because the Nvidia software hides settings under obscure menus. For example, I tend to undervolt and use custom curves, and have to use third party tools like MSI Afterburner to do so with my current dGPU - the AMD software integrates this as standard functionality.Even their CPU software is far more functional than the Intel equivalent.

Since MSI Afterburner is coded by a Russian guy development nearly ended due to the financial sanctions on Russia. This almost left Nvidia dGPU owners without a way to do things with their dGPUs. This should be part of the standard driver suite. With Nvidia having higher margins than Apple, you would think that they could be bothered to add this instead of relying on MSI, etc to fund development.

Yeah i like Ryzen Master too, everything that matters in the BIOS you find in the software and any setting you set in it then takes in the BIOS.

AMD have put a lot of work in to making enthusiast level software, good software, for both CPU's and GPU's.

Not so long ago first party software like this was a mare dream for people like us. And here it is, now underrated and largely ignored.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

I've not used Ryzen Master since the early days and it seemed to offer very little then.
I was going to ask what it's used for, but I guess I shouldn't as it'd be taking the thread off topic.

 

[humbug]

I've not used Ryzen Master since the early days and it seemed to offer very little then.
I was going to ask what it's used for, but I guess I shouldn't as it'd be taking the thread off topic.

Well there ^^^^ it is, everything you see there is settings, Your Curves are here.

Not off topic, GPU's, CPU,'s, its all relevant to the question.

 

[humbug]

I think AMD are still stuck in the "Black Edition" days, they are a company of engineers, nerds, people who think we want and like these tools.

Largley that may no longer be true, but don't tell them that. i like them, i want them.

 

[humbug]

AMD even have a button in the GPU drivers that will tighten the timings of the Memory IC's on the GPU.

Who else but AMD would think of something like that and then add it to their drivers for us to play with?

 

[kieran_read]

Im sorry but if a 2013 game that looks like that needs more than 8gb of vram, then what should eg Cyberpunk require? 40gb? If that's not awful optimization then I don't what to tell you. The game looks way worse than gamas that require 1/4th the vram. Crysis 3 came out around the same time, and so did witcher 3.

Have you even played Rust? It actually looks very good at 4k it's a very good looking game especially for a game that old.

What are you expecting graphics wise? With a game would that's controlled by players who can build literally anything they want it's surprising that don't need more memory to me.

A 700 player server with hundreds of buildings some ridiculous in size and looking as it does it's a very well optimized game.

 

[humbug]

Have you even played Rust? It actually looks very good at 4k it's a very good looking game especially for a game that old.

What are you expecting graphics wise? With a game would that's controlled by players who can build literally anything they want it's surprising that don't need more memory to me.

A 700 player server with hundreds of buildings some ridiculous in size and looking as it does it's a very well optimized game.

No he's never played it, he doesn't even know what it is, he only knows Cyberpunk.

 

[kieran_read]

No he's never played it, he doesn't even know what it is, he only knows Cyberpunk.

Explains it, I think is a great looking game, I play in 1440p as I can't run it in 4k but it looks fantastic for its age and they have significantly improved the graphics over the years.

You can't compare a single player game to a multiplayer game especially a multiplayer game where everything is player built.

One of the biggest issue is lighting, you have to restrict how good they look as they can severely impact FPS depending on the system. Now Cyberpunk the only good thing about the way it looks is the lighting everything else is a bit meh in all honesty.

For him to compare a 500+ player game which has to restrict lighting as it would impact the most with a single player game which literally specialises in lighting (can be argued its the only good looking thing about it) it's just a ridiculous argument.