• 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.

Project cars benchmarks

mmj_uk said:
No matter what the reason turns out to be what it ultimately boils down to is the way AMD won't entertain developer invites during development, if you don't bother pulling a chair up to the table like Intel and NVidia both did then don't be surprised when the others who do attend shaft you. AMD customers are the ones who are ultimately hurt because AMD just make their usual excuses absolving themselves of all responsibility and their most loyal fans lap it up, so nothing will ever change.

Expect a patch in about 3mths time if you're lucky because 3mths ago AMD were still living in cloud cuckoo land expecting Intel and NVidia to do what's in AMD's best interest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not happy, but the card is excellent in all the other games I play. I'll go and buy a GTX 970 for 250 quid, but selling my R9 290 which I bought for £200 6 months ago will hurt the wallet a bit.
 
Dygaza said:
Has anyone tried those modded win10 drivers on win8.1? People are reporting roughly 20% drawcall performance increases on 3dmark api test over 15.4 drivers. Noticeable differrences in cpu limited game-scenarios aswell.
Click to expand...

They gave me a boost of ~15-20% in pCARS.
 
That's strange, PCARS ran beautifully for me on my 280x in pre-release versions, I could run it max on 1080p with zero issues.
 
mmj_uk said:
No matter what the reason turns out to be what it ultimately boils down to is the way AMD won't entertain developer invites during development, if you don't bother pulling a chair up to the table like Intel and NVidia both did then don't be surprised when the others who do attend shaft you. AMD customers are the ones who are ultimately hurt because AMD just make their usual excuses absolving themselves of all responsibility and their most loyal fans lap it up, so nothing will ever change.

Expect a patch in about 3mths time if you're lucky because 3mths ago AMD were still living in cloud cuckoo land expecting Intel and NVidia to do what's in AMD's best interest.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself, a game patch comes from the game developers so AMD is not expecting a game patch to come from Intel and NVidia to fix issues with AMD hardware and there will likely be a patch at some point, 3-4 months most likely which seems to be the patten with Gameworks titles which is likely part of the agreement so the damage can done to the competition with the reviews and users before it gets fixed.

And if AMD worked with the project cars developers neither the AMD or the developers can touch or optimize the Gameworks code without the permission of NV.

4. Restrictions. You will not, and will not permit others to: (a) modify, translate, decompile, bootleg, reverse engineer, disassemble, or extract the inner workings of any portion of PhysXLab, (b) copy the look-and-feel or functionality of any portion of PhysXLab; (c) remove any proprietary notices, marks, labels, or logos from PhysXLab N or any portion thereof; (d) rent, transfer or use as a service bureau all or some of PhysXLab without NVIDIA’s prior written consent, subject to the requirements of this Agreement; (e) utilize any computer software or hardware which is designed to defeat any copy protection device, should PhysXLab be equipped with such a protection device; or (f) use PhysXLab in any manner that would cause PhysXLab to become subject to an Open Source License. "Open Source License" includes, without limitation, a software license that requires as a condition of use, modification, and/or distribution of such software that PhysXLab be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) be redistributable at no charge. Unauthorized copying of PhysXLab, or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, will result in automatic termination of this license.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Having run the game for the first time tonight, honestly, if I hadn't read about these AMD issues on here I'd be none the wiser. It seems to be working well. For the hardware I'm running I'm more than happy with the frame rate and visuals. 6 year old CPU and £50 worth of RAM. A £200 GPU helps I suppose :p

Most of the graphics settings are close to maximum, and I think I have all the textures on ultra. It's absolutely playable like that. Quite often it's running at 50 FPS, but dipping down to 30 for a few seconds here and there. Pleasantly surprised!
 
Seems to be running well on my 780, somewhere around 55-60FPS with everything maxed (I think). Only finished downloading 12:30 this morning so will take a closer look tonight after work.
 
Final8y said:
You just contradicted yourself, a game patch comes from the game developers so AMD is not expecting a game patch to come from Intel and NVidia to fix issues with AMD hardware and there will likely be a patch at some point, 3-4 months most likely which seems to be the patten with Gameworks titles which is likely part of the agreement so the damage can done to the competition with the reviews and users before it gets fixed.

And if AMD worked with the project cars developers neither the AMD or the developers can touch or optimize the Gameworks code without the permission of NV.
Click to expand...

If AMD worked with the developer during development they could actually get any optmisations they need implemented for their customers prior to release, rather than blaming others after release and having their customers suffer sub par experience for 3mths whilst they ask developers to do certain things. They could even work to get their own pathways added which would bypass the GameWorks code which allegedly slows them down. The fact that they aren't interested until a game hits the shops leaves their customers with unoptimised experiences for long periods and leaves AMD themselves in no position to make any major changes to the game code/engine.
 
Last edited:
shankly1985 said:
Am calling that this game is CPU physX hard coded.. Its not the first game to do this. Arma 3 has hard coded CPU physX..
Click to expand...

What do you even mean by "hard coded"?

If it's PhysX that runs either on CPU or GPU depending on whether you have an AMD card or an Nvidia card then you can 100% disable the GPU acceleration on Nvidia cards.

If you couldn't it wouldn't be PhysX anymore.

And one more time, it quite clearly is CPU PhysX all the time, even during tons of smoke from the tires, Nvidia's own PhysX indicator even says so:

fe04dee7_CPUPhysX2.png
 
_Alatar_ said:
What do you even mean by "hard coded"?

If it's PhysX that runs either on CPU or GPU depending on whether you have an AMD card or an Nvidia card then you can 100% disable the GPU acceleration on Nvidia cards.

If you couldn't it wouldn't be PhysX anymore.

And one more time, it quite clearly is CPU PhysX all the time, even during tons of smoke from the tires, Nvidia's own PhysX indicator even says so:

fe04dee7_CPUPhysX2.png
Click to expand...

Then like I said its Hard-Coded for CPU only.. It can't be run from the GPU.
 
Whats going on with this game?


NV have better DX11 Draw Call efficiency than AMD at the Driver level, strangely it would seem only with Maxwell, or much more so with Maxwell, in the same way a 290X is massively under performing a GTX 960 is as fast as a GTX Titan in PCars.

Which begs the question that has been asked before, are Nvidia deliberately gimping Kepler?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom