The AMD Driver Thread

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 02:56

humbug said:
Actually i provided 4 instances of large performance differences in BioShock, not 1, so i'm not just basing it off just one.

As for your PCHarware slides, they show the same level of results i did, its hardly surprising to me, its a small difference simply confirming what i found and reported, it doesn't change the large performance discrepancies between the two BioShock, i had the same results, it did not translate.

Your repeating the same thing again, only this time as a huge wall of text, which i did read.

Prove me wrong, don't repeat the same thing over and over again getting more and more elaborate each time.

Actually prove there my results as inaccurate, less talk more doing.

I've already proven your 30% theory is a loaf of guff, The difference is roughly 15% fps. Your four links do not have the 15.15 drivers on both 290s and 390's. Just because your results didn't provide gains doesn't mean that there aren't other factors involved.
All your results provide is no gain from your 290 but it's not running the same clocks as a r9 390/390x and you're not running a 390/390 in your system to compare.

Until someone owns both and could do a back to back test then it's still theory.

You were trying to claim the grenada was gcn 1.2 first of all, sugarhell provided a link to show that the 290x almost scales to the same tesselation as a 390x on 15.15 so it's not gcn 1.2.

Sugarhell · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:02

Roses are red
Red is a color
So roses are a color

This is my feelings talking with humbug.

Grenada is gcn1.2
Grenada performs the same as hawaii when you compare apple to apple
So hawaii is gcn1.2 too

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:07

Sugarhell said:
Roses are red
Red is a color
So roses are a color

This is my feelings talking with humbug.

Grenada is gcn1.2
Grenada performs the same as hawaii when you compare apple to apple
So hawaii is gcn1.2 too

humbug said:
Because you are using Win 10 ^^^^ its a different OS proven to be higher on GPU performance.

Guru3D used the same 15.15 Driver i did for the 290X, they come up with the same results.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,12.html

So, are my results wrong? maybe. are Guru3D's results then also wrong, a concordance?

Or is PCgames wrong?

the thing is he's been called out for this and he can't even admit it.

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:14

Davedree said:
I've already proven your 30% theory is a loaf of guff, The difference is roughly 15% fps. Your four links do not have the 15.15 drivers on both 290s and 390's. Just because your results didn't provide gains doesn't mean that there aren't other factors involved.
All your results provide is no gain from your 290 but it's not running the same clocks as a r9 390/390x and you're not running a 390/390 in your system to compare.

Until someone owns both and could do a back to back test then it's still theory.

You were trying to claim the grenada was gcn 1.2 first of all, sugarhell provided a link to show that the 290x almost scales to the same tesselation as a 390x on 15.15 so it's not gcn 1.2.

Its 30%, its right there in the slides and my 290 runs at 1040Mhz.

How do you read "I think it may be" did you misunderstand that or are you deliberately trying to blow this whole thing right out of proportion?

There is little difference between the 290X on 15.5 and 15.15 drivers in the PCHardware slide, you can tell me thats prof, but i actually ran the test in the same game that has the 390X with the large discrepancy....

You can chose PCHardwares completely unrelated slide or you can chose mine which gets directly to the question. you had already chosen before you even read mine, as i said before there is no way you were going to take that back.

of course i'm not going to agree with you, you have given me no reason to.
So I'm still waiting for you to do some practical work of your own, then we can talk sensibly about this. instead or relying on others unrelated work to shoot me down.

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:17

humbug said:
Its 30%, its right there in the slides and my 290 runs at 1040Mhz.

How do you read "I think it may be" did you misunderstand that or are you deliberately trying to blow this whole thing right out of proportion?

There is little difference between the 290X on 15.5 and 15.15 drivers in the PCHardware slide, you can tell me thats prof, but i actually ran the test in the same game that has the 390X with the large discrepancy....

You can chose PCHardwares completely unrelated slide or you can chose mine which gets directly to the question. you had already chosen before you even read mine, as i said before there is no way you were going to take that back.

I'm still waiting for you to do some practical work of your own instead or relying on others unrelated work to shoot me down.

what's 30% lol?

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:24

Davedree said:
what's 30% lol?

yeah this has been going on for so long, have you lost the binging of the argument?

Do some of your own tests.

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:28

is this it?

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:35

Davedree said:
is this it?

Is 81 FPS not 30% better than 62?

Sugarhell · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:56

humbug said:
Well is 81 FPS not 30% better than 62?

Man are you serious?

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:01

Sugarhell said:
Man are you serious?

Yes, can you explain yourself? i said the slide has the 390X 30% faster than the 290X

62 + 30% = 81.

Its just moved off drivers to my Maths

Can we get back on topic?

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:02

Sugarhell said:
Man are you serious?

I hope not otherwise he's going to look really silly.

humbug said:
There is little difference between the 290X on 15.5 and 15.15 drivers in the PCHardware slide, you can tell me thats prof, but i actually ran the test in the same game that has the 390X with the large discrepancy....

[/QUOTE]

The 290x in that slide used only 15.5. The 390 and 390x only uses 15.15 how is that conclusive?

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:08

Davedree said:
I hope not otherwise he's going to look really silly.

The 290x in that slide used only 15.5. The 390 and 390x only uses 15.15 how is that conclusive?

Before i respond to this:

"how is that conclusive?" conclusive to what? you would not be suggesting this is the slide i was talking about would you? because you know that ins't true.

That rebuff makes no sense here as its completely unrelated to this conversation so far.

so again. conclusive to what?

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:12

humbug said:
Before i respond to this:

"how is that conclusive?" conclusive to what? you would not be suggesting this is the slide i was talking about would you? because you know that ins't true.

That rebuff makes no sense here as its completely unrelated to this conversation so far.

so again. conclusive to what?

what slide you referencing to?

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:12

Davedree said:
what slide you referencing to?

The one in your post.

Sugarhell · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:13

So i did some tessmark tests with my 7970

15.3 x16
http://puu.sh/iE7A2/52a0e4a030.jpg
15.15 x16
http://puu.sh/iE8IO/9c64f636fa.jpg

Also i gained 4 fps on bioshock with the new drivers. Not bad for a 3 years old card.

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:19

I haven't got all morning Dave

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:19

Sugarhell said:
So i did some tessmark tests with my 7970

15.3 x16
http://puu.sh/iE7A2/52a0e4a030.jpg
15.15 x16
http://puu.sh/iE8IO/9c64f636fa.jpg

Also i gained 4 fps on bioshock with the new drivers. Not bad for a 3 years old card.

Thats' great i downloaded it for my 7950 just shows what these drivers can do hey. I'll get round to some testing too this weekend.

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:21

humbug said:
I haven't got all morning Dave

If you're on about this one then what's there to say?

Tesselation is the kinda the same.

What i'd like you to see is this one more time.

humbug said:
Well thats one, here are the first 4 i pulled from Google all of which confirm what i just tested.

Hawaii in original form did not just get a 30% boost in performance and its not the Drivers that do it, sorry, but your link is a nonsense.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-390x-gaming-8g-oc-review,18.html
Guru3d saw 30%
ref 290x vs 390x 81fps-62fps/62*100= 30%

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_review/11
(take your pick theres a variety of 290s which just proves my point, that the 30% isn't reflective)

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84194-sapphire-radeon-r9-390x-tri-x/?page=5
ref 290x vs 390x saph tri-x 69fps-78fps = 13%

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/11.html
ref 290x vs msi gaming 390x 92.6 -105fps =12.3%

humbug · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:24

Davedree said:
If you're on about this one then what's there to say?

Tesselation is the kinda the same.

What i'd like you to see is this one more time.

I'm getting really tired of answering this question over and over again.

I'm actually far more interested in your last slide, your on to something with that one but i don't know where you are coming from when you say "how is this conclusive?"

Davedree · 27 Jun 2015 at 04:28

humbug said:
I'm getting really tired of answering this question over and over again.

I'm actually far more interested in your last slide, your on to something with that one but i don't know where you are coming from when you say "how is this conclusive"

Well if you you admit the 30% is only seen in guru3d but not in other reviewers then we'll get along fine.

As to the other slide conclusive I thought that was the slide you were stating the r9 290x was run on 15.5 and 15.15, but then i realised you meant the tesselation slide. As to the conclusive i'm saying it's not conclusive because that test wasn't carried out with the r9 290x using the 15.15 driver, so it performs the same as the 390 2560 8gb, but i want to see 15.15 results on the 290x