The AMD Driver Thread

shankly1985 · 21 Jul 2015 at 02:45

Davedree said:
These are the comparison to texture like a blur filter is activated at 60hz.

As for the freesync smoothness at low hz, I guess as it's locked to the low rate and it's not jumping from say 60-25fps, but always at 25fps it gives the impression of smoothness? (although you say freesync below 37hz actually locks to 40hz)
i don't have freesync and have never experienced it, Is it like having v-sync on but without the input lag feel.

Yeah it completely removes the input lag.. but also smooths out the frame rate because each refresh is matching the frame rate so long you within the freesync range of the panel.

I see what you mean now and I honestly have no idea.
Could be something I did with Sony Vegas and Video smoothness setting! 25fps might be easier to sharpen out maybe?

shankly1985 · 21 Jul 2015 at 02:52

Ok I know the reason why.. On your 60fps shot you tuck it while I was in motion but on the 25fps you tuck the shot while I was not in motion.

See mine now while I take the screenshots while both are not in motion.

Davedree · 21 Jul 2015 at 03:02

shankly1985 said:
Ok I know the reason why.. On your 60fps shot you tuck it while I was in motion but on the 25fps you tuck the shot while I was not in motion.

See mine now while I take the screenshots while both are not in motion.

I think i'll be looking into a new monitor as i would like to upgrade to 1440p, or would I be better off going for a 4k monitor?

Yeah I've just noticed that, and I know I didn't have hd youtube on either but that was because i was trying to rule out the compression.

Still it points there's something wrong at my end with youtube, as I'm still seeing blur even at the point of no motion. Your pics show no difference.

shankly1985 · 21 Jul 2015 at 03:12

4k would be very nice, but for me personally I like the higher refresh rate. I waited long time for 1440p 144hz before upgrading from 1080p 120Hz..
If refresh rate dint mean that much to you and you have the power to push 4k then I see no reason why not.

meldarthx · 21 Jul 2015 at 09:48

I'm most likely going to 1440P 144 from 1080p 120 - I want free sync - but also not sure if I want to drop 400+ on a monitor

my other issue is I'll be moving soon to a bigger place; means I need things there to like live *screw that* at least another TV lol for the living room; will need another monitor for secondary system.....figure if I'm getting another monitor should be upgrade and then let my son use this one

Lokken86 · 21 Jul 2015 at 10:02

Those who haven't experienced 144hz yet are missing out. Even the desktop is so much nicer. Its like when you first discovered how smooth an iphone screen was.

humbug · 21 Jul 2015 at 10:20

UTmaniac said:
9

With the 1055 DLLs, I was seeing a slight decrease in pCARS over 1046 alone, might try the complete package later/tomorrow.

I think i'll wait for my computer to upgrade to 10

Minstadave · 21 Jul 2015 at 10:26

Lokken86 said:
Those who haven't experienced 144hz yet are missing out. Even the desktop is so much nicer. Its like when you first discovered how smooth an iphone screen was.

I've gone from 1080p TN 144hz to 1440p IPS 60hz and wouldn't go back to be honest. 144hz is smoother but I hate TN panels.

Paradiso · 21 Jul 2015 at 10:58

I've not played Witcher 3 for quiet a while, does anyone know if Quadfire works with it without issue yet ?

Minstadave · 21 Jul 2015 at 11:01

Crossfire doesn't work fantastically yet so I wouldn't hold out hope for quad fire.

Still get stutter on my 7990, especially when horse riding.

melmac · 21 Jul 2015 at 12:18

GoogalyMoogaly said:
I wasn't sure about the Freesync/CCC thing so wanted to play it safe.

I'm not re-installing BF4 just to test Freesync once. I'll keep trying other games as I decide to play them. Freesync working in a game I don't play doesn't benefit me, so I'm not going to try games just to see Freesync.

My monitor has Freesync up to 144Hz so that's what I'm aiming for. If I wanted low framerates I'd have gone with the Asus IPS screen. My monitor does 144hz, Freesync does 144Hz, so for me it's 144fps or GTFO.

Well, it won't be the same in all games. Just like you notice tearing in some games more than others. GW2 isn't really the best test for Freesync/Gsync, it's a pretty smooth game anyway, except maybe in some of the biggest zergs. I don't notice much difference in that game between Freesync on and off. Other games I do, especially first person shooters like BF4 as mentioned earlier.

You are kinda missing the whole point of Freesync/Gsync with your last comment. It's designed more for lower frame rates than frame rates over 100. If you are getting 144fps on a 144Hz monitor then you don't need any sync tech at all. When you are getting 100+ fps you are getting very diminishing returns on freeysnc/gysnc.

GoogalyMoogaly · 21 Jul 2015 at 13:36

melmac said:
Well, it won't be the same in all games. Just like you notice tearing in some games more than others. GW2 isn't really the best test for Freesync/Gsync, it's a pretty smooth game anyway, except maybe in some of the biggest zergs. I don't notice much difference in that game between Freesync on and off. Other games I do, especially first person shooters like BF4 as mentioned earlier.

You are kinda missing the whole point of Freesync/Gsync with your last comment. It's designed more for lower frame rates than frame rates over 100. If you are getting 144fps on a 144Hz monitor then you don't need any sync tech at all. When you are getting 100+ fps you are getting very diminishing returns on freeysnc/gysnc.

Fair comment in both parts. I'm glad someone else has tried it with GW2 and not experienced earth shattering results. I was just stood in a relatively safe spot spinning in circles (as spinning is faster than moving).
First person shooters aren't really my thing these days (partly why I'm not too bothered with VR). I'll keep going though and see how it goes with the games I play as I play them.

As for the second point, I'm similar to shankly really in that I didn't really get the monitor for Freesync (I was aware it supported it and interested in it, but it's not the reason I bought it). I've also got a 4K (IIyama) which is a really nice screen, but only 60Hz. I moved to that from a 120Hz 1080p and never really felt comfortable with the drop down to 60fps. Annoyingly I've not really noticed the 144Hz (well not consciously), maybe I'd notice if I went back to 60Hz though. Also found some games didn't seem to like 4K, at least in crossfire. These were old games so didn't need crossfire, but was still disappointing. So fancied dropping down a resolution and upping the Hz.
But because of that I don't plan my games around running at 40fps, I aim for 144fps. If that's going to mean Freesync is underwhelming, then I'm going to remain underwhelmed.

It was much the same with Mantle, everyone saying how it was designed for weaker CPUs and you wouldn't notice such a huge change with a decent CPU, but I didn't want to sell my 3930K and buy a 4-core AMD just to see some benefit from Mantle. Got moaned at for not getting giddy with excitement over that as well...

MyBrainz · 21 Jul 2015 at 13:46

GoogalyMoogaly said:
It was much the same with Mantle, everyone saying how it was designed for weaker CPUs and you wouldn't notice such a huge change with a decent CPU, but I didn't want to sell my 3930K and buy a 4-core AMD just to see some benefit from Mantle. Got moaned at for not getting giddy with excitement over that as well...

This was true with Mantle though as i tested Mantle in BF4 with my 2700K's gaming OC of 4.5Ghz underclocked to 2.5Ghz and the results were probably around 1-2 FPS lower but still ran nice n smooth

I hope similar results can be found in DX12 when it arrives.

theforce · 21 Jul 2015 at 13:54

Screen freezes in Diablo 3, act II only using Catalyst 15.7 with a Radeon 6850.
Everything continues in the background(sound, monsters dying). If you switch applications it get resolved. Weird.

r7slayer · 21 Jul 2015 at 16:21

Will i see any performance gains in Win 7 with a 290X going from 15.4 catalyst to 15.7?

Can't see any good news performance wise in the notes so if not ill just stick with what iv'e got.

Alexrose1uk · 21 Jul 2015 at 16:47

Yes you should see some minimum framerate/older game improvements as AMD have been busy making drawcall improvements etc whilst working on the Windows 10 drivers. 15.7 were the first officially released drivers which made some of these improvements available for older cards, although I'm not sure whether Win 7 will make a difference/whether the improvements are in only Win 10.

Worth moving to newer drivers though

melmac · 21 Jul 2015 at 17:38

GoogalyMoogaly said:
But because of that I don't plan my games around running at 40fps, I aim for 144fps. If that's going to mean Freesync is underwhelming, then I'm going to remain underwhelmed.

If you are gaming at 144fps you don't need freesync or gsync. I mean what were you expecting? If you play games that don't have much tearing, then again what were you expecting? Both Freesync and Gsync work best in lower frame situations when frame jumps are more noticeable. There aren't too many people that tell the difference between 100 and 140 fps, but there are a lots of gamers who can tell the difference between 40 and 80.

GoogalyMoogaly said:
It was much the same with Mantle, everyone saying how it was designed for weaker CPUs and you wouldn't notice such a huge change with a decent CPU, but I didn't want to sell my 3930K and buy a 4-core AMD just to see some benefit from Mantle. Got moaned at for not getting giddy with excitement over that as well...

You never seem to get excited by anything, it's always doom and gloom. You have a high end CPU so the difference a low level API makes in your setup is minimal. But, in a year or two when games get more demanding and new graphics cards comes out, because of a low level API you won't need to upgrade your CPU to get the best out of the graphics card. Just because it doesn't apply to you now, doesn't make it less exciting.

For me, it's brilliant. I was going to buy a new graphics card but why? With Freesync, games that play between 40 and 60 fps no longer annoy me, they are so smooth. And since I don't play first person shooters competitively anymore, I don't need super high fps. And the other side of things, DX12 is coming out which will help me get more out of my graphics card for future games.

But then again that's just me, I love seeing advances in tech no matter how small whether they apply to me or not.

r7slayer · 21 Jul 2015 at 18:20

Alexrose1uk said:
Yes you should see some minimum framerate/older game improvements as AMD have been busy making drawcall improvements etc whilst working on the Windows 10 drivers. 15.7 were the first officially released drivers which made some of these improvements available for older cards, although I'm not sure whether Win 7 will make a difference/whether the improvements are in only Win 10.

Worth moving to newer drivers though

But are all these improvements on Win10 as the drivers seem to suggest in the notes rather than win 7?
I'm sure they boosted draw call performance in win10 with no mention to other OS?

GoogalyMoogaly · 21 Jul 2015 at 19:53

melmac said:
If you are gaming at 144fps you don't need freesync or gsync. I mean what were you expecting? If you play games that don't have much tearing, then again what were you expecting? Both Freesync and Gsync work best in lower frame situations when frame jumps are more noticeable. There aren't too many people that tell the difference between 100 and 140 fps, but there are a lots of gamers who can tell the difference between 40 and 80.

I didn't realise there was a list of games that support Freesync/GSync so didn't know which ones I wasn't supposed to use it on. Sorry.
I guess I got a bit confused by the fact that the BenQ screen supports Freesync up to 144Hz. I thought that meant it was ok to use it for framerates up to 144fps. Honest mistake on my part.

melmac said:
You never seem to get excited by anything, it's always doom and gloom. You have a high end CPU so the difference a low level API makes in your setup is minimal. But, in a year or two when games get more demanding and new graphics cards comes out, because of a low level API you won't need to upgrade your CPU to get the best out of the graphics card. Just because it doesn't apply to you now, doesn't make it less exciting.

For me, it's brilliant. I was going to buy a new graphics card but why? With Freesync, games that play between 40 and 60 fps no longer annoy me, they are so smooth. And since I don't play first person shooters competitively anymore, I don't need super high fps. And the other side of things, DX12 is coming out which will help me get more out of my graphics card for future games.

But then again that's just me, I love seeing advances in tech no matter how small whether they apply to me or not.

Sorry that I'm not 12 any more and don't wet myself with excitement every time a new technology I barely notice the difference from comes out.

I may not need a new CPU for gaming, but I do more than just game on my PC. Some things do benefit from a faster CPU and will after DX12 is out, so I'll still upgrade my CPU when I want to. Partly because it'd be nice to get DDR4 too. I doubt I'll get as excited as I'm supposed to with DDR4, but I'd still like to get it.

Wouldn't it be dull though if everyone got excited about the same little things?
Or if we weren't all allowed an opinion?

Panos · 21 Jul 2015 at 20:40

Guys,

Does anyone else has the following issue with the 15.7?

I even installed the W10 10162 on my dev disk. With 15.7 when I try to play games, I get a grainy screen, clearly seen tinly tingling black vertical lines across the screen.

When I roll back to 15.6 (or 15.5, 15.4) I do not have that issue. Nor I have that issue on desktop irrespectively the driver.

Same applies to W8.1 on my main windows installation. Had this issue with the 15.15 (or what ever the modded drivers were) also.

BUT NOT with ANY PREVIOUS Catalyst drivers.

Submitted a report to AMD either way.