• 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.

The AMD Driver Thread

LoadsaMoney said:
GOW4 support was already in the 16.9.2s, which AMD have confirmed.
ZQ5f3rm.png

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2628-gears-of-war-4-gpu-benchmark-on-pc

AMD the kings of Dx12 ey, 970 and 1060 beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Given how **** nvidia cards are in all other DX 12/vulkan games i.e. as in seeing little to no gains, I be willing to bet that a patch or driver update will soon sort that out. Who knows, it might be like ROTTR, first DX 12 patch was awful where AMD gained nothing then when they released another patch to improve dx 12 coding further as well as async, AMD cards gained massively...

Also, these benchmarks seem a bit odd as when you look at nvidia's official benchmarks, all these results don't seem to be anywhere close to their official results...

Either way, it shall be interesting to see some proper comparisons by DF ;)
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
GOW4 support was already in the 16.9.2s, which AMD have confirmed.

ZQ5f3rm.png



http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2628-gears-of-war-4-gpu-benchmark-on-pc

AMD the kings of Dx12 ey, 970 and 1060 beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Why not use this chart.

http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/10/gears-of-war-4-1080p-100686257-large.png

Has the stock throttling RX480 on par with the 1060 and OC'd 970. I will wait to see what happens with this game before making my mind up.

Those results you have used seem to show AMD in the worst light. Here is some more.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/gears-of-war-4-test-gpu

Nvidia have a small lead and if there was a rx480 in there it would be matching up with the 1060 no problem looking at the Rx470 result.
 
Last edited:
They've pulled the review for now:

We have discovered a few issues with the Gears of War 4 testing that require a revisit to the game. We are working diligently to perform those tests now, and have temporarily unpublished the original content while we work to learn more about the title.

Our apologies for the inconvenience as we work through some new tests with the game. These are important to the results, and we believe them to be critical enough to put a pause on our original content delivery.

Stay tuned!
Click to expand...
 
Get a good boost from having Async + Tiled Resources On.

1F9L5f.png


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gears-of-War-4-Spiel-55621/Specials/Performance-Test-Review-1209651/
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Absolutly all over the place... how does one even get to results like that unless there is something very seriously wrong with the benchmark or just make up any old ####. ^^^^^

Maybe typos copied from more of those Nvidia review guides :D



lol.......
Click to expand...

I really don't know why some people completely believe benchmark results from either Nvidia or AMD. We all know that they are never going to show the opposition in a favourable light. :rolleyes:
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Get a good boost from having Async + Tiled Resources On.

1F9L5f.png


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gears-of-War-4-Spiel-55621/Specials/Performance-Test-Review-1209651/
Click to expand...

Again though it's stock AMD cards v overclocked Nvidia cards. Stock v stock or Max overclock v Max overclock, not high boosting Nvidia cards v stock AMD clocks. I think Nvidia hold the edge in this title but this site makes it look worse than it is. Why didn't they do Amd with Async on and tiled resources off as with tiled resources on Amd take a small hit.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Again though it's stock AMD cards v overclocked Nvidia cards. Stock v stock or Max overclock v Max overclock, not high boosting Nvidia cards v stock AMD clocks. I think Nvidia hold the edge in this title but this site makes it look worse than it is. Why didn't they do Amd with Async on and tiled resources off as with tiled resources on Amd take a small hit.
Click to expand...

No one thinks an ancient mid range GPU should be able to keep up with Nvidia's latest and greatest, the slide is idiotic but then again AMD haven't released Vega yet so all they can do is put AMD 3 year old GPU on the chart.
However, it is putting up a good showing compared to one of the fastest factory overclocked GTX 1080's on the market.
 
humbug said:
No one thinks an ancient mid range GPU should be able to keep up with Nvidia's latest and greatest, the slide is idiotic but then again AMD haven't released Vega yet so all they can do is put AMD 3 year old GPU on the chart.
However, it is putting up a good showing compared to one of the fastest factory overclocked GTX 1080's on the market.
Click to expand...


I tell lies... all lies.... lol

Nvidia have a lot of work to do with their Low Level Draw Call overheads compared with AMD.

o7te_ES.png
 
almoststew1990 said:
I've tried overclocking my GPU for the first time in a while (and first time using AMD settings not CCC) and I see that the GPU core clock slider is now a percentage... what!? is there a way to get it back to MHz?
Click to expand...
You can use a third party program like Afterburner, which will let you set a clock speed directly. I don't think you can do so in WattMan. Otherwise you can just use GPU-Z to see exactly where each percentage movement is putting you. It'll update its GPU clock reading as soon as you apply it in WattMan.
 
almoststew1990 said:
I've tried overclocking my GPU for the first time in a while (and first time using AMD settings not CCC) and I see that the GPU core clock slider is now a percentage... what!? is there a way to get it back to MHz?
Click to expand...

Yes, click the slider under "Frequency" to change it from % to MHz. State 7 (the one on the right) is the one you want to change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom