• 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

4K8KW10 said:
Not everyone wants to drive a Tesla Model S, they want to drive Lada Vesta :D

1920x1080 is only a quarter of 3840x2160 and is a primitive, anti-progress setting which holds you back.


It's true, though, that not everyone is aware of the future technologies, and some even like to stay/live in the past.
Click to expand...


What a load of nonsense. How does it "hold you back" exactly? hold you back from what? - What if you're blissfully happy at 1080p and love your gaming? What if graphical fidelity etc and arguing about tech non-stop on forums doesn't interest you at all?

Not everyone is obsessed about the lastest tech, DLSS, 4K, RT, or wants to spend a grand on a card, or spend all day talking about drivers...

For most people gaming is the past-time they enjoy, and don't feel the need to have the best of everything, and aren't actually PC tech junkies which is an entirely different sub-set altogether.
 
JediFragger said:
Yup I checked in Windows using GPU-Z, was showing as Disabled for some reason (back to being Enabled now I've rolled back). It was on in the bios (X570-Pro Prime).
Click to expand...
Odd, it shows as enabled on the latest driver for me with an x570 aorus pro. although i did ddu the older .1 driver and factory reset during the install; due to issues with crashing when only using the factory reset option.
when you say its on, is it enabled or on auto? i only see auto and it shows as enabled, i presume its the same for you.
 
4K8KW10 said:
1920x1080 is only a quarter of 3840x2160 and is a primitive, anti-progress setting which holds you back.

It's true, though, that not everyone is aware of the future technologies, and some even like to stay/live in the past.
Click to expand...

Lol dude, imagine everyone having the amount of disposable income needed for a high end GPU and monitor (and to constantly upgrade every 2-3 years)...
 
Darujhistan said:
What a load of nonsense. How does it "hold you back" exactly? hold you back from what? - What if you're blissfully happy at 1080p and love your gaming? What if graphical fidelity etc and arguing about tech non-stop on forums doesn't interest you at all?

Not everyone is obsessed about the lastest tech, DLSS, 4K, RT, or wants to spend a grand on a card, or spend all day talking about drivers...

For most people gaming is the past-time they enjoy, and don't feel the need to have the best of everything, and aren't actually PC tech junkies which is an entirely different sub-set altogether.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

We are here participants in an enthusiasts forum. I don't think that any normal enthusiast today plays at 1920x1080 (it's low end today).
 
4K8KW10 said:
Nonsense.

We are here participants in an enthusiasts forum. I don't think that any normal enthusiast today plays at 1920x1080 (it's low end today).
Click to expand...

Considering something like 45% of the GPUs in the steam survey would struggle to run too many games smoothly at 1440p, and I'm positive there are plenty running more powerful GPU's on 1080p monitors, I think you'd be surprised.

I suppose it depends on how you classify as an enthusiast, but if you're gaming on steam, I think that should qualify you really.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The monitor is mid-range, if we are generous not to call it low-end, regardless of those 240 Hz.

It is not the Hz that make something enthusiast's. Is it a TN panel?
Click to expand...
im not sure resolution determines what end it is, there are still 700quid 1080p monitors more expensive than 4k. the real truth is 4k is still a minority compared to 1440, followed by 1080p.
 
I disagree, people can be enthusiasts for refresh rate just as they can panel etc. As pointed out that's why they spend so much, I paid £500 for my 1080p monitor (360hz).
 
4K8KW10 said:
The monitor is mid-range, if we are generous not to call it low-end, regardless of those 240 Hz.

It is not the Hz that make something enthusiast's. Is it a TN panel?
Click to expand...

Its an IPS panel.

x570-e Asus rog strix
5900x
6900xt
32gb 3600 ram
nvme drive, ssds
external separate dac and amp
 
HangTime said:
I disagree, people can be enthusiasts for refresh rate just as they can panel etc. As pointed out that's why they spend so much, I paid £500 for my 1080p monitor (360hz).
Click to expand...

Can enthusiasts also not just be enthusiastic about playing games with good storylines and gameplay mechanics? Without needing to fork out £000s? And yet still be classed as PC gaming enthusiasts?
 
HangTime said:
Sure - but this is in a hardware subforum, so 'enthusiast' is usually taken to mean hardware enthusiast in this context.
Click to expand...

But we're talking about whether AMD should target 4k+ monitors, and that gamers should not stay at 1080p forever. Whilst that's true, when we use the steam survey, we see 67% are gaming on 1080p, and 40%+ only have the hardware to realistically game on 1080p. So whilst this may be a hardware subforum, plenty of people can have not so powerful hardware and still be enthusiastic about it, trying to get AMD to target a far smaller market (less than 5% are on 4k) as some sort of tactical marketing decision, just doesn't make sense.
 
Unseul said:
But we're talking about whether AMD should target 4k+ monitors, and that gamers should not stay at 1080p forever. Whilst that's true, when we use the steam survey, we see 67% are gaming on 1080p, and 40%+ only have the hardware to realistically game on 1080p. So whilst this may be a hardware subforum, plenty of people can have not so powerful hardware and still be enthusiastic about it, trying to get AMD to target a far smaller market (less than 5% are on 4k) as some sort of tactical marketing decision, just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I think we are talking cross-purposes; I don't disagree with you that targeting 4k+ isn't yet a winning strategy, but equally I feel that on OcUK hardware subforums, 'enthusiast' typically means people buying expensive and/or specialist hardware, lots of tweaking, etc.

What people are using on Steam isn't really what I would class as enthusiast by OcUK hardware subforum standards, over the years it's always lagged behind the times with large proportions not having DXn capable hardware, or running old/32bit OS, and then you had the large influx of Chinese on weaker systems at one point. It's taken a long time for the steam hardware survey to catchup with what this forum would consider 'normal'. Steam is a very mainstream PC gaming platform, my son has a PC with Steam installed on it for example, but he's not an enthusiast (at least not yet... :) ).

In summary, I don't think Steam fully represents the enthusiast sector (it's diluted by casuals) but that in itself doesn't mean that manufacturers shouldn't be informed by it, targeting mainstream as well as enthusiast.

I touched on this back in 2014 when discussing 4k / steam hardware survey / mainstream-vs-enthusiast: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/posts/27281603
You can see I reference the lag there, with "well over half" of steam users using resolutions BELOW 1080p, even as recently as November 2014.
 
Last edited:
Unseul said:
So to be an enthusiast you have to have expensive hardware? You can't be running a 1060 and be an enthusiast?
Click to expand...
according to the dictionary "a person who is very interested in a particular activity or subject." so i would suggest anyone saying only person x spending x amount is a hardware enthusiast is kinda wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom