Nakoron

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

But they paved the way for stuff like this. Nowadays, inventing things are kinda unnoticed.

Yeah, not the first time this happens: They did a build on some fucking expo or whatever to show off those firepro cards and they openly said it was x99 they know they just don't produce high end chips right now and the ATI part of AMD doesn't needs to be held back with the 8350

Only APUs as of now.

From the official AMD Catalyst "Omega" driver email sent out to those who signed up:

There is the usual disclaimer of how they had achieved their numbers and on what hardware.



1. Intel Core i7 4690X with 16GB DDR3-1866, AMD Radeon™ R9 290X Windows 8.1 64bit comparing launch driver 13.12 vs Driver 14.501. All tests run at 3840x2160. Civilization BE @ quality=medium mantle=off scored 46.17 vs 63.63 fps. 


 
I guess we can't say AMD is not humble. What does the FX line-up look like in the future? Or, are we looking at a strictly APU future for AMD?




Source: http://links.em.experience.amd.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MjE4MTY4MzQS1&r=NzI2NzgwODExODES1&j=NDYwOTcwODEyS0&mt=1&rt=0

I actually don't mind the Dayz Standalone, yet it still bothers me that the whole idea of the standalone was to have more expandability over the mod. The mod is still way ahead of the standalone and sadly will probably always will be  <_<

Yea, i don't care.
He'll either hit big with some new game, and prove bohemia was holding him back, or he'll languish like dayz has

k

No they haven't. The 400 series didn't have a 480 Ti. The 500 series didn't have a 580 Ti. And the 600 series didn't have a 680 Ti. All those aforementioned series had Ti versions but they weren't x80 cards.

We already knew this. That's one of the big reasons Mantle was created -- to alleviate CPU bottlenecks.
 
This also seems very thrown together. With more CPUs and different graphics cards and games you could get a better idea if this is a result of the AMD software/hardware stacks, or just an isolated case.

Well... Look at there competition for this year...

All nintendo does is re-release their old games. Hardly developer of the year award worthy.

You know you're fucking up when Canada has leaps and bounds faster ISPs than you. Seriously.
Have you seen how big our country is in relation to our population? Surprised we even have internet!

You know you're fucking up when Canada has leaps and bounds faster ISPs than you. Seriously.
Have you seen how big our country is in relation to our population? Surprised we even have internet!

I find it amusing how Nvidia's GM204 isn't really THAT far ahead of AMD's (older) Hawaii GPU's, in terms of pure [gaming] performance, and yet people don't think AMD can surpass GM204 with their next high-end chips... :rolleyes:
 
These two companies have been leaf-frogging each other for the "top spot" for years. And it's not going to stop any time soon.
 
 
*Edited for proper context.

The G3258 is better for single threaded (older or poorly coded) games.
The FX-6300 is better for multi-threaded (newer) games.
Both are overclockable with unlocked multipliers, and both are worth it to overclock.
 
Since single-threaded games are older, the FX-6300 can usually play them just fine. As such, I usually recommend the FX-6300 based on just these factors.
However, if you have money coming in the future, the G3258 can be replaced with an i5/i7 down the road without having to change out the MoBo and only losing the $70 for the G3258, while the FX-6300's AM3+ socket is dead with no future updates. If an upgrade is likely in the near future, then the G3258 becomes the better choice. If you are planning an upgrade down the road, then it becomes best to get an H97 or Z97 chipset board to support broadwell CPUs, which increases the cost of the G3258 platform (H97 for locked multiplier upgrade path, Z97 for overclocking K-Series upgrade path, both will overclock the G3258 though)

I hate this industry.