DAMN! R9 Fury is strong at 4K!

[Evolution90]

Fallout 4 with high settings (Textures ultra) 4K Diamond City (hardest place in the game on any PC)

 

FO4 runs awesome for me yet people say it runs terrible on AMD GPU's ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morgan MLGman]

It got patched to run better.

[Imglidinhere]

15 minutes ago, Evolution90 said:

Fallout 4 with high settings (Textures ultra) 4K Diamond City (hardest place in the game on any PC)

 

FO4 runs awesome for me yet people say it runs terrible on AMD GPU's ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah amusingly enough everyone just seemed to forget about the R9 Fury and Fury X almost completely.  The Fury X matches a 980 Ti in most cases today, given that drivers have fully matured. 4GB Vram isn't enough, unless HBM says otherwise and provides an endless supply of bandwidth, of which it doesn't seem to be really that heavily hampered by ONLY 4GB.  

[it_dont_work]

1 minute ago, Imglidinhere said:

4GB Vram isn't enough, unless HBM says otherwise and provides an endless supply of bandwidth, of which it doesn't seem to be really that heavily hampered by ONLY 4GB.  

Yea the 4gb of Vram is kinda of a problem tbh, the frame drops I get when my fury starts swaping out to system memory can make some games un playable without lowering settings, not a bad mid range card otherwise better than a 1060/480, not quite a 1070 (close sometimes, pretty far off most of the time)

[Evolution90]

Just now, it_dont_work said:

Yea the 4gb of Vram is kinda of a problem tbh, the frame drops I get when my fury starts swaping out to system memory can make some games un playable without lowering settings, not a bad mid range card otherwise better than a 1060/480, not quite a 1070 (close sometimes, pretty far off most of the time)

Where? not come across a game that eats it's Vram? only one i have is DOOM but it bans you from enabling nightmare lol.

[Morgan MLGman]

45 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

Yeah amusingly enough everyone just seemed to forget about the R9 Fury and Fury X almost completely.  The Fury X matches a 980 Ti in most cases today, given that drivers have fully matured. 4GB Vram isn't enough, unless HBM says otherwise and provides an endless supply of bandwidth, of which it doesn't seem to be really that heavily hampered by ONLY 4GB.  

Admittedly, it only matches a reference 980Ti with low clock speeds, it doesn't even come close to an overclocked one.

[Evolution90]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Admittedly, it only matches a reference 980Ti with low clock speeds, it doesn't even come close to an overclocked one.

Yup my 1160mhz Fury was just under a stock 1070, a fully clocked 980Ti was hanging in there with clocked 1070's.

[Imglidinhere]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Admittedly, it only matches a reference 980Ti with low clock speeds, it doesn't even come close to an overclocked one.

You say that like it's not impressive.  Considering the 1070 is THE card that AMD has to beat for the upper end price-to-performance ratio, I'd say that Vega has a pretty solid chance in all fairness.

[faziten]

It's impressive because its a Bethesda game

FO4 gave me problems in random places in the forest with godrays, even more than Diamond city on a 1070. 

[Evolution90]

1 hour ago, faziten said:

It's impressive because its a Bethesda game

FO4 gave me problems in random places in the forest with godrays, even more than Diamond city on a 1070. 

 

[Darkseth]

7 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

Yeah amusingly enough everyone just seemed to forget about the R9 Fury and Fury X almost completely.  The Fury X matches a 980 Ti in most cases today, given that drivers have fully matured. 4GB Vram isn't enough, unless HBM says otherwise and provides an endless supply of bandwidth, of which it doesn't seem to be really that heavily hampered by ONLY 4GB.  

Not quite correct ;-) In many Cases, FuryX still can't beat a 980 ti. But it holds it's grounds quite well.

 

HBM is not some kind of magic. It is simply faster than usual GDDR5. Nothing more, nothing less. The Memory doesn't work "differently". it offers 4gb Memory, Period. No matter how fast: It is still, 4gb. Not a single Byte more.

And the Bandwidth is not endless either. ^^ It's 512 gb/s.

 

The Problem is:  Speed can somewhat counter not having enough vram, as long the files can be swapped out fast enough.

 

However: Once you get into a scenario, where the game needs more than 4gb at the same time, even HBM 50 would not help anything. In this case, 4gb is simply not enough, and there WILL Be bad frametimes/framedrops, because your Vram is bottlenecking (Size, not speed).

 

For example: Play Call of Duty Infinite Warfare with Texture level set to High (or evne higher). Tests did show, that with only 4gb Vram, you NEED to set the Textures down to Low.

That's right, LOW. Not normal (that WILL cause some stutters), or High or anything above.

 

And we are not talking about 4k here. We are talking about old 1080p.

 

Source: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

[Evolution90]

Speed of Vram does help Vram move things faster if the GPU can output fast enough.

So 512 GB/s is going to handle it's Vram filled better than a 215 GB/s bandwidth will, not to forget just how wide 4096 bit is.. it's silly.

There is also things to take into account liek Nvidia using superior compression methods for Vram which equates to less Vram usage at higher settings vs an inferior method.

Fiji has this also.

 

 

This is a console not a GPU but it still applies.

Think of the Playstation 2, it had the lowest Vram of it's generation, but handed effects amazingly well and had a 2560 bit bus.

Never stopped games looking awesome on it (exclusives and some 3rd party).

 

 

 

 

[Evolution90]

 

[Imglidinhere]

6 hours ago, Darkseth said:

Not quite correct ;-) In many Cases, FuryX still can't beat a 980 ti. But it holds it's grounds quite well.

 

HBM is not some kind of magic. It is simply faster than usual GDDR5. Nothing more, nothing less. The Memory doesn't work "differently". it offers 4gb Memory, Period. No matter how fast: It is still, 4gb. Not a single Byte more.

And the Bandwidth is not endless either. ^^ It's 512 gb/s.

 

The Problem is:  Speed can somewhat counter not having enough vram, as long the files can be swapped out fast enough.

 

However: Once you get into a scenario, where the game needs more than 4gb at the same time, even HBM 50 would not help anything. In this case, 4gb is simply not enough, and there WILL Be bad frametimes/framedrops, because your Vram is bottlenecking (Size, not speed).

 

For example: Play Call of Duty Infinite Warfare with Texture level set to High (or evne higher). Tests did show, that with only 4gb Vram, you NEED to set the Textures down to Low.

That's right, LOW. Not normal (that WILL cause some stutters), or High or anything above.

 

And we are not talking about 4k here. We are talking about old 1080p.

 

Source: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

And no one cares about CoD in the real world. The people that said game caters to are those that probably don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on a top-end GPU in any generation. Not trying to pull that card, but it's true. More people care about games like, Battlefield and its iterations... though this latest iteration was pretty much garbage for gameplay. I'd prefer Squad or ARMA 3 to be used as a baseline if we're benchmarking.

[jackieAZ]

52 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

52 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

And no one cares about CoD in the real world. The people that said game caters to are those that probably don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on a top-end GPU in any generation. Not trying to pull that card, but it's true. More people care about games like, Battlefield and its iterations... though this latest iteration was pretty much garbage for gameplay. I'd prefer Squad or ARMA 3 to be used as a baseline if we're benchmarking.

 

Geez, the CoD jab is a little uncalled for lol, it was just an example to demonstrate his point.

[Imglidinhere]

1 hour ago, WubGuy said:

Geez, the CoD jab is a little uncalled for lol, it was just an example to demonstrate his point.

Look, I'm not biased against games that do a good job and have several redundant sequels. I'm biased against overrated games that are far less than people praise them for, especially when they're used as a basis for a high-end PC or certain parts of one. AAA titles are only considered such because of advertising and how much they do so, not because of some revolutionary game archetype or style of game. I guess you can use them as a baseline for how pretty a game looks... but Fallout 4 looks gorgeous compared to New Vegas... but which one wins in gameplay?

 

My point is if you're going to use a game that's graphically demanding, at least make it relevant to what the player wants to play. Using Call of Duty Infinite Warfare as a baseline is kinda dumb if the person plays Fallout 4... oh wait.  

[Darkseth]

On 14.8.2017 at 4:12 AM, Imglidinhere said:

And no one cares about CoD in the real world. The people that said game caters to are those that probably don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on a top-end GPU in any generation. Not trying to pull that card, but it's true. More people care about games like, Battlefield and its iterations... though this latest iteration was pretty much garbage for gameplay. I'd prefer Squad or ARMA 3 to be used as a baseline if we're benchmarking.

Yea, that's why soooo many people buy the new CoD over and over and over ;-)

 

Ok, let me go a step further. CoD is one of the games, a Fury X doesn't have enough Vram to run 1080p. More games will come. Do you think, we will always stay at the current level of Graphic quality? Several other games can easy break 7gb usage in 1080p. Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Mirror's Edge Catalyst.

And like i said, more will come.

 

i AM pulling that card, because it is a 100% realistic szenario. You use a Graphic Card, you want to play games. CoD is a Game. Maybe YOU don't like it. Others might do.

 

Or who are YOU, to dictate other people what to play, and what not? lol. THAT is dumb, not finding a realistic Game, where 4gb isn't enough already.

 

 

But that game IS relevant for players to play. Why wouldn't it? It's a GAME.

I never said it is a Baseline for anything. YOU assumed based on YOUR thoughts alone. But it IS a GAME, if you like it or not. And many people play it.

And other games will follow using more Vram - simply because every midrange Card has 6-8gb already, and consoles also have more available.

 

 

I don't defend CoD being a great game. I never played any CoD title. But it is a Game, where 4gb is not enough, and even the allmighty magical "HBM" doesn't do shit for that issue.

 

 

MY Point is, for anyone unable to fundamentally understand my Opinion: If a Game needs more than 4gb at the SAME TIME, even HBM 3000 will stutter. Period. That's how memory works.
As long it doesn't, it CAN get away with swapping fast enough.
But if you need 100 files in the Memory to display 1 Frame, but you have space for 70 only... well, it WILL Stutter.

 

Which is why i would never recommend a Fury (X) to Anyone anymore because 4gb already prevents you from using ultra settings in some modern games. And other games allow it, but they automatically remove details (and the User can't to anything to prevent it. it's all been tested.

 

 

Second TL;DR: There is not 1 single Argument in buying a 4gb Card already, except you don't have enough for a 6-8gb Card. Which would be, RX 560 / GTX 1050 ti, or RX 570 4gb as entry levels, when you don't have enough Money for GTX 1060 or higher, or RX 580 or Vega.

 

 

Arma 3 is a nice CPU Benmchmark. What do graphic cards have anything to do with it? ;-) One of the shittiest optimized games currently available.

So no... Arma 3 is one of the LAST games you should take into account for benchmarking.

Because i sincerely hope, Noone will ever bring out such a bad optimized Game as Arma3 is. ^^

 

Battlefield 1 should be taken as the baseline, if you need a "Baseline" (stupid term anyway... completely nonsense+1), since BF1 is one of the best optimized games so far.

 

If you use ANY Benchmarks for overall performance, you never take 1 Game, you take more than 20. Otherwise, the comparison is worthless.

[Imglidinhere]

3 hours ago, Darkseth said:

snip

Someone's angry I have an opinion about one of the most overrated shooters of all time.  

[veli2501]

To be fair a lot of people do care about COD.  I call them the ignorant masses