Why you should not buy AMD GPUs for DX11 games

[Monarch]

well... even 280x is running better than a 780 according : http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gta-v-pc-graphics-performance-review,6.html

 

That's a GPU-bound situation. Less framerate means more strain on the CPU, higher res means more strain on the GPU, which is when you really see how that GPU performs. You could also see it's true performance if the CPU wouldn't bottleneck it, so it could use it's horsepower on fps rather than pixels.

 

Because for the past years only these 2 websites show significant performance different between AMD and Nvidia when it come to DX11 optimization. 

 

What is your ingame setting? I want to try replicate it.

 

If you have BF4, 1080p, Ultra, 2xMSAA , 64 player servers. I get average 60 fps, often dropping below, sometimes even down to 40 fps. With Mantle, 60+ most of the time. Just like what PcLab said. When I look at my GPU usage, it's something like this:

 

[wrath]

These days i only see threads with people bitching around (mostly fanboys) and have no other things to do.

Anyone knows why is this?

 

I don't see how is this post helping people ,i only see that people start arguing about the same things over and over and it's just dumb IMO.

[alphaproject]

That graph makes little sense in that the GTX 770....loses to the 680. Like...say what? The GTX 770 is faster than the 680.

 

And a 280X tying the 780.....DOH!  One card is so cheap and the other is still pretty expensive.

[AsGoodAsAHacker]

There are a lot of DX11 games now, and a lot of them will be made in the future. I didn't buy a GPU to play games in 2016/7 but now.

Not in CPU heavy games like BF4 and GTAV you won't.

This guy is completely right. My 290 xf gets 144 (capped) fps stable on bf4, and 60 stable (capped) on 1440p. Ya, amd problems.

Guys fps isn't a problem. But what I do notice is that in xf cpu usage is insane. This is a problem that I agree is annoying and has to be fixed. An over locked 4690k shouldn't give a damn about two 290's.

[Monarch]

This guy is completely right. My 290 xf gets 144 (capped) fps stable on bf4, and 60 stable (capped) on 1440p. Ya, amd problems.

Guys fps isn't a problem. But what I do notice is that in xf cpu usage is insane. This is a problem that I agree is annoying and has to be fixed. An over locked 4690k shouldn't give a damn about two 290's.

 

On Ultra? 64-player servers?

And what makes you think 4690k should be chilling with 2 290's? Of course that CPU usage will be high when it has to feed 2 GPUs. How powerful do you think 4690k is?

[AsGoodAsAHacker]

On Ultra? 64-player servers?

And what makes you think 4690k should be chilling with 2 290's? Of course that CPU usage will be high when it has to feed 2 GPUs. How powerful do you think 4690k is?

Pretty damn powerful.

[Monarch]

Pretty damn powerful.

 

It's not that powerful. In BF4 with Mantle, all 4 cores are at 95-100% and sometimes the CPU struggles to maintain 60 fps, sometimes even drops below that a bit. Same thing happens in GTA V. I've just watched a YT vid about GTA V performance with 970 + 4690K and it hits 100% there too(although yields more fps compared to AMD), and that's when it drops the framerate below 60. It's not like it's impossible to bring it down to its knees. It's actually pretty easy. It's a good CPU, but turn up the settings in CPU-bound games and down you go with the framerate while your poor 4690k is working full time.

[AsGoodAsAHacker]

It's not that powerful. In BF4 with Mantle, all 4 cores are at 95-100% and sometimes the CPU struggles to maintain 60 fps, sometimes even drops below that a bit. Same thing happens in GTA V. I've just watched a YT vid about GTA V performance with 970 + 4690K and it hits 100% there too(although yields more fps compared to AMD), and that's when it drops the framerate below 60. It's not like it's impossible to bring it down to its knees. It's actually pretty easy. It's a good CPU, but turn up the settings in CPU-bound games and down you go with the framerate while your poor 4690k is working full time.

Okay okay, regardless fps is good, but cpu utilization is aweful for us amd guys. Use mantle and watch the frame times and such. Smooth. Except for the random cpu spikes but smooth. Dx11, no spikes but not smooth. Frame times are everywhere.

[CoolaxGaming]

Few things.

First of all, the 780ti is prooven faster then the 290x. And it is more expensive, please do not compare those two.

Secondly, I thought we all knew that the 970 is faster at 1080p and the 290x gets ahead at highers res?

[CoolaxGaming]

Also, in your benchamrk the 970 is oc'd and the 290x isint.

Which further invalidates your post/

 

Plus see this -  

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

 

BF4, 290x is 5 fps below.

Why not tested in a MP envm?

Because you cant control all the variables in a MP envm., they can be controlled in sp.

[Monarch]

 

Few things.

First of all, the 780ti is prooven faster then the 290x. And it is more expensive, please do not compare those two.

Secondly, I thought we all knew that the 970 is faster at 1080p and the 290x gets ahead at highers res?

 

Who's comparing 780ti and 290x?

And do you know why the 970 is faster at 1080p? Because it is being utilized better, unlike 290X due to AMD's inefficient driver. At high res it's not about how much fps CPU pushes, but how fast GPUs can render pixels and since 290X isn't restricted in that department, it shows it's true potential.

 

 

Also, in your benchamrk the 970 is oc'd and the 290x isint.

Which further invalidates your post/

 

You missed the point. 4770K + 290X produce only 54 fps average compared to 4770K + 970 which produce 72 not because the 290X is slower than the 970, but because with AMD driver 4770K bottlenecks the 290X. If 4770K + 290X produce 54, that means the 290X is capable of 54 fps for sure, right? I'm claiming it can do more, but let's say it can do 54 max.

Now let's look at FX8350 + 290X and FX8350 + 290X. With 290X it produces 35 fps average, while with 970 it produces 44. So why didn't it produce 54, when it's clear that the 290X can do 54 avg with 4770K? Because it's bottlenecked. Now, 970 is bottlenecked too, since we saw that 4770K can push it to produce 72, but clearly the 290X is bottlenecked more by the same CPU. 

 

The point is that every CPU yields better performance with NVIDIA than with AMD.

 

 

Plus see this -  

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

 

BF4, 290x is 5 fps below.

Why not tested in a MP envm?

Because you cant control all the variables in a MP envm., they can be controlled in sp.

 

You don't have to control all the variables. With DX11, my fps was always around 60 average, often dropping below that, down to even 40. I switch to Mantle and viola, 60+ fps. The difference is huge. And Nvidia's DX11 comes very close to Mantle in terms of performance, I don't know how they did it but they did a good job there.

[R_Golden]

Although I can agree AMD drivers are problematic and need improvements compared to Nvidia's, you cherry picked your benchmarks and an AMD card can and will perform well in DX11 games.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gta_v_pc_graphics_performance_review,5.html

[JorenBus]

That I can say is true, AMD's FX CPU's are doing terrible right now for GTA V, a friend of mine has a FX 8350 with a 970 and only holds an average of 50FPS in single player with it completely maxed out. Yet while the 280 I'm using was holding 40-45 average with the 15.3 Beta Drivers, now with the same settings with the 15.4 Drivers I'm averaging 70FPS in single player.

Wait what, I have the 280 as well with a beast overclock, but I still get framedrops to about 45-50. Overall FPS is pretty good, just the framedrops.

Teach me master!

[JDS]

This is especially funny because the consoles use AMD chips.  I wonder what difference that produces?

[xAcid9]

This is especially funny because the consoles use AMD chips.  I wonder what difference that produces?

Both consoles use low level API similar to DX12/Vulcan/Mantle. 

[Raudi_]

Wait what, I have the 280 as well with a beast overclock, but I still get framedrops to about 45-50. Overall FPS is pretty good, just the framedrops.

Teach me master!

1245Core and 1850 Memory if you can get that you will have a much higher frame rate seeing as AMD card scale stupid well when overclocked

[JorenBus]

1245Core and 1850 Memory if you can get that you will have a much higher frame rate seeing as AMD card scale stupid well when overclocked

How's that possible? I can't even go that high...

It's an MSI version...

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

How's that possible? I can't even go that high...

It's an MSI version...

 

Its all in the Silicon lottery 

[JorenBus]

Its all in the Silicon lottery 

I mean that MSI afterburner doesn't let me go any higher, that has nothing to do with how lucky I am with my chip, right?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I mean that MSI afterburner doesn't let me go any higher, that has nothing to do with how lucky I am with my chip, right?

 

Oh right... I did not notice that on the picture... 

Mine doesn't do that though...

[xAcid9]

I mean that MSI afterburner doesn't let me go any higher, that has nothing to do with how lucky I am with my chip, right?

Try tick extend overclocking limit inside settings. Mine can go up to 1340 without enabling that option though.

[Raudi_]

How's that possible? I can't even go that high...

It's an MSI version...

oc.png

Its possible and I don't even have Extended Overclocking Limits checked for it either.

[JorenBus]

Its possible and I don't even have Extended Overclocking Limits checked for it either.

 

 

Try tick extend overclocking limit inside settings. Mine can go up to 1340 without enabling that option though.

It works when I enable extend official overclocking limits.

It also seems to work if i disable that option, but if I set 'unofficial overclocking mode' to 'without powerplay support'.

What's the difference between the two?

I also see that your power limit is +50, while I can only do +20?

 

Edit: I might not be so lucky, I applied the same overclock as you and now it's running at 51°C idle with 64% fan speed.

That's not good

Edited April 15, 2015 by JorenBus

[Raudi_]

It works when I enable extend official overclocking limits.

It also seems to work if i disable that option, but if I set 'unofficial overclocking mode' to 'without powerplay support'.

What's the difference between the two?

I also see that your power limit is +50, while I can only do +20?

 

Edit: I might not be so lucky, I applied the same overclock as you and now it's running at 51°C idle with 64% fan speed.

That's not good

My cards BIOS is custom, I had to give it a 410W TDP for it so it wasn't throttling when gaming.

[JorenBus]

My cards BIOS is custom, I had to give it a 410W TDP for it so it wasn't throttling when gaming.

I don't think I'll start messing with the BIOS.

I'll probably leave it like this, I don't want to ruin my card.