Reason not to buy an AMD R9 390 over a GTX 970 at this day and age? THIS:

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

 

I'll have you know, that's what the pathetic reference cooler needed to go through to maintain the 1Ghz clock speed. But of course, no one buys that. 

[afyeung]

what does this have to do with bias on Linus' side?

 

 

Because he has a lot more nvidia gpus lying around (they just send him more) and because he realizes used r9 290s are amazing in price to performance? How is that bias?

 

He used amd cards in the surround ultrawide gaming video because they were the only cards with enough vram for the job. That is something in favour of amd in my book. As for the rest, he mostly uses 980tis and titan Xs because not only does he have more than one, in that price range the fury x doesn't make that much sense (or at least didn't a couple of months ago, I am aware performance got better with new drivers - but they can't keep benchmarking everything over and over again) and those cards offer pretty much the best single card performance you can get. The next time he makes a mid range build log we'll see what he uses - I'd place my bet on an r9 390.

Because Linus isn't addressing an issue that affects users. I'm not saying the 780ti is a bad card. It's just that it should have enough brute power to beat at least a 970 in newer titles which it fails to do. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

You ask me? I'd say they're simply not interested in it.

 

Oh and @i_build_nanosuits Here's the uber mode for the 290x vs 780 Ti. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1441?vs=1438

 

I'll retract my statement about the Anandtech database not being up to date. The results are inline now that uber mode is selected. But as you can see, when uber mode is selected, they're pretty much matched across the board. Again, the 780 Ti isn't faster than the 290x.

fair enough...but the 780ti support TXAA, PCSS and HBAO+...and the 290X uber is cranked all the way up, the 780ti still has all of it's overclocking headroom. (where is the 780ti ''Uber'' then?)

[App4that]

I'll have you know, that's what the pathetic reference cooler needed to go through to maintain the 1Ghz clock speed. But of course, no one buys that. 

Still funny :lol:

[App4that]

I don't know if you're joking, but you're also confused about the 290 vs 390. The 290 is an EOL product like the 780ti. END OF LIFE. If you buy it new and the store does not have many, of course they will overcharge. Also, there is little to no price difference between the reference 290x and non reference now a days. I got my 290 gaming for $143. Half the price of the cheapest 390. I have a receipt if you would like me to prove it. It was from microcenter.

290 means nothing, Sapphire Vapor-x 290 means something. That's why I mentioned it being a quality version of the card. You can't buy a Sapphire 290 for less than a Sapphire 390, using the onl;ine retailer I listed. Some of us live in a desert, figuratively and metaphorically.

[Sauron]

Because Linus isn't addressing an issue that affects users. I'm not saying the 780ti is a bad card. It's just that it should have enough brute power to beat at least a 970 in newer titles which it fails to do. 

 

I have a feeling we're talking about different things entirely. I'm saying Linus isn't nvidia biased.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

fair enough...but the 780ti support TXAA, PCSS and HBAO+...and the 290X uber is cranked all the way up, the 780ti still has all of it's overclocking headroom. (where is the 780ti ''Uber'' then?)

 

"Uber" is the mode that ramps up fan speeds so that the card can maintain its 1Ghz stock speed. That was how bad it was throttling. You mention overclocking head room. Fortunately or unfortunately for you. The 290x also has a "headroom". Clock speed scaling is different for those 2 cards. You of all people should already know that. I'm pretty certain OC for OC, they'll still match each other. Unless you put one of them under LN2.

[i_build_nanosuits]

breaking news, looks like the 970 perform better in Fallout 4 and also can run maximum settings at 60FPS even at 1440p...and perform better than the 390, EVEN at 1440p:

sadly, the graphics looks like COMPLETE garbage though

[App4that]

breaking news, looks like the 970 perform better in Fallout 4 and also can run maximum settings at 60FPS even at 1440p...and perform better than the 390, EVEN at 1440p:

sadly, the graphics looks like COMPLETE garbage though

I'll test that tonight. I wonder if they're using the beta drivers, my guess is they aren't since they commented about the driver being the recommended, not the newest. I'll see if crossfire works as well. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

breaking news, looks like the 970 perform better in Fallout 4 and also can run maximum settings at 60FPS even at 1440p...and perform better than the 390, EVEN at 1440p:

sadly, the graphics looks like COMPLETE garbage though

 

So the 390 has a downfall when there is a cpu intensive scene. Pity, but we'll have to wait for AMD to get the new drivers out.

[App4that]

So the 390 has a downfall when there is a cpu intensive scene. Pity, but we'll have to wait for AMD to get the new drivers out.

Did they say what they're using? I missed it.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Did they say what they're using? I missed it.

 

"recommended" Drivers. Driver version wasn't specified. 

[App4that]

"recommended" Drivers. Driver version wasn't specified. 

N, the CPU. They mention at the end a overclocked i5 or i7 would help, So I'm wondering if this is running on a i3 or stock clock i5. Would explain the numbers.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

N, the CPU. They mention at the end a overclocked i5 or i7 would help, So I'm wondering if this is running on a i3 or stock clock i5. Would explain the numbers.

 

True, the cpu wasn't specified. But whatever it is, there is certainly a bottleneck. AMD will have to sort that out. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

So the 390 has a downfall when there is a cpu intensive scene. Pity, but we'll have to wait for AMD to get the new drivers out.

AMD DX11 drivers have always been daunting on CPU's...it's the reason they came out with mantle in the first place...i think if they could manage to solve this issue it would be a good thing because it looks like they have been able to ''restore'' performance under DX12 at least the primilary results pointed that way...and that's good and all...but let's not forget DX11 games will keep coming out for a couple more years, slowly games will have both DX11 and DX12 support available until DX12 games will be the real new norm...so it would still be time for AMD to fix the DX11 drivers CPU overhead i think.

N, the CPU. They mention at the end a overclocked i5 or i7 would help, So I'm wondering if this is running on a i3 or stock clock i5. Would explain the numbers.

it's true that he does not mention it...but we must agree: a locked core i5 haswell i5-4460 for example should be more than enough to run this game without any CPU limitations what so ever...the GTX 970 proved just that IMHO.

[afyeung]

290 means nothing, Sapphire Vapor-x 290 means something. That's why I mentioned it being a quality version of the card. You can't buy a Sapphire 290 for less than a Sapphire 390, using the onl;ine retailer I listed. Some of us live in a desert, figuratively and metaphorically.

Sapphire Vapor X 290 is a 290 with exceptional cooling. But it's not like all Sapphire Vapor X's clock exceptionally well. Same with 390s. My 290 was $143 and clocks at 1120/1350 and only hits 83 c during load. My point was that you can get a 290 for less than 50% of the cost of a 390 and get pretty much the same performance. And like I said, the 290 is an EOL product. Please look that up if you are still unsure what that means.

[afyeung]

breaking news, looks like the 970 perform better in Fallout 4 and also can run maximum settings at 60FPS even at 1440p...and perform better than the 390, EVEN at 1440p:

sadly, the graphics looks like COMPLETE garbage though

Not very surprising considering that AMD has no game ready drivers for it yet and Ultra uses gameworks which doesnt run as well on AMD

[App4that]

it's true that he does not mention it...but we must agree: a locked core i5 haswell i5-4460 for example should be more than enough to run this game without any CPU limitations what so ever...the GTX 970 proved just that IMHO.

I'd say a 4690k balls to the wall should be expected if you want to run ultra setting if you go off the recommended system requirements. But you're correct that if the bottle neck is CPU the Nvidea drivers are showing their strength in this test. If I can enable my crossfire I'll drop a mini nuke on this games ass and peg my fps meter so hard the needle breaks :lol: .

 

If not, anyone want a used Vapor-x 290?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

AMD DX11 drivers have always been daunting on CPU's...it's the reason they came out with mantle in the first place...i think if they could manage to solve this issue it would be a good thing because it looks like they have been able to ''restore'' performance under DX12 at least the primilary results pointed that way...and that's good and all...but let's not forget DX11 games will keep coming out for a couple more years, slowly games will have both DX11 and DX12 support available until DX12 games will be the real new norm...so it would still be time for AMD to fix the DX11 drivers CPU overhead i think.

it's true that he does not mention it...but we must agree: a locked core i5 haswell i5-4460 for example should be more than enough to run this game without any CPU limitations what so ever...the GTX 970 proved just that IMHO.

 

No, the driver "overhead" cannot be fixed. That's just the GCN architecture under DX11. Do not forget, DX12 games are coming real soon. Sooner than you'd expect. 

 

I agree, but till AMD makes a game ready driver for FO4, then we'll talk. 

 

 

Not very surprising considering that AMD has no game ready drivers for it yet and Ultra uses gameworks which doesnt run as well on AMD

 

Might explain the bottleneck. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Not very surprising considering that AMD has no game ready drivers for it yet and Ultra uses gameworks which doesnt run as well on AMD

AMD can't run Gameworks features, so i assume when he said ultra he meant as high as they go without PCSS shadows or HBAO+ or other nvidia specific technologies included in the game...gameworks features MUST be turned off to get a fair match-up, otherwise the nvidia card will render extra stuff the AMD card can't render. This site seem to do things very well so far and they are fair...they showed the battlefront beta running better on AMD hardware, and now they show fallout 4 running much better on nvidia hardware...which make sense since battlefront is an AMD sponsored/optimised title and fallout 4 is nvidia sponsored.

 

Do not forget, DX12 games are coming real soon. Sooner than you'd expect.

some DX12 games are coming out soon...but before the bulk of the new titles will be DX12 titles, it will still take a while and AMD would greatly benefit from having better performance under DX11 since this will remain the norm for the next couple years...by the time most games will be built on DX12 game engines, both the 390 and the GTX 970 will be long outdated if you look at what happened in the past (some games even to this day still launch with DX9 and DX10 support, and some games based on DX10 only are still being released sometimes)

[xAcid9]

AMD can't run Gameworks features, so i assume when he said ultra he meant as high as they go without PCSS shadows or HBAO+ or other nvidia specific technologies included in the game...gameworks features MUST be turned off to get a fair match-up, otherwise the nvidia card will render extra stuff the AMD card can't render. This site seem to do things very well so far and they are fair...they showed the battlefront beta running better on AMD hardware, and now they show fallout 4 running much better on nvidia hardware...which make sense since battlefront is an AMD sponsored/optimised title and fallout 4 is nvidia sponsored.

AMD GPU CAN run Gameworks features since most, if not all of the effects running on the CPU and that's the reason AMD got bottlenecked hard on CPU overhead side in most Gameworks games. 

 

There's no option to totally disable Gameworks features in F4 unless you edit the config file.

 

I'll test that tonight. I wonder if they're using the beta drivers, my guess is they aren't since they commented about the driver being the recommended, not the newest. I'll see if crossfire works as well. 

Don't get you hopes up.

[i_build_nanosuits]

AMD GPU CAN run Gameworks features since most if not all of the effects running using the CPU and that's the reason AMD got bottlenecked hard on CPU overhead side in most Gameworks games. 

 

There's no option to disable Gameworks features in F4 unless you edit the config file.

AMD GPU's do not have support for TXAA don't they? they also do not support PCSS shadow computing? or HBAO+? nope...they don't, and a CPU cant render those...and there MUST be a way to turn them off with an nvidia GPU, and no way to turn them on on an AMD GPU. i think you're confused?

[Guest Kloaked]

AMD GPU CAN run Gameworks features since most, if not all of the effects running on the CPU and that's the reason AMD got bottlenecked hard on CPU overhead side in most Gameworks games. 

 

There's no option to totally disable Gameworks features in F4 unless you edit the config file.

 

Don't get you hopes up.

 

That's not true at all. I don't know where you heard that, but that's not true.

[xAcid9]

AMD GPU's do not have support for TXAA don't they? they also do not support PCSS shadow computing? or HBAO+? nope...they don't, and a CPU cant render those...and there MUST be a way to turn them off with an nvidia GPU, and no way to turn them on on an AMD GPU. i think you're confused?

Not TXAA but i can use HBAO+ in Unity and PCSS in Unity and GTA5 not to mention Hairworks in Witcher 3.

 

You forgot each of those effects need to be feed to the GPU by the CPU, hence the bottleneck.

[App4that]

AMD GPU CAN run Gameworks features since most, if not all of the effects running on the CPU and that's the reason AMD got bottlenecked hard on CPU overhead side in most Gameworks games. 

 

There's no option to totally disable Gameworks features in F4 unless you edit the config file.

 

Don't get you hopes up.

I play a lot of gameworks games, you can't use all of the features, it just kicks you to a lower setting if you try. And the beta driver has a Fallout 4 crossfire folder, so hope is alive. Wish someone who has the game would confirm though. Waiting is hard.