R9 390 Fallout 4 Optimization

[App4that]

i was not even aware there was a new driver...the 970 still doing noticeably better than the 290X though which is according to your say even better than the R9 390 right?

The driver helps in some places, but isn't a fix. What it did do was highlight the problem. There are no more random fps drops, all the drops are in specific locations and ONLY happen if shadow distance is anything higher than medium. EVERYTHING else can be set to max settings. There is no difference between the high and ultra settings for shadow distance in relation to fps drop.

[i_build_nanosuits]

The driver helps in some places, but isn't a fix. What it did do was highlight the problem. There are no more random fps drops, all the drops are in specific locations and ONLY happen if shadow distance is anything higher than medium. EVERYTHING else can be set to max settings. There is no difference between the high and ultra settings for shadow distance in relation to fps drop.

good to know

see...i don't have to drop settings. a...at all...that would suck if i had to...and i get no ''dips''.

 

hats off to AMD for at least trying though

[Morgan MLGman]

lol i was soooo busy yesterday i barely even came in here i was selling the GTX780 and what not

 

Regardless, AMD released a Fallout4 driver within a week after getting their hands on the game code, it improved the performance significantly to the point when Fury X edges out a 980Ti @4K

 

 

i was not even aware there was a new driver...the 970 still doing noticeably better than the 290X though which is according to your say even better than the R9 390 right?

I'm not sure if 2AVG FPS more "noticeably better" but okay... You don't seem to be too objective... over 20 AVG FPS that I gained in for example Tomb Raider over my old 970 is what I would call noticeably better...

[i_build_nanosuits]

Regardless, AMD released a Fallout4 driver within a week after getting their hands on the game code, it improved the performance significantly to the point when Fury X edges out a 980Ti @4K

 

I'm not sure if 2AVG FPS more "noticeably better" but okay... You don't seem to be too objective... over 20 AVG FPS that I gained in for example Tomb Raider over my old 970 is what I would call noticeably better...

980ti isnt meant for 4K gaming the performance is trashy at best at such rediculously high resolution anyways so i don't really see why you would even consider this a win. IMHO, people trying to render games at such stupidly high resolution are clueless...simple as that!

 

and about tombraider...great...AMD GPU perform better in one of the what?! 3 games AMD have sponsored over the last 3 years?!

Also, 2FPS average...but 4FPS better in MINIMUM though...this is much more important since MINIMUM framerate is when you notice better performance the most...this suggest that when things goes south, they don't get as bad when using a GTX 970.

next up is assassin's creed Syndicate...are you ready? i wonder which will run this best...R9 390 or GTX 970 :huh:

[Morgan MLGman]

980ti isnt meant for 4K gaming the performance is trashy at best at such rediculously high resolution anyways so i don't really see why you would even consider this a win. IMHO, people trying to render games at such stupidly high resolution are clueless...simple as that!

 

and about tombraider...great...AMD GPU perform better in one of the what?! 3 games AMD have sponsored over the last 3 years?!

next up is assassin's creed Syndicate...are you ready? i wonder which will run this best...R9 390 or GTX 970 :huh:

This new driver already is optimized for Syndicate

980Ti is the highest-end gaming GPU from Nvidia, that's really something that should support 4K imo. I also don't get the point of 4K gaming, but some people want that...

What about Shadow of Mordor then? It's supposedly Nvidia optimized. It even goddamn says NVIDIA when you turn the game on with a fullscreen logo, and yet you said when I linked the benchmarks of it earlier that I "cherry picked the game cause it favors AMD", I'm a little bit confused by what you say from time to time man ^^

[i_build_nanosuits]

This new driver already is optimized for Syndicate

980Ti is the highest-end gaming GPU from Nvidia, that's really something that should support 4K imo.

What about Shadow of Mordor then? It's supposedly Nvidia optimized. It even fucking says NVIDIA when you turn the game on with a fullscreen logo. AMD cards somehow perform better there

we are not ready for 4K and even next gen GPU's will not be ready even yet IMHO.

So driver is for syndicate too so this time no excuses for lower framerates on hawaii boards right?

i'd love it if digital foundry would do a side by side video for fallout 4 with a 390 vs. 970...i would love to see how things goes.

Shadow of mordor is a memory intensive game that's why AMD shine the cards with a 512bit memory bus have an edge in this one...

[Morgan MLGman]

we are not ready for 4K and even next gen GPU's will not be ready even yet IMHO.

So driver is for syndicate too so this time no excuses for lower framerates on hawaii boards right?

i'd love it if digital foundry would do a side by side video for fallout 4 with a 390 vs. 970...i would love to see how things goes.

Shadow of mordor is a memory intensive game that's why AMD shine the cards with a 512bit memory bus have an edge in this one...

Well, it's still an Nvidia game in which AMD cards do better. I believe that without GameWorks and their unoptimized code (unless they finally fix it) the games would run even better on AMD cards compared to Nvidia ones and entire GameWorks kinda ruins everything gamers stand for... It automatically makes you consider an Nvidia card even if it isn't better

Yeah, Digital Foundry seems to make pretty reliable benchmarks, I'd love that as well ^^ I'm sure they'll make AC:Syndicate video.

I'm not sure about the driver for Syndicate though, it would be logical if they prioritized Fallout 4 and the syndicate changes were minor, but maybe it's already complete, I have no idea it also featured improvements for Black Ops 3 and SW:Battlefront

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well, it's still an Nvidia game in which AMD cards do better. I believe that without GameWorks and their unoptimized code (unless they finally fix it) the games would run even better on AMD cards compared to Nvidia ones and entire GameWorks kinda ruins everything gamers stand for... It automatically makes you consider an Nvidia card even if it isn't better

Yeah, Digital Foundry seems to make pretty reliable benchmarks, I'd love that as well ^^ I'm sure they'll make AC:Syndicate video.

I'm not sure about the driver for Syndicate though, it would be logical if they prioritized Fallout 4 and the syndicate changes were minor, but maybe it's already complete, I have no idea it also featured improvements for Black Ops 3 and SW:Battlefront

Also remember when battlefront beta was running much better on R9 290X/390 or whatever...digital foundry made a video about it...here are some updated benchmarks this arcticle was put out yesterday...970...better than 290X at 1080p gaming...AGAIN:

 

[Morgan MLGman]

Also remember when battlefront beta was running much better on R9 290X/390 or whatever...digital foundry made a video about it...here are some updated benchmarks this arcticle was put out yesterday...970...better than 290X at 1080p gaming...AGAIN:

 

that's no longer valid, the updated AMD driver came out like one day ago, unless they did those benchmarks today it's not valid

[i_build_nanosuits]

that's no longer valid, the updated AMD driver came out like one day ago, unless they did those benchmarks today it's not valid

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2191-star-wars-battlefront-gpu-benchmark-final-launch

it came out yesterday and it says:

The latest AMD Catalyst drivers (15.11.1) were used for testing, including the Battlefront patch. NVidia's 358.91 drivers were used for testing, including the Battlefront patch. Game settings were configured to "Ultra," "High," and "Medium" presets at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions.

Each scenario was tested for 30 seconds identically, then repeated three times for parity.

We used the "Survival" mission on a set course (shown in our video). This was chosen for its replicability and reliability during test. This benchmark is not comparable to our previous Battlefront benchmark, which used Tatooine as the bench course. This updated benchmark used Endor, which we found to be an intensive test environment, as the benchmark platform.

 

so...valid or not huh?! :huh:

[Morgan MLGman]

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2191-star-wars-battlefront-gpu-benchmark-final-launch

it came out yesterday and it says:

The latest AMD Catalyst drivers (15.11.1) were used for testing, including the Battlefront patch. NVidia's 358.91 drivers were used for testing, including the Battlefront patch. Game settings were configured to "Ultra," "High," and "Medium" presets at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions.

Each scenario was tested for 30 seconds identically, then repeated three times for parity.

We used the "Survival" mission on a set course (shown in our video). This was chosen for its replicability and reliability during test. This benchmark is not comparable to our previous Battlefront benchmark, which used Tatooine as the bench course. This updated benchmark used Endor, which we found to be an intensive test environment, as the benchmark platform.

 

so...valid or not huh?! :huh:

Seems valid then

P.S. My overclock on the 290X is beyond stock 390X specs, therefore it should score around the 980 mark from this benchmark

[i_build_nanosuits]

Seems valid then

P.S. My overclock on the 290X is beyond stock 390X specs, therefore it should score around the 980 mark from this benchmark

highly doubt it you know AMD improved performance by refining some of the manufacturing process on the new 390 and 390X and also made various improvements to the hardware to slightly improve performance...it's not true that a 1100mhz 290X = 1100 390X...it's not all about clockspeed in this, the GPU has seen some noteable improvements and it can now process slightly more at each clock cycle.

[App4that]

highly doubt it you know AMD improved performance by refining some of the manufacturing process on the new 390 and 390X and also made various improvements to the hardware to slightly improve performance...it's not true that a 1100mhz 290X = 1100 390X...it's not all about clockspeed in this, the GPU has seen some noteable improvements and it can now process slightly more at each clock cycle.

Yep, my 390 beats my 290 by 10fps average in the Valley benchmark at the same clock speed.

[Morgan MLGman]

highly doubt it you know AMD improved performance by refining some of the manufacturing process on the new 390 and 390X and also made various improvements to the hardware to slightly improve performance...it's not true that a 1100mhz 290X = 1100 390X...it's not all about clockspeed in this, the GPU has seen some noteable improvements and it can now process slightly more at each clock cycle.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/09/21/xfx_r9_390_double_dissipation_8gb_video_card_review/9#.VkzJ--IpXPx

Clock for clock 390 vs 290 comparison. the difference is 0-2 FPS ^^ how about that? @App4that

[Prysin]

it works FLAWLESSLY shut it up you know it does it work FLAWLESSLY for EVERYONE i play the game MAXED OUT on a GTX 980ti as we speak and i get REALLY good performance across the board with no glitch, no bugs, no crash NO NOTHING...ALSO...i must turn the GODRAYS to ''MEDIUM'' (yeah i know...medium godrays...poor me!) because it's JUST TOO MUCH EYECANDY MY MAN!

 

HERE, i don't think you've seen this techoftomorrow video i posted earlier so i'll do it again just as a friendly slap in the nuts...this is 1800$ worth of AMD GPU hardware (FuryX ...two of these) running the game on ''AMD ULTRA'' settings (so not even maxed out...)...check at 12:30...27---29---25FPS...WOW...that's A LOT OF DOUGH PER FPS SON!

Video is dated November 11.

AMD drivers for FO4 was released 17th November

 

No basic drivers for FO4, no CF profile for FO4... and you still call this a valid benchmark?

 

here mate, i dare you. ROLL BACK THE DRIVERS OF YOUR 980TI TO LIKE, SAY AUGUST. THEN RETURN WITH VIDEO BENCHMARKS OF HOW IT RUNS IN FO4.

If you are unwilling to show how awesome a Nvidia GPU is without drivers, then you are not fit to comment on AMD not having a driver either.

 

drivers matters. we get it. But claming Nvidia is better because it gets more FPS when all evidence of FO4 performance is scewed due to AMD not having drivers ready... well, that is just bad practice.

 

Judgement should be made from even playing fields. This is a NVIDIA TITLE, MADE FOR NVIDIA. IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT NVIDIA PERFORMS WELL!!!

[i_build_nanosuits]

Yep, my 390 beats my 290 by 10fps average in the Valley benchmark at the same clock speed.

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/09/21/xfx_r9_390_double_dissipation_8gb_video_card_review/9#.VkzJ--IpXPx

Clock for clock 390 vs 290 comparison. the difference is 0-2 FPS ^^ how about that? @App4that

lol that's funny how both of you do not agree i wouldnt argue with someone who as both a 290 and a 390 though...i'm sure HE knows best!

anyways...morgan a simple google search will confirm it for you...go ahead

Also...about the 980...you must be aware of how much of an overclocking headroom the GTX 980's ship with right? like...legendary.

 

snip!

hope you feel better now son

[Morgan MLGman]

 

lol that's funny how both of you do not agree

anyways...morgan a simple google search will confirm it for you...go ahead

Also...about the 980...you must be aware of how much of an overclocking headroom the GTX 980's ship with right? like...legendary.

Why would it be funny? ^^ We're not friends or anything, I don't need anyone's approval for my opinions

Still, a stock 980 performance for around 3/4 price of a 970 (that's how much I paid for my 290X) is a pretty damn good deal

But what's wrong with hardocp link? How is it not true according to you? It's the same as I can call the digital foundry benchmark that you showed me invalid cause I found others that claim another thing ;-; I didn't cause I see no reason it should be not trustworthy

EDIT: I just saw what @Prysin said, I'd definitely check out the benchmark comparison like that ^^

[VagabondWraith]

You guys are still going at it? gg

[Morgan MLGman]

You guys are still going at it? gg

There was a driver update, we needed to discuss that further, It's still relevant to the topic called "R9 390 Fallout 4 Optimization"

[don_svetlio]

You guys are still going at it? gg

I'll quote a poem of mine that best describes it.

The air freezes as time stands still,

light wind breezes, bringing a hollowed chill.

Both sides strong, though not even in skill,

neither of them charging, an imminent thrill.

@Morgan MLGman

 

[Flare]

So watching benchmarks on fallout 4 with the R9 390 was really a kick in the nuts to see on the card I plan on getting but is it possible these issues will be fixed through drivers and updates from fallout 4? Cause this might make me get a 970 even though it's a little worse then the 390 but I won't get frameddrops on it like they do with a 390

nvidia gameworks is a bitch... and sadly fallout 4 uses it. it basically uses a separate graphics library which not even the developers are allowed to modify. a developer (forgot his name) quoted this as "nvidia blackbox"

 

now generally, this black box has lighting effects, shadows, aa etc. now when the game needs these graphical resources during gameplay, it "calls" the library. and as you can already guessed, 390 fails in this section causing fps drops.

 

unless amd find a way through (or at least a secondary plan), it's highly unlikely to happen. this moronic practice from nvidia isn't new. try to enable hairworks on witcher 3 with a 390 and see the result... (so far as I know, amd has no answer to this on witcher 3).

 

and lastly, you want a suggestion? here it is:

1. if you really want that "stupid" thing nvidia did to convince you, then go for 970. 

2. but for the love of pc gamers and the industry... just to support amd, go for a 390. not to mention it's faster in every aspect (apart from gameworks enabled titles) than the 970. 

 

I know people will call me an amd fanboy. sure, they can. I'm using an nvidia card and I'm ashamed of what they did... I WILL get a 390 in recent days.

 

just to be clear what I'm suggesting here, please take my advise as a grain of salt and do a little more research on the subject.

[i_build_nanosuits]

please take my advise as a grain of salt and do a little more research on the subject.

Amen

[App4that]

lol that's funny how both of you do not agree i wouldnt argue with someone who as both a 290 and a 390 though...i'm sure HE knows best!

anyways...morgan a simple google search will confirm it for you...go ahead

Also...about the 980...you must be aware of how much of an overclocking headroom the GTX 980's ship with right? like...legendary.

hope you feel better now son

When I first got it they were a few frames apart, but ether the drivers help the 390 more or the 390 needed to work itself in. Now the difference at 1040 isn't that big, it's at 1100 that the 390 flat out walks away from the 290. And my 290 is no slouch, I've compared benchmarks and how it performs in games and it's stronger than most other 290s I've seen. The 390 is just that good. 71.6fps in Valley on Extreme HD good.

[App4that]

OK, I have been holding steady at an overclock on my RAM at 2200MHz. I can confirm this fixes the issue for the most part, I still see the occasional dip in fps but it never goes below 50fps and that's nothing you notice as it doesn't effect gameplay. I also have been able to increase the DPS on my mouse as the game runs much smoother.

 

If you can, overclock you RAM, game LOVES it.

[don_svetlio]

OK, I have been holding steady at an overclock on my RAM at 2200MHz. I can confirm this fixes the issue for the most part, I still see the occasional dip in fps but it never goes below 50fps and that's nothing you notice as it doesn't effect gameplay. I also have been able to increase the DPS on my mouse as the game runs much smoother.

 

If you can, overclock you RAM, game LOVES it.

Yay - we're back to OCing RAM like 2004-2005.