R9 390 Fallout 4 Optimization

[Matt_Twinkletoes]

Should be enough time. If it turns out that amd cards are still performing less. Then the 970 should be your answer.

alright thanks

[App4that]

Why are you wasting so much of your time writing these long paragraphs in such detail to prove such a small point.

Because people are ignoring the truth. Gameworks games are more prevalent than people say and are become more prevalent each release. Now the excuse is just don't use the gameworks options. Why limit your ability to play a game with everything enabled? He had to list it like that to prove them wrong.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Why are you wasting so much of your time writing these long paragraphs in such detail to prove such a small point.

its copy paste of good informations for them to get used to gameworks features in games

also...yes if you can wait till christmas it's a great idea!

[Matt_Twinkletoes]

its copy paste of good informations for them to get used to gameworks features in games

also...yes if you can wait till christmas it's a great idea!

alright quote me again when you find out what happens with the drivers

[Morgan MLGman]

its copy paste of good informations for them to get used to gameworks features in games

I have only played The Witcher 3 and Batman: Arkham Knight that had gameworks features included, I didn't really like any of those. HairWorks was terrible on performance (whether it was my old 1540mhz GTX 970 or the 1150mhz R9 290X both @1200p), and while Batman's gameworks weren't as taxing, I didn't like most of them, they seemed... unrealistic to me, don't know how to explain that, I'm only using the Interactive Smoke ;-; Never cared for those too much, they're still way too heavy on performance imo, if they reduce performance decrease with all of the gameworks enabled in new games, THEN I might consider going back to an Nvidia card, as for right now, it's not worth it at all ;-;

I've also seen the TXAA interactive comparison compared to the other AA techniques, I personally preferred SMAA or a simple FXAA over that one, TXAA just seemed too blurred for me, maybe it was the screenshot but I don't like any kind of blurs in my games, blur and motion blur are always disabled for me.

[don_svetlio]

I have only played The Witcher 3 and Batman: Arkham Knight that had gameworks features included, I didn't really like any of those. HairWorks was terrible on performance (whether it was my old 1540mhz GTX 970 or the 1150mhz R9 290X both @1200p), and while Batman's gameworks weren't as taxing, I didn't like most of them, they seemed... unrealistic to me, don't know how to explain that, I'm only using the Interactive Smoke ;-; Never cared for those too much, they're still way too heavy on performance imo, if they reduce performance decrease with all of the gameworks enabled in new games, THEN I might consider going back to an Nvidia card, as for right now, it's not worth it at all ;-;

I've also seen the TXAA interactive comparison compared to the other AA techniques, I personally preferred SMAA or a simple FXAA over that one, TXAA just seemed too blurred for me, maybe it was the screenshot but I don't like any kind of blurs in my games, blur and motion blur are always disabled for me.

Ah, you see, you didn't enable the secret feature in GFE!

It causes your drivers to crash but thanks to market share gives you 50% more fps

[i_build_nanosuits]

I have only played The Witcher 3 and Batman: Arkham Knight that had gameworks features included, I didn't really like any of those. HairWorks was terrible on performance (whether it was my old 1540mhz GTX 970 or the 1150mhz R9 290X both @1200p), and while Batman's gameworks weren't as taxing, I didn't like most of them, they seemed... unrealistic to me, don't know how to explain that, I'm only using the Interactive Smoke ;-; Never cared for those too much, they're still way too heavy on performance imo, if they reduce performance decrease with all of the gameworks enabled in new games, THEN I might consider going back to an Nvidia card, as for right now, it's not worth it at all ;-;

I've also seen the TXAA interactive comparison compared to the other AA techniques, I personally preferred SMAA or a simple FXAA over that one, TXAA just seemed too blurred for me, maybe it was the screenshot but I don't like any kind of blurs in my games, blur and motion blur are always disabled for me.

 

IMHO, it's still very early in the game when it comes to Gameworks...we've probably only seen a glimps of what those development tools can provide for the game developers.

It's true that the execution so far has been far from perfect, some effects are just way too taxing for the visual impression that they achieve...BUT some are really nice, i like those in arkham knight the papers on the ground that lift when you walk by or the interactive smoke it's really nice and a good GPU will handle them just fine.

But, Gameworks is not only about that...what about HBAO+? you've owned a 970, you KNOW ambient occlusion can go a LONG way and HBAO+ just look fantastic compared to the other options and it's less taxing at the same time...PCSS shadows: those are the PERFECT shadow maps every time and they most of the time run better...or the bokeh depth of field in fallout 4 when this paired with godrays it's on for some really beautiful visuals at times.

(but then maybe i'm a bit biaised as i have the GTX980ti to a 1440p Gsync monitor...not sure how the 970 is doing but honestly i would assume it can render a fair bit of this stuff, even at 1440p)

The list of tools they provide as you've seen is impressive, and when they can provide that...plus a big chunk of change AND promote/distribute/optimise for your game on top of that, for a game developer it's hard to say NO!

[App4that]

Ah, you see, you didn't enable the secret feature in GFE!

It causes your drivers to crash but thanks to market share gives you 50% more fps

When a 970 is faster than a Fury, 50% is a conservative estimate.

[i_build_nanosuits]

When a 970 is faster than a Fury, 50% is a conservative estimate.

well yeah...that's not the case in 99.9% of the games out there though

funny man if you buy a 970 in the hope it'll be better than a FuryX overall you're in for quite the disapointment

[App4that]

well yeah...that's not the case in 99.9% of the games out there though

funny man if you buy a 970 in the hope it'll be better than a FuryX overall you're in for quite the disapointment

I said it as a joke but the reality is it's true. Anyone with a Fury just got their card cut off at the knees. Might be a fluke, might be a sign of things to come. Still waiting for a reaction from AMD, who is quiet.

[Morgan MLGman]

IMHO, it's still very early in the game when it comes to Gameworks...we've probably only seen a glimps of what those development tools can provide for the game developers.

It's true that the execution so far has been far from perfect, some effects are just way too taxing for the visual impression that they achieve...BUT some are really nice, i like those in arkham knight the papers on the ground that lift when you walk by or the interactive smoke it's really nice and a good GPU will handle them just fine.

But, Gameworks is not only about that...what about HBAO+? you've owned a 970, you KNOW ambient occlusion can go a LONG way and HBAO+ just look fantastic compared to the other options and it's less taxing at the same time...PCSS shadows: those are the PERFECT shadow maps every time and they most of the time run better...or the bokeh depth of field in fallout 4 when this paired with godrays it's on for some really beautiful visuals at times.

(but then maybe i'm a bit biaised as i have the GTX980ti to a 1440p Gsync monitor...not sure how the 970 is doing but honestly i would assume it can render a fair bit of this stuff, even at 1440p)

The list of tools they provide as you've seen is impressive, and when they can provide that...plus a big chunk of change AND promote/distribute/optimise for your game on top of that, for a game developer it's hard to say NO!

HBAO+, I'm using SSAO in The Witcher 3, the difference is very little , look at this: http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-ambient-occlusion-interactive-comparison-4-nvidia-hbao-plus-vs-ssao.html

With HBAO+ turned on I had around 5-7 FPS less on average, which made it drop below 60 on my 970, so I simply stopped using it in favor of SSAO, I didn't really notice the difference to be honest... I manage around 70 average with a little tweaked settings using my 290X, which is a bit more compared to the 60 FPS average on my 970

I also set Sharpening to "Low" cause on "High" it looked weird, didn't like that option either, but I'm not aware if it's also a Gameworks feature, it's not taxing at all though.

In Batman: AK the flying papers gameworks looked fun but there was too many of those, they were everywhere so I eventually turned it off despite it not affecting my FPS at all

[i_build_nanosuits]

HBAO+, I'm using SSAO in The Witcher 3, the difference is very little , look at this: http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-ambient-occlusion-interactive-comparison-4-nvidia-hbao-plus-vs-ssao.html

With HBAO+ turned on I had around 5-7 FPS less on average, which made it drop below 60 on my 970, so I simply stopped using it in favor of SSAO, I didn't really notice the difference to be honest... I manage around 70 average with a little tweaked settings using my 290X, which is a bit more compared to the 60 FPS average on my 970

 

well...drag the slider from left to right while looking at the plates on the table for example or the back of the hero and if you can't tell the difference i don,t know but it's quite obvious to me and in motion it's makes a sweet difference IMHO...

[Morgan MLGman]

well...drag the slider from left to right while looking at the plates on the table for example or the back of the hero and if you can't tell the difference i don,t know but it's quite obvious to me and in motion it's makes a sweet difference IMHO...

I would prefer to have it on, but not for the cost of even up to 7 FPS, that's unreasonable for such little effect in my opinion, but that just might be me, I'd rather have 60FPS on lower settings than 40 with some fancy stuff enabled that doesn't even change that much

[App4that]

I would prefer to have it on, but not for the cost of even up to 7 FPS, that's unreasonable for such little effect in my opinion, but that just might be me, I'd rather have 60FPS on lower settings than 40 with some fancy stuff enabled that doesn't even change that much

Should have stuck with a 970, you could have had both.

[Morgan MLGman]

Should have stuck with a 970, you could have had both.

I'm quite happy with the change. My 290X goes to 1150mhz core / 1450mhz memory, I get more average FPS (sometimes even  and as I mentioned, until gameworks get improved I am not going to use them until they get optimized. Hairworks caused people with Titan X drop below 60FPS. That is not acceptable to me.

Benchmarks from NVIDIA official site, Titan X SLI + OC'd i7-5960X @4,4ghz get 50FPS with HairWorks turned on @4K, that is a little too much considering it's a nearly 15FPS drop... With that beast of a setup that less than 1% of gamers can afford. 5 FPS is more acceptable, 15 is not ;-;

(source: http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide )

For 1200p gaming, the 290X is superior, from my own experience, I get higher framerates and most likely a better DX12 support on a 2 years old card. Hawaii has aged well. My 8350+290X after OC setup beat my flatmate's 970+4690k setup in shadow of mordor for example ;-; I recently found out that this game is good for AMD, despite being "Nvidia" optimized as the starting screen claims, but still, that's a good result considering he has a 11% lower 1080p resolution.

If GameWorks really become a thing included in a vast majority of titles, and they stop affecting performance this hard, then Nvidia cards are going to be the obvious choice, as for now, I still can fully recommend a 390 or a 290X over the 970, cause by that time the 970 is going to become obsolete anyway.

[App4that]

I'm quite happy with the change. My 290X goes to 1150mhz core / 1450mhz memory, I get more average FPS (sometimes even and as I mentioned, until gameworks get improved I am not going to use them until they get optimized. Hairworks caused people with Titan X drop below 60FPS. That is not acceptable to me.

Benchmarks from NVIDIA official site, Titan X SLI + OC'd i7-5960X @4,4ghz get 50FPS with HairWorks turned on @4K, that is a little too much considering it's a nearly 15FPS drop... With that beast of a setup that less than 1% of gamers can afford. 5 FPS is more acceptable, 15 is not ;-;

(source: http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide )

For 1200p gaming, the 290X is superior, from my own experience, I get higher framerates and most likely a better DX12 support on a 2 years old card. Hawaii has aged well. My 8350+290X after OC setup beat my flatmate's 970+4690k setup in shadow of mordor for example ;-; I recently found out that this game is good for AMD, despite being "Nvidia" optimized as the starting screen claims, but still, that's a good result considering he has a 11% lower 1080p resolution.

If GameWorks really become a thing included in a vast majority of titles, and they stop affecting performance this hard, then Nvidia cards are going to be the obvious choice, as for now, I still can fully recommend a 390 or a 290X over the 970, cause by that time the 970 is going to become obsolete anyway.

It's your purchase so I'm glad you're satisfied with it. I don't see DX12 being anything that gives AMD an advantage, AMD has shown themselves unwilling to capitalize on anything. Nvidia is the one giving themselves an advantage through software. But as you said we'll see.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'm quite happy with the change. My 290X goes to 1150mhz core / 1450mhz memory, I get more average FPS

For 1200p gaming, the 290X is superior, from my own experience, I get higher framerates and most likely a better DX12 support on a 2 years old card. Hawaii has aged well. My 8350+290X after OC setup beat my flatmate's 970+4690k setup in shadow of mordor for example ;-; I recently found out that this game is good for AMD, despite being "Nvidia" optimized as the starting screen claims, but still, that's a good result considering he has a 11% lower 1080p resolution.

If GameWorks really become a thing included in a vast majority of titles, and they stop affecting performance this hard, then Nvidia cards are going to be the obvious choice, as for now, I still can fully recommend a 390 or a 290X over the 970, cause by that time the 970 is going to become obsolete anyway.

 

It's your purchase so I'm glad you're satisfied with it. I don't see DX12 being anything that gives AMD an advantage, AMD has shown themselves unwilling to capitalize on anything. Nvidia is the one giving themselves an advantage through software. But as you said we'll see.

 

at the end of the day there are good, valid reasons to buy both of them:

-You might feel better buying the AMD card, the underdog really need all the help to keep the boat afloat right now and it seem like the DX12 API will fix the shit AMD hasnt been able to fix for years in their DX11 drivers which is the problem of higher cpu overhead and the fact that the drivers require more CPU processing for the GPU to perform at their fullest which should be a good thing for AMD users provided the company won't go under and cease support and development for the cards which would be truly sad.

AMD cards also usualy ship with more video memory, and once AMD optimise drivers for the newer games they can perform better than nvidia at the same price (not always, the GTX950 slap bitch the R7 370 and cost the same..but this is usualy not the case otherwise...the 980 is faster than 390X, it also cost more and does not have as much video memory...that type of things.)

-On nvidia's side of the fence the future look much brighter...they have a wide variety of new products, all featuring top of the line technologies and they have a lot more budget to put into research and development and also support and optimisation...and also to pay developers and sponsor AAA titles for years to come. The cards being newer technologies are also a lot more energy efficient output noticeably less heat which in turns mean less noise caused by the need for more heat dissipation. (not the 980ti though that thing is just too huge it's hot it's loud it does feel like and AMD hawaii GPU at the end of the day and i feel guilty for running a 350W graphics card just for my own enjoyment)

So yeah, gameworks or not...DX12 or not...valid arguments will remain for both, so long as AMD does not go under.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

I am positive AMD will release a new patch for AMD graphics drivers if its this controversial....No way that the r9 390x is that bad at playing fallout 4 

[Morgan MLGman]

It's your purchase so I'm glad you're satisfied with it. I don't see DX12 being anything that gives AMD an advantage, AMD has shown themselves unwilling to capitalize on anything. Nvidia is the one giving themselves an advantage through software. But as you said we'll see.

Of course we'll see, the main advantage of Hawaii and the newer Grenada is that they're significantly more powerful in computing than Maxwell, DX12 is made specifically to reduce driver overhead, if that's the case then by following basic logic the AMD cards have a higher chance to improve their performance, we will find out in the future though, that's only my prediction based on everything that's known about DX12 as for today I do not think software will reduce the gap in computing power, as Nvidia cards actually saw a performance decrease in some early DX12 benchmarks compared to DX11 perhaps of them being unable to properly use async, I'm not sure why exactly.

 

 

at the end of the day there are good, valid reasons to buy both of them:

-You might feel better buying the AMD card, the underdog really need all the help to keep the boat afloat right now and it seem like the DX12 API will fix the shit AMD hasnt been able to fix for years in their DX11 drivers which is the problem of higher cpu overhead and the fact that the drivers require more CPU processing for the GPU to perform at their fullest which should be a good thing for AMD users provided the compagny won't go under and cease support and development for the cards which would be truly sad.

AMD cards also usualy ship with more video memory, and once AMD optimise drivers for the newer games they can perform better than nvidia at the same price (not always, the GTX950 slap bitch the R7 370 and cost the same..but this is usualy not the case otherwise...the 980 is faster than 390X, it also cost more and does not have as much video memory...that type of things.)

-On nvidia's side of the fence the future look much brighter...they have a wide variety of new products, all featuring top of the line technologies and they have a lot more budget to put into research and development and also support and optimisation...and also to pay developers and sponsor AAA titles for years to come. The cards being newer technologies are also a lot more energy efficient output noticeably less heat which in turns mean less noise caused by the need for more heat dissipation. (not the 980ti though that thing is just too huge it's hot it's loud it does feel like and AMD hawaii GPU at the end of the day and i feel guilty for running a 350W graphics card just for my own enjoyment)

So yeah, gameworks or not...DX12 or not...valid arguments will remain for both, so long as AMD does not go under.

For even the sake of competition and Nvidia's try to monopolize the market people should support AMD, cause in the long run, (imo) it would benefit all gamers...

I do not understand the power consumption thing, or heat thing concerning AMD, Nvidia had their own power hungry GPUs (780Ti draws only 40W less under full load than a 290X for example) or their hot GPUs (GTX 480), that's more of a stereotype. Of course their recent cards are 'hotter' and draw more power than Maxwell architecture, but that did cost computing power in exchange, we'll see if it was the right choice after DX12 gets rollin', as for my statement about those cards, please read what I said above to App4that

 

[don_svetlio]

at the end of the day there are good, valid reasons to buy both of them:

-You might feel better buying the AMD card, the underdog really need all the help to keep the boat afloat right now and it seem like the DX12 API will fix the shit AMD hasnt been able to fix for years in their DX11 drivers which is the problem of higher cpu overhead and the fact that the drivers require more CPU processing for the GPU to perform at their fullest which should be a good thing for AMD users provided the company won't go under and cease support and development for the cards which would be truly sad.

AMD cards also usualy ship with more video memory, and once AMD optimise drivers for the newer games they can perform better than nvidia at the same price (not always, the GTX950 slap bitch the R7 370 and cost the same..but this is usualy not the case otherwise...the 980 is faster than 390X, it also cost more and does not have as much video memory...that type of things.)

-On nvidia's side of the fence the future look much brighter...they have a wide variety of new products, all featuring top of the line technologies and they have a lot more budget to put into research and development and also support and optimisation...and also to pay developers and sponsor AAA titles for years to come. The cards being newer technologies are also a lot more energy efficient output noticeably less heat which in turns mean less noise caused by the need for more heat dissipation. (not the 980ti though that thing is just too huge it's hot it's loud it does feel like and AMD hawaii GPU at the end of the day and i feel guilty for running a 350W graphics card just for my own enjoyment)

So yeah, gameworks or not...DX12 or not...valid arguments will remain for both, so long as AMD does not go under.

R9 290X is a 280W card >.> - you literally added in 30% more to make it look worse

More than half the DX12 devs are partnered with AMD btw

[don_svetlio]

It's your purchase so I'm glad you're satisfied with it. I don't see DX12 being anything that gives AMD an advantage, AMD has shown themselves unwilling to capitalize on anything. Nvidia is the one giving themselves an advantage through software. But as you said we'll see.

Look, instead of spreading hate all day long, return or sell your cards, get a 970 and be done with it. Or just be a reasonable consumer, wait a day or two and enjoy your cards for christ's sake...

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Look, instead of spreading hate all day long, return or sell your cards, get a 970 and be done with it. Or just be a reasonable consumer, wait a day or two and enjoy your cards for christ's sake...

I would recommend playing other games or lowering the graphics settings for the game and enjoy until AMD actually has the brains to optimize their cards for this game...Hopefully I didn't repeat anything

[i_build_nanosuits]

I am positive AMD will release a new patch for AMD graphics drivers if its this controversial....No way that the r9 390x is that bad at playing fallout 4 

 

we all know they will...it's always a question of WHEN?! how long will it take...it's like that everytime a new game launch AMD is always late which is totaly normal they don't have access until launch most of the time since most games are nvidia colaboration...they got wrecked at launch for watchdogs, ACU, Farcry4, GTA5, rainbow six, name it it's always like that...this time it's even worse the fact that a furyX will dip BELLOW 25FPS at 1440p is BEYOND ME...AMD released tomb raider 2013 (in 2013) then the dirt games (dirt rally lately) and the battlefield/star wars games those ran perfect on day 1 for AMD for obvious reasons...but that's about it...but when you look at initial nvidia driver perormance in those AMD titles it's never THAT bad it's always within spitting distance of where the hardware should be...dirt rally maxed out i was getting 80FP+ with maximum settings on my GTX 780 the day it launched and nvidia had a driver released for it...you see what i mean? it can get anoying it was like that when i had my HD7950 and it's still like that today...

look at this video from techoftomorrow this guy is showcasing it's AMD build with dual FuryX he is proud to say he run on ultra settings and stuff and yet start listenning at around 12:30 and look at the fraps counter...it's amazing...a GTX 960 would do better i'm sure, the performance is abysmal:

 

[don_svetlio]

I would recommend playing other games or lowering the graphics settings for the game and enjoy until AMD actually has the brains to optimize their cards for this game...Hopefully I didn't repeat anything

It's not about brains - it's about attuning their cards to work with the code in an Nvidia-sponsored game. I don't get this mentality - when Nvidia delay stuff it's fine but when AMD aren't ready day one = heresy.

[don_svetlio]

we all know they will...it's always a question of WHEN?! how long will it take...it's like that everytime a new game launch AMD is always late which is totaly normal they don't have access until launch most of the time since most games are nvidia colaboration...they got wrecked at launch for watchdogs, ACU, Farcry4, GTA5, rainbow six, name it it's always like that...this time it's even worse the fact that a furyX will dip BELLOW 25FPS at 1440p is BEYOND ME...AMD released tomb raider 2013 (in 2013) then the dirt games (dirt rally lately) and the battlefield/star wars games those ran perfect on day 1 for AMD for obvious reasons...but that's about it...but when you look at initial nvidia driver perormance in those AMD titles it's never THAT bad it's always within spitting distance of where the hardware should be...dirt rally maxed out i was getting 80FP+ with maximum settings on my GTX 780 the day it launched and nvidia had a driver released for it...you see what i mean? it can get anoying it was like that when i had my HD7950 and it's still like that today...

look at this video from techoftomorrow this guy is showcasing it's AMD build with dual FuryX he is proud to say he run on ultra settings and stuff and yet start listenning at around 12:30 and look at the fraps counter...it's amazing...a GTX 960 would do better i'm sure, the performance is abysmal:

 

You and I both know it's not that bad because AMD don't work to screw over the end user by gimping all cards - it's just that Tess gimps Maxwell less than GCN.