R9 280x versus GTX 760 4GB - battle of the drivers! FIGHT!

[Mooshi]

I think I will cancel my Sapphire R9 280x Vapor-X order and buy GTX 760 4GB with Batman Arkham Origins instead, the price is virtually the same.

 

I'd rather stick to the 280x myself since the 7970 Ghz edition card was pretty mad. The GTX 760 with 4GB of Vram..not on that memory bus. It's marketing fluff.

[Wolfur]

I'd rather stick to the 280x myself since the 7970 Ghz edition card was pretty mad. The GTX 760 with 4GB of Vram..not on that memory bus. It's marketing fluff.

It's not marketing fluff, works perfectly... 4GB on the PCB wired up correctly and it just works, it's better than having a vram bottleneck at 2GB of vram.

people reporting on some of GTX 760 4GB reviews that they hit over 2GB easily with Skyrim modded.

[Mooshi]

It's not marketing fluff, works perfectly... 4GB on the PCB wired up correctly and it just works, it's better than having a vram bottleneck at 2GB of vram.

people reporting on some of GTX 760 4GB reviews that they hit over 2GB easily with Skyrim modded.

 

Seems a bit suspect, though. With that memory bus, I'm not sure if it could even utilize 4GB properly. Maybe 3, but who knows.

[Wolfur]

Seems a bit suspect, though. With that memory bus, I'm not sure if it could even utilize 4GB properly. Maybe 3, but who knows.

Why wouldn't it be able to utilize 4GB if everything on PCB is wired up correctly? The same way Titan can use 6GB or even 12GB (Quadro cards on GK110 have 12GB vram.)

The same way GTX 650ti or 7790 (r7 260x) can use 2GB... etc.

[xAcid9]

Btw, any source that say Catalyst driver didn't support multithreading?

[Wolfur]

Btw, any source that say Catalyst driver didn't support multithreading?

It's not about 'supporting multithreading', it's about the way driver is developed.

ATI/AMD/Radeon drives were never developed with multithreading in mind. nvidia switched to multithreaded drivers around Fermi which had negative impact on dual core CPUs for example but nowadays it actually pays off because Nvidia drivers work better on AMD CPUs which offer more cores with slower single thread.

 

Don't know where exactly to look for this info, just googled, only old data, for example:

 

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4166876

 

No idea how relevant it is.

[xAcid9]

It's not about 'supporting multithreading', it's about the way driver is developed.

ATI/AMD/Radeon drives were never developed with multithreading in mind. nvidia switched to multithreaded drivers around Fermi which had negative impact on dual core CPUs for example but nowadays it actually pays off because Nvidia drivers work better on AMD CPUs which offer more cores with slower single thread.

 

Don't know where exactly to look for this info, just googled, only old data, for example:

 

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4166876

 

No idea how relevant it is.

That link only show that Catalyst didn't support Multithread Rendering feature in DirectX 11 yet.

 

Both Catalyst and Geforce driver supported multi cores CPU years ago.

 

If you can read

Sauce: DX10+Catalyst 9.1+quad = ?

 

 

Multi Thread Support

 

Enable MT Support: If you have a multi-thread capable CPU, that is either a dual/multi core CPU, or a CPU with HyperThreading (virtual dual core) technology, you can enable this option for a potential performance improvement. You should leave the 'Minimum Working Threads' to 0 and set the 'Maximum Working Threads' to a value like 2 to start with. Play some recent 3D games and see if you get an actual improvement in performance, and also note if there is any additional instability caused. If it remains stable and you also notice a performance improvement, raise the Maximum value to 4, 6 or 8 for example and again experiment.

Sauce: ATI Catalyst Tweak Guide [Page 10] Advanced Tweaking (Pt 2)

 

According to this news, the version 9.1 (internal version: 8.561.3) of the

Catalyst graphics drivers should be multithreaded or bring multithreaded support to some applications. In some Direct3D 10 games like Crysis, this will bring up to 9% (on a dual core CPU) or 22% (on a quad core CPU).

Direct3D 9 and 10 are single threaded APIs by nature. So such a boost in performance on a quad core CPU is a very good news because that means

that ATI is ready or is capable to release a nice multithreaded video driver for Direct3D 11. Keep in mind that Direct3D 11 is targeted at to be a multithreaded graphics API.

ATI also just released a hotfix for Catalyst 8.12 that improves DirectX10 performance in various applications in multi-core CPU systems. This hotfix is for Windows Vista only.

Sauce: ATI Catalyst And Multithreading Support

[Wolfur]

That link only show that Catalyst didn't support Multithread Rendering feature in DirectX 11 yet.

 

Both Catalyst and Geforce driver supported multi cores CPU years ago.

 

If you can read

Sauce: DX10+Catalyst 9.1+quad = ?

 

 

Sauce: ATI Catalyst Tweak Guide [Page 10] Advanced Tweaking (Pt 2)

 

Sauce: ATI Catalyst And Multithreading Support

 

 

And yet GeForce works better with AMD CPUs... that's really strange.

[hehehehhehehehe]

Why wouldn't it be able to utilize 4GB if everything on PCB is wired up correctly? The same way Titan can use 6GB or even 12GB (Quadro cards on GK110 have 12GB vram.)

The same way GTX 650ti or 7790 (r7 260x) can use 2GB... etc.

Just like the 770 can't use more then 2-3Gb of it's memory.

The Memory bus and memory speed are whats holding them back from being able to make use of it all.

 

 

And also in general why do you come here and ask us for help, yet when we all say you should just go with the 280x you seem to think we are just messing with you or something and then you instantly start arguing & going on about how we are wrong...

[Wolfur]

Just like the 770 can't use more then 2-3Gb of it's memory.

The Memory bus and memory speed are whats holding them back from being able to make use of it all.

 

You're wrong, somehow all those cards i mentioned can use their memory even tho by your logic the bus wouldn't let them... people report that they easily break 3GB of vram with Skyrim at times on cards like GTX 760 4GB...

 

Titan can use 6GB... 7790 (128bit bus) can use 2GB... etc.

 

And also in general why do you come here and ask us for help, yet when we all say you should just go with the 280x you seem to think we are just messing with you or something and then you instantly start arguing & going on about how we are wrong...

I wanted to hear your insights on this topic, guys. Thanks for all the input. I only corrected your mistakes here and there, i'm not saying you are completely wrong, guys.

I'm eager to hear more opinions.

[Guest]

I highly doubt this assertion that the radeon drivers are "single-threaded"...

 

You don't seem to know what you are talking about and have not cited any good sources.

 

Its just a nonsense claim.

[Raxxdude]

 

The ones that run better on Radeons like Tomb Raider or Max Payne 3 wouldn't prove anything because those games barely consume any CPU power.

 

How do I know that?

 

Take a look:

 

Without overclocked CPUs:

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/06/i3_p2_fx_770_7970/charts/maxpayne3_1920.png

With overclocked CPUs:

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/06/i3_p2_fx_770_7970/charts/oc_maxpayne3_1920.png

 

Notice how overclocking the CPUs doesn't change anything. These games like Tomb Raider happen to be purely GPU dependant and any CPU can feed the GPUs if there is no other load put on the CPU, obviously.

 

Yep, that's why I made the thread, to discuss 7970Ghz (15% faster GPU with single-threaded drivers) vs GTX 760 (15% slower GPU with multi-threaded drivers that help a lot when a game needs a lot of CPU power - Nvidia drivers are 'lighter' on multi-core CPUs because the load is spread between many cores.

 

 

I never said GPUs aren't multithreaded. In fact, you mistake terms.

 

GPU = graphics card.

Drivers = software that puts load on your CPU in order to 'drive' GPU.

 

Radeon's Catalyst Drivers run on a single thread, thus they need a fast single thread (i.e. Intel CPU) to be fed.

GeForce Drivers run on multiple threads, thus they run fine on multi-threaded CPUs, even if they are slower per core, but run slower (!) on dual core CPUs like pentiums compared to Radeons.

 

 

I'm not going to comment on this... Would you say FX 63xx is bad CPU? well check your facts, Phenom II x6 was released 27th April 2010.

Once overclocked it can easily match the raw power of FX 6300, sometimes even exceeding it (6 full Phenom cores vs 3 Piledriver modules with 2 ALUs, 1 FPU per module), as long as the newer instructions are not in use. Games don't use newer instructions.

 

Do you think that a newer CPU = faster CPU? Not always.

And in my case a newer CPU wouldn't improve gaming performance as much as a new GPU.

 

 

 

What exactly do you mean?

 

Why are all of your points coming from one source, that is just bad research. In all my time researching parts I have never seen or heard anything about what you are saying. You should also should probably get a new CPU as well. 

[TechFan@ic]

Wolfur was banned, this topic is filled with far more fanboy bias than actual facts.

[Violator]

[General]sLanguage=ENGLISHiNumHWThreads=8 iHWThread6=7 iHWThread5=6 iHWThread4=5 iHWThread3=4 iHWThread2=3 iHWThread1=2 iAIThread2HWThread=3 iAIThread1HWThread=2 iRenderingThread2HWThread=1 iRenderingThread1HWThread=0uGridsToLoad=5uExterior Cell Buffer=36sIntroSequence=bRunHighLevelProcess=1bMultiThreadMovement=1bUseThreadedParticleSystem=1bUseThreadedBlood=1bUseThreadedMorpher=1bUseThreadedTempEffects=1bUseThreadedTextures=1bUseThreadedMeshes=1bUseThreadedLOD=1bUseThreadedAI=1bUseHardDriveCache=0fFlickeringLightDistance=8192bBorderRegionsEnabled=1[BackgroundLoad]bUseBackgroundFileLoader=1bUseMultiThreadedFaceGen=1bBackgroundCellLoads=1bUseMultiThreadedTrees=1bUseBackgroundFileLoader=1bBackgroundLoadLipFiles=1[Display]fDefaultWorldFOV=80fDefault1stPersonFOV=80fSunShadowUpdateTime=1.000fSunUpdateThreshold=0.500fShadowLODMaxStartFade=2500.0fSpecularLODMaxStartFade=3000.0fLightLODMaxStartFade=3500.0iShadowMapResolutionPrimary=2048bShadowsOnGrass=1bPerPixelLighting=1bAllowScreenshot=0bSimpleLighting=0fDecalLifetime=56.5000iAdapter=0iPresentInterval=1iTexMipMapSkip=0[Audio]fMusicDuckingSeconds=6.0fMusicUnDuckingSeconds=8.0fMenuModeFadeOutTime=3.0fMenuModeFadeInTime=1.0[Grass]bAllowCreateGrass=1bAllowLoadGrass=0bGrassPointLighting=1b30GrassVS=1iMaxGrassTypesPerTexure=7iMinGrassSize=80iGrassCellRadius=2.5[GeneralWarnings]SGeneralMasterMismatchWarning=One or more plugins could not find the correct versions of the master files they depend on. Errors may occur during load or game play. Check the "Warnings.txt" file for more information.[Archive]sResourceArchiveList=Skyrim - Misc.bsa, Skyrim - Shaders.bsa, Skyrim - Textures.bsa, Skyrim - Interface.bsa, Skyrim - Animations.bsa, Skyrim - Meshes.bsa, Skyrim - Sounds.bsasResourceArchiveList2=Skyrim - Voices.bsa, Skyrim - VoicesExtra.bsa[Combat]fMagnetismStrafeHeadingMult=0.0fMagnetismLookingMult=0.0f1PArrowTiltUpAngle=0.5f3PArrowTiltUpAngle=1.0f1PBoltTiltUpAngle=0.3f3PBoltTiltUpAngle=0.4 [Actor]fVisibleNavmeshMoveDist=12288.0000[Papyrus]fUpdateBudgetMS=800fPostLoadUpdateTimeMS=800iMinMemoryPageSize=256iMaxMemoryPageSize=8192iMaxAllocatedMemoryBytes=2457600bEnableLogging=0bEnableTrace=0bLoadDebugInformation=0[Water]iWaterReflectHeight=1024iWaterReflectWidth=1024bUseWaterDisplacements=1bUseWaterRefractions=1bUseWaterReflections=1bUseWaterDepth=1bUseWaterReflectionBlur=1bReflectExplosions=1iWaterBlurAmount=4bAutoWaterSilhouetteReflections=1bForceHighDetailReflections=0bUseWaterHiRes=1bUseWaterLOD=1bReflectLODObjects=1bReflectLODLand=1bReflectSky=1bReflectLODTrees=1bUseWaterShader=1 [Trees]bForceFullDetail=1bEnableTreeAnimations=1[TerrainManager]bKeepLowDetailTerrain=0[Controls]bMouseAcceleration=0[HAVOK]iNumThreads=4[SaveGame]bAllowProfileTransfer=1bUseSaveGameHistory=1[Decals]bDecalMultithreaded=1bForceAllDecals=1[Imagespace]bDoRadialBlur=1[LightingShader]fDecalLODFadeEnd=1.0000fDecalLODFadeStart=1.0000[Animation]fAnimInterpFarDist=10500.0000fAnimInterpNearDist=10000.0000[BudgetCaps]uActorMemoryBudgetCap=20971520uLoadedAreaNonActorMemoryBudgetCap=371195904uWaterMemoryInterior=20971520uTextureMemoryInterior=20971520uGeometryMemoryInterior=20971520uWaterMemory=10485760uTextureMemory=20971520uGeometryMemory=10485760[Particles]iMaxDesired=750[Interface]fBookOpenTime=700.0000fSafeZoneX=15fSafeZoneY=15fSafeZoneXWide=15fSafeZoneYWide=15[MapMenu]sMapCloudNIF=0bWorldMapNoSkyDepthBlur=1fWorldMapNearDepthBlurScale=0fWorldMapDepthBlurScale=0fWorldMapMaximumDepthBlur=0fMapWorldYawRange=3600.0000fMapWorldMaxHeight=130000.0000fMapWorldMinHeight=5000.0000

If you want to show the difference between an AMD and Nvidia card with Skyrim in companion with multi threaded CPU's, you should at least post your skyrim.ini settings, cause if those are standard the game just runs a single thread to the CPU.

 

Also, which texture packs and ENB are used?

If you just run the standard game with DLC texture packs your not even close to taking advantage of the cards memory.

So a comparison should include dynamic Vram load and GPU load as well.

I suggest you try RealVision ENB FULL with all the texture packs and mods, but don't think you can take them all in their maximum resolution, even 3GB Vram gets pushed over the limit there.

[Suika]

GTX 760 4GB - It's useless. Unless you fully plan on putting it into a three a four way SLI, and I highly recommend against anything like that, you are not going to be able to access more than 2GB of the video memory. The same applies with the GTX 770 4GB. You run out of horse power before you do memory in almost every known case. The GTX 770 is powerful enough that there's a difference in a power dual SLI, but not for a 760, which needs three or four way SLI for the difference to really show.

 

I'd recommend a GTX 770 2GB before the 760. It really is marketing dooky, since the bus is too small and there is nowhere near enough power.

 

R9 280X - If you want more than 2GB of VRAM, this is one of your only realistic options outside of a multicard rig.

[GamerDude]

It seems to me that TS is simply trying to convince himself that the GTX760 is the better card for him, whether thru bad research (relying on just one website is not prudent) or he had just fixated on this idea is anyone's guess. I've heard talk that with older CPU's, AMD GPU's are a little less efficient than it pricepoint competitor, like in the case of the GTX770 vs HD7970 (the R9 280X is a tad faster than the HD7970 actually). The GTX760 is simply not up to the level of the R9 280X performance regardless of what CPU is being used. The GTX770 is the actual rival to the R9 280X, the GTX760 falls short of both these cards by a fair margin.

 

All I can say is, if TS is so bound and determined to get the 4GB GTX760 instead of the R9 280X 3GB, he would do so regardless of what anyone says. So, best of luck to you....

[martinrox1568]

More threads being used in GeForce drivers leads to less overhead leads to better FPS in games that are heavy on CPU.

 

Single thread being used in Radeon drivers leads to more overhead leads to worse FPS in games that are heavy on CPU (we're talking about AMD CPUs getting lower performance with Radeon vs GeForce drivers, because AMD has slow single thread, MUCH slower than intel's, thus the Radeon driver is running slower on AMD CPUs, but Intel has no problem chewing through this overhead).

Where did you hear this? I wouldn't put all my eggs in this basket if you only heard it from one source. I've never heard about this and makes little sense with me.