Does Nvidia really gimp their cards?

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, D2ultima said:

Yeah, it does; it's the only thing that's giving them huge performance boosts from DX12/Vulkan.

That's what i was expecting until games like GoW:UE came out where AMD cards doesn't fully utilize most of the times and then Quantum Break show similar story where GPU usage fluctuate indicating some sort of bottleneck with the CPU/API unable to fully feed the GPU. Similar thing happen with ROTTR DX12 patch where CPU bottleneck still happen and probably even worst in some CPU intensive area compare to DX11. 

GOW:UE performance fixed after few patches for AMD card and so did Quantum Break, ROTTR show promising gain after some DX12 patches but still have some CPU bottleneck issue for AMD cards.

DX12 won't magically eliminate AMD card bottleneck if developer didn't code it properly just like Async-Compute won't benefit AMD card in DX12 if developer didn't use it.

[D2ultima]

7 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

That's what i was expecting until games like GoW:UE came out where AMD cards doesn't fully utilize most of the times and then Quantum Break show similar story where GPU usage fluctuate indicating some sort of bottleneck with the CPU/API unable to fully feed the GPU. Similar thing happen with ROTTR DX12 patch where CPU bottleneck still happen and probably even worst in some CPU intensive area compare to DX11. 

GOW:UE performance fixed after few patches for AMD card and so did Quantum Break, ROTTR show promising gain after some DX12 patches but still have some CPU bottleneck issue for AMD cards.

DX12 won't magically eliminate AMD card bottleneck if developer didn't code it properly just like Async-Compute won't benefit AMD card in DX12 if developer didn't use it.

Well to be honest, I just feel that it's developer-side. Those things are basically straight PC ports, barely any work done on them. You need cards 4 times stronger than an Xbox 1 to get Xbox 1 level performance, and they're all DX12.

 

Look at games like Total War: Warhammer or DOOM to see the benefits. Though Doom didn't enable Async for nVidia maxwell/pascal while it did for AMD, so that's a bit annoying. I can say it kills the DX11 driver overhead bottleneck, however as I said, it doesn't mean that it fixes the whole issue. They still need some more driver-side optimization, but their largest problem for performance right now is terrible OpenGL drivers, and DX11 driver overhead, both of which are fixed for DX12/Vulkan.

 

As for GoW and ROTTR, the fact that them patching it improves performance (rather than driver updates) means that it was their fault to begin with. DX12/Vulkan isn't magic; you're definitely right about that. But it does have a benefit for AMD that isn't there for nVidia, and AMD should be removing that benefit by fixing their DX11/OpenGL drivers in the first place. If their cards all got a performance boost in most DX11 games, it'd be a far different story from the current one of them lagging behind in most titles with similar powered cards.

[Miguel Batista]

29 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

Well to be honest, I just feel that it's developer-side. Those things are basically straight PC ports, barely any work done on them. You need cards 4 times stronger than an Xbox 1 to get Xbox 1 level performance, and they're all DX12.

Just a small correction, it is quite easy to run the game at 1080p 30fps with anything from a 960 upwards. Going from 30 to 60 fps however is nigh impossible.

 

DF ran the game at 1080p ultra with 8x msaa at 30fps on a 970 and couldn't get 60 fps with msaa off.

 

This seems to be an engine limitation and not a bottleneck since if you throw an i7 and a Titan XP you can play 4k 60 at ultra settings.

 

So, bad port a la arkham knight.

 

I have not bought this game because I feared these issues.

 

Edit: Also I am sure ms encryption and way of doing things doesnt help.

[D2ultima]

47 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

Just a small correction, it is quite easy to run the game at 1080p 30fps with anything from a 960 upwards. Going from 30 to 60 fps however is nigh impossible.

 

DF ran the game at 1080p ultra with 8x msaa at 30fps on a 970 and couldn't get 60 fps with msaa off.

 

This seems to be an engine limitation and not a bottleneck since if you throw an i7 and a Titan XP you can play 4k 60 at ultra settings.

 

So, bad port a la arkham knight.

 

I have not bought this game because I feared these issues.

 

Edit: Also I am sure ms encryption and way of doing things doesnt help.

You're confusing me... you said if I toss an i7 and Titan XP I could get 60fps but nobody could get it to run at 60fps? I'm confused.

[Miguel Batista]

1 hour ago, D2ultima said:

You're confusing me... you said if I toss an i7 and Titan XP I could get 60fps but nobody could get it to run at 60fps? I'm confused.

Yeah. Writing on my phone sucks...

 

So basically, with lower end gear, like a 390 or a 970, you cannot get locked 60fps on ultra with msaa off. However, you can get locked 30 fps with msaa x8.

 

To get 60 fps you need to go to enthusiast gear and with a titan xp you can get 4k 60 fps ultra.

 

It seems to me that there is a problem with the game engine itself because 30 fps with msaa x8 should take more resources than 60 fps with msaa off. That problem seems to be circumvented if you throw ludicrous amounts of cuda cores and vram at it.

 

This seems to indicate that the game does not scale well to high frequencies. Where it requires a lot more hardware than it should. Based on the info posted by other users it could be that the port is not optimized for PC very well making poor use of CPU and GPU.

 

For reference, Xbone basically runs this game on high with 4x msaa at 30fps so my post was to say that you can run it.on Xbox settings with a 960 upwards. Maybe even a 950... The problem is that once you try higher framerates, you don't want to go back to 30 fps. And let's be honest, the game shouldn't be this demanding. The textures and reflections are very good but the models themselves are not great (based on Forza Apex which I play) and the game feels cartoonish. Project Cars and Assetto Corsa look and feel better to me.

[Dabombinable]

3 hours ago, D2ultima said:

Well to be honest, I just feel that it's developer-side. Those things are basically straight PC ports, barely any work done on them. You need cards 4 times stronger than an Xbox 1 to get Xbox 1 level performance, and they're all DX12.

 

Look at games like Total War: Warhammer or DOOM to see the benefits. Though Doom didn't enable Async for nVidia maxwell/pascal while it did for AMD, so that's a bit annoying. I can say it kills the DX11 driver overhead bottleneck, however as I said, it doesn't mean that it fixes the whole issue. They still need some more driver-side optimization, but their largest problem for performance right now is terrible OpenGL drivers, and DX11 driver overhead, both of which are fixed for DX12/Vulkan.

 

As for GoW and ROTTR, the fact that them patching it improves performance (rather than driver updates) means that it was their fault to begin with. DX12/Vulkan isn't magic; you're definitely right about that. But it does have a benefit for AMD that isn't there for nVidia, and AMD should be removing that benefit by fixing their DX11/OpenGL drivers in the first place. If their cards all got a performance boost in most DX11 games, it'd be a far different story from the current one of them lagging behind in most titles with similar powered cards.

BTW, AMD's OpenGL performance tanked after 2010. I have to use drivers from 2013 or 2015 with my laptop to get it working properly under Windows 10 (Mobility Radeon HD5650), and the frame rate in OpenGL games was cut by about 2 thirds, while DirectX games run just as well as they used to.

[D2ultima]

1 hour ago, Miguel Batista said:

Based on the info posted by other users it could be that the port is not optimized for PC very well making poor use of CPU and GPU.

You hit the nail on the head there, man.

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

BTW, AMD's OpenGL performance tanked after 2010. I have to use drivers from 2013 or 2015 with my laptop to get it working properly under Windows 10 (Mobility Radeon HD5650), and the frame rate in OpenGL games was cut by about 2 thirds, while DirectX games run just as well as they used to.

Yeah, but drivers from 2010 wouldn't be good for most anything new even if you had a 5870 and OC'd it to its limits. Oh well.

 

Also, why are you even using W10 on such a machine? There's no benefit but many downsides. And yeah, DX11 games have basically always run about the same. DX9 doesn't have the issue DX11 does, which is why back in the day AMD would lose in DX11 but trade blows or even win in DX9.

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

You hit the nail on the head there, man.

Yeah, but drivers from 2010 wouldn't be good for most anything new even if you had a 5870 and OC'd it to its limits. Oh well.

 

Also, why are you even using W10 on such a machine? There's no benefit but many downsides. And yeah, DX11 games have basically always run about the same. DX9 doesn't have the issue DX11 does, which is why back in the day AMD would lose in DX11 but trade blows or even win in DX9.

Phenom II N970+4GB DDR3 1333 (dual channel, have to get 2x 4GB sticks), its SSD upgrade makes it a lot faster at all tasks (except gaming, excluding load times), and it flogs the crap out of my notebook with its A8 4555M-which is just another shitty APU that TDP throttles after a few minutes under load to sub stock speeds. Oh and it can play Fallout 4.

 

Edit: I haven't found a touchsreen for it either, but I do know it can be fitted with one since HP used the same motherboard across a wide range of models+price points, that and I saw the touchscreen connector+circuitry.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Dabombinable

[D2ultima]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Phenom II N970+4GB DDR3 1333 (dual channel, have to get 2x 4GB sticks), its SSD upgrade makes it a lot faster at all tasks (except gaming, excluding load times), and it flogs the crap out of my notebook with its A8 4555M-which is just another shitty APU that TDP throttles after a few minutes under load to sub stock speeds. Oh and it can play Fallout 4.

Huh?

[Dabombinable]

Just now, D2ultima said:

Huh?

Despite what reviewers said about it when it launched in 2010/2011, its good for heavy gaming to this day. Despite being old as far as laptops go.

[D2ultima]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Despite what reviewers said about it when it launched in 2010/2011, its good for heavy gaming to this day. Despite being old as far as laptops go.

Well, okay. But I don't understand why you told me O_O. The only thing I asked was why you were on Windows 10.

[Dabombinable]

20 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

Well, okay. But I don't understand why you told me O_O. The only thing I asked was why you were on Windows 10.

Because I could-my laptop according to HP wasn't compatible, and guess what? I proved the idiots wrong.

Edit: It also runs better under Windows 10 than 7.

[D2ultima]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

Because I could-my laptop according to HP wasn't compatible, and guess what? I proved the idiots wrong.

What the hell does HP know lol

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, D2ultima said:

What the hell does HP know lol

They know how to fool people into thinking that there is such a thing as different types of mini PCI, and that only certain wifi cards will work in their laptops (spoiler, just putting their laptops into standby and installing any old wifi card proves them wrong).

[D2ultima]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

They know how to fool people into thinking that there is such a thing as different types of mini PCI, and that only certain wifi cards will work in their laptops (spoiler, just putting their laptops into standby and installing any old wifi card proves them wrong).

Nobody should buy HP, really.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, D2ultima said:

Nobody should buy HP, really.

The only reason I actually bought the laptop in the first place, is that my previous HP laptop has managed to last over 13 years (and while its original battery holds 5-10 minutes charge). Though TBH, that thing was more like a desktop if you ignored its Ati Mobiltiy Radeon 9000igp and had at least 1GB of RAM installed.

[Morgan MLGman]

16 hours ago, Enderman said:

Sorry but I remember when they didn't release a driver update for almost a year and people were really pissed off so they hired more people for their software division and created Crimson. Maybe you don't remember that?

I didn't have an AMD card during those times I guess, I bought it around a year ago, and since then I'm receiving updates pretty often, with more than once a month for the past few months

[belfouf]

On 29/09/2016 at 7:39 AM, dfg666 said:

380X > 780 Ti

229 USD > 699 USD

Will this be just a case of Kepler being the worst architecture or does Nvidia actually gimp their cards? The 780 Ti competed with the 290X and it outperformed the 290X on launch.

 

this graphic seems false, I don't know if everything is false in it, but for exemple the bottom HD 7970 actually beats GTX 960 (by a lot). I presume fps may be good but they didn't place right cards names in front of real results

[Tech Inquisition]

From my extensive testing on all Nvidia drivers starting a couple of month's ago... I've found no proof of actual gimping in the Maxwell 2 series of graphics cards.

 

PS: 375.57 review coming soon...

[Vellinious]

On 9/29/2016 at 6:29 AM, i_build_nanosuits said:

i'm sorry but these numbers in the graph don't make any sense what so ever...58/69 FPS on a 290X...BULLSHIT...that thing can barely reach 40FPS...listen to this video you can start watching at 2:40 or just watch the whole thing:

 

290X faster than 970...yeah i call BS on that...also 970 faster than 780ti by 20FPS across the board...also BULLSHIT.

The 290X I had made all the 970s I had look like gimps.  Even the really good clockers.  The 290X I had would hit 1300+ and the last couple of 970s I had with the custom bios I made for it, hit 1620+.  

lol, that's not uncommon either.