AMD’s Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition 17.9.2 Driver Out Now

[Guest]

If you own a Radeon-based video card, you should head on over to AMD's website and download the new Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition 17.9.2 driver.

AMD’s Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition 17.9.2 Driver Out Now : Read more

 

[IInuyasha74]

Now all you have to do is be able to buy two Vega GPUs.

 

[EntropyZ]

Or being able to run a couple of 64's at stock on a moderate PSU, without undervolting they are pretty mediocre power hungry cards. And then again CFX/SLI scaling has been historically not worth it.

 

[uglyduckling81]

I wouldn't say they are mediocre. A 64 is almost as good as a 1080. They draw more power but your talking about $20/year in Australia where power is really expensive for 24/7 up time. I think it's Gamers Nexus that did the testing on that. Yes they = that performance a year after the fact but nvidia is still sitting on the 1080 as a top tier product so it's definitely still relevant. I have a 1080 myself and would choose it every time over the Vega but it's not a bad card.

 

[calken]

Is this the strategy for Infinity on GPUs starting to play out?

 

[RomeoReject]

Could be nice to pair up a couple 56s - you'd have damn good performance for the cost.

 

[blppt]

"I wouldn't say they are mediocre. A 64 is almost as good as a 1080."

The problem currently is that a 1080Ti outperforms both for a lesser price than Vega 64 is selling for. Nevermind the factory Oc'd models.

 

[cinergy]

64 will eventually be better than 1080. AMD cards mature nicely whereas nvidia cards are already at peak upon launch since they are optimized for current (low) tech games.

 

[Mousemonkey]

64 will eventually be better than 1080. AMD cards mature nicely whereas nvidia cards are already at peak upon launch since they are optimized for current (low) tech games.

That's an age old argument that is always put forth by the faithful but where is the proof?

 

[blppt]

"64 will eventually be better than 1080. AMD cards mature nicely whereas nvidia cards are already at peak upon launch since they are optimized for current (low) tech games."

Erm...the more accurate assertion would be that Nvidia drivers are usually better optimized than AMD at launch of a new generation, and that AMD eventually irons out the inefficiencies in their drivers. Has little to do with the "tech level" of games. If you want to blame Nvidia for something, blame Gameworks inclusion in games often forcing the overworked AMD driver developers to work around.

 

[RomeoReject]

That's an age old argument that is always put forth by the faithful but where is the proof?

The proof is just looking around. The 290X went from a decent card to a great one, and continued to receive optimizations for years and years. Hell, it continues to receive updates now and then. My own two 280Xs tell a similar story. AMD tends to keep working on their cards for a long time after release.

How many NVidea cards do you know of that are still getting optimizations four generations down the road?

 

[Mousemonkey]

That's an age old argument that is always put forth by the faithful but where is the proof?

The proof is just looking around. The 290X went from a decent card to a great one, and continued to receive optimizations for years and years. Hell, it continues to receive updates now and then. My own two 280Xs tell a similar story. AMD tends to keep working on their cards for a long time after release.

How many NVidea cards do you know of that are still getting optimizations four generations down the road?

The latest driver from Nvidia supports all the way back to the 400 series (7 generations), I can't tell you what optimizations are provided but I assume there must be some.

 

[blppt]

I think he's confusing what AMD drivers *should* have been on launch to what they eventually become. Nvidia doesnt see much performance increases throughout an individual chipset lifespan because they're already optimized at launch IMHO.