AMD Radeon R9 300 Series MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

[jerdle]

AMD's lineup of GPUs get their price cuts:
http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-fury-x-nano-price-cuts/


So tempting to get that second fury X @ $570...

to buy another and sell both when HBM 2 comes out....or wait and just sell one when HBM 2 comes out....argh.

 

[renz496]

And did you know what the most funny about that? Without nvidia 2 million 'donation' to crytek the game will not even going to see DX11 nor HD texture pack being patch in into the game.

What nvidia did with crysis 2 was excessive but still doesn't change the fact better graphic also going to eat your performance. PC gamer only have one problem. When the game easily max out they will blame dev for not properly utilize all the raw power available on pc and asking for more. But when dev making demanding games they will accuse developer being lazy to properly optimize their games so it can run well. In Batman AK the problem is not game works. Even without those the PC version still work like garbage. Sometimes i think that probably Rocksteady/WB way of giving middle finger to PC gamer for being so hard to please.

But under map oceans, ultra godrays and 64x tess in hw doesn't make the graphics any better, its akin to starting up a game, alt tabbing and running a stress test just so your pc is at 100% load. People complain when the iq doesn't warrant the low frame rate on mid/high end hw.

gpu maker need to create reason for people to buy their high end card. remember Dirt 2? the difference between DX9 and DX11 are almost none graphic wise but DX11 usually have quite significant performance hit. many reviewer back then recommend to play the game in DX9 instead because of no visual difference between the two. and it is AMD that has been talking about the importance of tessellation in games, how they are proud their hardware have tessellation engine ever since 3k and 4k series. Dirt 2 is AMD sponsored games. did people back then rage because Dirt 2 DX11 was more demanding (part of it was because of tessellation) to run despite no visual difference than DX9 counterpart?

and as i said even if the game was very good looking and well optimized we still see people try to find excuse so they can complained. game good looking but still easier to run? meh console port. game more demanding (even without game works), having better texture and even have PC exclusive setting but significantly more demanding to run? lazy developer that does not know how to opmized codes.

 

[17seconds]

AMD Crimson Software Might Cause locked fan RPM at 20% (overheats cards)
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-crimson-software-might-cause-locked-fan-rpm-at-20.html

 

[loki1944]

nvidia need to catch up with drivers now, the last 8 months have been terrible on team green, hard crashes on win10 with certain video softwares for god knows how long, every 4-5 times I switch my pc on I'm greeted with no desktop just c64 style flashing colours and now amd have this cool new sw, I know what I'll be asking santa for now.

Yup, last two drivers caused all kinds of graphical glitches and crashes for me on multiple systems, so had to go back to the older ones.

 

[loki1944]

AMD Crimson Software Might Cause locked fan RPM at 20% (overheats cards)
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-crimson-software-might-cause-locked-fan-rpm-at-20.html

That is the opposite of awesome.

 

[Vogner16]

AMD Crimson Software Might Cause locked fan RPM at 20% (overheats cards)
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-crimson-software-might-cause-locked-fan-rpm-at-20.html

That is the opposite of awesome.

patch should be released today amd is aware of the issue. hasn't affected my 7970, but its getting fixed.

 

[Vogner16]

amd has a patch out.

http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/November-30-hotfix.aspx#

 

[Vogner16]

Frame Rate Target Control Enhancements:
FRTC enhancements include: power saving capabilty, support for DirectX® 9 titles and an extended range for target control (30 - 200 FPS).


this is a good update however most people locked it at 60 or 75 I feel

 

[Vogner16]

Freesync™ Enhancements:


Minimum/Maximum display rate is now listed in Radeon Settings

Low framerate compensation to reduce or eliminate judder when application FPS falls below the minimum refresh rate of an AMD Freesync™ enabled display

New support for AMD Freesync™ with AMD Crossfire™ in DirectX 9® titles

this fixes one of the major bonuses of gsync over freesync. freesync monitors are getting quite appealing!

 

[loki1944]

Freesync™ Enhancements:


Minimum/Maximum display rate is now listed in Radeon Settings

Low framerate compensation to reduce or eliminate judder when application FPS falls below the minimum refresh rate of an AMD Freesync™ enabled display

New support for AMD Freesync™ with AMD Crossfire™ in DirectX 9® titles

this fixes one of the major bonuses of gsync over freesync. freesync monitors are getting quite appealing!

So I replaced my 780Tis with 980Tis then replaced my 290Xs with my 780Tis and gave my 290Xs to a buddy who doesn't have money to upgrade from his 7950s about 3 months ago; I'm away from home right now, but I bought the MSI 390X LE from newegg (slightly lower clock of 1040Mhz, but was $350 at the time) for my Mini-ITX build I'm doing, how are the new drivers doing with games now? I had some significant problems with some games with my 290Xs (though most of the time with CF); also I'd like to know if the Freesync thing is actually tangible, because honestly with my gsync monitors it either makes things worse or at best it does nothing for me. I was toying with the idea of getting a freesync monitor, but that gsync burned me pretty bad.

 

[Vogner16]

dual gpu issues always will have issues. the 390x imo is the best card on the market to do in a dual gpu setup if you are going to do one.

It appears you have no limit to your funds as you have 2 780ti ($1100) 2 290x ($800) and 2 980ti ($1300) and a 390x ($400). at this point why the heck not that's a drop in the bucket! go grab a 1440p benq freesync monitor ($450). at the least you can just disable freesync and use the monitor at its 120 hz refresh rate.

drivers for 390x are great, amd has really stepped up their software game.

 

[Bossyfins]

390x in an ITX system? Ok...

 

[-Fran-]

390x in an ITX system? Ok...

Haha, I was thinking the exact same thing. I haven't seen or read about small versions of any Hawaii GPU.

Our of all the video cards out there, the 390X would be the worst given how hot it can get. Imagine that in a closed space. The Fan would never stop spinning at high RPMs.

Cheers!

 

[loki1944]

390x in an ITX system? Ok...

Haha, I was thinking the exact same thing. I haven't seen or read about small versions of any Hawaii GPU.

Our of all the video cards out there, the 390X would be the worst given how hot it can get. Imagine that in a closed space. The Fan would never stop spinning at high RPMs.

Cheers!

390X will fit in an RVZ01B/380T/250D as long as it's not too long like the STRIX one; guru3d actually had temps cooler than a 970 with the MSI 390X http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-390x-gaming-8g-oc-review,9.html.

M-ITX with 390X has already been done without issues https://pcpartpicker.com/b/YynnTW

 

[Vogner16]

Cheers!

390X will fit in an RVZ01B/380T/250D as long as it's not too long like the STRIX one; guru3d actually had temps cooler than a 970 with the MSI 390X http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-390x-gaming-8g-oc-review,9.html.

M-ITX with 390X has already been done without issues https://pcpartpicker.com/b/YynnTW

Ive seen a mini itx corsair case with a 390x. had full 240mm watercooler too. mini itx can be quite large really.

 

[fudgecakes99]

well i can officially say 4k is worthless, picture quality literally looks no better then 1080p. Other then a hit to performance i see no benefit going to 4k yet.

 

[Eggz]

Here's an even better one: http://pcpartpicker.com/b/4fTH99

It's in the InWin 901 with a 390x paired with the Acer Predator 3440 x 1440 monitor. Super sweet mITX!

 

[loki1944]

well i can officially say 4k is worthless, picture quality literally looks no better then 1080p. Other then a hit to performance i see no benefit going to 4k yet.

Depends on the game really, for some games 4k+ really does make a difference. Best example though is Skyrim with an ENB since you don't use regular AA with an ENB if you want the full effect, so cranking up the resolution gets you both ENB+killing jaggies.

 

[loki1944]

Cheers!

390X will fit in an RVZ01B/380T/250D as long as it's not too long like the STRIX one; guru3d actually had temps cooler than a 970 with the MSI 390X http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-390x-gaming-8g-oc-review,9.html.

M-ITX with 390X has already been done without issues https://pcpartpicker.com/b/YynnTW

Ive seen a mini itx corsair case with a 390x. had full 240mm watercooler too. mini itx can be quite large really.

Yeah, there's a lot of mini-ITX cases, even relatively small ones, that have surprising GPU capacity.

 

[fudgecakes99]

well i can officially say 4k is worthless, picture quality literally looks no better then 1080p. Other then a hit to performance i see no benefit going to 4k yet.

Depends on the game really, for some games 4k+ really does make a difference. Best example though is Skyrim with an ENB since you don't use regular AA with an ENB if you want the full effect, so cranking up the resolution gets you both ENB+killing jaggies.

Nope, the awful putrid color blending just ruins the entire experience. When everything starts to over saturate and melt together, or one color looks incredibly mind numbingly painful to look at. My god, it's just not worth ti. Sure yeah if it's done right if the colors don't look like a baby puked out a roll of crayons, then yes by all means, but no amount of texture fidelity is worth that horrid picture quality yet. Not to mention the performance hits. Going back to my old 1080p monitor.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I'm very satisfied with my 1440p. Outside of gaming, everything is just so much better than my 768p. And even in gaming, the textures are very nice and things in the distance are crisp.

 

[renz496]

Just recenlycupgrading from my 20 inch 1600x900 to 24 inch 1080p. Most likely will not going to move to higher resolution anytime soon lol. Plus given the choice beween 1440p and 1080p 120hz+ i would choose the later.

 

[loki1944]

well i can officially say 4k is worthless, picture quality literally looks no better then 1080p. Other then a hit to performance i see no benefit going to 4k yet.

Depends on the game really, for some games 4k+ really does make a difference. Best example though is Skyrim with an ENB since you don't use regular AA with an ENB if you want the full effect, so cranking up the resolution gets you both ENB+killing jaggies.

Nope, the awful putrid color blending just ruins the entire experience. When everything starts to over saturate and melt together, or one color looks incredibly mind numbingly painful to look at. My god, it's just not worth ti. Sure yeah if it's done right if the colors don't look like a baby puked out a roll of crayons, then yes by all means, but no amount of texture fidelity is worth that horrid picture quality yet. Not to mention the performance hits. Going back to my old 1080p monitor.

That sounds more like you don't have good colors on your monitor than anything. 1440p+ looks sharper than 1080p, but if you're on a small monitor less than 27 inches it's not going to be as obvious.

 

[Vogner16]

well i can officially say 4k is worthless, picture quality literally looks no better then 1080p. Other then a hit to performance i see no benefit going to 4k yet.

Depends on the game really, for some games 4k+ really does make a difference. Best example though is Skyrim with an ENB since you don't use regular AA with an ENB if you want the full effect, so cranking up the resolution gets you both ENB+killing jaggies.

Nope, the awful putrid color blending just ruins the entire experience. When everything starts to over saturate and melt together, or one color looks incredibly mind numbingly painful to look at. My god, it's just not worth ti. Sure yeah if it's done right if the colors don't look like a baby puked out a roll of crayons, then yes by all means, but no amount of texture fidelity is worth that horrid picture quality yet. Not to mention the performance hits. Going back to my old 1080p monitor.

Im sorry to hear of your bad experience with 4k. Personally ive seen more resolution is always better remove the killing jaggies and increase the color field looks great to me.

You have to be careful with what 4K monitor to buy. many of the cheaper ones and practically everything Samsung ever made have a lot of oversaturation. this can be tweaked to be much better with some simple calibration. I find that when it comes to monitors Dell makes the best and makes you pay for it. they have a 5K monitor with 99% adobe rgb or something crazy that needs 2 dp cables to run at 60hz... crazy. and only $1900! 😛

only one 4k monitor ive seen has refresh rate above 60hz due to current cables not able to carry that needed bandwidth to push 120hz on 4k. for gamers this is a major setback. its the only thing that keeps me from buying one.

the other issue is with scaling and monitor size. 4k for most people (most people have corrected vision) is hard to see unless monitor size is above 24". I wouldn't buy one less than 27" as that seems to be the current sweet spot for monitor size. only windows 10 and OSX have decent scaling for 4k monitors any other OS and you will have to be tweaking for some time.

To claim that colors on 4k cant match those of a 2k monitor is just a farce. monitor tech is the same across the board and a 4k picture quality color wise can match and do better than a 2k monitor as the underlying tech is identical, merely you are buying the cheap TN panels that are being made widely available to the public to increase support for 4K as it is in its infancy. If a good picture quality gaming 2K panel cost $400 and you got a 4K for $450 why expect it to be as good? it cost a lot more to cram those extra pixels on the same space and your paying $50 more. :/

EDIT: not to mention that 4k has 4 times the pixels to tell where to go and the T-con board will be much more expensive to make and the input board will have to be capable of upscaling as nobody wants a 4K panel that cant downscale to 1080, and many games/tv only come in at 1080p and people want to use all the extra pixels so the encoder has to be much faster and internal ram has to be more etc etc etc it is much more expensive to make a 4k panel!

 

[fudgecakes99]

well i can officially say 4k is worthless, picture quality literally looks no better then 1080p. Other then a hit to performance i see no benefit going to 4k yet.

Depends on the game really, for some games 4k+ really does make a difference. Best example though is Skyrim with an ENB since you don't use regular AA with an ENB if you want the full effect, so cranking up the resolution gets you both ENB+killing jaggies.

Nope, the awful putrid color blending just ruins the entire experience. When everything starts to over saturate and melt together, or one color looks incredibly mind numbingly painful to look at. My god, it's just not worth ti. Sure yeah if it's done right if the colors don't look like a baby puked out a roll of crayons, then yes by all means, but no amount of texture fidelity is worth that horrid picture quality yet. Not to mention the performance hits. Going back to my old 1080p monitor.

Im sorry to hear of your bad experience with 4k. Personally ive seen more resolution is always better remove the killing jaggies and increase the color field looks great to me.

You have to be careful with what 4K monitor to buy. many of the cheaper ones and practically everything Samsung ever made have a lot of oversaturation. this can be tweaked to be much better with some simple calibration. I find that when it comes to monitors Dell makes the best and makes you pay for it. they have a 5K monitor with 99% adobe rgb or something crazy that needs 2 dp cables to run at 60hz... crazy. and only $1900! 😛

only one 4k monitor ive seen has refresh rate above 60hz due to current cables not able to carry that needed bandwidth to push 120hz on 4k. for gamers this is a major setback. its the only thing that keeps me from buying one.

the other issue is with scaling and monitor size. 4k for most people (most people have corrected vision) is hard to see unless monitor size is above 24". I wouldn't buy one less than 27" as that seems to be the current sweet spot for monitor size. only windows 10 and OSX have decent scaling for 4k monitors any other OS and you will have to be tweaking for some time.

To claim that colors on 4k cant match those of a 2k monitor is just a farce. monitor tech is the same across the board and a 4k picture quality color wise can match and do better than a 2k monitor as the underlying tech is identical, merely you are buying the cheap TN panels that are being made widely available to the public to increase support for 4K as it is in its infancy. If a good picture quality gaming 2K panel cost $400 and you got a 4K for $450 why expect it to be as good? it cost a lot more to cram those extra pixels on the same space and your paying $50 more. :/

EDIT: not to mention that 4k has 4 times the pixels to tell where to go and the T-con board will be much more expensive to make and the input board will have to be capable of upscaling as nobody wants a 4K panel that cant downscale to 1080, and many games/tv only come in at 1080p and people want to use all the extra pixels so the encoder has to be much faster and internal ram has to be more etc etc etc it is much more expensive to make a 4k panel!

The issue i'm having is for one the contents not their. Even with over saturation tweaks it still looks like hot garbage, i wanna say because of the way it display's colors most media is designed around 1080p or maybe 1440p, not to mention the fact i don't see any difference between a 1080p game vs a 4k one. Quite frankly the picture fidelity looks exactly the same, even took a png of both did a side by side comparison. The other issue is if you want there to be a "difference" improvement, you have to do quite a bit of modding which only adds to the fact 4k is pretty resource heavy, it's just not worth it.