AMD Radeon R9 300 Series MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

Page 50 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
it would be kinda cool if they used that tech for other stuff that isn't just vr. But i doubt that'll happen. it'd probably make it into a crapshoot or maybe it'll be like the n64 expansion pack. Either way it's an interesting proposal.
 
Very interesting benchmarks with new Direct 12 version of Fable Legends. R9 390 beats GTX 980 (and GTX 970 of course) in both 1080p and 4k. Very nice performance per $ for AMD. Not so much for NVidia. Ouch.
http://
 
As usual, I'm impressed with the 290X/390X. It beats the 980 with no doubts. And my 7970Ghz AKA 280X and slightly better than the 380, is right on the 970s heels. Not bad for such "old tech".

Still, that game is still in beta, so I would still wait until full release. Same advice as with the "tech demo" from Oxide Games.

Cheers!
 
My bad. They announced last week they are expanding beta testing. Open beta release scheduled for spring this year. Deus Ex sure looks good.
 


The problem is that by the time these DX12 titles hit we should all be drooling over new hardware.

Polaris is not as exciting since it seems to be a die shrink of GCN with some enhancements to it while Pascal looks to be more of a new uArch. those are the GPUs that will matter the most.

Personally I am only interested in the top GPUs (I always buy the top GPU every 3-5 years within reason of course) and they seem very on par with each other, only the 980Ti has a bit of a power advantage. I would not mind a better AMD GPU but I think they are going to need more than just a die shrink and tweaks to the existing uArch.
 
The way I see it both AMD and nvidia focusing on different things with DX12. Nvidia were pushing for new graphical effect while AMD focusing more on increasing their performance by utilizing their ACE engine that is not accessible with DX11. with Polaris and Pascal both AMD and nvidia probably going to add the hardware they lack right now with DX12. Just that I'm interested to see if AMD will support FL11_3/FL12_1 with Polaris because they insist last year the support for this feature is not important because console hardware does not have it (implying that game dev will not going to use the feature because console hardware does not have it).
 
Just that I'm interested to see if AMD will support FL11_3/FL12_1 with Polaris because they insist last year the support for this feature is not important because console hardware does not have it (implying that game dev will not going to use the feature because console hardware does not have it).
Click to expand...

Not that i'm interested in console hardware, but don't forget that Sony are going to introduce an additional processing box for use with Playstation VR. I wouldn't be surprised if it contains full DX12 with Polaris hardware. The devs will literally be shoehorned into developing DX12 games for that if they want this gen of console to keep selling after the 5 year mark. Not sure what MS are going to do about the xbone in this scenario.
 
VR might benefit from Async compute but I don't really know how they can benefit from new graphical effect such as global illumination. Plus PS4 did not use DX12. So they are not caught with DX12 stuff to begin with.
 


That would be stupid of AMD to say. Mainly because it is important as consoles do not control where PC hardware goes and what it uses, they just use it.
 
Plus if anything nvidia influence on PC gaming is not to be underestimated. They able to convince developer to use their exclusive tech like PhysX so for PC games specifically using feature than only available on nvidia Maxwell v2 is not that strange to begin with.
 
That's why its good that AMD are working on Openworks as a counter to Gameworks. Nvidia have maybe unintentionally improved the playing field by attempting to monopolize it n the same way they tried to with PhysX and G-Sync....they've opened up a can of worms that will make it better for all of us as the competition fights back. There are only positives to be had from this tech-race.
 
I thought AMD was also focusing on all new graphics/physics/texture hardware as well with the new Polaris cards? Not just a die shrink.

Also, how accurate is SemiAccurate? They hit the nail on the head with all the tech news sites all copying each other... but other than that, I don't know how valid their article is... but if it's true, doesn't sound like Nvidia is really moving ahead as fast as we've been told with Pascal.

https://semiaccurate.com/2016/02/01/news-of-nvidias-pascal-tapeout-and-silicon-is-important/
 
Polaris is supposed to be a die shrink with enhancements, I have not seen anything on a new engine. It is still GCN based.

As for sites copying each other, Anandtech and TH are both owned by Purch and share stories. Some sites break news first so other sites use and link them. Not sure about other sites.
 


being open does not mean it always be better. it depends a lot on how AMD intend to handle it. if they just open their tech and then leave developer alone to implement the feature themselves....then it might not going to be wide spread fast enough. the thing is AMD has history when it comes to stuff like this they always try to avoid spending resource on their end. just look at bullet initiatives. AMD promised a game using bullet with gpu accelerated feature within a year but they did nothing to help bullet being use in games. 6 years later we still see none. other example would be their stereoscopic 3D solution. instead of developing the driver themselves like nvidia they let monitor maker compete among themselves to provide it. if AMD want GPUOpen to succeed they really need to spend big resource on it. simply opening the tech will not be enough.
 


hit and miss just like it's name. but mostly that site exist to satisfy the fantasy of rabid AMD fanboy. heard that some people got ban in their forum just because their line of thinking does not align with them.
 


I forgot that Charlie was the one who mainly fronts that site. Man he was fun during the K10 days.
 


Well that's good to know. Although, I haven't owned a Radeon card since it was still with ATI, I have to admit, that I really want to see AMD succeed this year in a huge way for GPUs... we really need the competition. Price of a 980 is just outlandish.
 


actually it is interesting and fun to read his article but then S|A start asking people to pay if you want to read their so called article with 'trusted insider info' then i say bye bye. no longer visit S|A unless some google search lead me there lol.
 


Buy a 390X.
 


A R9 Fury, the GTX 980s direct competition, is $549 right now (depends on the model) and the 980 is $499. Not sure how outlandish the price is since the 980 is a top end GPU and I remember paying $500 for a Radeon 9700Pro that would be made to look like a calculator GPU compared to a 980.
 
The R9 nano would be closer to a gtx 980 than an R9 Fury. The nano is weaker than the fury, stronger than the 980 and sells for $499.99.

The Fury's sitting @ $509.99 after rebates and $529.99 before rebates...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom