15.7 is a feature/WHQL driver, not a performance driver. The performance %s that AMD gives on the website are "since Omega".I hope you can add the 5.7 driver results.
I love these guys. Unlike toms, they check everything.Embra :I hope you can add the 15.7 driver results.
They didn't have their card by the time the 15.7 drivers were announced although TH DE had the card and tested it and came up with the exact same conclusion as HC, the driver presents no performance improvements for the R300 series or Fury series over the 15.15 Betas.Also, AMD announced a new driver less than 48 hours before the Fury's embargo lifted. By then, the U.S. team's sample was on its way back. Tom's Hardware DE still had their board though, and they helped spot test the 15.7 driver. The good news is that we didn't measure any performance pick-up across our suite.
Serious question: does 4k on medium settings look better than 1080p on ultra for desktop-sized screens (say under 30")? These cards seem to hold a lot of promise for large 4k screens or eyefinity setups.
Found a typo on the power overclocking page. Dury cycle instead of duty cycle.When the @#$@#$#$@#$@ are your web designers going to fix the bleeping arrows on the charts????!!!!!"Has proved" is actually correct, but just in case I'm checking again with our copy chief. Good catch on the other, and you made me find another (it should be "door" singular rather than "doors" plural).fyi - typos in verdict: should be "has proven" and "fewer texture units"
- Fritz Nelson, Editor-in-chief
Fourth paragraph from the top.Interestingly, the automatic profile seemed to keep the fans from spinning most of the time. Afterburner read 19% dury cycle at idle, though none of the fans were moving. They didn't even spin up until the very last moment of 3DMark’s FireStrike test. The instant that benchmark ended, they stopped again. I also noticed the GPU's temperature stayed above 60 degrees for some time as the card relied on passive cooling to bring thermals back down.
High-end was 1920x1200 and 2048x1536, I had several of that type. Put my back out moving a 24" Sony FW900 up some stairs one time. :| But yeah, 1600x1200 typical in the pro space, but studios, etc. were already well into HD+. I waited a long time until there was a flat panel good enough to be worth bothering with compared to my old 22" 2048x1536 CRT, eventually bought an HP 24" IPS 1920x1200.... The high end monitors of the time were 19"-21" 1600x1200 resolution CRTs. ...