AMD need to improve driver!!
http://www.overclock.net/image/id/14...600/height/582
http://www.overclock.net/image/id/14...600/height/582
(Dirt 3)
http://www.overclock.net/image/id/14...600/height/582
http://www.overclock.net/image/id/14...600/height/582
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,86...fikkarte/Test/[/quote]
or maybe pcgh needs to make better reviews cause they are only ones getting such bs results lol
secondedQuote:
Originally Posted by eric66
I'm actually shocked by those PCGH results. What the heck?
New BIOS to unleash the OC potential? :confused:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1805/14/
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r.../1165-gpuz.jpgQuote:
Our friends at AMD were kind enough to send over the new BIOS file and the WinFlash tool that was needed to get the job done. AMD plans on releasing an executable of this BIOS to the public, but the one they sent us to distribute was having a few issues on some boards we tried it on.
^^
Me LIKES!!!
At first I was going to applaud PCGH for finally seeing a comparison with 3GB 580s but then realised how skewed everything else was.
Has anyone else got pics of resolutions higher then 1920x1080 with the 3GB 580s?
-PB
7970 CFX @ 5760x1080
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html
I especially like the last paragraph in the review.
They have not been invited to the launch ? I dont know what they do, but there numbers are far, really far..Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I dont know if you have still the card sitting on your desk, but if you can try Dirt2 ( yes cold, this is dirt2, not Dirt3 ) .... it seems theres a nice bug for driver there, but at 105fps, not at 75fps 1920 as in there review .
It's not only a new product but a new architecture, it will take a few driver updates to get the best out of it.
I'm loving those crossfire eyefinity benchmarks. Can't wait to have a 7990 under a block.
Any GTA4 benchmarks out there ? I remember HD6970 performs worse than GTX460, so it would be interesting to see if this card handles DX9+HDR any better.
Thats a driver issue ever since the last patch for GTA4. I doubt that is going to change any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
Seriously, GTA4 is certainly the worst coded game of all time in PC.... ( if they was a price for the worst coded game, they will win, thats sure ) DX9+HDR have been made by ATI ( and with AA compability please and 128 bit HDR, not half as it was the case a long time with Nvidia ) ... ( Half life 2 lost coast, Oblivion... ).Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
The game runs fine on Nvida. It is a long outstanding driver issue on AMD's part. Don't make excuses for it. I can play that game in 3d with very playable framerates. Just because it ran slow on your e8400 doesn't make it poorly coded. You guys complain when games don't take advantage of your hardware but when they do you complain too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
There are workarounds for the crappy performance since the latest patch on AMD cards and it runs great on any other patch. There is something specific that causes this that AMD just hasn't addressed. I forget exactly what it is but the info is out there.
ooohh, please.... even modders have make a better job on GTA4 of Rockstar themselves .... the launch of this game was absolutely horrible ( on PC ) ( i admit patch have been made then, and the game was run great,,,, before the last one, but seriously i have rarely see a company broke a game like that ).. This game have been released 2 years ago, and still there's some unnofficial and official patch for fix performance.
If there's one game to forget for reviews, this is GTA4... In 2015 this game will still be patched for fix performance and bug ..
Well it was a port, probably a quick budget one as they spent a lot of time trying to make it run on Playstation3, and this caused a delay of 6 months as they wanted to launch it for PS3 and Xbox360 at the same time.
But it is my favourite game ever so I don't care how badly coded it is, just a shame that I couldn't use HD6970 with the full 2GB RAM to run as smoothly as I hoped, had to settle for GTX560ti 2GB.
But the reason I ask is because GTA4 is the most video ram hungry game out there, and HD7970 has 3GB, so I wondered how it compares to GTX560ti or GTX580.
I understand exactly what you mean .... well i think we will see soon enough peoples who run it with a 7K. lets have some hope to get a response about it soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
I like the game, I hate Rockstar for what they have do with it.. but it is a great game.
The game runs fine on a Nvidia card with a decent quad core. Even at launch the game ran fine as long as you weren't using a dual core (which was very common at the time the game was released, I had one) and even then you could turn down a few settings and it would be playable. If you roll back the patch the game runs fine on AMD hardware too. The information is out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Has AMD even fixed the green artifacts in GTA4 when it rains?
"Misprint"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
this is Dirt 3,
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,86.../Test/?page=10
my bad.. ( well i have an excuse if they dont change the title of their bench, lol .... this site is certainly the last i will visit for choose a gpu, and i use Nvidia or ATI cards without any problem )Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
I have not play GTA4 since a long long time ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
IMHO, it seems with this release, AMD prefers being early than waiting for better, more polished driver. The release driver seems OK, the stability's quite good, but the performance is rather lacking in my view. Perhaps they want to generate some good buzz after the abortion named Bulldozer. And so far, i think it works fine, though not as spectacular as they might have hoped for.
David Baumann @B3D forum:
The return of investment going GCN would be nice in the coming months IMHO.Quote:
You want to delay product that is ready and the fastest thing to be available for the sake of a little performance in a title or two? If that were the case we'd never release any new hardware. It not like performance isn't constantly improving on all hardware, it's just the rate of change will be higher with such a substantial change.
About the pricing policy, i think it reflects strongly about the supply situation of the product, considering the limited capacity of TSMC's 28 nm process fabrication. It's stupid to price your product any lower when the supply can't cope with the demand, creating a higher real market price that goes to the retailer rather than the manufacturer, with no real gain in the market share.
EDIT: adding Dave Baumann comment that somewhat supports my assesment & thought. :)
I don't understand how people can be disappointed about GCN. It's significantly faster than HD 6970 while consuming noticeably less power. For me, this is a good product. Yes, for someone who owns a GTX 580 this is no card to look forward to. But for people who buy bang for buck and keep energy consumption in mind, will have a great product on their hands. This is what I am and I will surely build a new rig with one of these cards.
Considering some people spilled doom on this card even before this was launched ("AMD will never have stable drivers at release"), I think it went better than expected.
Now I will wait and see what NVIDIA will do. Stick to the US-Credo: the bigger the better?
on a xtreme forum anything above 1100mhz overclock is a good thing which the 7970 achives easily, the 580 not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
7970 should be applaud, built a shrine to and worshipped like a toy from the Gods..:D
Yeah, sometimes I feel like an alien on this forum xD I do not watercool anymore and stopped overclocking, too :( I've become too sensible :(Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
Anyone scoop one up from ncix?
$625 ouchh
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=222...phire&catid=10
This is a somewhat dangerous pricing precedent. Say if Nvidia gk 104 comes out and it performs similarly to 7970 and as a result, instead of trying to undercut the 7970, they charge the same price. What happens to the pricing of gk112 when it comes out? Will it be 699 then? The last time this was happening was during NV/ATI price fixing days. I remember ATI's most expensive product ever was the 850 xt platinum edition. This card came out at a MSRP of 549 dollars. This was during the price fixing era. This chip is not a monolith and from rumors, yields are better at 28nm, then they ever were at 40nm. This card is priced as a monolith but it is clearly not one. I find the 500 dollar price tag, is a good number for the most expensive chips to start at. However the pricing t this level is in my opinions should be reserved for monoliths because if a card happens to be 60% bigger or so, from what I have read on this board and other boards, the yields go exponentially down. The more area, the greater chance for errors, and it goes up unproportionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Do people want to go back to the 700 dollar graphics cards. With AMD pricing their cards not particularly improving their price to performance level compared to last generation, we could see a huge increase across the board of all of AMD's products. The rumored price that went along with the $549 7970 was a $449 7950. The 7870 if it's slightly faster than the 6970, could easily take between the 350-400 dollar price point. With the reduction in GCN cores and a likely drop in frequency, we re looking at a 7950 that could be around 20 percent slower than the 7970 and a 7870 card slightly faster than a 6970 would fit the 350-400 price point considering the high end pricing from AMD. For a chip that is in the mid 200's in nm2, this is simply too expensive.
The non aggressive pricing on AMD helps Nvidia out big time. Because they barely have to drop the price of their cards to be competitive. It allows Nvidia to raise the price of their cards in the future as well. Without AMD taking the value stance overall, I can see the price fixing era part 2 occurring again.
When you compare prices, you have to compare HD7970 to the GTX580 3GB, the HD7970 is cheaper and performs better, you cannot compare it to the 1.5GB GTX580.
So taking that into account, I don't see why you call the card expensive.
Form a business point of view, AMD needs to make up for the loss incured with Bulldozer.
How would this set a precedent? Remember, the GTX 280 was priced @ $649.
You aren't taking everything into account though. Just because yields might be better than the early 40nm process doesn't mean the costs are the same. Wafer costs have gone up multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
AMD just increased their bus size for the first time in a long time. Tahiti is more of a highend/enthusiast GPU that we aren't use to seeing from AMD, recently.
Edit- Generally GPUs are priced based on performance, as you well know, just because they didn't follow that guideline in past releases doesn't mean they always will do so.
Pricing is partially affected by the amount of VRAM (3GB of GDDR5). It could probably easily be $500 if the cards were equipped with just 2GB (somehow).
Yes but, that was completely overpriced and it was corrected by AMD value proposition with the 4870. Without that pressure from AMD, the gtx 8800 and the gtx 280 had super high prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
If neither company puts pressure on the other, prices will rise. AMD hasn't had a 549 dollar card in years and it matches the highest price it ever had. Also both cards, the gtx 8800 and gtx 280, killed their predecessor for performance, the 7970 does not create the gap with the old generation compared with the new generation. It made the old cards at the high end completely unsellable and take price nose dives of hundreds of dollars. The 4870 was a godsend and it brought about the value era. When some thing a bit slower than the absolute fastest could be had for about 300 dollars. Those days may be gone with this newest generation.
Selling the cards at a high price would be excellent business for AMD and a sucky thing for us. But market forces don't generally support two competitors frequently raising prices unless they are coordinating and price fixing which is illegal. I think you'll find that prices will come down soon enough with competition but until kepler does not arrive, the only one to be blamed for AMD's high price is Nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
I agree with you and said it earlier. It is good for business but bad for the consumer. What I am worried about however is if kepler doesn't take a value proposition and cost 550 dollars as well. I have to disagree though, we cannot blame only NV for this high price. It was their decision and NV was definitely blamed for increasing prices back in their hey day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
The problem is I can see keplar being(the non monolithic under 400nm one) as fast as the 7970 very easily. It should be relatively easy for Nvidia(as long as they don't crap the bed) to make a gtx 460/560 sized chip that competes reasonably well with the 7970. A bit more shaders and more clocks on even the old fermi architecture, it could definitely be possible. I.e With 7 percent more shaders and 10% more clocks = 15 percent speed boost between fermi generation(gtx480 and 580)and 28nm would definitely get NV up to significantly higher clocks, and more shaders while maintaining a under 400nm size).
Having a lower price would also be smart business for AMD. If you look at when AMD priced the 5870 lower, they stole the directx 11 generation. They picked up market share like crazy and put one of NV biggest partners out of business(BFG). A lower price would also get early adopter to get the card and thus refuse keplar when it came out. Having a higher price makes a lot of people sit on the fence.
Why is it bad for the consumer?
Those who dont want to spend the money can wait 2-6 months for the prices to drop to more "acceptable" levels.
I've always found these price arguments to be rather confusing (as to why they happen). Top end new stuff costs money. New top end stuff brings previous top end stuff down in price. If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth. If not enough people are paying then they receive poor cash flow and either lower the price to get more transfer (10 people at $500 is more than 8 people at $600 for example) or tough it out.
end of story.
We are consumers. We vote with our wallet.
The performance is fantastic for such a low power requirement and temperature, almost my ideal graphics card if it wasnt for the lack of physx (once tried in a few games, I cant play without it now).
However, IMO its only worth about £50 more than a GTX 580, and not £100-200 more as it is looking like it will be.
The thing is if the 6970 launches at £450+, this isnt going to bring prices down on the previous cards, it really ought to be £300 with the GTX 580 dropping to £250, though I'm sure that will never be the case, at least not until kepler is released.
Anything that causes the consumer to spend more money is bad for the consumer, I don't see how you don't get this. Higher prices overall means everyone is spending more. Similarly, having to wait for longer for a certain level of performance or technology is also a bad thing. It should be pretty clear that when smaller group of consumers get to enjoy a particular level of performance or technology, it is not bad for the consumer. In addition with development cycles as long as they are, priced drops can take a long time to happen, especially without competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth.
The thing is that this is a monopoly, atleast in principle, pricing can get to unfair levels because there is no competition and the manufacturer gets to name the price.
Even the top end customer who is willing to pay 650 dollar to get the top of the line product right away can benefit from lower prices.Even though that said person was willing to pay 650, lets say that said person only had to pay 500 dollars. This means that person now has an extra 150 dollars in their product and over multiple upgradings, these can build up to significant levels. Having more money in your pocket is a good thing and with the consumer always wanting to get their most for their money, this is ultimately why higher videocard pricing is bad for the consumer.
what is it about physx you like so much?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
from what i have seen the only thing it can do that a cpu hasnt been capable of in other games is a nice fog effect that i would miss
cant help but wonder how 7950 will go this time as the 6950 has been a great value card
also wish that beefed up cards for overclocking like the msi lightning would get here sooner rather than latter when another revision is on the horizon
Batman and Alice Madness Returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by dasa
It does make a large difference in Arkham City.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
IF this were a need and not a luxury I would probably agree with you. However this is a luxury item and you have the privilege to buy it, or the right to not as based on your personal wealth management.
Price drops are driven by market cash flow, development cycle, and competitor cycle. Wanting to pay less for something doesnt make it cost less, especially in a capitalist system.
This is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly. If you want to purchase a similar performing product from another manufacturer you can go do that today (but it will cost you more).
If you saved $150 would you really hold onto it for 2+ years it would take to save up another $500 to get your next high end card? It would be spent eventually, so your choice is to pay now, or wait until one of the three large price factors pushes prices down. You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.
The game runs well for me on my 5870,no artifacts. This is a benchmark I had done a while back http://www.xfire.com/profile/tom455o...view#117250298 Settings. http://www.xfire.com/profile/tom455o...view#117250297Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
The benchmark is easier to run than actual game play.
Here is some game play on high settings and latest patch. http://www.xfire.com/video/4ddfde/
I have friends that play gta4 on ati cards and the game runs fine. That 7970 would be a good card for gta4,it looks like it will have the power to really max out the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
Yea its strange especially BF3, but then I saw they used only 4gb ram and we all know BF3 MP is memory hungry whoe lol, it can eat up to 5-6gb :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I think you are confusing what is bad for the consumer for what it is bad for people in general. A huge basis of your argument is, that because it is a luxury item, it really doesn't effect the consumer. If the consumer only purchased items that are needs, such as food, shelter and utilities, the capitalist market as we known it would not exist and even more primitive markets would fall apart. Having the choice to spend money or not doesn't make saving money not a good thing for the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.
If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.
Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.
Your argument below is a blanket statement.
You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.
Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.
I would surely label any flagship card a "luxury like" item when there is not enough market supply (scarcity can turn ordinary item into special items), there is a high demand, hence suppliers can charge anything they want within permissible limits.
I for one would not complain about the price, and secondly we all sound like a bunch of grannies arguing over pennies. Its a flagship item (since 7990 is not out yet), so the supplier is more than entitled to charge whatever it likes, don't like it? don't buy it then!, end of the story.
People are consumers of something... There is no differentiation necessary. There is a difference between Goods that are basic to survival and goods that you can live without. You are completely forgetting about the Producer which is the only reason why the product exists in the first place. They have a right to sell the item at whatever cost they think its worth. If people pay for it thats good for both parties. Since both Groups are benefiting from the transaction. Though if the Producer realizes he isn't selling enough then he'll reduce the price in order to get more income/profit for his work.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Well if the price is too high for people, people wont pay for it. Lets say for example if Intel and Nvidia increased the price for their PC goods because of the lack of competition it'll just drive more and more people away towards other platforms such as ARM, Consoles, etc.. Other example Alcoa had a Monopoly on Aluminum in the world for many years... They couldn't charge too much because consumers just bought steel instead.Quote:
If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.
Monopolies are not bad in themselves they are the sole producer of the good. If another corporation wants to come in to compete and can provide lower cost goods they can do so. A monopoly always has to be mindful of this.Quote:
If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.
Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.
They can't charge too much for a product or they'll attract a competitor as soon as they charge too high of a price. The wait for a product isnt that long... It takes just a few years for a product to be RD and put out to be sold.
Most electronics can last at least 10 years with proper maintenance so there is no need to upgrade. (Still using computers from 2001 in my work). If the monopoly charges too high a price they also can delay upgrade cycles for the consumers.
These are all true... though you are obviously against the businesses who provide the good/service and feel entitled to their labor.Quote:
Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.
You do not deserve a lower price. If the producer/seller lowers the price then you buy it! Vote with your wallet trying to garner Morality because you think the price is too high is short sighted and foolish.
^^
adding to that, the price is too high for whom?
- average user?
- xtreme bencher?
- person who upgrades to the latest every 6 months?
- HTPC user?
see? what you see as expensive for you might be pocket change for somebody else.
Well said... i guess - but even more normal user can have an opinion on high-end products... and that's their opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
We live in "sick times" if those that are richer find complaints about certain prices (no that accessible and for a product "with no future") irritating.
It makes a far bigger difference in Alice:Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1sI8ovRIFY
This is the game that made me decide against buying AMD cards again, or until they have Physx.
Also after that with Skyrim - Nvidia had compatible SLI profiles a day before the game launched and SLI works wonderfully in that and every other game. I'm not even sure if crossfire support for Skyrim has been added by AMD yet, and also when I had Xfire 4870s, they didnt work until I got a VGA bios update from the manufacturer. My 5770s also had the 'grey screen' crash / freezing in windows and I had to wait ages for a new bios again to fix those, and I had a lot of visual corruption and severe artifacting in one of the 3D marks across several Xfire setups. So I have learned that ATI / AMD were / are fine if you only plan on using a single GPU, but if you want to use two, Nvidia is the way to go, plus you get Physx and the option to run either SLI or dedicated GPU physx on the second card which is super sweet.
Historically I've always been a 'red team' fan, and I dont have anything against them, but after having used my GTX 460s and 560s for so long, I've been converted to the green team and cant go back now.
Why not run an nV card to cover PhysX and an ATi one for graphics?
The way in which they portray no physx in that game is just sad.. how they show that without physx you cannot have ammo shells on the ground or even a very basic fog means without a shadow of a doubt that it is purposefully castrating non-nvidia hardware image quality to try to make physx look like the best thing since sliced bread. Even a 10 year old games can produce those effects without a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9616/80200050.jpg
Bullet physics could provide all of these effects without the need to isolate users.
If anything, this game is a great example of how we are NOT progressing in gaming quality because of proprietary standards.
cant say i have tried those physx games the first batman demo and mafia i think it was is all i have tried although i think metro uses it to some extent and i have played that a bit
the physx effects added in the first batman demo other than the fog were nothing i hadent seen done in other games with no physx
as for sli cant say i have noticed any better or quicker game support with it vs crossfire
as far as im aware nvidia still havent added a sli profile for heroes of m&m6 and currently having sli enabled cripples performance to below 20fps vs ~40fps with it disabled
which is not uncommon for new games its just annoying when the slightly less popular games or games the other brand amd\nvidia had some input into fall behind with updates for some time
the witcher 2 also took a fair few months for nvidia to get working properly with sli but finally it runs nice
i dont have a preference towards any brand
i like the amd cards for there value and efficiency and i like the nvidia cards for there uncompromising strive for top performance and normally swap from one to the other every year or two
You can believe whatever you want, but until I see the same level of Physx effects being utilized on AMD cards, then I have no desire to use them as the games I am playing right now are only doing Physx on Nvidia, and yes it makes a vast visual improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Attitude like yours makes nvidia believe the way they handle PhysX is fair and you contribute to castration of others visual experience who for whatever reason choose not to buy nvidia cards. I wish nvidia never bought ageia, we would all have physX now. Probably even running on CPUs just fine...
Wait, didn't batman get rave reviews on consoles which is the exact same game as the PC version without PhysX? Anybody who thinks the console version was castrated just to promote nVidia's proprietary PC tech needs to think again. nVidia doesn't have that much pull.
Physx is proprietary of nVidia - i doubt you'll ever see that on ATi cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
And the above users are right - those were castrated intentionally, as in Physx being used as the only engine to render those physics elements "WHICH AREN'T THAT IMPRESSIVE" - they just fooled you, since what can be seen there is - their physics engine vs "NO PHYSIC AT ALL". Havok could have covered that part (again - not something that impressive) and there are other engines more impressive like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPu9_OGFgc
....or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwvukCY5xok
... but they don't have a brand like Nvidia to promote them, wile AMD seems satisfied with Havok for most part... haven't seen them making a move that can prove otherwise.
The lagoa one looks very impressive and more realistic than the first one...
If Nvidia allowed users to have a dedicated Physx card working along an AMD card they would sell tons of extra cards.
Games with an "s"? Will you be playing Batman in a couple of weeks when this card is actually released. I'm sorry but there are legitimate reasons to buy Nvidia like 3d and transparency aa and sgssa but Physx is not one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Speaker of the truth. I've never objected NVidia monopolize Physx within their realm -their money, their investment, but monopolizing its implementation by restricting other rendering hardware working in conjunction, that's just flat out dumb arrogancy in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maño
This has been explained almost every time the PhysX "monopoly" comes up in a discussion.
You can't officially support it, when the main card driver can break it with any future release. It has happened in the past, it can happen again and who will people blame, when the game works fine except the physics part?
Radeon HD 7000 Revealed: AMD to Mix GCN with VLIW4 & VLIW5 Architectures is the thread title here, the flaming in this this thread is making it look like notsoXtremesystems. If you don't like it don't buy it.
IMO it would be nice if game devs utilized the hardware and architecture of cards from both sides from 2 generations ago, but I dont think we will see that happen until console gaming changes.
When did it happen ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
I can only remember the problem having something to do with both AMD and NV drivers trying to use something just for themselves. I tried to google it, but it was a long time ago, I could only find this http://physxinfo.com/news/2032/hybri...d-display-fix/
As far as I know, and I might be mistaken, Nvidia never offered official support for Nvidia Physx + AMD graphics.
But the thing is Hybrid Physx is a Hack to begin and as NV set that NV card must do the rendering for Physx and that the driver does not see another NV card in the system then it will assume that its doing both the Physx and the rendering on the same card which would not be a problem if the restriction were not enforced in the NV driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
So you had to fool the NV card into thinking that it was doing the rendering.
So no there is no problem with Hybrid Physx functionality in any game thus far and the only problem is getting around the restrictions.
Its like blaming NV drivers and AMD drivers because you could not install both on Vista when it was the restriction enforced in Vista and someone made a hack with side effects, then Vardant says look that's why the restriction was in place because NV drivers and AMD drivers do work together.
Never a problem with ageia Physx because it never had that restrictions, and what i bet that those restrictions are not im place for CUDA or OpenCL that NV card must be doing the rendering.
Way to completely miss the point. This had nothing to do with being a hack, one Catalyst release broke it, then it went away. Obviously a bug, but if NV was offering official support for hybrid PhysX, it might have been a problem, where there would be no way around it, unless AMD would want it.
Nobody says there's a problem now...
Problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
This is what we have right now:
Legit users who first bought an Nvidia card, then bought and AMD card and now have a 100% perfect piece of hardware they can't use because Nvidia castrated it.
Gaming community divided because of propietary solutions.
Nvidia Physx users see their fine hardware limited to graphics because anything more exclusive than that would instantly lose a huge chunk of the audience.
And tons of Nvidia cards not being sold because of HJS's ego.
Like its been mentioned Physx 2.x.x is crap, 3.xx ain't that better either. Actually physx 3.x.x its what physx should have been from the start, but Nvidia has to milk it so they can sell more gpus..
Physx 2.x.x SDK code is inefficient single threaded most of the time, so they make you believe you actually need a separate gpu for it :ROTF:
Also there is a rumor Nv might be giving out cuda language, so if this really happens we could see amd gpus running physx via cuda -openCL ? language, but then again openCL Bullet is much better.
It is a perfectly valid reason if you've played any of the Physx games with Physx enabled using a dedicated card, and no longer want to go back to playing them without it. I dont see AMD cards currently supporting Physx effects or anything comparable in some of the games I have played, and I personally enjoyed the additional eye candy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
AA methods are not really a valid reason since AMD also have their own unique AA methods, and MSAA works on every card and in every game regardless. Physx however does not.
That would mean needing 3 GPUs and hacked / unofficial drivers to make it work if I also want to have a crossfire setup. Its nowhere comparable to going into Nvidia control panel, and simply flipping between SLI or Physx whenever required. I only want to use 2 GPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Even if it is, it isnt being used yet and wouldnt work in my Physx games.Quote:
Originally Posted by The|Hunter
Which games do you plan on going back and playing at any point soon? I played Mafia 2 and Cryostasis for the first time with an AMD card and didn't feel like I was missing anything. Physx in Alice was impressive but I wouldn't lose any sleep over not playing it again. To be honest losing 3d vision in most Alice, Batman, Mafia 2, and a bunch of other games would bother me far more than Physx. What games that use Physx do people even care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Both AMD drivers and updates NV drivers,PhysX could break the hack its nothing new and some people gave up because the hack needed updating when new PhysX updates came out because NV would try new things to block the hack. And i think its got to the point that users have to run old outdated PhysX versions because the hack has not been updated in a while which some games will not work with, as i said the only problem is the restrictions and getting around it which causes the problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
Not a single game displays any PhysX issues or glitch when the ATI card is doing the rendering accept for when NV released an update that gave reversed gravity and then turned off GPU PhysX when the hack was detected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2TOXo98l4aU
PhysX is no different than any other physics which are totally independent from the rendering as they are nothing but complex contact numerical coordinate calculations it does not matter if its done on the CPU or an independent GPU, only that the GPU is faster, the end results then get feed to whatever you like, even a text file, no different than maths coprocessor.
nVidia does handle PhysX in a fair manner. They paid for the technology and have spent large sums of money over the years improving and expanding the feature set. Anyone who believes nVidia should just "give" AMD this technology is either insane or has clearly never spent tons of their own time and money bringing a product to market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
If AMD wants to use PhysX, they can do what every other business has to do in these situations... PAY nVidia for usage rights.
On Alice and Batman AC Physx high will run CPU but you need some serious grunt to make it happen, a Q6600 ain't going to cut it. When running on a single 580GTX with a overclocked 3960X running Physx on CPU is faster than forcing the 580 to render and do physx at the same time. People with high end rigs and AMD GPU's don't need to worry so much.
Just so you have an idea of how much grunt is needed, a 2600k at stock won't be able to maintain 60 fps on Alice when calculating Physx, it'll run reasonably well for most parts but the fluid calcs will cause a drop. It shouldn't be too choppy for the most part, but fluid effect is used often enough for it to be a pain.
If you like that extra candy then that is a valid reason and is only down to a matter of personal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Usage rights is at the developer level and the customer who paid for the NV card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
AMD cards do not use PhysX, the NV card, CPU and game uses the PhysX, the visual output stage is irrelevant and is not need for PhysX calculations, the games uses the PhysX calculations and not the rendering device.
If AMD users want PhysX run on the cards then yes AMD should licence= AMD card doing the PhysX calculation like NV card, the Same PhysX calculation can be run on the CPU but slower on the PC and on the consoles and no fee to what GPU is in them because the GPU is not running PhysX or doing the calculations and is no different with Hydrid because once again the AMD GPU is not running PhysX or doing the calculations.
You licence to execute PhysX computations on GPU hardware and not what it outputs it to, which can be many things.
What your saying would mean that Microsoft should pay a fee as Windows is using the PhysX by your definition and even the manufacturer of your monitor or TV has to pay as well because its using the PhysX and if i record my gaming session and anything that i used to record it and play it back on needs to pay a fee.
In fact all pay for SW could pull the same stunt by your definition and charge AMD, NV and Intel licence fees because the visual out is done on one of the 3 most of the time and AMD, Intel pay 3 times because of the there CPUs and motherboards as well.
Afterburner, Western Digital, Samsung, NEC, Sony, Pioneer, Belkin and Youtube ect... also need to play up because of peoples use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Nobody's asking Nvidia to give away their tech, I just want to be able to use hardware I already paid.
No better than your employer telling you what you cant spend your wages on.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maño
Haha they're actually a lot of laws and rules telling you what you can't spend your money on ;)
The PhysX debate is stale and hasn't changed in the last two years. Some things remain the same.
1. There's zero evidence that nVidia is somehow dumbing down the console versions of games (nutty conspiracy theories live on)
2. PhysX is an optional proprietary feature. Don't like it? Don't use it.
please people...... talk about hd 7970........
CROSSFIRE REVIEW:
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html
QUAD-FIRE TEST:
http://www.xfastest.com/cms/tid-69701/
OC REVIEW:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...erclock-guide/
Poor results in Skyrim.
Bulk jelly of that 3Dmk11 score in the quad fire test.
-PB
AMD will probably get round to getting working CFX drivers for skyrim mid next year, possibly 2013. I know I got sick of trying to play it on my laptop and just played it on my desktop instead. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
Find the error: gaming on a laptop. 'nuff said.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Alienware M18xQuote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
i7 2920XM | 16GB DDR3 1600
2*6990 | WLED 1080P
2*Crucial M4 256GB | BD-RW
I'm not sure it still is a laptop... I know I wouldn't let it anywhere near my lap, it might discover it likes meat.
Just because such abominations exist does not prove that laptops are meant for gaming (which they are not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
They are not laptops, they are desktop replacements. Stuff for people who have too much money to burn and trade in flexibility for ... well, insignificantly better portability.
2x 6990s? In a laptop?
-PB
PB, they are around the same spec/speed as a pair of desktop 6870's.
You should work for EA support with responses like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Nothing like a bit of badly disguised ad-hominem eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Let's lay down some facts:
- You can game on laptops, or please find me the law/rule that says you cannot.
- It doesn't replace my desktop, no laptop can.
- What I or anyone you are not related to do with their money shouldn't concern you.
- It's considerably more portable than a desktop. Can a desktop do 7 hours on battery then switch over to the d-gpu's in a blink for some good quality gaming?
- I can turn up to a lan with a single messenger bag containing said laptop, power supply, a mouse & a mousepad. Seriously convenient.
- AMD drivers are great for single cards and 50/50 rubbish for crossfire. I've used amd/ati for years and this problem has reared it's ugly head on many occasion, far more so than I get with sli. - Which was my inital point in the first place. AMD need to work much harder on crossfire as right now I would prefer the 580's over the 6990's becuase of poor/non-existent scaling in recently released games.
yeah I have seen this kind of setup before, I used to own one of those high end gaming laptops a few years ago, the only good thing I can see on it is that is portable (to the nearest power supply).
they still chew through battery fast when gaming, so its not much different from a desktop.
Oh, I'd like to get payed for these posts but I'd hate to be associated with EA.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
You can does not mean it's meant to be. Basta.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Oh, tons of people would disagree. Mainly those who only play Sims 15 (or where they are at)-Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
A laptop that has a dedicated GPU and runs a game for 7 hours? Please elaborete. I'd like to see these unicorns. (Yes, you did not say that it runs games for 7 hours, but this discussion is about gaming on a laptop. Period.)Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Until someone spills Coka Cola on your laptop. That's quite a typical scenario for a lan party. And I don't see any advantages going somewhere with a 3 kg laptop instead of a 10 kg rig (incl. display, keyboard etc). Usually, the beer has the biggest "share" in the BOM.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Can't argue with that. I've never used a multi gpu setup just because of all the bad rep I got from my friends (SLI and CF, to be fair).Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Sacred 2 I've played for over 18 months and enjoy it with Physx. Also the first Alice was one of my favorite PC games and I have played through it many times. I'll be doing the same with Madness Returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
You cant apply your personal opinions to another persons reasons, I have never stated that other people shouldnt be buying these 7970s, I only stated that I wont be buying AMD anymore, and Physx wasnt the only reason I gave:
1) Physx (I mainly care about it Alice Madness Returns and Sacred 2 thanks, I play these games a lot and will continue to do so. Batman I played a little, but dont really care too much about it, but there may be future games released with Physx that I also enjoy).
2) Terribly poor crossfire support in the latest games (Skyrim)
3) Lots of bugs when using crossfire (I've had 3 separate crossfire setups now, and changing to SLI eliminated anything negative that I was experiencing on crossfire).
4) Overall, in the games that I play the most, Nvidia cards outperform AMD ones.
Exactly what I've experienced, and I have been through far many more ATI / AMD cards and crossfire setups than I have Nvidia / SLI. After changing to SLI after being a long term crossfire user, I wont be going back to using two AMD cards. A single AMD card works completely fine, but I simply want two and they are useless for that compared to Nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
as i said nvidia has much the same amount of problems with new release games when in comes to cf\sli and it can take months for them to fixQuote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
the only reason they would have any less problems is if they are supporting more games development than amd which may well be the case and typically gets them a head start over the competition with drivers
well nvidia dose have the fastest gpu on the shelves for the moment so thats no surprise
Think that about does it. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
HD7770
GPU clock 1000MHz
Memory Clock 1125MHz 128 bit
Performance ~6850 -5%
2GB
http://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mo...=336310&page=1
http://www.abload.de/thumb/190857kki...mzlj09rogk.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/190852dhq...ygbphgjou1.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/190617gug...zu9pht6opp.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/190623nlz...iine888rrh.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/191943prl...8qq7rg9ohy.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/190610czl...y133i1sp47.jpg
Interested to see TDP/Real use wattage measurements on that 7770.
I wonder if there's a single scenario where 2 GB would be truly useful for that card. Most likely it is performance limited before hitting VRAM limits. Perhaps for CF purposes, but I'd recommend against budget CF regardless...
bf3.Quote:
Originally Posted by pantsu
well it only has 1 6pin pci-e connector..... probably pretty good considering it has 2g of ram (dont think these will come with 2g of ram)and its clocked at 1ghz (probably overclocked), plus Amd's new idle power featuresQuote:
Originally Posted by spicypixel
i heard rumors the 7770 is going to be at the $149 price mark...
Are you sure the GPU won't limit before that?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil