High latency - boost problem?

dr.noob

Has this been fixed?The cause of the problem was behind the boost tech?

I'm talking about this:

Quote:

13.2 beta 4 vs 313.96
16.02.2013

http://translate.google.com.br/trans...2F7%2F&act=url

Pill Monster · 03-18-2013, 19:26 | posts: 20,520 | Location: NZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr.noob

Has this been fixed?The cause of the problem was behind the boost tech?

I'm talking about this:

http://translate.google.com.br/trans...2F7%2F&act=url

Try reading the whole article.

Quote:

However, can not generally say that the weaknesses identified in the frame latency are always noticeable and thus negatively affect the gameplay. So we can confirm the resultant using the frame latency chart image in Far Cry 3 is not, for example - the Radeon HD 7970 Edition GHz is not noticeably worse than the GeForce GTX 680th

...

IcE · 03-18-2013, 19:46 | posts: 7,006 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Why do you bring this up constantly? You don't even have an AMD card, I don't understand why this is such an issue to you.

dr.noob · *Last edited by dr.noob; 03-18-2013 at 20:15.*

How do you know i don't have one?One month ago i had one HD7850 2GB and i changed to Nvidia because of the flickering problem.

I'm gathering feedback, that's all.

And i was trying to get a point in the other thread, it seems no one is denying the possibility that this was not solved yet.

---TK--- · 03-18-2013, 20:16 | posts: 14,744 | Location: New Jersey, USA

that article is older than the other article from march 2013

dr.noob · 03-18-2013, 20:21 | posts: 1,092 | Location: Portugal

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

that article is older than the other article from march 2013

That's correct, it's about one month older.But it's still 13.2 beta which is not that old.

---TK--- · 03-18-2013, 20:30 | posts: 14,744 | Location: New Jersey, USA

is there a specif reason you wanna know if its fixed or not?

dr.noob · 03-18-2013, 20:35 | posts: 1,092 | Location: Portugal

Actually there is, i wanna know if suggesting AMD cards for a gaming build, for a hardcore player is a safe choice or not, because every penny counts in Portugal.And after having that flickering problem and noticing that my GTS450 vs 7850 was faster loading textures on Dishonored i'm am still not convinced even after the thread i opened(this one) some weeks ago.

---TK--- · 03-18-2013, 20:41 | posts: 14,744 | Location: New Jersey, USA

dunno man this thread aint going to end well

Fox2232 · 03-18-2013, 21:13 | posts: 369 | Location: EU, CZ, Brno

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr.noob

Actually there is, i wanna know if suggesting AMD cards for a gaming build, for a hardcore player is a safe choice or not, because every penny counts in Portugal.And after having that flickering problem and noticing that my GTS450 vs 7850 was faster loading textures on Dishonored i'm am still not convinced even after the thread i opened(this one) some weeks ago.

So you really believe that graphics card on PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is loading textures at speed bellow your hardrive SATA 3.0 connection limit and therefore you are able to distinct which loads faster?

Well SATA 3.0 max transfer rate is 0.75GBps = 6Gbps.
PCIe 2.0 max transfer rate is 16GBps = 128Gbps. (21x higher bandwidth)

Even if you had SSD card on PCIe 2.0 x4 lane you would get with modern tech 2.5GBps = 20Gbps. And that would still be 6.4x slower than full data rate of PCIe 2.0 x16.

And then usual Joe have in his PC 7200rpm HDD with peak transfer rate 140MB/s = 1.1Gbps only. But that is out of picture because texture datapack is fragmented like hell and Joe's CPU and system memory is so slow that it chokes at decompression.
And due to low amount of memory stuff which gets loaded is afterwards swapped back to HDD further reducing it operational speed close to 60MB/s = 0.47Gbps. Which would fit 272 times into PCIe 2.0 x16 max transfer rate.

rflair · 03-18-2013, 21:21 | posts: 2,212 | Location: Canada

Hmmm.