AMD Catalyst 14.11.2 BETA (14.301.1013.0 November 17)

your CPU might be holding you back, do you have it OCed?

 

no.
but all have that problem whit amd cars i read all day for that and....
i thing the problem is the marketing

 

wut?

google translate im guessing.

lol

 

Here's an example with the Mantle files. They are all the same file sizes between 14.11.1 and 14.11.2, but all have a similar amount of very minor differences:

File differences:

Code:

Comparing files mantleaxl64.dll and A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
***** mantleaxl64.dll
d†
PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
d†
AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

RSDSñQ
ˆhÐUK«Äð,YÓ/


***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

RSDSä6GÎ~}A®âðÂŒÆTS


*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll
/
0
5
/
***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
/
1
7
/
*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll
 
2
1
:
3
4

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
 
1
3
:
4
0

*****

Usually the differences are much larger than that, even if the file sizes are the same.

 

Here's an example with the Mantle files. They are all the same file sizes between 14.11.1 and 14.11.2, but all have a similar amount of very minor differences:

File differences:

Code:

Comparing files mantleaxl64.dll and A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
***** mantleaxl64.dll
d†
PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
d†
AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

RSDSñQ
ˆhÐUK«Äð,YÓ/


***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

RSDSä6GÎ~}A®âðÂŒÆTS


*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll

PÞZT

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL

AjT

*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll
/
0
5
/
***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
/
1
7
/
*****

***** mantleaxl64.dll
 
2
1
:
3
4

***** A\MANTLEAXL64.DLL
 
1
3
:
4
0

*****

Usually the differences are much larger than that, even if the file sizes are the same. In this instance, the differences are very minor differences, but differences nonetheless. Quite often the differences could be quite significant and still retain the same version number, at least until the next official version is out.

 

tested!

from 83-84fps only got 1fps base on maximum fps not average

1366x768 nativ res

motion off

all ultra settings

ssao

smaa & msaa2 only i ddnt go msaa4 & 8 it will burn my card.... msaa2 @79C T_T

fur on

volumetric fog


edit: i will test it again w/ latest patch of far cry 4 1.3.0

 

"- Optimized AMD CrossFire™ profile for Far Cry 4"

Where the hell is it? I go into "use pre-defined AMD profile" and there is no Far Cry 4 profile anywhere, just Far Cry 3 and 2 and blood dragon. What gives?

I can't find the crossfire profile for FC4 and therefore cannot test the new drivers performance, someone please help.

Edit:

Fck me, I just read the release notes. WTF, AMD?

 

it means its a driver profile, you dont get to control that.

Use atiapfxx.exe in the Application Profiles folder to generate a large XML of what’s in the .BLB file.

 

Yeah, it's AMD's fault Ubisoft can't get proper Crossfire working in FC4. Because Ubisoft has such a large track record of providing optimized games after all.

And how dare AMD not allow Crossfire in FC4 anyway just so people can grab their pitchforks and torches and complain; so selfish. What are they thinking?

(/s so nobody takes that out of context )

Also there's no chipset drivers included again (like in 14.11.1). Here's the chipset drivers from 14.9.2 for anyone who wants them: http://puu.sh/cM1iY/7c1d7ee03c.zip

 

.. Testing it later today.. time to go to bed 4:31 xD

 

Good performance in BF4, but just crashed after 20 minutes of play.

 

hello again i already tested it w/ patch 1.3.0 latest patch for farcry4

and this what i got from v1.0

farcry4 v1.0 + amd 14.11.1 = 83 fps base on maximum
farcry4 v1.0 + amd 14.11.2 = 84 fps base on maximum

only 1fps

after patching 1.3.0

farcry4 v1.3.0 + amd 14.11.2 = 110 fps base on maximum

from 84fps it gains 26 fps

i ddnt test it w/ 14.11.1 this enough for me

i dont know if the patch did it or the driver.

 

im sure the driver was meant to go along with patch.

 

This.

 

Wow fanks, this made a massive difference. Either that or the patch, I dunno.. but its finally playable now. Just gotta get that mouse thingy fixed, and I prolly won't regret having bought it.

 

tested it again and i get 115fps same site same place w/ my mouse hands off

 

Nice of AMD to include us this time.

 

Far cry 4 is sitting with the same issue. It will use 99% of one core and almost none of the others. i'm on 4790k so if that cpu can't even handle this game then I don't know what cpu will. It looks like Ubisoft don't know how to optimize a game. After seeing how crap some games run all I can say is that BF4 is actually the best coding I've seen in years. Another game is borderlands 2 and pre sequel.

 

Borderlands uses Unreal Engine 3 and PhysX; and it's well known that PhysX is pretty garbage performance-wise on the CPU. But it depends on what version of PhysX the pre-sequel uses (would either use PhysX 2 like the older games, or PhysX 3 if they went out of their way to implement it).

CryEngine 3 and Source Engine seem to be pretty good in my experience.

 

I call BS, mantle crossfire is just as ****house as its been since july 14th patch/dlc. Tonights bf4 patch/dlc one of its last we shall see if anything has been fixed.

[409638]: Slight Battlefield 4 performance drop on AMD Radeon™ R9 290X in AMD CrossFire™ configuration. ...Yeh planet clueless - population AMD.