AMD Catalyst 15.15 (Official Radeon 300 Launch Driver)

It's an Nvidia title. Don't hold your breath. Besides, they couldn't even be bothered to release drivers for Witcher3. Why would they for Batman.

 

Because they are on life support right now, if they don't pick the game they might as well close the company as its already doomed by then.

 

15.15 was released on June 15th, so I believe 15.30 comes out on June 30th? It's also a Tuesday. That's AMD's driver release day of choice.

 

and Metal Gear Solid 5 ALSO a gameworks title, so basically we are screwed.

 

Metal Gear Can wait, I don't want to have manly tears too early.
Maybe during winter session when I'm clearing my leave.

 

They released a driver for both the Witcher and Project CARS, within the day of release.

The Witcher performs really well with AMD hardware, and with the tesselation trick older AMD cards perform better than anything pre-Maxwell 2.0.

They were profitable the whole previous year. Also for big corporations "profit" is not the same as for a corner store, they can reinvest (and most do), and they usually appear to have no profit at all.

Judging by the performance of the current Metal Gear which is a teaser with the same engine, the game runs good with everything maxed even on my card.

Serious question: You have a single R9 290x, can you tell me one title that you've have a problem running? Except Project CARS, but judging by what's going on in their forums, there is something to the conspiracy theories there.

 

I think the argument here is how the r9 290x performs relative to the gtx 970 since both sell for the same price. If you compare the card to say the original titan or the gtx 780 which what it was intended for in the first place, yes the card performs better.

However, with the gtx 970 in the equation and it is the card that most people have been comparing the r9 290x to me included, the card is way behind maybe not much, but with the oc headroom the nvidia card has it starts to look bad at 1080p.

I myself tried to reach within the performance range of the gtx 970 at stock whilst my card oc'd to 1200/1600 and i was still behind with 10 fps depending on the game that is excluding project cars since i am no fan of racing sims. Overclock the 970 and you have 15-20 fps difference for a price difference of 30-40 euros. Saying that such cases occur mostly on gameworks' titles doesn't really help it, because for me or you, you just want to play the game and see it perform on the hardware you paid top for. That is why you see the angry rants, people have feeling and desires.

Make the game run like crap on the gtx 970, i dare someone to rant on how poor the game runs on the r9 290x.

 

There is no magic that can fix that. I still believe that long term the 290x will be a better card, and that the gap is not actually that great. On the contrary, if you see recent reviews with modern drivers (not even the new batch of drivers out), the card is on par or faster than the 970.
Even on the Guru3d 980Ti review, the 290x loses to the 970 only in two games out of the 8 tested. These were Bioshock Infinite, and Witcher with untweaked HairWorks on.
If you check the 390x numbers (which is a 290x with higher memory clocks and the drivers we have in here since January), it is approaching 980 territory, and in some titles it's faster.

 

I think soon this will also be our fate... lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqucCVzP-Og

 

I actually replied with numbers though. See the Guru3D 390x review. With the new driver the 290x/390x are basically competing with the 980, not with the 970 anymore.

It's not that they are perfect, but why so much spite in here?

 

With benchmarks they usually have the latest intel cpu equipped which is not the case when considering in mind the average consumer. I did look at the review you provided and the latest reviews for the r9 390x on different sites but it doesn't always reflect the performance you might have when playing the game. I tend to watch videos which show how a card on a similar setup that i have might perform. And there are plenty of videos on youtube that show for example how a gtx 970 with an Intel i5 would perform and compared to my oc'd setup the difference seems bigger. Yes my r9 290 is not an r9 290x per say but running it at 1200/1600 should yield some performance gains compared to its bigger brother. It sure depends on the game, but in the end people will remain unhappy seeing how AMD is not paying much attention to the Win 8.1 drivers as they are to the Win 10.

I also did try the modded drivers, all of them, and the shadows/texture flicker in certain games forced me to revert back to the beta 15.5.

 

I know this is a driver discussion. But no HDMI 2.0 on Fury X?

At this point I am 100% happy with my new 980 Ti.

Problem is, I have 2 7950 sitting on my desk. Together they are good for 16k 3DMarks. But without driver support they are useless. Just not powerful enough for single card gaming anymore.

 

The other guy who is whinning all the time, has a 290x and a i5 4590. You have a similarly fast CPU. Also let's add here that you have a 290, not even a 290x. Your card is supposed to be faster than the 960, not the 970. The best case scenario is when you reach the 970 performance. The card you have is out almost two years now, and it's close enough in performance to modern 300+ dollar hardware. How is that bad?

As for the drivers, can you tell me which games were giving you flicker with the newer set? I'm interested because of the DLL thread. Thanks.

 

Basically every major release, Far Cry 4 unplayable for the first 6 months on amd cards, annoying micro stutter, same with AC unity, how about witcher 3, high end cards having to cap the fps at 30 because the performance was all over the place, meanwhile nvidia had driver support day 1, how about wolfenstein the new order? performance was garbage for the first couple months as with everything amd, idtech5 runs like crap on them, it has huge streaming issues and fps drop, or how about evil within not being able to mantain 60 fps on high end amd cards until the last patch 6 months after release, and then again i've read some still can't keep 60 fps.

Look i know you are an amd fanboy but it is simply dumb to deny their garbage support and problems. But please do tell me how your 7970 magically ran everything flawlessly

 

Did I just not say that i have even oc'd my card to 1200/1600 and it still struggled to come close to the 970 performance. With that clock you can be sure as hell that i have more fps than r9 290x. And no my 290 isn't only ''supposed to be faster than the 960'', it is supposed to be marginally slower than a 970, considering its price. R9 290 costs ~290 euros and a gtx 970 starts at 310. 20 more bucks shouldn't convert to 10-15 fps difference.

 

havent had a single problem on any AAA release (unity aside, but that was a game issue) in a very long time.

You must be referring to multi-gpu.

W3 worked great from day one
FC4 worked great from day one
WNO worked great from day one.

 

sure they did.

 

Actually fc4 did run like crap on any amd gpu in the beginning, and dying light. And dying light performance could be better if amd worked on the overhead for windows 8.1. It might even boost performance in other games.

 

oh right i forgot dying light, 25 fps at release and for the first two months, but let me guess, amd fanboys here ran it perfectly.

 

dont have dying light.

I hate zombie shooters.

i had zero problems with FC4.

My point is for everyone that complains about performance, there is someone else who has no issues.

These problems are not universal, but everyone acts like they are.

I cant remeber the last time i had issues with ANY game (other than unity)