yup that was one section of yesterdays livestream, very interesting indeed, yet...not a fan of resolution reduction on pc to be honest. probably it will boost those gaming-on-demand platforms that seem to ...exist?!
I'm confused, isn't this what the announce is new with Polaris ? Basically like MAxwell's multires shading, how does this hidalgo company help ?
Don't you just hate it when the enter key breaks? As for people mentioning 2xRX480, i personally think it's unfair to use that comparison, especially nowadays. 14% faster when it works, but how much slower than a 1070 when it doesn't scale? Which is most of the time now, and just about every DX12 game. The biggest part of $500 would have to be spent, and wasted.
Meh. This card is a bit disappointing. Okay price for 2 year old mid-highend performance. This card should have been named the RX 470 and priced at $170 if they want to sell it.
Weird, I see the 970 is beating the 480 in that review in 4 out of 6 games. Most reviews have it the other way round so I'll chose to ignore that review. And no, it's not. Not even remotely.
I mean, the card is sold out: http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/ and it does have the highest perf/$: https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/images/perfdollar_1920_1080.png I think the card is fine. The problem is all the hype surrounding it, partially caused by AMD, partially caused by the community. I think AMD screwed themselves by showing the cards so early in a fashion that wasn't really indicative of their overall performance. This post from reddit captures it: Couple that with the community saying crap like "Paxwell" (implying that Polaris was going to be more revolutionary in gains then Pascal) and claiming that the new command processor was going to bring dramatic increases to DX11 titles and whatnot and a lot of people expected more. Card is fine though, it's at a really good price point, power is a little high but whatever, happens. I think the bigger issue is that Nvidia is going to have an answer for it next week (1060 launches 7th supposedly) and yet most rumors are showing AMD's answer to the 1080 as being as far away as October.
Well, it would be sweet if you select target fps in driver and Buffers/internal resolution would shrink in way to keep fps at around given target. But it again require similar prediction as Frame Pacing for CF. And AMD has not done this in perfect way yet. Maybe those guys actually know few things about optimizations.
non-supported CFX comes down to: the crew cities skylines rainbow six the division (no support) rainbow six siege (no support) just cause 3 (no support) killer instinct (DX11, yet no exclusive fullscreen mode implemented by devs) need for speed 2016 (very bad scaling) quantum break (multi-gpu dismissed by devs) starcraft 2 (very bad scaling) titanfall (very bad scaling) shift 2 unleashed (terrible scaling) unity engine games (as of now, so anyone likes to utilize CFX in hearthstone you tell me?) idtech5 engine games (not previous idtech games, like q1-3arena) then people like to add hitman and rotr. but that are games where cfx actually works in dx11. because why play dx12 with maybe 5fps API gain in single card mode, when i can have good scaling in dx11... fully apart from the fact that the cfx/SLI technique will not be the used in dx12/vulkan like we are used to, instead there will be a transformation to game-developer managed explicit multiadapters which is going to be the "new CFX/SLI". bethesda are still working on proper multi-gpu for doom so they announced it, it's coming (according to lead-dev tiago sousa) so thats 10 titles + idtech 5 games (all except RAGE -> 4 titles) + unity engine games (many games, yet very low profile titles, not exactly games that will profit from more than one modern gpu anyway) now the list where it DOES work FINE (supported CFX): alien isolation anno 2070 arma 3 ashes of the singularity assassins creed (all titles) assetto corsa bfbc2 bf3 bf4 bf hardline borderlands borderlands 2 crysis 3 dark souls 1-3 diablo III (i missed that one, not origin, not steam...) the darkness II deus ex - human revolution doom 3 (idtech4) dota 2 (in dx11) dying light elite dangerous fallout 3, fallout 4, new vegas farcry 3 gta v grid 2 grid autosport hitman absolution hitman (2016, DX11) max payne 3 metro last light metro 2033 mirros edge project cars prey (2006, idtech4) RAGE (is idtech5 but has working profile) rise of the tomb raider (dx11) rocket league saints row IV civilization V sleeping dogs splinter cell blacklist stalker clear sky talos principle tomb raider (2013) total war shogun 2 the witcher 2 + 3 XCOM enemy unknown XCOM 2 thats over 50 recent AAA games with high demand in graphics. (and not alone the number of cfx profiles in radeon cnext confirms that, so if you honestly want to check a single title, then you put it in youtube and check for results with cfx/crossfire in the name... you will get them) + source engine games (cs:go, hl2, etc) + 99% of dx9 titles via forced afr (example all valve goldsource) (games that from a performance perspective probably dont need cfx just like unity engine but still... it does work) + edit: i didnt include all of the new games like overwatch, far cry primal, shadow of mordor, but those become pretty clear from the any review, even with older cards for CFX compatibility validation now look at the games that dont support cfx... out of the 10 single titles one is starcraft 2, who needs cfx here? cities skylines... who needs cfx here? concerning the idtech5 titles. rage actually has a working CFX profile. yeah and unity engine... wow... that game catalogue really looks like some demanding stuff. fallout shelter...(mobile game), hearthstone..., etc., half of it are mobile games...OK! you must speak of the wrong review refering to this review: http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/rx-480-crossfire-performance-gtx-1070-killer/ we are meanwhile talking about the 480 cfx performance in the latest development of this thread. that 970 performs "one time equal, one time better, one time worse" has already been digested & accepted by the most of our reasonable readership.
Wow this is disappointing. This is why you should never listen to the silly community. Should've known better than to expect Fury performance. Man it's not a bad card, that price is amazing. But what's worrying me (again) is that power consumption. This thing trades blows with an almost-2-year-old 970 which was built on a severely bigger architecture and needs about the same amount of power? Honestly this feels like some kind of rebrand to me.
Use console tricks (Xbox One) to dynamically adjust resolution to reach a target FPS? Obviously AMD has some console experience with that but as we know it didn't give the needed boost to make a subpar hardware (Xbox One) to reach competition performance levels (PS4). We already "enjoyed" a first hand experience of that trick on PC with the initial versions of Quantum Break before the second (or third?) patch. As you said predictions are not perfect in frame pacing for CF...or in power saving "feature". :3eyes:
I mean if it's an option I don't see the issue. That new Myst game, Obduction or w/e is doing something similar.
You forgot about the UT4 engine games in which accounts for dozens and dozens of games- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games To my knowledge there are only a couple of UT4 engine games that have multi-gpu support, but 99% of them don't, and this is an engine that has lots of upcoming AAA games!
I agree if it's an option. I hope we don't need another useless (as some called it) change.org petition to disable it adding a toggle right in drivers like the one i started for the enforced power saving "feature".
Thank you Hansel Hardcore for the picture on the bottom....I forgot to paste it myself as an example how modern NVIDIOTS look like. I'm glad to have somebody concluding my thoughts with graphic examples I am glad to see RX 480 doing so good. I my country it is already avalible via direct import with some retailers for 285 E - 295 E....in time when the custom cooled models arrive, they'll lower the price a little and then we'll have multiple models to choose from .
any decent SLI or CFX user here will just confirm that if configured properly you have a very large game base available for AFR/SFR mode crossfire. opposed to a smaller group of rather exotic games (and including the special group of games that just falls right into the "shift from dx11 to dx12" timeslot) that dont support it. the image that is created otherwise that CFX or SLI doesnt work in the majority of games, is simply "BS" (to quote whitelightning with that nice acronym). some disappointed (because not really having succeeded in configuring it, forums are full of threads where people complain about no scaling in titles that reportedly scale well -> fallout 4 , gta V, witcher 3) sli/cfx users often stated that. but also of course people who never touched a sli/cfx in their life spread this rumour. you always have to take into consideration that i talk about SLI + CFX when it comes to supported game base. i dont have no grudge against NV is the reason why. and disappointed SLI users make me just as sad as disappointed CFX users. but in the end my experience is based on 3 years of CFX use with one and the same rig. so i wont lay more weight on my words about SLI than about CFX. but support wise i treat them both the same. and the way people spread misinformation about games not working with SLI or CFX who never touched it, is worrysome.