AMD's Gaming Evolved snags FarCry3

[Skurge]

"PC gaming is doing better than ever" indeed but compared to consoles not so much.

You Know EA made more money on the PC than the PS3 and about the same as on the Xbox right?

 

[sontin]

He can't spin harder even if he tried. Every reputable review on the planet shows that HD7970 GE > GTX680. The more games are included, the more this lead is cemented. Of course if you mostly play the games in which NV is fast, it's a great card. Interestingly enough, HD7970GE is faster in the 4 out of 5 best looking games on the PC (Metro 2033, Crysis 1/Warhead, Trine 2, Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition vs. BF3 for NV). Then you have Skyrim with Mods and Arma II - very popular games in the gaming community and in these 2 games, HD7970GE leads by 20-30%.

Why are people comparing a 7970GHz Edition to the GTX680? Why we are not using the GTX690 and looking which card is faster. I mean the GTX690 is only using 40 Watt more than the 7970GHz Edition and it's much faster...

Your list is 100% wrong. Everyone knows right now AMD has more titles in which it's faster, not less. You included Dirt 3, Deus Ex:HR and Sleeping Dogs when HD7970GE is faster in those games without question. Shows how out of touch with recent reviews you are.

Here is the real list - AMD HD7970 GE wins in all of these, and in some of these DX9-DX11 games by 20-30%:

- Brink

You are the guy repeating over and over again that AMD has an advantage with DirectCompute. Even after i corrected you several times you have no problem with this statement.

Brink- a OpenGL games based on an outdated engine - as an example for the DirectCompute performance of GCN is hilarious and ridiculous at the same time. Do you really think that people don't know what terms like "DirectCompute" mean?

You want to talk about DX11? Maybe you should start to use DX11 games. Until then i don't care about your marketing crusade anymore.

 

[Skurge]

you played the entire game?

overall the game runs over 100fps in many places, but there are some spots with a few fill rate and dynamic light issues that have huge fps drops for me


BUT, this "Game GPU" website, I'm not sure, but from what I see their testing methodology is far from ideal, they have different people with different combination of CPUs and VGAs making the tests? (anyone who understands Russian can clarify that?)



anyway, about FC3, I'm not excited at all, FC2 was so boring...
FC1 was so much better, but it was made by Crytek, FC2 and FC3 are made by Ubisoft

I haven't, but 27 is the average and 17 is the minimum. If most of the game runs over 100FPS and there are a few spots that dip to 17, the average should still be way higher. I'll fire up afterburner when I get home tonight and see what I get.

 

[Jaydip]

You Know EA made more money on the PC than the PS3 and about the same as on the Xbox right?

I do but look at the sales of Mw3/Black Ops in console.I am a pc gamer but I do not live in a fantasy land.I have no problem accepting the truth that console outsells pc games now a days.Steam is a huge boon for pc market but we shall see.I think currently MMO is the last bastion of pc stronghold and unless it is made by blizzard.I think in a recent interview Ubisoft acknowledged that pc sales comprise a small portion of their overall revenue(they said only 3-5% pc games are actually sold while others are pirated)but they will continue to make pc games.

 

[SPBHM]

I haven't, but 27 is the average and 17 is the minimum. If most of the game runs over 100FPS and there are a few spots that dip to 17, the average should still be way higher. I'll fire up afterburner when I get home tonight and see what I get.

not really, it depends where they tested the game...
take a look on the video they provided which I believe is the test area,
so the average/minimum would look correct
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfJK7ovCtlA

here a screenshot I took on the same place,
this smoke have some fill rate issues http://i45.tinypic.com/14cxxk6.jpg

 

[Silverforce11]

Why are people comparing a 7970GHz Edition to the GTX680? Why we are not using the GTX690 and looking which card is faster. I mean the GTX690 is only using 40 Watt more than the 7970GHz Edition and it's much faster...

Are you daft? It's $440 vs $500+.. and you want to compare it to a $1000 card? ARE U DAFT?? The amount of fanboy fail is overwhelming.

 

[Silverforce11]

I do but look at the sales of Mw3/Black Ops in console.I am a pc gamer but I do not live in a fantasy land.I have no problem accepting the truth that console outsells pc games now a days.Steam is a huge boon for pc market but we shall see.I think currently MMO is the last bastion of pc stronghold and unless it is made by blizzard.I think in a recent interview Ubisoft acknowledged that pc sales comprise a small portion of their overall revenue(they said only 3-5% pc games are actually sold while others are pirated)but they will continue to make pc games.

It's because Ubicrack has alienated the entire PC gaming industry with their DRM, and they have focused on consoles so its no surprised their PC sales are bad.. frankly im amazed anyone buys their product on the PC at all.

Overall PC gaming is doing great, its just evolving and selling shoddy, short, single player games filled with DRM is not how you do well on this platform.

 

[Skurge]

Why are people comparing a 7970GHz Edition to the GTX680? Why we are not using the GTX690 and looking which card is faster. I mean the GTX690 is only using 40 Watt more than the 7970GHz Edition and it's much faster...



You are the guy repeating over and over again that AMD has an advantage with DirectCompute. Even after i corrected you several times you have no problem with this statement.

Brink- a OpenGL games based on an outdated engine - as an example for the DirectCompute performance of GCN is hilarious and ridiculous at the same time. Do you really think that people don't know what terms like "DirectCompute" mean?

You want to talk about DX11? Maybe you should start to use DX11 games. Until then i don't care about your marketing crusade anymore.

GTX 690 is also double the price, but if performance per watt means that much to you, by all means.

RS never said Brink had Direct Compute. Not every game is DX11. He listed every DX11 game that is currently benchmarked.

Lol at RS being a marketer. I could dig up posts of him lementing the 7970 when it was slower and cost more than the 680. Also he was the only person to show how poorly AMD were doing in Guild Wars 2. Even going back to the 5800 days, He showed how poorly Cypress scaled with overclocks and how the 5970 would run out of memory and the 480 wouldn't.

 

[blackened23]

It's because Ubicrack has alienated the entire PC gaming industry with their DRM, and they have focused on consoles so its no surprised their PC sales are bad.. frankly im amazed anyone buys their product on the PC at all.

Overall PC gaming is doing great, its just evolving and selling shoddy, short, single player games filled with DRM is not how you do well on this platform.

Ubi DRM isn't really as bad as people say, and their assassin's creed game series are excellent. ACBRO is still one of my favorite games, as are AC2/revelations. Every time I have ever played, UbiPlay simply required me to hit a log in button - a process that took 2 seconds. I never had issues. Personally I think people use this DRM nonsense as an excuse for piracy - ubi DRM is no different than origin. You just log in, hit one button and play.

I think jaydip is right. I love PC gaming, but lets face it - console games do often outsell their PC counterparts. That isn't to say that both can't co-exist, all indications are that the PC games industry is doing really well right now. GW2 sold 2 million copies in a 1 week time frame.

 

[Jaydip]

Ubi DRM isn't really as bad as people say, and their assassin's creed game series are excellent. ACBRO is still one of my favorite games, as are AC2/revelations. Every time I have ever played, UbiPlay simply required me to hit a log in button - a process that took 2 seconds. I never had issues. Personally I think people use this DRM nonsense as an excuse for piracy - ubi DRM is no different than origin. You just log in, hit one button and play.

I think jaydip is right. I love PC gaming, but lets face it - console games do often outsell their PC counterparts. That isn't to say that both can't co-exist, all indications are that the PC games industry is doing really well right now. GW2 sold 2 million copies in a 1 week time frame.

Exactly and tbh I find it way more better than origin.I am also eagerly waiting for AC3 which looks great imo.

 

[Silverforce11]

I bought and played Settlers 7 from ubisoft.. guess what? My internet connection to their servers (at the time it was from Asia -> EU, 500ms one way) lagged so my game ran like crap, because you know what they did with DRM? Every time the little settlers would visit a warehouse on a route to pick up goods or deliver, it would do a check with the ubisoft server to ensure the game is legit.. once it receives confirmation, THEN the settlers would do their task.

Multiply that by a huge amount of settlers on a big map..

That is just idiotic and i refuse to buy anymore ubisoft games in the future, period.

 

[Jaydip]

I think they recently removed the always online requirement from all the pc games.

 

[Skurge]

Ubi DRM isn't really as bad as people say, and their assassin's creed game series are excellent. ACBRO is still one of my favorite games, as are AC2/revelations. Every time I have ever played, UbiPlay simply required me to hit a log in button - a process that took 2 seconds. I never had issues. Personally I think people use this DRM nonsense as an excuse for piracy - ubi DRM is no different than origin. You just log in, hit one button and play.

I think jaydip is right. I love PC gaming, but lets face it - console games do often outsell their PC counterparts. That isn't to say that both can't co-exist, all indications are that the PC games industry is doing really well right now. GW2 sold 2 million copies in a 1 week time frame.

Steam is laggy as hell now, so I actually preffer the UI to steam's, but I never said PC games sell more than console games. I was mearly saying PC gaming is doing well, really well. For EA anyway. and we all know how PC gamers hate EA.

 

[SirPauly]

AMD cannot their fix PhysX performance, however.

They actually could license Cuda and Physx. And actually had quiet talks with nVidia about PhysX.

 

[NIGELG]

They actually could license Cuda and Physx. And actually had quiet talks with nVidia about PhysX.

GPU PhysX will never catch on in it's current state.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

However, there is still good going on -- there is still actual content being offered -- creates awareness -- tools are improving --- trying to innovate - spending resources where their mouth is.

Proprietary is not ideal -- there is division, fragmentation and yes, chaos, but that is just one side of the coin because there is innovation, actual choice and potentially improved gaming experiences - which hopefully gets the ball rolling with enough innovation and awareness so the important players can forge open standards to eventually mature, so more gamers may enjoy the ability to me.

Ideally, would like to see GPU PhysX be ported to DirectCompute or OpenCL -- maybe it may happen with more maturity and competition.

Ideally, would like to see the type of game altering, changing Physics that dramatically changes the way gamers look at gaming but that may take a complete effort by the industry and would be very welcomed indeed. While I wait for this can enjoy improved fidelity and some modest changes in game-play.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Why are people comparing a 7970GHz Edition to the GTX680? Why we are not using the GTX690 and looking which card is faster. I mean the GTX690 is only using 40 Watt more than the 7970GHz Edition and it's much faster...

:awe:

Fantastic, thanks for that.

They actually could license Cuda and Physx. And actually had quiet talks with nVidia about PhysX.

This has been discussed to death. Even if AMD could (I'd like to see actual proof of this) it would be extremely stupid to do so.

 

[Dribble]

If all the next gen consoles use Ati graphics and support opencl then I'd expect physx to be ported to that specifically for those consoles. Doesn't mean it'll get released like that on windows, but consoles will get full hardware support.

Remember there isn't really a competitor to gpu accelerated physx right now (some things like bullet have dreams of doing that, but the only mature product is physx). It would probably be a relatively simple port for nvidia and would mean it would corner the next gen console market for physics, at least at first. That in turn would mean lots of gpu physx enabled pc games which would suit nvidia.

 

[Riek]

If all the next gen consoles use Ati graphics and support opencl then I'd expect physx to be ported to that specifically for those consoles. Doesn't mean it'll get released like that on windows, but consoles will get full hardware support.

Remember there isn't really a competitor to gpu accelerated physx right now (some things like bullet have dreams of doing that, but the only mature product is physx). It would probably be a relatively simple port for nvidia and would mean it would corner the next gen console market for physics, at least at first. That in turn would mean lots of gpu physx enabled pc games which would suit nvidia.

But is physx on gpu really useful? yes it is faster when compared to a non optimized x87 version on a single cored cpu... but with today norms and instruction sets? i think physx through gpu is a waste of power imo.
We still have threads doing absolutely nothing on a cpu during gaming.

 

[SirPauly]

This has been discussed to death.

[Nvidia] put PhsyX in there, and that's the one I've got a reasonable amount of respect for. Even though I don't think PhysX - a proprietary standard - is the right way to go, despite Nvidia touting it as an "open standard" and how it would be "more than happy to license it to AMD", but [Nvidia] won't. It's just not true! You know the way it is, it's simply something [Nvidia] would not do and they can publically say that as often as it likes and know that it won't, because we've actually had quiet conversations with them and they've made it abundantly clear that we can go whistle.

However, PhysX is a piece of technology that changes the gameplay experience and maybe it improves it. What I understand is that they actually invested quite a lot, Nvidia put in a hefty engineering time and they tried to make a difference to the game. So, in that aspect, I have respect for it; it's a reasonable way to handle the situation given the investment in PhysX. Nvidia wanted a co-marketing deal and put forward PhysX, and Rocksteady and Eidos said, OK, as long as you do it - which they did.

The way I see this is like this:

Does anyone remember when AMD reached out to Intel to port Havok to OpenCL?

I believe that AMD reached out to nVidia to try to port PhysX to OpenCL!

However, the GPU PhysX component is tied to Cuda and that is the way nVidia may desire it right now.

Also believe that AMD could license Cuda and PhysX but would be kinda silly to do so because it would create a near monopoly for nVidia to control on GPU processing. It would be kinda silly for AMD to risk their precious resources on Cuda.

 

[NIGELG]

The way I see this is like this:

Does anyone remember when AMD reached out to Intel to port Havok to OpenCL?

I believe that AMD reached out to nVidia to try to port PhysX to OpenCL!

However, the GPU PhysX component is tied to Cuda and that is the way nVidia may desire it right now.

Also believe that AMD could license Cuda and PhysX but would be kinda silly to do so because it would create a near monopoly for nVidia to control on GPU processing. It would be kinda silly for AMD to risk their precious resources on Cuda.

Which is why Nvidia should have just allowed their cards to work as a PPU in any computer no matter what brand the primary graphics is....like what Aegia was doing.

They could have kept THE Aegia name and kept selling Aegia physX cards....which would be Nvidia cards of course.

GPU PhysX is going nowhere.

 

[Dribble]

But is physx on gpu really useful? yes it is faster when compared to a non optimized x87 version on a single cored cpu... but with today norms and instruction sets? i think physx through gpu is a waste of power imo.
We still have threads doing absolutely nothing on a cpu during gaming.

Suspect console cpu and gpu's are always both flat out during gaming as the game has been optimised to make best use of both of them. Gpu physx would be much more useful on a console then it has been so far on a pc. The difference being that only some pc's support it so you can't use it in a way that would stop non-gpu physx pc's being able to run the game. That changes if it's used on a console, then everyone has the same gpu physx support so you can use in game changing ways, not just for prettier explosions and wavy flags.

 

[SirPauly]

GPU PhysX is going nowhere.

Indeed, titles like Borderlands 2, Planetside 2 and Metro: Last Light are a testament to this.

 

[SirPauly]

Sorry, double post!

 

[NIGELG]

Indeed, titles like Borderlands 2, Planetside 2 and Metro: last Light is a testament to this.

3 games per year out of dozens or hundreds released....get real,man.