AMD Gaming Evolved
AMD Gaming Evolved
You can always tell, because it works properly.![]()
AMD Gaming Evolved
Where a 960/380 are enough for 50-60FPS at 1080p ultra settings, and a 980Ti more or less still leads the charts across the board or ties a Fury X.
A gimpworks game would have that very same 980Ti struggling to do 60FPS at 1080p, not to mention the other cards.
A welcome sight.
I'll pile onto this comment...
At least I don't need a GTX 980Ti for 1080p/Ultra lol....
GWs running faster on XB1 than 980Ti:
http://wccftech.com/ark-xbox-one-runs-30-45fps-xb1-optimizations-coming-pc-soon/
Lol!
I guess that's what happens when you can integrate it into UE4 games in 1 hour!!!
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-gameworks-and-ue4
1 hour = 12 months of post optimizations
AMD GE = optimized on Day 1!
But everyone said Gaming Evolved titles running good on Nvidia/AMD. Looks like AMD gimping Nvidia performance with possibly Forward+, global illumination, unoptimisable open standards but fanboys still blaming Gameworks and Nvidia.
But everyone said Gaming Evolved titles running good on Nvidia/AMD. Looks like AMD gimping Nvidia performance with possibly Forward+, global illumination, unoptimisable open standards but fanboys still blaming Gameworks and Nvidia.
nvidia are gimping support for those cards to get you to upgrade to maxwell so that performance deficit is not unexpected or surprising.....It is hilarious, isnt it? D:
A 290X is 24%-31% faster than a GTX780TI und people are calling this game "well optimized".
Maxwell cards dont perform better. A GTX980 is on par with a R9 290, a GTX780 is as fast as a 280X...
nVidia is doing nothing. It's Codemaster and AMD who are "gimping support for those cards".
There is no difference between Project Cars and Dirt: Rally.
/edit: BTW, a 280X is 15% faster than a 380X. These AMD's techniques are just unoptimized memory bandwidth features.
You might have bitten the sarcasm bait..."unoptimisable OPEN STANDARDS..."It is hilarious, isnt it? D:
A 290X is 24%-31% faster than a GTX780TI und people are calling this game "well optimized".
Would a GTX780TI be 24%-31% faster they would calling it "unoptimized" like Project Cars.
Maxwell cards dont perform better. A GTX980 is on par with a R9 290, a GTX780 is as fast as a 280X...
nVidia is doing nothing. It's Codemaster and AMD who are "gimping support for those cards".
There is no difference between Project Cars and Dirt:Rally.
/edit: BTW, a 280X is 15% faster than a 380X. These AMD's techniques are just unoptimized memory bandwidth features.
It's not a serious debate from gameworks fanboys. It's a "amd has gaming evolved so it's ok for gameworks to trash performance for amd cards!"There's a big difference, actually: Project Cars is unplayable on most AMD cards, while this is at least playable on the cards it should be playable on. This game is clearly extremely unbalanced, but not in the same way as GameWorks titles. You guys are just ignoring the actual problem with GameWorks titles.
I would argue AMD's GE program doesn't go far enough. What good is taking the high road if it doesn't get you more sales. Nvidia figured this out long ago, hopefully the Radeon Technologies Group adopts some of their tricks.
The fact that Nvidia users who play this game won't be cursing god and considering the competition due to poor performance, visual artifacts etc is a missed opportunity for AMD.
That's short term thinking. Your customers will start to question the whole platform if there's too much vendor lock-in and competitiveness.I would argue AMD's GE program doesn't go far enough. What good is taking the high road if it doesn't get you more sales. Nvidia figured this out long ago, hopefully the Radeon Technologies Group adopts some of their tricks.
The fact that Nvidia users who play this game won't be cursing god and considering the competition due to poor performance, visual artifacts etc is a missed opportunity for AMD.