R9 390 DX11 - Windows 7 or 10?

[werepossum]

Just bought an R9 390 which hopefully I'll install this weekend. I've been noticing the generally poor performance in DX11 games (specifically Fallout 4) and now I'm wondering if there is any advantage for AMD to running in Windows 10 (over 7 or 8) if the game's highest path is DX11.

 

[biostud]

nope, no difference.

 

[Mercennarius]

Shouldn't be any difference in DX11. Though DX12 seems to make a good difference on AMDs cards so far.

 

[Headfoot]

poor performance in DX11 games? What are you talking about? R9 390 is a pretty fast card in dx11, especially if you're at 1080p...

Fallout 4 is NOT the same as ALL dx11 games. It has particular issues. Update to Catalyst 15.11, turn shadow distance to medium and godrays to high or lower and your issues will clear up. The game is still buggy at release here. Windows 7 -> 10 upgrade provides a small FPS boost, usually below 2 fps total though so its not much to write home about.

Also Fallout 4 is rather CPU bound. If you have a slow CPU that will hold you back.

 

[96Firebird]

You guys sure about all this? I know it is a different game, but BF4 showed improved performance, albeit small, going from Win7 to Win8.1 (probably due to DX11.1 being Win8.1+ only).

I haven't seen any testing with FO4 though.

 

[SPBHM]

Shouldn't be any difference in DX11. Though DX12 seems to make a good difference on AMDs cards so far.

DX12 is only useful for benchmarks for now, for gaming windows 7 (DX11) should be all you need for another year at least, I think.

 

[Headfoot]

edit: nvm

 

[werepossum]

poor performance in DX11 games? What are you talking about? R9 390 is a pretty fast card in dx11, especially if you're at 1080p...

Fallout 4 is NOT the same as ALL dx11 games. It has particular issues. Update to Catalyst 15.11, turn shadow distance to medium and godrays to high or lower and your issues will clear up. The game is still buggy at release here. Windows 7 -> 10 upgrade provides a small FPS boost, usually below 2 fps total though so its not much to write home about.

Also Fallout 4 is rather CPU bound. If you have a slow CPU that will hold you back.

Poor performance in DX11 games compared to DX12 games, although granted, DX12 is still being shaken down. My point was that the R9 390 shows remarkable gains in DX12, going from considerably slower than the GTX970 to parity or near-parity in some games. That's why I bought the R9 390 over the GTX970 - I'm betting that parity/near-parity in DX11 will become superior performance in DX12 due to AMD designing for the conceptually similar consoles and Mantle. (That and because starting with the 9800 Pro I've just plain had better luck with AMD cards.) Not specifically Fallout 4 as it's plenty fast enough in Fallout 4 now, just wondering if there was any advantage to be had for DX11 games that might negate the Nvidia advantage in those games where the 390 is comparatively weak over the interval until well-coded DX12 paths become common.

For further clarity: modern AMD cards benefit more from faster CPUs in Fallout 4 than do modern Nvidia cards. Windows 10 and DX12 help remove the bottleneck for slow CPUs. So I was wondering if any of that magic dust shakes off for DX11.

 

[Techhog]

Poor performance in DX11 games compared to DX12 games, although granted, DX12 is still being shaken down. My point was that the R9 390 shows remarkable gains in DX12, going from considerably slower than the GTX970 to parity or near-parity in some games. That's why I bought the R9 390 over the GTX970 - I'm betting that parity/near-parity in DX11 will become superior performance in DX12 due to AMD designing for the conceptually similar consoles and Mantle. (That and because starting with the 9800 Pro I've just plain had better luck with AMD cards.) Not specifically Fallout 4 as it's plenty fast enough in Fallout 4 now, just wondering if there was any advantage to be had for DX11 games that might negate the Nvidia advantage in those games where the 390 is comparatively weak over the interval until well-coded DX12 paths become common.

For further clarity: modern AMD cards benefit more from faster CPUs in Fallout 4 than do modern Nvidia cards. Windows 10 and DX12 help remove the bottleneck for slow CPUs. So I was wondering if any of that magic dust shakes off for DX11.

Are you talking about specific games or what? FYI, AMD doesn't seem to have actually bothered optimizing DX11 in games which support DX12.

 

[werepossum]

Are you talking about specific games or what? FYI, AMD doesn't seem to have actually bothered optimizing DX11 in games which support DX12.

More the general quality of AMD DX11 drivers. Take this review: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/1984-amd-r9-390-380-benchmark-review/Page-2

The GTX970 handily beats the R9 390 at 1080P in The Witcher 3 (54 to 48 fps average, 38 to 13 fps low) and Grid (93 to 73 fps average), although thankfully even with the crappy launch drivers is ahead (albeit with some flickering issues) in games I prefer such as Far Cry 4 and Metro last Light. However, everyone seems to agree that AMD is hampered by bad DX11 drivers AND that AMD gets a bigger boost than Nvidia under DX12. I'm assuming that Nvidia will eventually reclaim some of that ground due to its generally better (and better funded) driver team, but generally speaking, I think most would agree that AMD's architecture is inherently stronger under DX12 than under DX11.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the card, nor am I sorry I bought it. I did a lot of research before jumping on the 390 rather than the 970, so it was a very informed decision. I was simply wondering if Windows 10 held any inherent boost for AMD architecture in DX11 games. So far my own research has leaned toward WIN7 (and especially WIN8.1) being slightly faster than WIN10, but I thought I might be missing something. Just seems like the design philosophy on Windows 10 should have some benefit to AMD cards even using the DX11 path.

 

[Techhog]

More the general quality of AMD DX11 drivers. Take this review: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/1984-amd-r9-390-380-benchmark-review/Page-2

The GTX970 handily beats the R9 390 at 1080P in The Witcher 3 (54 to 48 fps average, 38 to 13 fps low) and Grid (93 to 73 fps average), although thankfully even with the crappy launch drivers is ahead (albeit with some flickering issues) in games I prefer such as Far Cry 4 and Metro last Light. However, everyone seems to agree that AMD is hampered by bad DX11 drivers AND that AMD gets a bigger boost than Nvidia under DX12. I'm assuming that Nvidia will eventually reclaim some of that ground due to its generally better (and better funded) driver team, but generally speaking, I think most would agree that AMD's architecture is inherently stronger under DX12 than under DX11.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the card, nor am I sorry I bought it. I did a lot of research before jumping on the 390 rather than the 970, so it was a very informed decision. I was simply wondering if Windows 10 held any inherent boost for AMD architecture in DX11 games. So far my own research has leaned toward WIN7 (and especially WIN8.1) being slightly faster than WIN10, but I thought I might be missing something. Just seems like the design philosophy on Windows 10 should have some benefit to AMD cards even using the DX11 path.

You can't use two games to prove a point. Overall, 390 is faster stock vs. stock.

 

[werepossum]

You guys sure about all this? I know it is a different game, but BF4 showed improved performance, albeit small, going from Win7 to Win8.1 (probably due to DX11.1 being Win8.1+ only).

I haven't seen any testing with FO4 though.

From what I've read, 8.1 is the fastest of all the Windows. However, shouldn't Windows 10 also have DX11.1 as well as being more streamlined? Is there something else I'm missing that is exclusive to 8.1, or this Windows 10 just not being fully optimized yet?

 

[3DVagabond]

More the general quality of AMD DX11 drivers. Take this review: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/1984-amd-r9-390-380-benchmark-review/Page-2

The GTX970 handily beats the R9 390 at 1080P in The Witcher 3 (54 to 48 fps average, 38 to 13 fps low) and Grid (93 to 73 fps average), although thankfully even with the crappy launch drivers is ahead (albeit with some flickering issues) in games I prefer such as Far Cry 4 and Metro last Light. However, everyone seems to agree that AMD is hampered by bad DX11 drivers AND that AMD gets a bigger boost than Nvidia under DX12. I'm assuming that Nvidia will eventually reclaim some of that ground due to its generally better (and better funded) driver team, but generally speaking, I think most would agree that AMD's architecture is inherently stronger under DX12 than under DX11.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the card, nor am I sorry I bought it. I did a lot of research before jumping on the 390 rather than the 970, so it was a very informed decision. I was simply wondering if Windows 10 held any inherent boost for AMD architecture in DX11 games. So far my own research has leaned toward WIN7 (and especially WIN8.1) being slightly faster than WIN10, but I thought I might be missing something. Just seems like the design philosophy on Windows 10 should have some benefit to AMD cards even using the DX11 path.

No! Everyone doesn't agree. That would be like saying that everyone agrees AMD gets a bigger boost in DX12 because it's Mantle with other IHV support added.

 

[Red Hawk]

There can be a difference thanks to DirectX 11.2.

 

[rancherlee]

8.1 made a difference over 7 when I switched, and 10 seems just as fast as 8.1 with my 7950. Battlefield 4 was my biggest gainer going from 7 to 8.1

 

[Headfoot]

If we're talking DX11 for all games, then 970 and 390 are statistically tied.

If we're talking Fallout 4, then that is a different issue with its own nuances.

 

[flopper]

Yes win 10 is better and faster.
not much and fall within margin of error but why stick with a old OS?

best OS I used is win 10

 

[tential]

No! Everyone doesn't agree. That would be like saying that everyone agrees AMD gets a bigger boost in DX12 because it's Mantle with other IHV support added.

Are you arguing amds direct x 11 drivers are good?

 

[SPBHM]

If we're talking DX11 for all games, then 970 and 390 are statistically tied.

*with the latest and greatest overclocked i7

Yes win 10 is better and faster.
not much and fall within margin of error but why stick with a old OS?

best OS I used is win 10

I'm using 10, but you still have over 6 months to get a free upgrade, it might be worth waiting for more bugs to be fixed, and to avoid huge updates like the latest one which was basically the entire OS being reinstalled automatically taking a good 30 minutes, for some people automatically removing some programs and changing settings.

for gaming DX11 is all you need at the moment.

 

[tential]

I mean I have no idea what it feels like to use an amd processor with a peasant i5 or God forbid even worse. But let's not kid ourselves, nvidia dx11 drivers were clearly better as a whole than amds. If amd had nvidia quality dx11 drivers with their cards at their card launches.... We'd be all having an extremely different conversation.

Amd drivers have gotten loads better, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking every issue of theirs or performance deficit in their drivers has disappeared.

I definitely wish amd had better dx11 drivers, although I have a 4770k so meh, but for the rest of you, and for the times im cpu bottlenecked, I wish so!

 

[Mem]

Just bought an R9 390 which hopefully I'll install this weekend. I've been noticing the generally poor performance in DX11 games (specifically Fallout 4) and now I'm wondering if there is any advantage for AMD to running in Windows 10 (over 7 or 8) if the game's highest path is DX11.

I would go Win10 for DX12 etc and more future proof gaming wise,as to poor performance, well my Sapphire 280x OC has no problems with Ultra settings with Fallout 4 at 1080p, granted it may dip to 45 fps now and then from 60 fps, but no issues gaming wise with Win10/Fallout 4 on my AMD card.

Game is rock stable too, besides even those with slower cards or faster ones, plenty of settings you can tweak for Fallout 4 performance.

 

[guskline]

I've moved all my machines to Win 10.

 

[werepossum]

I would go Win10 for DX12 etc and more future proof gaming wise,as to poor performance, well my Sapphire 280x OC has no problems with Ultra settings with Fallout 4 at 1080p, granted it may dip to 45 fps now and then from 60 fps, but no issues gaming wise with Win10/Fallout 4 on my AMD card.

Game is rock stable too, besides even those with slower cards or faster ones, plenty of settings you can tweak for Fallout 4 performance.

Cool. I may go ahead and upgrade to 10 then.

 

[RussianSensation]

Cool. I may go ahead and upgrade to 10 then.

Get W10 at some point in 2016 since it's free and will have many years of support. DX12 games will ultimately benefit from it. People hated W8/8.1 but besides the tile interface & lack of native start bar, imo W8/8.1 was better than W7 in almost every way. It's much faster to use imo and I always liked W8 more than W7. I am going to upgrade to W10 before the deadline but it makes no sense to stay with W7 imo.

Also, grab 15.11.1 drivers as they should improve FO4 performance. FO4 is just a poorly optimized game.

The fact that this mediocre looking game / engine can't even hit 60 fps at 1080P on an HD7970Ghz is more to do with Bethesda's inability to code rather than AMD's drivers because the game isn't exactly flying on NV cards either (i.e, the trade-off of GPU power required vs. graphics in FO4 is attrocious imo) and neither is it great looking.

 

[poofyhairguy]

*with the latest and greatest overclocked i7

Those are the only graphs we see. Who benchs on i5s or AMD CPUs?