[techpowerup] AMD, Battlefield 4 will be in Never Settle bundle,there will be no DX12

[wand3r3r]

The only thing I am waiting for is the next gen cards from AMD (and NV, but judging by titanic AMD is the only way to get the prices back to earth).

That's cool they are doing bundles and the dev programs but quit delaying the next cards!

 

[Olikan]

Someone must have really lit a fire under AMDs arse or something.Lately it seems to be take a much more active role.

it actually looks like a blitzkrieg

 

[taq8ojh]

Everyone is talking about BF4 and its graphics, but I fear they might fuck the gameplay up, in which case all the awesome graphics in the world wouldn't mean anything.

 

[SirPauly]

The 17 minute trailer was indeed impressive to me -- as well as the graphics!

 

[sontin]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Adobe-AMD-Premiere-FirePro-OpenCL,21872.html

AMD & Adobe Collaborate: Next Version of Premiere Pro Supports Hardware-Acceleration on AMD Graphics



Someone must have really lit a fire under AMDs arse or something.
Lately it seems to be take a much more active role.

How is this interesting? A W9000 is not even 20% faster than a K5000. And the second one is only using 122 Watt instead of 276 Watt...

 

[Stuka87]

How is this interesting? A W9000 is not even 20% faster than a K5000. And the second one is only using 122 Watt instead of 276 Watt...

The point of the article is that Adobe now has hardware accel using AMD cards, so they are WAY faster than any CPU. It was not a comparison between cards. The fact that all cards get basically the same means something else is a bottleneck.

 

[sontin]

The point of the article is that Adobe now has hardware accel using AMD cards, so they are WAY faster than any CPU. It was not a comparison between cards. The fact that all cards get basically the same means something else is a bottleneck.

Yeah, and? We know that GPUs faster than CPUs at certain workloads.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You need an eye examination if you think that. I saw a significant leap in texture detail, character animation and destructibility in the BF4 demo over BF3. Lighting also seemed to be improved as well..

The BF3 demo vids was better than the game we got because it had destruction that wasn't done in real time and was all pre-defined.

Wow, they got BF4....wtf is TWIMTBP doing these days? It seems like every AAA game has gone to AMD since AC3.

Doesn't matter, some of the games on the Gaming Evolved list run better with Nvidia hardware at launch. Nvidia's driver team is pretty decent at getting performance up.

 

[Arkadrel]

Yeah, and? We know that GPUs faster than CPUs at certain workloads.

And now, software like that will start shipping with APUs/GPUs,
so your CPU will matter less and less (for non gameing).

 

[sontin]

And now, software like that will start shipping with APUs/GPUs,
so your CPU will matter less and less (for non gameing).

What a luck for Intel that nearly every CPU of them has a GPU. :awe:

/edit: BTW: The K5000 has still the better perf/$ and perf/watt over the w9000 in these benchmarks. Really, why would any sane company compare a $2300 and 122watt card to a $4000 and 276watt card and showing only a 17% lead?!

 

[Final8ty]

The BF3 demo vids was better than the game we got because it had destruction that wasn't done in real time and was all pre-defined.



Doesn't matter, some of the games on the Gaming Evolved list run better with Nvidia hardware at launch. Nvidia's driver team is pretty decent at getting performance up.

And that's because Gaming Evolved is not always about making sure it runs better on there hardware by whatever means, its about getting DX11 features into PC titles that otherwise would not have, its better for everyone and not like the PC is a better experience only if you have a NV card..

 

[Skurge]

What a luck for Intel that nearly every CPU of them has a GPU. :awe:

/edit: BTW: The K5000 has still the better perf/$ and perf/watt over the w9000 in these benchmarks. Really, why would any sane company compare a $2300 and 122watt card to a $4000 and 276watt card and showing only a 17% lead?!

LOL.

Faster is faster mate. Where did you get your numbers from? Seeing as this was done internally by AMD, where did you get your power numbers from?

Nv fans now singing perf/watt and perf/$ when AMD has them beat in raw performance. I don't see you saying that about the smoother, faster, cheaper, better bundled and more efficient AMD 7 series on the desktop.

You need to take it easy.

 

[Arkadrel]

Doesn't matter, some of the games on the Gaming Evolved list run better with Nvidia hardware at launch. Nvidia's driver team is pretty decent at getting performance up.

And that's because Gaming Evolved is not always about making sure it runs better on there hardware by whatever means, its about getting DX11 features into PC titles that otherwise would not have.

AMD doesnt play Dirty, atleast not nearly to the degree nvidia does.

 

[sontin]

LOL.

Faster is faster mate. Where did you get your numbers from? Seeing as this was done internally by AMD, where did you get your power numbers from?

You get the power numbers from the homepage of both IHVs.

Nv fans now singing perf/watt and perf/$ when AMD has them beat in raw performance. I don't see you saying that about the smoother, faster, cheaper, better bundled and more efficient AMD 7 series on the desktop.

You need to take it easy.

If money not matters then buy a Maximum 2 system with K5000 and K20c to get the best of both worlds: Graphic and Compute.

Sorry, but beating a card while needing more than two times the power consumption is really a great achievement.

AMD doesnt play Dirty, atleast not nearly to the degree nvidia does.

Sure, AMD would never play dirty like nVidia with Tomb Raider 2013 - oh wait:

Compounding the problem, Nvidia claims the patch may negatively affect performance with GeForce GPUs.

http://techreport.com/review/24562/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-graphics-card-reviewed/3

Which actually happened after the patch...

 

[Wall Street]

With regard to DirectX 12, what functionality would people really want to justify the increased number?

My sense is that shaders are now fully programable in DX10/11. Features like tessellation, multi-threaded rendering, multi-display, multi-GPU and 3D are supported.

If I were Microsoft/AMD/nVidia I would be thinking that there aren't many other instructions that can be added at this point. That being said, there are huge gains still to be made from creatively programmed shaders (see MLAA/FXAA/HBAO/HDR) and hardware gains to be had from Moore's law and the new generations of GPUs we continue to see annually.

 

[Carfax83]

The BF3 demo vids was better than the game we got because it had destruction that wasn't done in real time and was all pre-defined.

I'm aware of that. Also, some of the effects we saw, like the thousands of bullet shell cases from the helicopter were not present in the retail version. Also, I was very disappointed at how flat the textures were in BF3. I know it's a multiplayer game, but come on...

I'm hoping this time will be different though, in the sense that what we see in the demo is exactly what we'll get in the retail version.

Dice undoubtedly tweaked the engine and made it more efficient, plus we have faster hardware so there's no reason for these features to be missing in the retail version.

 

[Homeles]

Sure, AMD would never play dirty like nVidia with Tomb Raider 2013 - oh wait:

http://techreport.com/review/24562/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-graphics-card-reviewed/3

Which actually happened after the patch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

 

[Arkadrel]

@sontin

Have you read it? clearly there was a issue with AMD cards, if the patch gave a 25% performance boost.

Did you read this part:

Nvidia clearly has the upper hand in Tomb Raider.

Nvidia cards, tier vs tier against AMDs do better in this title.

Yes clearly AMD is playing dirty games to slow down nvidia's speed. *sarcasm*


Truthfully I think AMD just found some kinda issue with the game (for their cards),
and found a fix for them. I seriously doubt they did it just to slow down nvidia cards.

Nvidia claims the patch may negatively affect performance with GeForce GPUs.

Or nvidia just doesnt want AMD cards to run 25% faster in this title.
(the review you linked, worded it in such a way its clear that they tested it without this patch)

So they put out a statement as negative PR for AMD.
Maybe to hope reveiw sites stop useing it or something.

 

[sontin]

@sontin

Have you read it? clearly there was a issue with AMD cards, if the patch gave a 25% performance boost.

Did you read this part:
Nvidia cards, tier vs tier against AMDs do better in this title.

Yes clearly AMD is playing dirty games to slow down nvidia's speed. *sarcasm*


Truthfully I think AMD just found some kinda issue with the game (for their cards),
and found a fix for them. I seriously doubt they did it just to slow down nvidia cards.



Or nvidia just doesnt want AMD cards to run 25% faster in this title.
So they put out a statement as negative PR for AMD.
Maybe to hope reveiw sites stop useing it or something.

So then i guess it's okay to put out patches which hurt the performance on the competition cards? Why did they not wait for nVidia to provide a solution? Hm. :hmm:

Really, i think it's clear that AMD is playing dirty.

 

[Arkadrel]

So then i guess it's okay to put out patches which hurt the performance on the competition cards? Why did they not wait for nVidia to provide a solution? Hm. :hmm:

Really, i think it's clear that AMD is playing dirty.

Do you honestly think Nvidia looks for AMD performance issues in games?
And then sugests "patches" that fix the issues for AMD cards? in such a maner they gain 25% performance?

Why would nvidia do that? it profits from the "issue" being there


To me it smells like butthurt nvidia spin from marketing guys.

AMD cards are under performing compaired to nvidia cards, card tier wise (in this game).
AMD says there is a "issue" with their cards, and gets a patch out to fix it.

Nvidia complains for no reason.

 

[Skurge]

So then i guess it's okay to put out patches which hurt the performance on the competition cards? Why did they not wait for nVidia to provide a solution? Hm. :hmm:

Really, i think it's clear that AMD is playing dirty.

Nvidia got a patch that fixed their performance so nVidia got priority, now AMD are getting theirs and nvidia will be behind again. They are just slower in the game.

Faster is faster mate. don't be so butt hurt. Once again. Faster, smoother, cheaper, better bundled, more efficient.

 

[sontin]

Do you honestly think Nvidia looks for AMD performance issues in games?
And then sugests "patches" that fix the issues for AMD cards? in such a maner they gain 25% performance?

Why would nvidia do that? it profits from the "issue" being there

Ohje, nVidia and AMD don't need to look after that. It's the developer who should make sure that there are no new problems. And with that patch there is less performance and more bugs.

To me it smells like butthurt nvidia spin from marketing guys.

AMD cards are under performing compaired to nvidia cards, card tier wise (in this game).
AMD says there is a "issue" with their cards, and gets a patch out to fix it.

Nvidia complains for no reason.

You are absolutely right: There is no reason for them because losing performance after they fixed their performance problem is really no problem at all. :|

I guess it should be better for nVidia user if Eidos would call it what it is: They don't care about them and don't test their patches on nVidia hardware:

We are still investigating what exactly is causing this, and are in discussion with NVIDIA about this, but it may be bad interaction with some of their more recent (TR specific) driver releases.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1898437&postcount=2

Best example for "playing dirty". :awe:

 

[Skurge]

Ohje, nVidia and AMD don't need to look after that. It's the developer who should make sure that there are no new problems. And with that patch there is less performance and more bugs.



You are absolutely right: There is no reason for them because losing performance after they fixed their performance problem is really no problem at all. :|

I guess it should be better for nVidia user if Eidos would call it what it is: They don't care about them and don't test their patches on nVidia hardware:

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1898437&postcount=2

Best example for "playing dirty". :awe:

Sounds like crappy drivers from nV to me. Stick with AMD and you won't have to worry about your getting slower as time passes by and all your company does is make excuses instead of fix the issue.

Smoother, faster, cheaper, better bundled, more efficient.

 

[Arkadrel]

from sontin:

Ohje, nVidia and AMD don't need to look after that. It's the developer who should make sure that there are no new problems. And with that patch there is less performance and more bugs.

from Skurge:

Nvidia got a patch that fixed their performance so nVidia got priority, now AMD are getting theirs....

To sontin:

So its only okay when Nvidia gets patches? that fix their issues with the game....
when AMD lateron (after nvidia patch?) figour out they have issues, its not okay for them to get them fix'ed as well?

makes sense.

 

[sontin]

I think you don't get it:
The latest patch decreases performance on nVidia hardware, after nVidia and Eidos worked together to improve performance and stability.

Eidos did not test it on nVidia hardware or send the code to nVidia so they could do the work for them. They released something which hurt a second time the experience for nVidia user.

If you think that is okay then we don't need to talk further.