AMD releases Project Cars drivers 1 month after launch of the game, which improves performance.
"Nvidia GPUs aged really bad during the last month compared to AMD"
That's basically what I see, am I missing something here?
Yes. AMD's cards on GCN are continuing to see improvements because when AMD does any driver optimization, it helps their ENTIRE line of GCN cards. NVIDIA has to do separate work for Kepler and Maxwell, so Kepler isn't getting as much love.AMD releases Project Cars drivers 1 month after launch of the game, which improves performance.
"Nvidia GPUs aged really bad during the last month compared to AMD"
That's basically what I see, am I missing something here?
The comparisons are with a 290 and 280X. GCN is GCN is GCN. The 280X is the same card as a 7970.The comparisons doesn't make sense yet. The 780ti are Nividia's old GPUs while a 290X is still AMD's newest and best. Once AMD's 390X comes out, let's see if AMD still optimize and improve performance for their old GPUs.
The comparisons doesn't make sense yet. The 780ti are Nividia's old GPUs while a 290X is still AMD's newest and best. Once AMD's 390X comes out, let's see if AMD still optimize and improve performance for their old GPUs.
It's been the standard practice for a long time. Once new gen GPUs come out, Nvidia and AMD will stop optimizing for the previous gen. This time AMD hasn't had any new cards so they keep optimizing what they have, while Nvidia optimizes only for the new gen. It looks bad, but it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Yes. AMD's cards on GCN are continuing to see improvements because when AMD does any driver optimization, it helps their ENTIRE line of GCN cards. NVIDIA has to do separate work for Kepler and Maxwell, so Kepler isn't getting as much love.
The most unbiased way to look at this, IMO, is that AMD is just in a unique situation to easily keep improving older cards (280x is the same card as a 7970). I don't think it is a case of NVIDIA taking a deliberately deceitful route to force upgrades.
Yeah, thats definitely not what I was suggesting.Yes. AMD's cards on GCN are continuing to see improvements because when AMD does any driver optimization, it helps their ENTIRE line of GCN cards. NVIDIA has to do separate work for Kepler and Maxwell, so Kepler isn't getting as much love.
The most unbiased way to look at this, IMO, is that AMD is just in a unique situation to easily keep improving older cards (280x is the same card as a 7970). I don't think it is a case of NVIDIA taking a deliberately deceitful route to force upgrades.
Well, we are a long way off from this. AMD is just focusing on iterations of GCN. Even if they completely change architecture, you're still looking at a 6+ year shelf life for older products that continually receive performance updates, which is pretty great.+1 to all of this.
Once AMD's architecture changes you'll see the same thing on the AMD side, and it will likely be even more drastic.
Well, we are a long way off from this. AMD is just focusing on iterations of GCN. Even if they completely change architecture, you're still looking at a 6+ year shelf life for older products that continually receive performance updates, which is pretty great.
Yeah, I know. That's why I mentioned earlier I may switch teams if my 980ti suffers the same fate.
I picked up a 290 awhile back to pit it in my secondary gaming rig for $270 right after the litecoin mining crash. My main system has a 780Ti Classified Kingpin that I spent nearly $1100 on including water block. The purchases were only separated by a few months.Yeah, I know. That's why I mentioned earlier I may switch teams if my 980ti suffers the same fate.
Depends on what will the next architecture look like. And don't forget, AMD will go through similar changes with HBM and the next batch of cards, so I would not look for stability there.
I switched teams and got a regular 290 a while back. I kind of regret it, it brought a lot of very specific troubles that I did not encounter previously on the green team. I would stay where you are personally.
I'm a bit confused here are we saying that Radeon GPU's get more powerful over time? Or even weirder are we saying that Nvidia GPU's get weaker over time?
This is absolutely false.Nvidia nerfing drivers over time because process shrinks aren't pushing things forward anymore.
Can you imagine if AMD had optimized drivers and there wasn't so much CPU overhead against that of Nvidia's......
This is absolutely false.
Nvidia nerfing drivers over time because process shrinks aren't pushing things forward anymore.
Whereas the competition needs software enhancement to push the brand forward.
This is absolutely false.
Fiji's architecture looks largely based on the GCN, so what you are hoping for (radical change and poor aging over time) doesnt seem likely. Time will tell.Depends on what will the next architecture look like. And don't forget, AMD will go through similar changes with HBM and the next batch of cards, so I would not look for stability there.
I switched teams and got a regular 290 a while back. I kind of regret it, it brought a lot of very specific troubles that I did not encounter previously on the green team. I would stay where you are personally.
Are you the AMD equivalent of Unknown Soldier? Or is this sarcasm?Nvidia nerfing drivers over time because process shrinks aren't pushing things forward anymore.
You should probably read the links a bit more.I imagine driver changes boost performance on newer cards at the expense of older cards, if I had to guess. Nvidia already optimise per game (which I image degrades performance for other/older games).
I'm a bit confused here are we saying that Radeon GPU's get more powerful over time? Or even weirder are we saying that Nvidia GPU's get weaker over time?
I'm also a swivel eyed pickle monster in drag.
Believe what you want.
I suspect maxwell will be turned into a turd when Pascal releases too.
Where is the evidence showing Kepler performance was killed on purpose? Because it can't run the Witcher 3 as well as AMD?
That's tin foil hat stuff guys, show me benchmarks of games that aren't brand new where Kepler did well previously and is shit now. (Hint, they don't exist).
Where is the evidence showing Kepler performance was killed on purpose? Because it can't run the Witcher 3 as well as AMD?
That's tin foil hat stuff guys, show me benchmarks of games that aren't brand new where Kepler did well previously and is shit now. (Hint, they don't exist).
No, not really. It is just that their drivers improve everything back to the 7xxx series, while NVIDIA generally only improves things for the current architecture.amd drivers are better.
I'm a bit confused here are we saying that Radeon GPU's get more powerful over time? Or even weirder are we saying that Nvidia GPU's get weaker over time?
Fiji's architecture looks largely based on the GCN, so what you are hoping for (radical change and poor aging over time) doesnt seem likely. Time will tell.
AMD have already flat out stated that the 5000 and 6000 series are entirely incompatible with DX12 (they don't support any of the four feature sets). On the other hand, all cards dating back to the 7750 will continue benefitting from new drivers in equal amounts (since they all have the same basic core, just with extra features in the newer iterations). That's almost three generations of cards (since the R300 series is nearly here).+1 to all of this.
Once AMD's architecture changes you'll see the same thing on the AMD side, and it will likely be even more drastic.
NVIDIA probably wants to make upgrading as appealing as possible.
Pretty scummy approach, and I hope AMD doesn't go down this path :/
+1
Exactly what I was thinking.
Post-release performance increases via driver updates. Seems like AMD upgrades their performance more than Nvidia.
Didn't Nvidia acknowledge gimped Kepler performance and promise a patch?
Don't think it did anything.
That was never the claim being made. The claim is that since Maxwell came out, nVidia stopped optimizing their drivers for Kepler in games that have been released since the launch of Maxwell, not in older games.
AMD have already flat out stated that the 5000 and 6000 series are entirely incompatible with DX12 (they don't support any of the four feature sets). On the other hand, all cards dating back to the 7750 will continue benefitting from new drivers in equal amounts (since they all have the same basic core, just with extra features in the newer iterations). That's almost three generations of cards (since the R300 series is nearly here).
Or maybe Nvidia gets it right earlier than AMD? All this proves is that Nvidia drivers mature much earlier than AMDs. All the other conspiracy nonsense is just that.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have good drivers now rather than wait until my card company of choice catches up.
Oh well then. Like others mentioned, that may also be because of starting better earlier for NVidia, leaving less headroom for improvement, and the opposite for AMD.
Yes. AMD's cards on GCN are continuing to see improvements because when AMD does any driver optimization, it helps their ENTIRE line of GCN cards. NVIDIA has to do separate work for Kepler and Maxwell, so Kepler isn't getting as much love.
The most unbiased way to look at this, IMO, is that AMD is just in a unique situation to easily keep improving older cards (280x is the same card as a 7970). I don't think it is a case of NVIDIA taking a deliberately deceitful route to force upgrades.
I think you're both misunderstanding the problem. I'll try to explain it. The claim is this: Let's say, on equivalent settings, GPU X (Kepler) from nVidia and GPU Y (GCN) from AMD average 60 FPS in games 1-5. Then nVidia releases GPU Z (Maxwell). In games 1-5, GPU Z average 70 FPS. Then games 6-10 launch. On average (assuming all are running the same settings), GPU X averages 50 FPS, GPU Y averages 60 FPS, and GPU Z averages 70 GPS. Owners of GPU X are now complaining "Hey, I used to average the same FPS as owners of GPU Y, but now that GPU Z launches, we get less."
Ok, that was probably not very clear XD, but I tried...