Ubisoft and NVIDIA Team Up On Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4 And More

[Eric_Cartman]

This post is hilarious

Hilariously accurate. I don't have any problems with throttling using MSAA on my 660's.

And my 290x run at 55c, you got a problem with that? They save money on ref cooler and I'm fine with that cause I put a block on it anyways. And still cheaper than a vanilla 780Ti, well.

Yeah, you have to water cool the 290x just to keep it from throttling. Even the aftermarket air coolers, that all the AMD fanboys said would save the 290x, still couldn't keep the thing cool and they still ended up loosing out to a stock 780Ti. But if your are looking at expense, just buy a 780. They are the same price as a 290x, at stock perform within 10% of a 290x, overclock to match or better a 290x(because you can't overclock a 290x on air cooling), and you don't have to spend $200 on a liquid cooling system to keep the 780 from throttling and making games perform like shit!

 

[64K]

UbiSlop is a console publisher. That's their bread and butter. UbiSoft will be Nvidia's whore whenever they can profit from it. To them it's just business as usual.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Hilariously accurate. I don't have any problems with throttling using MSAA on my 660's.



Yeah, you have to water cool the 290x just to keep it from throttling. Even the aftermarket air coolers, that all the AMD fanboys said would save the 290x, still couldn't keep the thing cool and they still ended up loosing out to a stock 780Ti. But if your are looking at expense, just buy a 780. They are the same price as a 290x, at stock perform within 10% of a 290x, overclock to match or better a 290x(because you can't overclock a 290x on air cooling), and you don't have to spend $200 on a liquid cooling system to keep the 780 from throttling and making games perform like shit!

You must be trollin. Mine is OCed to 1,180 and temp is 71C max. The fan profile isn't very aggressive (normal fan noise). Try, again.

 

[Durvelle27]

Hilariously accurate. I don't have any problems with throttling using MSAA on my 660's.



Yeah, you have to water cool the 290x just to keep it from throttling. Even the aftermarket air coolers, that all the AMD fanboys said would save the 290x, still couldn't keep the thing cool and they still ended up loosing out to a stock 780Ti. But if your are looking at expense, just buy a 780. They are the same price as a 290x, at stock perform within 10% of a 290x, overclock to match or better a 290x(because you can't overclock a 290x on air cooling), and you don't have to spend $200 on a liquid cooling system to keep the 780 from throttling and making games perform like shit!

I have a R9 290X @1150/1400 fan @65% the highest the temps have ever gone is 82*C but in majority of all games it sits around 73*C

 

[Eric_Cartman]

You must be trollin. Mine is OCed to 1,180 and temp is 71C max. The fan profile isn't very aggressive (normal fan noise). Try, again.

I have a R9 290X @1150/1400 fan @65% the highest the temps have ever gone is 82*C but in majority of all games it sits around 73*C

Oh nice, neither or you could even manage a 100Mhz overclock and you're trying to brag!

And all the reviews say these cards overheat.

BTA even said these cards overheat and throttle under load.

What you fools don't want to admit is that it isn't just about the GPU temperature.

The PWMs on these cards all overheat and cause the cards to throttle.

That is why a full coverage waterblock is the only way to stop these things from throttling under load!

No one wants to admit that these things are AMD's Fermi's, but they are.

 

[Durvelle27]

"Oh nice, neither or you could even manage a 100Mhz overclock and you're trying to brag!"

And all the reviews say these cards overheat.

BTA even said these cards overheat and throttle under load.

What you fools don't want to admit is that it isn't just about the GPU temperature.

The PWMs on these cards all overheat and cause the cards to throttle.

That is why a full coverage waterblock is the only way to stop these things from throttling under load!

No one wants to admit that these things are AMD's Fermi's, but they are.

Ummmm i think you confused yourself


Stock AMD R9 290X is 1000/1250


@TheGuruStud

Core: 1180 <---- (180MHz OC)

@Durvelle27

Core: 1150 <---- (150MHz OC)
Mem: 1400 <---- ( 150MHz OC)

Nonetheless i haven't experienced any throttling you speak of

 

[SKL_H]

I don't think it's fair to force people to buy high-end graphics cards to play games that could run perfectly well on mid-range $200ish graphics cards. I don't support that and my next GFX ain't gonna be an Nvidia one.

I am thinking of AMD 2, cause AMD cards are affordable, I mean I always buy entry to mid range GPUs and if things like game works continue we will end up with games that are not filly compatible with other GPUs for lets just thank Direct X API for now.

"cause the feature may have zantle, tantle, natle or zodiatle.... who knows"

 

[Eric_Cartman]

Ummmm i think you confused yourself


Stock AMD R9 290X is 1000/1250


@TheGuruStud

Core: 1180 <---- (180MHz OC)

@Durvelle27

Core: 1150 <---- (150MHz OC)
Mem: 1400 <---- ( 150MHz OC)

Nonetheless i haven't experienced any throttling you speak of

You are correct, I thought the stock clock on the 290x was 1100MHz.

But the point is still the same, those overclocks are rubbish.

15-18% is horrible.

What does a stock 780 do? 20-25%

And if you haven't experienced any of the throttling, and hence, none of the rubberbanding, then BTA's entire argument was wrong to begin with wasn't it and there really wasn't any problem with Watch Dogs.

So which is it?

We seem to have two AMD users that are claiming there isn't any throttling an no rubberbanding, but we have BTA saying the whole problem with the game is AMD cards throttle and cause rubberbanding.

Funny.

 

[Xzibit]

Maybe he was talking about this

MaximumPC - Ubisoft Working on a Patch to Tame Watch Dog Issues on PC

Unlike graphics cards for the PC, next-generation consoles like the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 don't have dedicated RAM for graphics -- both consoles share 8GB across the entire system. Apparently this is causing issues on the PC with the way Watch Dogs is coded.

There are some steps you can take while you wait for a patch. First and foremost, be sure you're running the latest graphics card drivers from AMD and Nvidia. And secondly, Viard suggests turning down texture quality, level of Anti-Aliasing, or even display resolution.

 

[Durvelle27]

You are correct, I thought the stock clock on the 290x was 1100MHz.

But the point is still the same, those overclocks are rubbish.

15-18% is horrible.

What does a stock 780 do? 20-25%

And if you haven't experienced any of the throttling, and hence, none of the rubberbanding, then BTA's entire argument was wrong to begin with wasn't it and there really wasn't any problem with Watch Dogs.

So which is it?

We seem to have two AMD users that are claiming there isn't any throttling an no rubberbanding, but we have BTA saying the whole problem with the game is AMD cards throttle and cause rubberbanding.

Funny.

Man I'm not gonna go back and fourth with you.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Forum derailment detected.

 

[Relayer]

You are correct, I thought the stock clock on the 290x was 1100MHz.

But the point is still the same, those overclocks are rubbish.

15-18% is horrible.

What does a stock 780 do? 20-25%

And if you haven't experienced any of the throttling, and hence, none of the rubberbanding, then BTA's entire argument was wrong to begin with wasn't it and there really wasn't any problem with Watch Dogs.

So which is it?

We seem to have two AMD users that are claiming there isn't any throttling an no rubberbanding, but we have BTA saying the whole problem with the game is AMD cards throttle and cause rubberbanding.

Funny.

Look at this chart. The column on the left is boost clocks out of box performance. The column on the right (uber) is boost clocks with a pair of 120mm fans blowing on the cards to stop throttling. This is why sites like [H] and Hardware.fr (where this chart comes from) report lower performance for GK110 cards than sites who simply run 1-2 minute benches. They warm the cards until clocks stabilize and don't give nVidia the advantage of higher boost clocks while cool.

 

[arbiter]

Look at this chart. The column on the left is boost clocks out of box performance. The column on the right (uber) is boost clocks with a pair of 120mm fans blowing on the cards to stop throttling. This is why sites like [H] and Hardware.fr (where this chart comes from) report lower performance for GK110 cards than sites who simply run 1-2 minute benches. They warm the cards until clocks stabilize and don't give nVidia the advantage of higher boost clocks while cool.

nvidia cards do have a base clock which they will run no matter what, AMD card have only "up to" and it can throttle down as much as 30% maybe even more. corsair had a demo showing their water cooler mount for a 290x, 2 cards side by side one with corsair water cooler on it other with ref cooler. Ref cooled card was throttled all way down to 750-780mhz range. And funny thing with that chart, no AMD card listed I wonder why?

AMD kinda made a mistake with that 95c limit, they wanted their card to match nvidia they killed off temp head room to do it.

 

[Relayer]

nvidia cards do have a base clock which they will run no matter what, AMD card have only "up to" and it can throttle down as much as 30% maybe even more. corsair had a demo showing their water cooler mount for a 290x, 2 cards side by side one with corsair water cooler on it other with ref cooler. Ref cooled card was throttled all way down to 750-780mhz range. And funny thing with that chart, no AMD card listed I wonder why?

AMD kinda made a mistake with that 95c limit, they wanted their card to match nvidia they killed off temp head room to do it.

1, This is just to respond to the belief that only AMD cards throttle. Truth is both brands throttle, but people have been lead to believe that it's an AMD only trait.

2, The reason they aren't showing AMD cards is this wasn't a comparison. It was the 780 ti review.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

1, This is just to respond to the belief that only AMD cards throttle. Truth is both brands throttle, but people have been lead to believe that it's an AMD only trait.

At this point it is only AMD cards that throttle.

Throttling is running BELOW THE ADVERTISED BASE CLOCK SPEED!

Not being able to run at the full boost speed all the time is NOT throttling.

AMD cards can't even maintain their base clock speeds, that is the issue we are discussing here and the issue BTA is claiming is Ubisoft/nVidia's fault, for whatever stupid reason!

 

[Jurassic1024]

oh great purposely poor performing games ahead.

Just like Mantle.

 

[Jurassic1024]

Awesome, the rape will go on
nVidia, destroying PC video gaming the way it's meant to be destroyed.

Destroying it? Um, nVIDIA isn't in any consoles and their move to mobile is quite slow. All nVIDIA has is PC gaming, and you think they are destroying it? WOW. Just wow.

 

[arbiter]

At this point it is only AMD cards that throttle.

Throttling is running BELOW THE ADVERTISED BASE CLOCK SPEED!

AMD cards don't have a base clock speed, they say "up to xxxx mhz" Its like an ISP when they say up to 50 mbit.

 

[Relayer]

At this point it is only AMD cards that throttle.

Throttling is running BELOW THE ADVERTISED BASE CLOCK SPEED!

Not being able to run at the full boost speed all the time is NOT throttling.

AMD cards can't even maintain their base clock speeds, that is the issue we are discussing here and the issue BTA is claiming is Ubisoft/nVidia's fault, for whatever stupid reason!

I can appreciate that is your definition. Considering AMD doesn't advertise anything except it's max boost clocks though I think you are painting yourself into a corner a bit. It also allows for shady marketing from both companies. I'll give you mine so you can understand what I am saying. Thermal throttling is clocks being reduced to stop the chip from running over it's temp limit. Both companies have thermal limits built into their cards and both companies top chips run into their limits with reference coolers.

I think we should drop the off topic though. This isn't really about the game at all. It's just another AMD/nVidia pissing contest.

 

[sweet]

Destroying it? Um, nVIDIA isn't in any consoles and their move to mobile is quite slow. All nVIDIA has is PC gaming, and you think they are destroying it? WOW. Just wow.

The most profitable market for nVidia is professional scene FYI.
And if nVidia keep these Gameworks stories running, they will destroy PC gaming for sure.

Imagine the day 50% PC game only run good on nVidia, others only good on AMD, what should a consumer do? They will buy a PS4 And then the studios? They will only optimize the console versions and give craps to PC gamers.

 

[arbiter]

The most profitable market for nVidia is professional scene FYI.
And if nVidia keep these Gameworks stories running, they will destroy PC gaming for sure.

Imagine the day 50% PC game only run good on nVidia, others only good on AMD, what should a consumer do? They will buy a PS4 And then the studios? They will only optimize the console versions and give craps to PC gamers.

On the optimize console version that has been the case for last few years, it runs good on console then they half ass port it to pc. Even now Nvidia on pc gaming side has iver 50% of the market, for numbers I will use steam hardware survey since that is a rather Large pool of numbers so should be pretty close to what market is. 52.4% is nvidia, AMD has 30.7%. As for people only buying console cause that is unlikely cause gpu in console is what i would barely label a mid range part, Low mid range mostly.

 

[btarunr]

Yet developers are choosing to use GameWorks regardless of everything you said.

That doesn't in any way invalidate my argument.

NVIDIA is vomiting GameWorks around, because it wants more people to buy GeForce. Sadly, people won't base their next GPU purchase decision over GameWorks, they'll base it around how many FPS a GPU is offering, and at what price, like they always have.

With Xbox One and PS4, an increasing number of games will be inherently optimized for Radeon. All GameWorks does is ruin that optimization with pointless code that runs slow on GCN.

 

[HM_Actua1]

So your problem with the game is that AMD can't manage to put out graphics cards that don't overheat and start to throttle, so demanding games run like shit on them, and this is some how the fault of the game developers and nVidia. Wow!

lol right....

AMD never seizes to amaze me with their finger point BS.

 

[Xzibit]

lol right....

AMD never seizes to amaze me with their finger point BS.

The real BS is that somehow middleware to favor one hardware vendor will clean up engine code in the first place or somehow make console ports more efficient. In the end you just get small visual enhancements for a hardware vendor adding its library onto the current code/port making it worse.

They are getting the middleware for free with a big dollar amount on top of it just to add a few effects on the PC version.

This just fuels big studios/publishers to be even lazier when it comes to PC games.

 

[sweet]

That doesn't in any way invalidate my argument.

NVIDIA is vomiting GameWorks around, because it wants more people to buy GeForce. Sadly, people won't base their next GPU purchase decision over GameWorks, they'll base it around how many FPS a GPU is offering, and at what price, like they always have.

With Xbox One and PS4, an increasing number of games will be inherently optimized for Radeon. All GameWorks does is ruin that optimization with pointless code that runs slow on GCN.

Finally someone point this out.
Actually if it is just a bad PC port, AMD will have an advantage thanks to theirs higher VRAM and similarity of micro architecture (GCN). But a bad port with Gamework is somehow a different story.