Forspoken Simply Doesn't Work with AMD Radeon RX 400 and RX 500 "Polaris" GPUs

[natr0n]

"Lifts up a glass of fine wine and says cheers"

 

[evernessince]

How's that FineWine(tm) working out, eh?


Erm.....the 10 year old cards run the game fine. It's the 6 year old polaris cards that dont run it.

The 1060 6GB gets 22 FPS on 1080p low settings and the 970 gets 17 FPS with massive frequent stuttering.

You can run it with a vulkan wrapper or on Linux with a polaris card but I'm not sure why you'd want to. In either case it's a bad game and the performance is abhorrent regardless of 580, 480, 1060, 970.

It is too early for Polaris cards to run into these kind of hiccups but this game is an exception given it's extremely poor optimization. It's not an indicator of the broader market.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Oh no!
Anyway....

 

[Lew Zealand]

Soooo.... the slowest card that can run this is the GTX 745 (Maxwell), is that right? And there's a demo...

Oh I gotta try this. Any predictions for FPS at 1080p? 720p? I'll go first: 4 and 6.

Hmmph, crashed out on i5-6600 8GB 2133Mhz DDR4 4GB GTX 745, not enuff memory.

Plays on i5-4690 16GB DDR3 1600 4GB GTX1050 Ti
528.24 Game Ready driver
Uses 3.6GB VRAM, 11.5GB System RAM total

Just past tutorial area swinging view slowly across map, Low settings preset
1080p: 12-18fps
1080p, FSR2Quality: 17-20fps
720p: 18-23fps
720p, FSRQ: 21-27fps

720p looks effing horrible in the game, there's something wrong with the in-game switching, I'm familiar with dumbing down to 720p and I've never seen it take the hit I see in this game. I'll try starting the game with Windows at 720p to see if there's a difference. FSR looks pretty good at 1080p in this game but I'm not too picky about these things.

I'll pop the 745 in there next. I have an RX6400 but it's elsewhere right now, will test that tonite in a similar i7-4790 PC. All these are Dell Optiplexes with Dell memory so modest systems. Will be interesting to see if the 6400's x4 bus (PCIe 3.0 in the Optiplex) is an issue here or not.

Weirdly the game is pegged at 1860MHz on my ASUS Phoenix 1050Ti (155 MHz OC on Cores, 150MHz OC on VRAM) and it's not using the 68-70W that it usually does in games, instead using around 58-64W and the GPU load is rummaging in the 80s%. Usually that core clock will dynamically reduce to keep the power under 70W. But the CPU is frequently at 40% usage with peaks into the 70s, I will need to track this more.

 

[Max(IT)]

How can people still trust AMD on graphic hardware?

 

[dozenfury]

Not that I had an overwhelming urge to play Forsaken, but AMD's driver issues like this are really their Achille's heel. When AMD was struggling years ago it was more understandable, but at this point their drivers should be a lot quicker on adding support for new games and issue resolution. It's my #1 hesitation when thinking about a new AMD gpu. I've been there done that and it sucks waiting 2-3 months sometimes for a new game to get driver support when NV has it on release day most of the time. NV has other wrinkles of it's own, but when it comes to drivers AMD still has some catching up to do.

 

[ZoneDymo]

How can people still trust AMD on graphic hardware?

You should be ashamed of yourself for the nonsense you bring to this forum/website.

 

[Imouto]

https://imgur.com/yLOROtH

On a RX 580 8GB. Mesa 22.3.3-3

Demo version
Proton Experimental
1080p
High Preset
VRS Off
Dynamic Resolution Off
Model Memory High
Texture Memory High

The game looks awful, though.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Hmmph, crashed out on i5-6600 8GB 2133Mhz DDR4 4GB GTX 745, not enuff memory.

Plays on i5-4690 16GB DDR3 1600 4GB GTX1050 Ti
528.24 Game Ready driver
Uses 3.6GB VRAM, 11.5GB System RAM total

Just past tutorial area swinging view slowly across map, Low settings preset
1080p: 12-18fps
1080p, FSR2Quality: 17-20fps
720p: 18-23fps
720p, FSRQ: 21-27fps

720p looks effing horrible in the game, there's something wrong with the in-game switching, I'm familiar with dumbing down to 720p and I've never seen it take the hit I see in this game. I'll try starting the game with Windows at 720p to see if there's a difference. FSR looks pretty good at 1080p in this game but I'm not too picky about these things.

I'll pop the 745 in there next. I have an RX6400 but it's elsewhere right now, will test that tonite in a similar i7-4790 PC. All these are Dell Optiplexes with Dell memory so modest systems. Will be interesting to see if the 6400's x4 bus (PCIe 3.0 in the Optiplex) is an issue here or not.

Weirdly the game is pegged at 1860MHz on my ASUS Phoenix 1050Ti (155 MHz OC on Cores, 150MHz OC on VRAM) and it's not using the 68-70W that it usually does in games, instead using around 58-64W and the GPU load is rummaging in the 80s%. Usually that core clock will dynamically reduce to keep the power under 70W. But the CPU is frequently at 40% usage with peaks into the 70s, I will need to track this more.

GTX 745 is first gen Maxwell and only supports DX12, not DX12_1 that the GTX 9xx series second gen Maxwells support, so it crashes it out. GTX 1030 is probably the lowest end card to technically run this.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

The issue is there has been no viable replacement for polaris, everything is @$$ expensive.

There's nothing wrong with getting the most out of hardware. It's better for your personal economics, better for the environment, ece.

It's a boring crap game with optimization done by a blind monkey. I mean if you wanted to watch a 3 hour movie that nobody cares about and throw in some walking simulator segments then sure I guess, I'd rather watch grass grow.

EDIT: I forgot, on top of running like a heroin addict, the game looks like complete crap. I've seen better looking PS3 games.

I don't have any issue with missing out on the odd game.

This wouldn't rule out the use of Polaris cards yet but does sound the warning siren's of doom.

I was and I think every pc gamer besides a niche is ok with having to compromise on in game settings for adequate FPS, I only just upgraded a Vega 64.

But there's plenty of options, this wouldn't be the thread to debate that though and Polaris isn't dead yet either, a 6600XT or 3060Ti would make Polaris look poor at this point though. And might be affordable to some.

 

[caroline!]

Has Shituvo DRM, that causes more trouble than DX12_1

 

[watzupken]

Not that I had an overwhelming urge to play Forsaken, but AMD's driver issues like this are really their Achille's heel. When AMD was struggling years ago it was more understandable, but at this point their drivers should be a lot quicker on adding support for new games and issue resolution. It's my #1 hesitation when thinking about a new AMD gpu. I've been there done that and it sucks waiting 2-3 months sometimes for a new game to get driver support when NV has it on release day most of the time. NV has other wrinkles of it's own, but when it comes to drivers AMD still has some catching up to do.

I don’t believe AMD sells a lot of GPUs, be it to retail or professional users. It may be their core business, but certainly not as important than their CPU business Which is the one that’s raking in the revenue for them. You should also consider that AMD offers both CPU and GPU as their core business, while their competitors which are both larger than AMD mainly focuses on either. So while they are doing a lot better over the last few years, I am not expecting them to have abundant cashflow to get too serious in both businesses. It is clear they are pouring a lot more effort in their CPU space where there is a better fighting chance due to Intel’s missteps.
In any case, Polaris is an aged card. So I really don’t see the reason why people are getting upset with the lack of features to run a game. It’s not great, but even if you have a 10 year old card, it’s going to perform really badly in this game. And if you have a GTX Nvidia card, you should be thanking AMD and Intel for enabling decent upscaling technology so that you can still play some of these new games. Nvidia has shut GTX users out in the cold.

 

[RadeonProVega]

"AMD is yet to release an update to its Adrenalin graphics drivers for the RX Vega, RX 5000, and RX 6000 series that come with "Forspoken" optimization. "

I'm using a Radeon Pro W6600 , using 2021 drivers and the game runs just fine. I get a "driver warning", but i ignore it and it plays perfectly fine. Same with Fortnite, it says my driver has issues with DX12. Lol no it doesn't, the game runs at 90fps at almost max settings 1440p perfectly fine. Don't believe the hype!

 

[Pumper]

That's a win for 400 and 500 series owners. Why would they buy the 80€ turd when they can't even afford a GPU upgrade?

 

[Max(IT)]

You should be ashamed of yourself for the nonsense you bring to this forum/website.

Sorry if I offended your beloved brand, but MAYBE I started using ATi products when you still were in a kindergarten, so I really know something about my “nonsense”. It doesn’t matter how much I hate Nvidia as a Company: you just cannot trust AMD because of their incompetence.

 

[Vayra86]

apparently runs on polaris but using linux, example with rx 580

You know the world is upside down when a game DOES work on Linux, and not on Windows.

Wow

You should be ashamed of yourself for the nonsense you bring to this forum/website.

Yeah? How did the past launch work out for them? It looked good in the presentation. The promised performance however was not unlocked on reference cards while an OC is highly profitable; there is a vapor chamber issue, and several other pretty serious issues, plus its priced to performance akin to Nvidia's new stack, plus there are some pretty nasty driver bugs going on and once again we're seeing a highly spotty driver regime. Cards are missing support right now for some games whereas others got it, for example.

Support periods on hardware are shorter than its competitor in general; feature sets are less expansive or less future proof - we have an example here right now. The only real pro AMD has going for its newest range is that there's a better I/O. Well yay. You can play on their cards at a res less than 0,5% of the audience will get to use anytime soon, never mind its FPS.

Honestly man, I was about to jump on 7900 series, and then AMD happened. Again. For the umpteenth time. They apparently can't keep a GPU product smooth sailing for any longer than a single gen - right now RDNA2 is the unicorn. The rest? Barely interesting. Its frustrating as hell, IMHO. They really need to do better. People who keep wondering why oh why is Nvidia at 80+% share... here it is.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Soooo.... the slowest card that can run this is the GTX 745 (Maxwell), is that right? And there's a demo...

No, the reason it crashes is that Maxwell 1 (GTX 750 series/GM107) does not support DirectX 12 at all (it's 11_0 level hardware), only Maxwell 2 (GTX 900 series/GM200, 204 and 206) does.

GCN 1 was 11_1, Kepler and Maxwell 1 are 11_0
GCN 2 through 4 are 12_0, Maxwell 2 and Pascal are 12_1
GCN 5 and RDNA 1 are 12_1, Turing* fully supported DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) whereas its contemporaries did not
AMD caught up again with RDNA 2

*Small Turing (GTX 16 series) are 12_1 due to the removal of the raytracing cores but otherwise supports the same shader instructions as the big Turing cards

 

[Gooigi's Ex]

You know the world is upside down when a game DOES work on Linux, and not on Windows.

Wow


Yeah? How did the past launch work out for them? It looked good in the presentation. The promised performance however was not unlocked on reference cards while an OC is highly profitable; there is a vapor chamber issue, and several other pretty serious issues, plus its priced to performance akin to Nvidia's new stack, plus there are some pretty nasty driver bugs going on and once again we're seeing a highly spotty driver regime. Cards are missing support right now for some games whereas others got it, for example.

Support periods on hardware are shorter than its competitor in general; feature sets are less expansive or less future proof - we have an example here right now. The only real pro AMD has going for its newest range is that there's a better I/O. Well yay. You can play on their cards at a res less than 0,5% of the audience will get to use anytime soon, never mind its FPS.

Honestly man, I was about to jump on 7900 series, and then AMD happened. Again. For the umpteenth time. They apparently can't keep a GPU product smooth sailing for any longer than a single gen - right now RDNA2 is the unicorn. The rest? Barely interesting. Its frustrating as hell, IMHO. They really need to do better. People who keep wondering why oh why is Nvidia at 80+% share... here it is.

You sure don't sound like a boomer the way you're talking. You definitely sound like someone who is stuck(or bandwagon) in the AMD 200 series back in the day and can't move past it and your excuse is "They are still doing the same thing with their "incompetence" where they still have bad drivers and blah blah". Intel still this DAY still has horrible GPU Drivers and gets no mud on the level of AMD. Even when Nvidia is doing absolute anti-consumer tactics, all it takes is one bad driver from AMD and everyone forgets the bad things that Nvidia has done...AMD's FAULTkookoo. So glad I got off that hive mindset a long time ago...


Also, not a butthurt AMD fanboy(and have been around the block since the Nvidia GeForce 6 series) and I buy what's suitable for my needs. I currently have a 6900 XT and it has been absolutely incredible. A minimum amount of bugs and incredible performance. Though that 4090 is looking very enticing...

 

[Vayra86]

You sure don't sound like a boomer the way you're talking. You definitely sound like someone who is stuck(or bandwagon) in the AMD 200 series back in the day and can't move past it and your excuse is "They are still doing the same thing with their "incompetence" where they still have bad drivers and blah blah". Intel still this DAY still has horrible GPU Drivers and gets no mud on the level of AMD. Even when Nvidia is doing absolute anti-consumer tactics, all it takes is one bad driver from AMD and everyone forgets the bad things that Nvidia has done...AMD's FAULTkookoo. So glad I got off that hive mindset a long time ago...


Also, not a butthurt AMD fanboy(and have been around the block since the Nvidia GeForce 6 series) and I buy what's suitable for my needs. I currently have a 6900 XT and it has been absolutely incredible. A minimum amount of bugs and incredible performance. Though that 4090 is looking very enticing...

See, your post is a nice example of assumptions being the mother of all fuckups.

Enjoy your day, between all the butthurt and fanboy rhetoric.

 

[GhostRyder]

Yea I had heard some mention online about this because these cards lack DX 12_1 support. I mean, I had not even heard of this game until I heard of this issue. Now while that sucks, a nearly 6-year-old mid-range $230 card not supporting a modern game is definitely weird but not that farfetched (At least in how much performance you can expect). I mean I am not happy about it as I would hope these cards would at least allow it to start up, but unfortunately that is the case.

 

[efikkan]

"Interestingly, NVIDIA's "Maxwell" graphics architecture, which predates AMD "Polaris" by almost a year, supports FL 12_1, and is able to play the game.". Why is this interesting? Nvidia decided at that time to include future features in their cards. That's all.

It is interesting, because at the time both the AMD 400/500 series, and even the earlier 200/300 series, were touted as more "future-proof" and "designed DirectX 12", and were going to "scale better" in the future.
I remember being one of few people who kept saying these claims were nonsense.

As for driver level game optimizations, I can tell you that it's marketing bs, on both Nvidia and Amd's side.

True. Drivers aren't really optimized for specific games, not at least the way people think.
Workarounds in drivers may happen, but are very costly and sometimes even risky. But in 99.99% of cases, the drivers operate agnostic of what is running.

…I've been there done that and it sucks waiting 2-3 months sometimes for a new game to get driver support when NV has it on release day most of the time. NV has other wrinkles of it's own, but when it comes to drivers AMD still has some catching up to do.

Games don't need to be "supported" by the drivers. Drivers implement graphics APIs, and any software utilizing these APIs according to spec should just work. In reality though, the implementations aren't 100% correct, and new software tends to reveal bugs that have been there all along.

But as our friend brutlern said, GPU makers will spin this as a good thing, like claiming to "optimize" the driver for a game, when in realty they should say; we would like to thank the makers of <insert game here> for exposing an embarrassing flaw in our messy driver codebase, and we chose to resolve it by a workaround / rewrite the affected part of the code base.
In rare cases they may override shaders etc., but this usually creates more problems than it solves.

I don’t believe AMD sells a lot of GPUs, be it to retail or professional users. It may be their core business, but certainly not as important than their CPU business Which is the one that’s raking in the revenue for them.

It's not hard to figure out that AMD sells very few GPUs, at least in retail. Just look at the difference in total market share vs. Steam market share over the years. Unfortunately this means they ship relatively few retail cards, which is why they aren't able to truly compete with Nvidia, even when they have a decent product. They need millions of cards to make a dent in Nvidia's sales, and at least hundreds of thousands around launch, not like 10.000(?) or so which they did last launch.

 

[eidairaman1]

How can people still trust AMD on graphic hardware?

Ever heard of antitrust?

This obviously is another greenscam

 

[Flyordie]

I am actually happy to see limits being touched.
Things are meant to move forward and Polaris has already served a viable term.
I bought three reference cards over a time and had two by week two.
They earned they're worth back for me and I had many a good gaming hour on them for two to three years.
Then I got and used a Vega64 for near 6 years until it's use was suboptimal then got a 7900XT and I'm way past thinking that Polaris Should still be used, it does make a sound argument via low end usage but it's age means we're a CPU generation away from Igpu pissing on it, from Intel, yep.

Let the past go now IMHO 8/10 years is 3/4 too many IE too little progress.


Forsaken!, Any good?!.

I'm still running my Vega64XTX. lol.

Although from what I can see- Vega64 supports "DX12_1" feature level.

 

[R-T-B]

apparently runs on polaris but using linux, example with rx 580

Using dxvk. It's basically a custom dx11 driver written in vulkan. Probably emulates the needed commands in software, as Maxwell has done since forever.

Ever heard of antitrust?

This obviously is another greenscam

Not being able to run a game due to missing instructions is somehow nvidia fault now? Friggin lol.

 

[Jism]

Not that I had an overwhelming urge to play Forsaken, but AMD's driver issues like this are really their Achille's heel. When AMD was struggling years ago it was more understandable, but at this point their drivers should be a lot quicker on adding support for new games and issue resolution. It's my #1 hesitation when thinking about a new AMD gpu. I've been there done that and it sucks waiting 2-3 months sometimes for a new game to get driver support when NV has it on release day most of the time. NV has other wrinkles of it's own, but when it comes to drivers AMD still has some catching up to do.

Wtf. latest drivers release has bin all for the 7x00 / 6x00 generation. but not the cards before obviously.