• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Core Configuration Detailed

Sep 7, 2011
2,785 (0.86/day)
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
The game, and resolution. It's true it isn't a huge penalty but to make a blanket statement like that makes it false as there are plenty of games/resolutions that show WAY more loss than 1 fps.
Quite true.
AMD disabled AF for a reason, not on a whim. Benchmarking AF isn't usually done in reviews because it's generally an automatic check-boxed image quality setting. The only one I managed to find that is relatively recent (i.e. comparing the impact on GCN) is HardOCP's Watch Dogs performance review

Nvidia GTX 780 Ti - virtually no penalty......................................................................................................................................AMD R9 290X ~ 6% performance hit

I'm pretty sure that AMD worked out the optimal settings to best showcase their product - and leaving AF disabled seems to one of them. If it were inconsequential, I'm sure they would have left enabled as most reviewers and users would.
Apr 2, 2011
2,458 (0.73/day)
I am not sure how anisotrophic filtering affects anything other than image quality, the FPS change is <1.
Your math seems bogus. Perhaps professor google will find some better math.

By jove, it did. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/51994-the-naked-truth-about-anisotropic-filtering/3

They show that even in 2002 we could do math. What a revelation. Seriously though, please check what you are about to say prior to making blanket statements. If professor google can prove you wrong that fast then maybe you should slow down a tiny bit.

The article, in summary, is old. The tested cards demonstrate x16 AF causing between 50% and 6% drops in frame rate with older hardware. Conversely, this is utilizing games where the draw distance and resolution are much smaller. It could therefore be reasonably approximated that AF is likely to have somewhere between a 1% and 25% (resolution bumps up to 1920x1080 as a standard, but 13 years of gaming is about 8 generations of cards) impact on performance, depending upon resolution, draw distance, level of AF, and available hardware. Assuming that your game was running as 60 FPS, that's between 1 and 15 FPS. Sorry, but that's not a negligible impact.