Why a good decent card is abandoned??

[Deleted member 24505]

just a curiosity i have,if u turn HD textures,8GB vram is enough?Can u test it for me please.Thanks in advance!

I will try it. might have to download the texture pack but i will have a go for you.

From what i can find out, you will need a video card with at least 11GB to run it with the HD textures.

Unfortunately, the optional 35GB HD texture pack might be a little too far out of reach for most, as it's a greedy VRAM gobbling monster that few graphics cards can feed. To Ubisoft's credit, Far Cry 6 explicitly tells you in the menu that you'll need at least 11GB of video memory to run the HD texture pack.

I am downloading the HD pack so i will try it on my 1080ti which has 11GB

 

[gordon93]

I will try it. might have to download the texture pack but i will have a go for you.

From what i can find out, you will need a video card with at least 11GB to run it with the HD textures.

Unfortunately, the optional 35GB HD texture pack might be a little too far out of reach for most, as it's a greedy VRAM gobbling monster that few graphics cards can feed. To Ubisoft's credit, Far Cry 6 explicitly tells you in the menu that you'll need at least 11GB of video memory to run the HD texture pack.

I am downloading the HD pack so i will try it on my 1080ti which has 11GB

11 Gb vram for HD textures hahaha
I love so much this game,especially El Presidente Castillo.
Viva Anton Castillo!!

 

[Valantar]

I realise i'm upset for nothing,we live in a time when VRAM is CRUCIAL and support of drivers too of course. My card is like a "Ferrari" without gas due to limitation of vram...I also understand perfectly, 7 years of service is enough for a card.Only thing i cannot understand why is AMD always have a tend to abandoned their card with support drivers ,maybe because they are always constantly in fight with other company like Nvidia vga card and Intel processor company ,and they don't have time anymore for drivers....
I loved so much this card because is a blessing in a summer time because of liquid cooling,it never goes over 60-65 degree on hot days at full load.On winter time, never goes over 55 degree..Liquid cooling is a bl;ess.I remeber i have oportunity in 2016 to choose gtx 980Ti,and i choose this Fury just because of liquid cooling,and many people say at that time AMD perform better than 980Ti in dx12 title,and right now i realise i just wrong decision to keep Fury just for this.Gtx 980Ti is way way better just because have extra 2GB vram over Fury....
Anyway I must say bye bye to Fury X...I understand 8GB is a must have for the future, especially cuz this game or many other like him have HD texture option and for that i think 8Gb is not enough in the future....

I will try those modded drivers to see if is way better,but in my opinion all modded drivers is not like Official,i think are full of bugs..

p.s this game FarCry 6 is like Crysis in 2007,a power hungry and killer system...
p.p.s
For example Green camp have latest drivers for gtx 980TI,and that card is the same generation like Fury X, year 2015.....FOr this point i think Nvidia>AMD


AMD always have a tend to abandon their card

I think you're making this into more than what it is. Stopping driver development for a GPU after 6 ½ years isn't "abandoning" it in any reasonable understanding of the term - it has simply reached end of life. This happens to all products at some point - and the Fury series just happened to be a flagship series of the last generation of one iteration of an architecture. That kind of leaves it in the lurch development-wise, but a support lifetime of 6 ½ years is still perfectly fine.

Of course, this doesn't mean the GPU is useless - far from it. It just means it has reached the point in its life where it is mostly useful for playing older titles, where new driver updates wouldn't likely change anything meaningfully.

But your comparison with Nvidia also lacks a bit of perspective. Mainly, Nvidia's GPU division is much larger than AMD's GPU division. Heck, up until recently Nvidia was significantly larger than AMD in terms of revenue, including AMD's CPU, datacenter, and semi-custom business. They're currently roughly tied, but there's still a massive size discrepancy in the GPU divisions. Not to mention that Nvidia has sold ~4x as many GPUs as AMD for about a decade. What does that mean? More money, and more pressure to deliver long term support - which the money makes possible. Now, AMD is currently doing a lot better economically than even three years ago, but building up a large driver development division takes time, and it's clear they have had to make hard priorities. Of course AMD has also had bigger architectural changes than Nvidia in this period - for Nvidia the last really major change was Maxwell (GTX 9xx), while AMD had a medium change with Polaris and a subsequent two-step major change with RDNA and RDNA2. Just the randomness of chronology itself means that at the current moment, Nvidia has a leg up on delivering long-term support in that regard (people were still pissed when they ended support for Kepler last year though!).

This obviously doesn't mean AMD isn't responsible for supporting their products for their useful lifetime - they very clearly are. But IMO, 6 ½ years is perfectly fine. Could it be better? Absolutely! I really hope AMD is pouring some of their new money into a bigger and better driver and software team. But that won't bring life back to a 2015 GPU. And 6 ½ years is still fine. And, of course, there are always modded third-party drivers, which have a longstanding tradition of having significant benefits if you can tolerate them also not being developed by someone with it as their full-time job, with all the consequences that entails. Anyone who used the old Omega drivers back in the mid-2000s should know how good third party drivers can be though - heck, AMD even named a major edition of their software in its honor!

Still, saying "AMD always have a tendency to abandon their cards" is just ... very distinctly ungenerous, bordering on just flat out untrue. They don't have quite as long-lasting support as Nvidia, but they're closer than what you would suspect given the 4-to-1 strength ratio between them. And they still support their GPUs past what can be called a reasonable life expectancy.

 

[Assimilator]

It's abandoned because it's old. What is so difficult for you to understand about this concept? Did we really need an entire thread of four pages of you waffling on about how unfair this is and how the Fury X is still a good card, which it's not?

 

[gordon93]

It's abandoned because it's old. What is so difficult for you to understand about this concept? Did we really need an entire thread of four pages of you waffling on about how unfair this is and how the Fury X is still a good card, which it's not?

u don't understand nothing in about 4 pages of discussion...it s OK !

 

[lexluthermiester]

PEBCAK, one of many terms used in Internet chatting, stands for "problem exists between chair and keyboard,"

Yeah, I get it. I D 10 T error.

 

[budget_Optiplex]

I play this game on my relic of a system using a 4GB GDDR3 GTX 745 (bios overclocked) at 1360x768 with a combo of low/medium settings and it runs at a consistent 30-35FPS using approximately 3.7GB of VRAM.....enough for a perfectly playable experience even during online coop play with a friend for hours at a time. I'm picking up a 4GB GDDR5 GTX 1050ti locally this week that I expect should be a major boost over the GTX 745, can't wait for that.

Considering this is an AMD optimized title it seems odd that the OP is having such bad performance even with old drivers., seeing as OPs system is definitely more substantial then mine as far as performance is concerned. I have done a huge amount of tweaking and slimming of my Windows installation, and disabled Spectre/Meltdown patches as well to get everything I can get out of 12 year old hardware running a modern OS. Could it be Windows 11 issue, possibly combined with the legacy AMD driver?

 

[gordon93]

It s not VRAM issue in my case,it 's driver issue like i suspected.I hate red camp.Case closed !
A moderator can close this topic.
And thx all for posting in this topic,

 

[Valantar]

I play this game on my relic of a system using a 4GB GDDR3 GTX 745 (bios overclocked) at 1360x768 with a combo of low/medium settings and it runs at a consistent 30-35FPS using approximately 3.7GB of VRAM.....enough for a perfectly playable experience even during online coop play with a friend for hours at a time. I'm picking up a 4GB GDDR5 GTX 1050ti locally this week that I expect should be a major boost over the GTX 745, can't wait for that.

Considering this is an AMD optimized title it seems odd that the OP is having such bad performance even with old drivers., seeing as OPs system is definitely more substantial then mine as far as performance is concerned. I have done a huge amount of tweaking and slimming of my Windows installation, and disabled Spectre/Meltdown patches as well to get everything I can get out of 12 year old hardware running a modern OS. Could it be Windows 11 issue, possibly combined with the legacy AMD driver?

Most likely your GPU is mainly bottlenecked by its compute resources, while the OP's has enough of those, but is bottlenecked by VRAM, leading to unstable performance. It's quite possible that the OP's frame drops are still higher FPS than your average fps, but that just goes to show that stable performance is more important than high performance. High, unstable fps feels worse than low, stable fps, broadly speaking.

It s not VRAM issue in my case,it 's driver issue like i suspected.I hate red camp.Case closed !
A moderator can close this topic.
And thx all for posting in this topic,

You're sitting at >95% VRAM usage, which means it's using everything it can. You'll never actually see 100%, as the gpu is always shuffling data around. What you're seeing seems like a classic case of a game riding the edge of VRAM capacity and at times falling off.

As for this being a basis for hating AMD... maybe reconsider whether this is rational, whether your feelings are actually justified? I completely understand being disappointed, but your reaction here is way, way overblown.

 

[budget_Optiplex]

It s not VRAM issue in my case,it 's driver issue like i suspected.I hate red camp.Case closed !
A moderator can close this topic.
And thx all for posting in this topic,

Why is your memory running at 500MHz?

 

[Valantar]

Why is your memory running at 500MHz?

'Cause it's HBM, which runs at lower clock speeds but has a massively wide bus.

 

[budget_Optiplex]

'Cause it's HBM, which runs at lower clock speeds but has a massively wide bus.

Ahhh, I forgot all about HBM memory running at low speed on a wide bus!!!!!!!!

If I get a chance soon (thats a big if), I'll put my spare GCN 1.0 4GB GDDR5 R7 450 (basically a 4GB HD7750) in my system and use the last AMD driver and run some Far Cry 6 on it and see how it compares to my Nvidia performance.......

 

[Valantar]

I've got both a Fury X and an RX 570 4GB kicking around, but don't have FC6 (and don't plan on buying it), otherwise I could have run some tests as well. Unless someone wants to donate a game key to science I suppose

Oh, and here's a good illustration of how the Fury X has aged: the RX 570 performs very close to it in a lot of titles these days. At half the power draw. And that's still GCN!

 

[eidairaman1]

I've got both a Fury X and an RX 570 4GB kicking around, but don't have FC6 (and don't plan on buying it), otherwise I could have run some tests as well. Unless someone wants to donate a game key to science I suppose

Oh, and here's a good illustration of how the Fury X has aged: the RX 570 performs very close to it in a lot of titles these days. At half the power draw. And that's still GCN!

Different generation, Fury was a test bed for Vega. But Interesting enough RX 500 came out in 2017 because RX 400 in 2016.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Different generation, Fury was a test bed for Vega. But Interesting enough RX 500 came out in 2017 because RX 400 in 2016.

Yeah, Fiji (28 nm) laid the groundwork for Vega 10 (14 nm), which evolved into Vega 20 (7 nm), each iterating a bit on the GCN architecture, Vega 10 lost half of the HBM stacks but used HBM2 that ran at an about 90% higher clock speed, resulting in a small raw bandwidth reduction but at 2 to 4x the capacity (if you had the Frontier Edition or a WX9100). Radeon VII brought back the four HBM stacks, but retained the high bandwidth of HBM2, which resulted in a *massively fast* memory system that is still unmatched by the likes of the RTX 3090 Ti today, I got literally 1.25 TB/s out of mine back then. I kept an old GPU-Z screenshot (the driver version's blanked out because this was on a Vanguard private driver and we're not allowed to show those).

I kind of regret parting with my VII, but it was necessary for me at the time. Super excited for RDNA 3 and I can't wait to rejoin the red team full time

 

[Bomby569]

I thought most people would close down any unnecessary programs while playing games? But if you've got power to waste, so be it...

i sometimes find a break to play a game during the day, and leave all sorts of shit open, programs and browsers (more then one even) open waiting for an alert to get back to what i was doing. Not to mention discord, streaming. It's 2022, claiming that to game we should close everything else is absurd.

 

[Blaeza]

i sometimes find a break to play a game during the day, and leave all sorts of shit open, programs and browsers (more then one even) open waiting for an alert to get back to what i was doing. Not to mention discord, streaming. It's 2022, claiming that to game we should close everything else is absurd.

Old habits die hard...

 

[Bomby569]

Old habits die hard...

whit the cpu's we have now, most of uses have headroom to spare. A 6 core is cheap as f

 

[gordon93]

Most likely your GPU is mainly bottlenecked by its compute resources, while the OP's has enough of those, but is bottlenecked by VRAM, leading to unstable performance. It's quite possible that the OP's frame drops are still higher FPS than your average fps, but that just goes to show that stable performance is more important than high performance. High, unstable fps feels worse than low, stable fps, broadly speaking.


You're sitting at >95% VRAM usage, which means it's using everything it can. You'll never actually see 100%, as the gpu is always shuffling data around. What you're seeing seems like a classic case of a game riding the edge of VRAM capacity and at times falling off.

As for this being a basis for hating AMD... maybe reconsider whether this is rational, whether your feelings are actually justified? I completely understand being disappointed, but your reaction here is way, way overblown.

Right now i have over 70 fps with 100% gpu usage.How can u explain this?What all you say is just a joke,have no base.Bad driver Is responsable for this issue 100%.Sometime i play 5 or 6 hours with ZERO issue,and sometime after 10 minute of playing i have massive drop frame or sometime in some region of maps i encounter drop frame issue...Nevermind....
I'm just bored of this subject and i hate red camp with a reason trust me.In the past i have many AMD card and nvidia card,and always AMD tended to be indiferent with old gpu,....I repeat my self ,this card have potential and is still a decent card for 720p even on 2022,but have ZERo support,that's why i hate them...
This is my last reply in this topic.....i'm just indiferent
A moderator can close thread.Thanks in advance,and thx to all people

 

[Dr. Dro]

Right now i have over 70 fps with 100% gpu usage.How can u explain this?What all you say is just a joke,have no base.Bad driver Is responsable for this issue 100%.Sometime i play 5 or 6 hours with ZERO issue,and sometime after 10 minute of playing i have massive drop frame or sometime in some region of maps i encounter drop frame issue...Nevermind....
I'm just bored of this subject and i hate red camp with a reason trust me.In the past i have many AMD card and nvidia card,and always AMD tended to be indiferent with old gpu,....I repeat my self ,this card have potential and is still a decent card for 720p even on 2022,but have ZERo support,that's why i hate them...
This is my last reply in this topic.....i'm just indiferent
A moderator can close thread.Thanks in advance,and thx to all people

It sounds like you're frustrated and unable to express yourself very well (language barrier? understandable), but your MSI Afterburner screenshot shows that your GPU is gasping for air, the usage is completely maxed out and your video memory load is at literally 98% of capacity. That's why you're getting frame drops. End of the day your GPU is old, and it earned its retirement. You should begin saving up for an upgrade if you are bothered by its performance (or lack thereof).

If you're also still running a 1st gen Core i7 as your specs list shows, you have arguably worse things to worry about than your R9 Fury, though.

 

[Valantar]

Right now i have over 70 fps with 100% gpu usage.How can u explain this?What all you say is just a joke,have no base.Bad driver Is responsable for this issue 100%.Sometime i play 5 or 6 hours with ZERO issue,and sometime after 10 minute of playing i have massive drop frame or sometime in some region of maps i encounter drop frame issue...Nevermind....

That is exactly what it looks like when a game is riding the edge of VRAM utilization. Whether it stutters or not then is dependent on what resources are streamed in when, and what resources are ejected when this happens. So, it depends on player movement, level geometry, graphics settings, storage media, and intricate details of game code and drivers. The evidence so far simply doesn't support a conclusion saying this must be a driver issue. It might be, but it mainly looks like a VRAM issue. Drivers can mitigate or even overcome VRAM deficiencies, but whether that would be possible in this case is impossible for anyone without deep knowledge of the game and AMD's drivers to say.

I'm just bored of this subject and i hate red camp with a reason trust me.In the past i have many AMD card and nvidia card,and always AMD tended to be indiferent with old gpu,....I repeat my self ,this card have potential and is still a decent card for 720p even on 2022,but have ZERo support,that's why i hate them...

Again: hate is an extreme stance. You might be exaggerating for effect or something, but given your repeated use of the word it doesn't seem that way. So: are you sure that AMD discontinuing driver support for a 7-year-old GPU is sufficient reason for hate? Dislike? Sure, I could get that. Annoyance, irritation? Yep. Frustration? Sure. But hate? That's taking it way too far.

A question out of genuine curiosity: how long do you think GPU makers are obligated to provide full driver support for their GPUs?

This is my last reply in this topic.....i'm just indiferent

Indifference is radically different from hate, so either you're contradicting yourself, or you're just expressing frustration without actually taking into consideration what you're saying. If it's the latter, then ... maybe try to take a step back and consider this with a tad more critical distance?

It sounds like you're frustrated and unable to express yourself very well (language barrier? understandable), but your MSI Afterburner screenshot shows that your GPU is gasping for air, the usage is completely maxed out and your video memory load is at literally 98% of capacity. That's why you're getting frame drops. End of the day your GPU is old, and it earned its retirement. You should begin saving up for an upgrade if you are bothered by its performance (or lack thereof).

If you're also still running a 1st gen Core i7 as your specs list shows, you have arguably worse things to worry about than your R9 Fury, though.

Exactly this. Frustration at a lack of driver support is completely understandable - and sadly it seems like this game handles having 4GB of VRAM rather poorly. Given the age of their system, I wonder if they're using an SSD or HDD for game storage as well (it's most likely not NVMe, at least). But frustration and hate are quite different things, and blacklisting one of two players in a market because they've stopped supporting a product long after its reasonable EOL? That's pretty extreme. The (sad, but real) truth is that this GPU simply doesn't cut it any more, and the whole system looks like it's ripe for an upgrade. Squeezing this much life out of it is admirable, and an example to follow, but that also needs tempering with reasonable expectations of what such an old system can handle and how long it can be expected to last.

 

[gordon93]

If you're also still running a 1st gen Core i7 as your specs list shows, you have arguably worse things to worry about than your R9 Fury, though.

Please,that processor i7 990x is a LEGENDARY CPU.that CPU will never die.....

Valantar​

im not frustrated,i'm just a realistic person which see different point than others,that's it....
Peace.... !

 

[R-T-B]

Please,that processor i7 990x is a LEGENDARY CPU.that CPU will never die.....

Valantar​

im not frustrated,i'm just a realistic person which see different point than others,that's it....

It shouldn't be your bottleneck vs a Fury at any rate. Anything newer than a 1080ti might feel it though.

 

[gordon93]

i don 't think my cpu bottleneck,it;s impossible.I REFUSE to believe this...sorry

 

[Tatty_Two]

However great the 990x was at launch ....... and it was great, I had one, but it is now 11 years old, and as requested this thread is closed.