R9 290 vs GTX960...AMD still useless in DCS

[Fishbed64]

I have chance to try AMD r9 290 for few days so i run some test i DCS against my GTX960 which i use right now ,it seems like AMD drivers still not work at all in DCS i run benchmark with FRAPS in A10 c introduction training mission here is what i foud (my PC core i5 3570 OC@ 4ghz,8gb ram,SSD) GTX960 min46 avg80 max103 ,AMD r9 290 min28 avg55 max76 as you can see highend r9 290 is much worse than Nvidia mainstream GTX960,so if you want buy new GPU and you mainly play DCS,forget about AMD.

[Dudikoff]

Well, the engine is still the same so that's no surprise. Things might improve only with the release of the new DX11 engine in DCS 2.0.

[T_A]

you know , in a way i`v made my peace with the fact that AMD sucks at DCS

i`m actually excited because it means DCS 2.0 will bring my game to a whole new level of performance.

and generally speaking , i`m OK with my current performance.

 

P.S

this discussion belongs in the PC Hardware section

[Sgt_Baker]

Given that I am something of an "expert" where DCS and its graphics are concerned, I can say only this:

 

There appears to be no rhyme or reason where DCS and rendering are concerned. Things that should impact FPS severely run quickly. Things that are, as standard in other graphics engines, hardware-accelerated to the point of not existing at all run like a horse on ketamine.

 

I can only surmise that this may be a result of DCS being largely based on the FC engine, old as it is, an excessive reliance of Lua to perform a large part of the sim "work", and a suspicion that ED's folk are aircraft experts, not DirectX gurus.

 

Personally I can accept the FPS hit, since nothing else exists with an aircraft-fidelity even approaching that of DCS.

[xXmobiusXx1]

Alright I'm going to have to educate here. I have been working with computers and code for 16 years now, and have used both ATI and Nvidia which I just switched back to AMD after my findings. I had the Nvidia GTX 660 SC modified, switch it out with the sapphire R9 290 oc new edition. The reason I have made the switch is because Nvidia ( in order to obtain that performance ) Bypasses many of the calls Direct X makes and in turn implements their own draw calls. Now by doing this it causes a few issues 1 being visual quality, Nvidia looks muddy and blurry and certain effects are either displayed incorrectly or just plain missing. This is why some games have been broken since the release of the " optimized " drivers. 2. it can cause glitches like what many users experience with the sun effect ( blinding ) after being blinded by the sun and your vision starts to equalize the colors in game will glitch causing a red overly if you will ( something to do with their HDR bypass ) 3. instability, many are plagued with the kernel driver crash when trying to run games.

 

Now as for AMD, reason AMD has issues is solely due to the bad coding and optimization of Direct X, AMD doesn't cut corners, they let direct X drive the card and follow the draw calls it sends out. Which in turn is why AMD cards have better visual quality and lower performance. My findings on AMD is that there is an issue with tessellation, now is it driver side or direct X I am not fully sure but! I know that Direct X tessellation standard is x32 while AMD can enhance it's quality by x64 which when on x64 there is no performance loss which makes me lean towards it being a direct X issue. This is why Microsoft had to redo direct x 11 and make 12.

 

As for the stutter, that is solely on the game's graphics engine, how it handles object fade in, if you notice the stutter only occurs when objects or effects appear, like bullets striking the ground or static objects in the distance popping in. This is why they are making a new DCS engine and I have a feeling that they are waiting to release it when windows 10 rolls out with direct X 12 support, because direct X 11 can be very easily converted to 12.

[Sgt_Baker]

Who are you educating? ;)

 

P.S. See latest "known issues" from my website:

 

"nVidia's latest graphics drivers (352.86) cause extreme lag/low FPS for exported displays. The problem with this particular driver set has been noticed to manifest with a number of games, not solely UltraMFCD. We will be monitoring the situation closely. If this issue affects you, rolling back to the previous driver (347.52) will resolve the problem until nVidia releases a patch for the latest driver."

 

I code in 100% standard DirectX. No "shortcuts". No "little tricks". (They all made DCS unstable to the point of it not being worth the effort.)

 

How can a single driver update screw up 100% Standard DirectX?!?!?

Edited June 14, 2015 by Sgt_Baker

[Fishbed64]

you know , in a way i`v made my peace with the fact that AMD sucks at DCS

i`m actually excited because it means DCS 2.0 will bring my game to a whole new level of performance.

and generally speaking , i`m OK with my current performance.

 

P.S

this discussion belongs in the PC Hardware section

 

Sorry but i dont think DCS 2.0 help AMD much ,Nvidia will be better again,DCS is not only one game where AMD fall down in performance,AMD works fine only in AAA games(like BF4 or call of duty)Nvidia works fine everywhere...

[Fishbed64]

Alright I'm going to have to educate here. I have been working with computers and code for 16 years now, and have used both ATI and Nvidia which I just switched back to AMD after my findings. I had the Nvidia GTX 660 SC modified, switch it out with the sapphire R9 290 oc new edition. The reason I have made the switch is because Nvidia ( in order to obtain that performance ) Bypasses many of the calls Direct X makes and in turn implements their own draw calls. Now by doing this it causes a few issues 1 being visual quality, Nvidia looks muddy and blurry and certain effects are either displayed incorrectly or just plain missing. This is why some games have been broken since the release of the " optimized " drivers. 2. it can cause glitches like what many users experience with the sun effect ( blinding ) after being blinded by the sun and your vision starts to equalize the colors in game will glitch causing a red overly if you will ( something to do with their HDR bypass ) 3. instability, many are plagued with the kernel driver crash when trying to run games.

 

Now as for AMD, reason AMD has issues is solely due to the bad coding and optimization of Direct X, AMD doesn't cut corners, they let direct X drive the card and follow the draw calls it sends out. Which in turn is why AMD cards have better visual quality and lower performance. My findings on AMD is that there is an issue with tessellation, now is it driver side or direct X I am not fully sure but! I know that Direct X tessellation standard is x32 while AMD can enhance it's quality by x64 which when on x64 there is no performance loss which makes me lean towards it being a direct X issue. This is why Microsoft had to redo direct x 11 and make 12.

 

As for the stutter, that is solely on the game's graphics engine, how it handles object fade in, if you notice the stutter only occurs when objects or effects appear, like bullets striking the ground or static objects in the distance popping in. This is why they are making a new DCS engine and I have a feeling that they are waiting to release it when windows 10 rolls out with direct X 12 support, because direct X 11 can be very easily converted to 12.

 

there is basically no difference in visual quality on AMD vs Nvidia,i rather have slightly worse textures rather than low fps on AMD card...thats my point of view...Nvidia is just much better option right now...

[*Rage*]

I thought the lack of exhaust trail effect on nvidia systems was because of nvidia shortcuts. Im certainly willing to lose some fps in irder to see smoke trails and other effects as the devs intended.

[whitehot]

I thought the lack of exhaust trail effect on nvidia systems was because of nvidia shortcuts. Im certainly willing to lose some fps in irder to see smoke trails and other effects as the devs intended.

 

 

I recently (6 months ago) switched from a AMD card to a nvidia one (gtx 970) and noticed no difference in those fx.

 

I did in fact notice something different in some light effects, but imho they are much better with the nvidia.

 

I have been a simmer for more than twenty years, and I have had the luck of having both AMD and nvidia cards in my rigs, which I always tried to keep updated to run flight simulators at the best of their potentials (if budget allows.. ofc).

 

With no doubt, installing my current card, the 970, I have had a sort of "unlock" on DCS, for the first time I could run it at the highest gfx details at very high fps.

 

Anyway, keep in mind one thing: AMD cards are not by any mean technically inferior to nvidia ones. The problem is, though, that amd hasn't released a decent driver since years, and DCS is one of those games which driver developers are not willing to "waste" time over, by tweaking their software to run it at the best. The result is that in many cases, a medium-end nvidia card will run it better (means faster) that a high-end amd card (in systems with similar CPU performance).

 

I have been called a nvidia fanboy in other forums, but it's an undeniable fact to me, that amd cards running benchmarks at much higher fps (driver devs care very much about benchmarks, as often folks buy cards based on that data, so they optimize their software to function great in them), find themselves running DCS at 15 fps average, while nvidia runs at 45.

Edited June 14, 2015 by whitehot
grammar

[Hadwell]

yeah, it's obvious...

 

Nvidia, with their next 10 cards already designed, and ready for production, just waits for ATi to release their next card, and then stomps it out with something that costs roughly the same, but has like 5% more performance...

 

you must realize nvidia makes most their money on virtualization cards, workstation cards, and super high end gaming/rendering cards... not cheapo ones like the 960...