- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,317
- Reaction score
- 989
- Points
- 5,365
There are fewer things as exceedingly trying of one's patience as dealing with AMD hardware. It is not the hardware itself that I have any issue with, but the drivers and software.
AMD is either not committed, incapable or plainly unconcerned with software development. To my experience and knowledge, this is where it all falls apart and it is a mirror of how the entire organization functions. What follows are things you may test yourself at any time. They are not in any way related to game performance, frame pacing, pricing or anything else that is usually argued about (these are rarely if ever debates). I am not concerned with any of that but what you will find below is a repeatable experience of what it is like owning one machine with an AMD GPU and another with an NVIDIA GPU. For all intents and purposes, identical platforms and machines.
1. Let's start where the normal AMD experience begins and compare that with the equivalent NVIDIA one, actually you may substitute INTEL here as well.
- You will note, there is no mention of Windows 10 anywhere or at least mentioned. So if you have the beta/preview builds installed. you're out of luck=
- There is no FreeBSD, support either (Solaris as well etc)
2. NVIDIA has What's New | GeForce, but if you go try Radeon.com this is where you end up instead.
3. Assume that you want to find a driver for your FuryX, R9 390X/390 GPU right? The latest and greatest from AMD. These GPUs are in retail outlets.
- You will be greeted with an Omega driver from 2014 as the last official non-beta driver
- Scroll down the page to find Catalyst 15.6 dated June 22 2015, however Catalyst 15.6 does not support AMD Radeon FuryX, 390X or 390 at all.
- Now you may think it's because FuryX was only officially out on the 24 and perhaps AMD held all drivers for the new line of cards back until all GPUs were released. Far fetched, but one must seek reason always. This is quickly undone by the realization that, the only driver that works with these cards is dated June 20 2015, which is even earlier than the driver they released later. More over, 290/290X and 390/390X as we know are exactly the same silicon right down to device ID.
- But wait, there's more. The Supporting 300/FuryX driver isn't even on the driver and support page you will find on the right in Teal. "Latest AMD Catalyst™ Drivers and Software" None of which support the R9 300 series
4. Compare this with just going to the Geforce site
It is that simple. You need 1 click to get to a place where you select your OS and GPU. That's it! (980Ti to GeforceFX)
5. Now imagine you finally get a driver and install it, (had trouble with this as well and still do where the GPU will not resume from standby. I won't go into that as it's immaterial)
You would think since VSR came at the very least two months after DSR. (Only the heavens know why AMD didn't do it sooner. The employees will claim VSR had nothing to do with inspiration from NVIDIA's DSR, that goes for HD3D which came after 3DVision; FreeSync after G-Sync; Get In The Game after "The way It's meant to be played", and Gaming Evolved after NVIDIA Gameworks)
That it should be better or at the very least offer the same options is a fair assumption, no?
Well, below is VSR and below that DSR
Keep in mind that you will have a total of 7 DSR resolutions on the same screen where VSR gives you one and it's not the claimed 4K they have been promoting.
This is VSR's limit, all of 1 resolution A known problem which you can read about here as well - VSR (Virtual Super resolution) Downsampling - MOD - Guru3D.com Forums
I do not want to reference that place, but it is just an example of folk trying to fix VSR
6. These are the game options AMD gives you compared to the ones NVIDIA offers below that. Again I couldn't scroll down far enough to fit all the NVIDIA control Panel options in.
7. Then finally what inspired this entire post. It's simply that on my QHD VX24AH, the AMD card by default is set to 1920x180@ 60Hz and there's absolutely no way to change that within the driver. Same screen is picked up at QHD on any NVIDIA GPU, even as far back as GeForce 500 series.
To gain access to 2560x1440, I need to use a 3rd party tool called the AMD/ATI Pixel CLock Patcher 1.27
After which I can then set my monitor to it's native resolution. However, I can't do 75Hz. Something that simply works on the NVIDIA Control Panel.
Again compare what AMD offers for custom resolutions below
FRESH AIR
NVIDIA control panel allows this
So I'm not bashing AMD hardware at all, but it is simple things like this that prove the most disappointing. The most obvious and basic elements in usability are absent from AMD's software. I have a hard time placing any reason behind a belief which states this team and all other units like it will turn things around.
Even if I wanted to, I could never use an AMD GPU for my gaming system and it has nothing to do with performance. I simply can't get my 75Hz and VSR working.
AMD is either not committed, incapable or plainly unconcerned with software development. To my experience and knowledge, this is where it all falls apart and it is a mirror of how the entire organization functions. What follows are things you may test yourself at any time. They are not in any way related to game performance, frame pacing, pricing or anything else that is usually argued about (these are rarely if ever debates). I am not concerned with any of that but what you will find below is a repeatable experience of what it is like owning one machine with an AMD GPU and another with an NVIDIA GPU. For all intents and purposes, identical platforms and machines.
1. Let's start where the normal AMD experience begins and compare that with the equivalent NVIDIA one, actually you may substitute INTEL here as well.
- You will note, there is no mention of Windows 10 anywhere or at least mentioned. So if you have the beta/preview builds installed. you're out of luck=
- There is no FreeBSD, support either (Solaris as well etc)
2. NVIDIA has What's New | GeForce, but if you go try Radeon.com this is where you end up instead.
3. Assume that you want to find a driver for your FuryX, R9 390X/390 GPU right? The latest and greatest from AMD. These GPUs are in retail outlets.
- You will be greeted with an Omega driver from 2014 as the last official non-beta driver
- Scroll down the page to find Catalyst 15.6 dated June 22 2015, however Catalyst 15.6 does not support AMD Radeon FuryX, 390X or 390 at all.
- Now you may think it's because FuryX was only officially out on the 24 and perhaps AMD held all drivers for the new line of cards back until all GPUs were released. Far fetched, but one must seek reason always. This is quickly undone by the realization that, the only driver that works with these cards is dated June 20 2015, which is even earlier than the driver they released later. More over, 290/290X and 390/390X as we know are exactly the same silicon right down to device ID.
- But wait, there's more. The Supporting 300/FuryX driver isn't even on the driver and support page you will find on the right in Teal. "Latest AMD Catalyst™ Drivers and Software" None of which support the R9 300 series
4. Compare this with just going to the Geforce site
It is that simple. You need 1 click to get to a place where you select your OS and GPU. That's it! (980Ti to GeforceFX)
5. Now imagine you finally get a driver and install it, (had trouble with this as well and still do where the GPU will not resume from standby. I won't go into that as it's immaterial)
You would think since VSR came at the very least two months after DSR. (Only the heavens know why AMD didn't do it sooner. The employees will claim VSR had nothing to do with inspiration from NVIDIA's DSR, that goes for HD3D which came after 3DVision; FreeSync after G-Sync; Get In The Game after "The way It's meant to be played", and Gaming Evolved after NVIDIA Gameworks)
That it should be better or at the very least offer the same options is a fair assumption, no?
Well, below is VSR and below that DSR
Keep in mind that you will have a total of 7 DSR resolutions on the same screen where VSR gives you one and it's not the claimed 4K they have been promoting.
This is VSR's limit, all of 1 resolution A known problem which you can read about here as well - VSR (Virtual Super resolution) Downsampling - MOD - Guru3D.com Forums
I do not want to reference that place, but it is just an example of folk trying to fix VSR
6. These are the game options AMD gives you compared to the ones NVIDIA offers below that. Again I couldn't scroll down far enough to fit all the NVIDIA control Panel options in.
7. Then finally what inspired this entire post. It's simply that on my QHD VX24AH, the AMD card by default is set to 1920x180@ 60Hz and there's absolutely no way to change that within the driver. Same screen is picked up at QHD on any NVIDIA GPU, even as far back as GeForce 500 series.
To gain access to 2560x1440, I need to use a 3rd party tool called the AMD/ATI Pixel CLock Patcher 1.27
After which I can then set my monitor to it's native resolution. However, I can't do 75Hz. Something that simply works on the NVIDIA Control Panel.
Again compare what AMD offers for custom resolutions below
FRESH AIR
NVIDIA control panel allows this
So I'm not bashing AMD hardware at all, but it is simple things like this that prove the most disappointing. The most obvious and basic elements in usability are absent from AMD's software. I have a hard time placing any reason behind a belief which states this team and all other units like it will turn things around.
Even if I wanted to, I could never use an AMD GPU for my gaming system and it has nothing to do with performance. I simply can't get my 75Hz and VSR working.
Last edited: