PDA

View Full Version : Shouldn't Nvidia release a stunning driver that helps performance?



Johnny_R3b
12-11-2014, 02:52 AM
Shouldn't Nvidia release a stunning driver that helps performance considering that they helped make the game ,but still has a three hundred dollar graphics card have unplayable framerates.

Wrath2Zero
12-11-2014, 03:25 AM
There has already been 2 patches for NVIDIA cards and a driver, AMD GPUs and CPUs ran worse but thanks to the Omega driver, AMD cards run as expected. The game is optimised it seems for Maxwell and Intel CPUs.

Johnny_R3b
12-11-2014, 06:47 AM
There has already been 2 patches for NVIDIA cards and a driver, AMD GPUs and CPUs ran worse but thanks to the Omega driver, AMD cards run as expected. The game is optimised it seems for Maxwell and Intel CPUs.

you are wrong though. a 280x with stock clock is running it in 1080p with fxaa at 30 and ultra, while im running it with a oc 770 and 4670k at 30 fps on ALL low in 900p.

Anykeyer
12-11-2014, 12:31 PM
Obviously they should always try to improve performance. Its their business.
But can they? I doubt they can release any "stunning" driver like AMD did, bc their current driver isnt in such a bad shape as AMD driver was before omega release. Its nvidia's TWIMTBP game so they had a long time to prepare.

Voyager456
12-11-2014, 03:33 PM
i remeber nvidia releasing driver that aparently improved fps in ac3 by 10% it said so in release notes and that was 1.5 year after ac3 came out but i think this is more of a case
nvidia wanting us to buy 970 980s greedy mother....

akshatezio
12-11-2014, 03:56 PM
nvidia wanting us to buy 970 980s greedy mother....

i agree with you, i remember that when txaa antialiasing first came it was mentioned by nvidia that any gpu lower than 600series can't run txaa, doesn't even support it as it is a hardware based antialiasing, but now, when ac unity came, a miracle i saw was that i was able to enable txaa on my gtx570 and still play it without much load on gpu (the game already runs at horrible fps no matter on which settings and resolution i play). then came far cry 4, i was playing that game at 2xtxaa and high settings and still was getting 30fps, then an update of far cry4 came, i updated it after which txaa option disappeared, contacting at nvidia support diddn't help either, they simply said, your gpu doesn't support txaa but now its perfectly clear to me that nvidia is a bit too much greedy company!

AherasSTRG
12-11-2014, 05:44 PM
Unity running on an R9 270x before the latest AMD driver: 20-30 FPS.
Unity running on an R9 270x after the latest AMD driver: 30-40 FPS.

Unity running on a GTX 760 with the latest Nvidia drivers: 40-45 FPS.

Conclusion: We want an Nvidia driver, because **** logic.

Erfivur
12-11-2014, 05:46 PM
You don't need new drivers, what you've got now is "The Way It's Meant to Be Played"

Marco171084
12-11-2014, 06:00 PM
You don't need new drivers, what you've got now is "The Way It's Meant to Be Played"
mmh it's more like "the way is supposed to be played but actually isn't playable no matter what".

Anykeyer
12-11-2014, 06:31 PM
i agree with you, i remember that when txaa antialiasing first came it was mentioned by nvidia that any gpu lower than 600series can't run txaa, doesn't even support it as it is a hardware based antialiasing, but now, when ac unity came, a miracle i saw was that i was able to enable txaa on my gtx570 and still play it without much load on gpu (the game already runs at horrible fps no matter on which settings and resolution i play). then came far cry 4, i was playing that game at 2xtxaa and high settings and still was getting 30fps, then an update of far cry4 came, i updated it after which txaa option disappeared, contacting at nvidia support diddn't help either, they simply said, your gpu doesn't support txaa but now its perfectly clear to me that nvidia is a bit too much greedy company!
Did it actually work? TXAA looks like a slightly bloored MSAA 4x on screenshots, but the main benefit is almost complete removal of flickering on edges of moving objects (or when you move camera).

Marco171084
12-11-2014, 07:38 PM
I think txaa is one of the worst aa out there..
blurry and heavy on performance.

Wrath2Zero
12-11-2014, 08:55 PM
you are wrong though. a 280x with stock clock is running it in 1080p with fxaa at 30 and ultra, while im running it with a oc 770 and 4670k at 30 fps on ALL low in 900p.


Not really, both are bad, Omega driver fixes that though. How ironcic that AMD gets a driver out that destroys NVIDIA GPUs in their own TWIMTBP title.

http://i.imgur.com/iOlhUnL.png

http://i.imgur.com/qyzQfJl.png

akshatezio
12-11-2014, 10:06 PM
Did it actually work? TXAA looks like a slightly bloored MSAA 4x on screenshots, but the main benefit is almost complete removal of flickering on edges of moving objects (or when you move camera).

yeah, it does work and i checked it several times, compared all of the aa settings and it really is working for now atleast on ac unity, if you want, i'll upload the screenshots, there is no flickering edges in game after enabling txaa

Carch
12-11-2014, 10:57 PM
TXAA doesn't really work very well. Check out this video:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL6G1yYntyI)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL6G1yYntyI&t= (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL6G1yYntyI)2m20s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL6G1yYntyI&t=2m20s)

it shows the kind of sparkly artifacts you get at seams in many areas with any AA other than FXAA (view at 1080p to see it best).

If you rewind the video to 0:50, you can see that even with FXAA, there is texture flashing in some areas.

RaulO4
12-11-2014, 11:00 PM
in terms of AA i like SMAA,

nonamename1
12-11-2014, 11:28 PM
Not really, both are bad, Omega driver fixes that though. How ironcic that AMD gets a driver out that destroys NVIDIA GPUs in their own TWIMTBP title.

http://i.imgur.com/iOlhUnL.png

http://i.imgur.com/qyzQfJl.png

what you are saying and what I'm seeing don't align. The AMD cards FPS are below their equivalent Nvidia cards. Did you post the wrong benchmarks or are you saying these are benchmarks before the latest AMD drivers?

Johnny_R3b
12-12-2014, 12:23 AM
Unity running on an R9 270x before the latest AMD driver: 20-30 FPS.
Unity running on an R9 270x after the latest AMD driver: 30-40 FPS.

Unity running on a GTX 760 with the latest Nvidia drivers: 40-45 FPS.

Conclusion: We want an Nvidia driver, because **** logic.
tell me the settings and res b4 i even acknowledge that comment. some sources too that arent from a dev or nvidia

Wrath2Zero
12-12-2014, 12:37 AM
what you are saying and what I'm seeing don't align. The AMD cards FPS are below their equivalent Nvidia cards. Did you post the wrong benchmarks or are you saying these are benchmarks before the latest AMD drivers?

Those benchmarks are before the Omega driver release. My R9 280 never drops below 30fps now, it's mostly 35/55fps and probably averages in the 40fps depending on the area. I don't use the pre-set, I use custom ultra, 1080p, FXAA, SSAO. Look at my screenshots in my Omega driver thread.

AherasSTRG
12-12-2014, 09:34 AM
tell me the settings and res b4 i even acknowledge that comment. some sources too that arent from a dev or nvidia

Settings are similar to console quality and I am saying that from personal experience. Currently, I am playing on somewhere between the High and the Very High preset and I am getting 35-40FPS on my GTX 760 OC Edition. AMD equivelant hardware runs similarly in the same settings. What AMD did only last week, Nvidia has done it since before the game's release.

db87
12-12-2014, 12:22 PM
What AMD did only last week, Nvidia has done it since before the game's release.
Nvidia got more time from Ubisoft. In the last month they implemented the Gameworks effects in Unity. Ubisoft didn't gave AMD any time, they had to work around the clock since the release of the game...

These things wouldn't happen in the first place if Ubisoft didn't rush the game to the market...

nonamename1
12-12-2014, 06:03 PM
Nvidia got more time from Ubisoft. In the last month they implemented the Gameworks effects in Unity. Ubisoft didn't gave AMD any time, they had to work around the clock since the release of the game...

These things wouldn't happen in the first place if Ubisoft didn't rush the game to the market...

I'm curious, but how do you know this? Do you have inside information or an article that says this?

The game was in development for over three years.

jeffies04
12-12-2014, 06:08 PM
I'm just going to put it out there that I just upgraded and it's a whole different game on a 980. I think what someone said about being better optimized for Maxwell is very true. Although I expected to have problems still based on what I read, it's like night or day compared to my 780 (and that was no slouch card). I think there was so much focus and forward inertia on the Maxwell thing it detracted from overall optimization on the driver level too.

I love TXAA. TXAA deals with a lot of those specular jagged crawlies.

nonamename1
12-12-2014, 07:16 PM
I'm just going to put it out there that I just upgraded and it's a whole different game on a 980. I think what someone said about being better optimized for Maxwell is very true. Although I expected to have problems still based on what I read, it's like night or day compared to my 780 (and that was no slouch card). I think there was so much focus and forward inertia on the Maxwell thing it detracted from overall optimization on the driver level too.

I love TXAA. TXAA deals with a lot of those specular jagged crawlies.

I'm on a single 780 (will have a second one here in a few days) and am just using FXAA. I usually use MSAA but in this game I could not. However, I'm pretty happy with FXAA, it looks really good and there is no performance hit at all.

780 is definitely showing its age.

Johnny_R3b
12-12-2014, 08:11 PM
Settings are similar to console quality and I am saying that from personal experience. Currently, I am playing on somewhere between the High and the Very High preset and I am getting 35-40FPS on my GTX 760 OC Edition. AMD equivelant hardware runs similarly in the same settings. What AMD did only last week, Nvidia has done it since before the game's release.

in my experience the drivers gave me 3 extra frames and more studder. a 270 dollar gpu for radeon is playing on ultra with aa in 1080p. thats a kick in the nuts because nvidida just wants everyone to upgrade instead of fix it. also look at the post above that should explain something for you

jeffies04
12-13-2014, 12:11 AM
780 is definitely showing its age.

It's still a beast card, though. It's got life left in it definitely.

But I have to admit, I wasn't expecting all that I was reading with Maxwell, but since I've had it I'm really impressed what they've done. My first stable OC was at 1506 on the core... that's ridiculous!

Wrath2Zero
12-13-2014, 03:52 AM
FXAA is cheap for a reason, the worst AA and done after the image is rendered and produces a blurry image. I supposes it's a trade off but not a very good one really considering the fidelity loss. Post AA methods have come about because of changing rendering technics, not because they found a more efficient AA method, since FXAA is "fast" and "approximate" for a reason, it's not efficient because it cheats.