Gaming hardware is the new joke

This deserves its own thread. Basically we are back to the old times when PC specs were a mess.

The first news is that AMD is now really at war with Nvidia. Every two weeks a new videocard comes out, or prices are readjusted. If they keep up like this for 6 months we’ll have a card four times more powerful than a PS4 for half the price.

The issue here is how AMD is playing the war: whereas Nvidia cards have a stock clock and a boost clock, so that the gaming frequency goes from stock to the max of the boost clock, AMD instead now does the opposite. They have a max clock and then as temperature and noise rise they lower the frequency to the point where noise+temperature target is matched.

So basically if you set your card to sound like a JET TURBINE, then you can go to the maximum clock. Otherwise the card is chocked.

This led to a situation where AMD carefully selected cards to send to reviewers, ending up with retail cards that performed NOWHERE like the benchmarks, simply because the noise and temperature throttled the “ideal” frequencies. Basically the 290X is a card pushed to the extreme. That’s how AMD is trying to win the war, they just squeeze the maximum possible juice.

To consider, though that (1) AMD is saying these cards can run at 95° without a problem. (2) they claim the problem of the retail cards are not normal and trying to analyze & fix in upcoming drivers.

The bottom line:
the piece of hardware is the same, they are trying to juggle it through drivers and settings. The latest beta driver gives the r9 290 a BETTER performance of a GTX 780. The 780 costs something like $500. The r9 290 costs $400. It sometimes is faster than a Titan, for the price of a 770 till a week ago. But to make the card reach that performance they turned it into a really loud LAWNMOWER. They hugely increased the performance of the card by pushing UP the thermal and noise ceiling, not by making more powerful hardware.

Anandtech says:

Ultimately there will be scenarios where this is acceptable – namely, anything where you don’t have to hear the 290, such as putting it in another room or putting it under water – but on a grand scale those are few and far between. For most buyers who will simply purchase the card and drop it into their computers as-is, this represents an unreasonable level of noise.

So, despite all this, the r9 290 is a monster of a card that almost reaches the performance of a Titan. It costs $400. Right now it’s too loud, but right now AMD is forcing the default model with stock cooler. Within a month it’s possible that custom coolers will come out around the same price that would BOTH make the card silent AND reach the maximum frequency. Basically AMD is waiting Nvidia response while preparing for the final blow.


The second news is about “recommended” specs of PC games. First there was the case of Battlefield 4. It “recommends” 8Gb of memory and has a 64bit exe by default.

The problem is that accordingly to reports BF4 NEVER exceeds 2.5Gb of memory. So having 8Gb or more memory onboard is COMPLETELY USELESS as far as the game is concerned. This is valid for both single and multiplayer, with the game running at 1080p and max settings. On top of this it’s even likely that the 32bit exe would perform better without any disadvantage whatsoever.

Bottom line: “next-gen” PC gaming is only a label on the box that makes feel good those gamers who’d like to see their new hardware purchase justified. There are people out there who even buy 32Gb memory “for gaming”. The PC market is being targeted by game developers as “Premium”, where the BIGGER the specs, the happier gamers are. It’s becoming an elitist, niche market where hardware requirements on the box are being ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED to require or justify new hardware purchases.


Add to the same scenario the fact that Nvidia is pushing all sort of “exclusive” effects on new games in order to justify new hardware. Or AMD dropping barely 3/4 years old videocards into “legacy” so that new drivers won’t work with those cards, and games will not run. Leaving you with bugs and problems to force you buy new hardware.

AMD released new legacy drivers a couple of weeks ago, so you’d think it’s at least decent support? Nope. This is just a new package containing drivers released in April. Exact same version. The April drivers were also old drivers that contained one fix for one specific game, nothing else. So the most “recent” drivers were (and still are) released in December 2012. Also including problems with Firefox hardware acceleration that messes up the screen.

All this while users actually open those drivers are are manually updating them to fix bugs and enable new versions. All things that AMD is refusing to do just to make you buy new hardware.


Third news and most ridiculous: Call of Duty Ghosts.

This game, unlike Battlefield 4, doesn’t simply make the idiotic claim on the box. But if you try to launch the game with LESS THAN 6Gb RAM onboard, the game FAILS TO LAUNCH with an error.

“Your system memory (RAM) does not meet the minimum specification for running Call of Duty: Ghosts”

Not only this is a shitty-looking game compared to BF4, but it pretends to use all those 6Gb. It will fail to launch. And maybe it would be fine, just a shit of an engine and another crappy PC port to add to a long list.

But NOPE.

People who can actually run the game are reporting that the game’s memory usage “is usually around 1.1 - 1.8 GB”.

At maximum settings, 1080p.

So not only this game completely fails to launch, but it won’t even allow one to use lower settings to meet the target. The 6Gb requirement on the box is neither recommended, nor maximum. It’s the minimum requirement. For a game that, completely maxed, can’t even use 2Gb and would probably run PERFECT on Windows XP.

It can’t use even 1/3 of the memory it pretends. Maybe soon we can expect a patch that adds a memory leak so huge to actually justify 6Gb?

This is next gen PC. All fake smoke and mirrors. Forced upgrades like cockblocked new DirectX exclusive to Win 8 to make you upgrade to a shitty new OS. 64bit exes that runs slower than 32bit ones. Inflated hardware specs and hardware makers playing all kind of tricks.

“Premium” PC.

Also, in case you were concerned:

Dog hair is coming in a patch according to Andy (Nvidia rep).

GeForce Articles, Guides, Gaming News, Featured Stories

Call of Duty: Ghosts – DEFINITIVE PC VERSION

With a NVIDIA GeForce GTX graphics card, PC players benefit massively from high-quality, high-precision NVIDIA HBAO+ Ambient Occlusion, NVIDIA TXAA temporal anti-aliasing, and in a forthcoming game update, NVIDIA GPU-accelerated animal fur, and NVIDIA GPU-accelerated PhysX effects.

NVIDIA GPU-accelerated animal fur will add high-quality, realistic, dynamically-reacting fur to Riley, NPC wolves, and multiplayer attack dogs.

Maybe Call of Duty and Battlefield developers expected Windows to gobble up 4GB of memory for useless overhead, based on their experience with the Xbone?

It’s still dishonest.

Usually the issue is that a game wouldn’t run so well even if you meet the spec. In this case it’s the opposite, you can run the game PERFECT even if you don’t meed the minimum specs.

And in any case why you should give a straight error message that makes you unable to even TRY to run the game and see how well it performs?

An incentive to pirates who could find a way to remove the cockblock?

Gpu market is indeed in interesting times right now. AMD is in a position where thanks to having Amd chips in both next gen consoles they can (and will, in a month) offer a low level API for the pc, Mantle, in a way that Nvidia can’t counter directly.

In the other hand, Nvidia is pushing that with watherver they can: from support to AAA games in their “the way it’s mean to be played” program giving exclusive graphic enhancements like TXAA or HBAO or hardware driven PhysX (for example, the fur in Witcher 3), to their new recording solution ShadowPlay, to the exclusive technology GSync for monitors.

Add to that the Nvidia hardware refresh and the new line of AMD 2xx, very powerful but with problems of high noise and power draw.

edit: Oh, and add to that the Steambox, which seem to play ball more with Nvidia, which had better Linux drivers and better Opengl support since years ago. So depending fo the success of Valve in that regard, Nvidia could gain an advantage over AMD.

I tried to tell this to my coworkers and no one laughed. This is the worst joke ever.

Mantle is in a week (Friday). Or at least that’s when they’ll post benchmarks.

I’m curious because if the whole deal is cutting on overhead then the benefits would be basically zero. All benchmarks that are run on famous sites usually do them on 4770k or MORE. And I seriously doubt that Mantle benchmarks will be done on i3.

A new API requires at least a 10% to 20% improvement to be justified, but that should only happen if you are really choked by CPU, and even in BF4 the CPU is not an issue and actually hyperthreading usually creates more problems than it solves. MOREOVER, BF4 ALREADY runs better on AMD than equal Nvidia models. Where a GTX 770 is usually marginally faster than a 280X, BF4 is the only game where a stock 280X is faster than a 770 (despite the 770 being faster than a 280X by a good margin in BF3).

I’m trying to build a new PC and I’m this close to simply decide to NOT buy a videocard. I’ll just run on shitty CPU only and wait a couple of months to see what the hell happens. I really, really want to hop back to Nvidia, but AMD just doesn’t want me to.

The PC I just built this spring is already not booting anymore. Fuck high end PC gaming. Small indie titles on a Chromebook, I say.

Don’t confuse CPU usage with CPU latency. They are different metrics that have different effects on the performance of a given system. You can have an under-utilised CPU that is highly latent, reducing performance. Mantle is designed to help address the the latency introduced by poorly optimised directx API’s, so it is entirely feasible it may have an positive effect even though your CPU usage is not currently choked.

We’ll see what kind of difference it makes in a week or so I guess…

Some reports running the game through a debugger are saying Call of Duty Ghosts does nothing with the memory, but it is pushing artificially beyond the 32bit address as a way to prevent cheating.

Basically the game starts addressing memory after 3Gb of empty block, to push it out of the 32bit range.

That’s why the Windows Task Manager reports it’s not using memory, as it’s actually truly empty.

(this because people are trying to hack the game to change the FOV, since the game has it fixed at 65, lol)

Why buy the rest then and not simply wait until it’s clear concerning the GPU situation?
All other components should at least cost the same and maybe dropped in price then.
I waited the whole year with my new rig (wanted to know the next-gen console specs first) and will finally buy one once the situation is clear (March 2014 or so).

www.dell.com

Seriously, it’s adult time. $1000 more for a pre built system? Whatever.

I still build my own pc’s; did the pc-in-a-box thing a couple times and got sick of the limitations and troubles that come with them, and was quite happy returning to building my own custom pc’s. Cheaper overall monetary investment, better quality, and knowing that everything is built and set the way I want it? Totally worth the time investment. I’ve been running my current rig for three years with only two changes in that time (upgraded to a newer graphics card and upgraded the system RAM).

Because the rest is “stable”. RAM prices are going up.

By March the situation isn’t improving. It’s the time Nvidia gets the new cards out. Maybe May-June would be a right time to see, but that pushes things toward the new mobo models and maybe CPUs, so whole new system.

Things are too much in flux and the worst part is that new games will REQUIRE that shit.

I’m reading now CoD Ghost in multiplayer dips to lower 30 FPS on a TITAN. On a small map with 16 players. So whereas we have games like BF4 where the PC performance is similar to PS4 on similar specs, more ports will come out that are going to be simply dreadful and demand latest hardware just because they can.

If the game can run at 60fps on a PS4 there’s no reason why it shouldn’t run at less than super stable 120FPS on a TITAN.

Can you post some links to major hardware sites that are digging into this that will try and hold Activision to the fire? I’ wondering if it’s just a launch hiccup that will be remedied in the next 2 weeks or if it truly is a major issue and has some nefarious background like you stated.

It’s not a launch issue, as the minimum specs were clearly stated before release. As to why? Who knows at this stage, it’s all just speculation. As to game or technology sites holding them to account, well I doubt it and that in itself is perhaps a topic for the Games Journalism thread! :)

Graphic cards for pc has been a very expensive mess for so many years, the damage those companies has done to pc gaming is measured in that we haven’t had a game with pc graphics since Xbox launched. They have on purpose used confusing branding and naming of cards, and often they are so noisy out of the box it’s intolerable.
Last if they could they would make them so they break after 2 years…usually the signs of a very unhealthy industry in dire need of oversight, except nobody gives a shit.

Rant rant rant fuzz fuzz foam. The end

Sure there is:

Fuck PC, bunch of pirates and cheaters anyway. It’s reasonably trivial to backport from current console architectures, so we’ll do it, but why waste time/money optimizing for a minimal return? Make the console versions good since they hold value longer and the PC players will deal with what they get.

You may not like that reason, but it’s a pretty valid one. Bad ports happen all the time. Were you actually under the impression that the PC was still the principle development platform for companies?

My dell couldnt have been $1000 more, it was only $850 and runs every damned game there is (that I want to play… it will need a new video card next year maybe) just dandy. And oddly had zero shitware on it.

I’m just looking at Youtube reviews and forum posts (that all claim the same). I don’t think anyone reviews this on PC. RPS mentioned technical problems.

Also interesting about the sales:

Black Ops: “an estimated sell-through of approximately $360 million in North America and the United Kingdom alone in the first 24 hours of its release”

MW3: “has become the biggest entertainment launch ever with an estimated sell-through of more than $400 million in the first 24 hours of its release”

Black Ops 2: “has achieved an estimated sell-through of more than $500 million worldwide in the first 24 hours of its release”

Ghosts: “the company sold more than $1 billion of Call of Duty®: Ghosts into retail stores worldwide as of day one.” … “Although it is too early to assess sell-through for Call of Duty: Ghosts

lololol

But now they have more important metrics:

" Fans around the world shared their excitement in social media, with Call of Duty-related terms trending an astounding 20 times globally on Twitter in the last 24 hours. "

Pretty sure there won’t be a press release when the retailers exercise their returns under rotation policies.

Not to say it won’t sell well, but they have not demonstrated 100% revenue growth in the previous 2 iterations, so spruiking $500 million to $1 billion is just so much marketing bullshit.