Grass is green.
Edit: People on this site are dumb.
Read my comment above. Yes AMD is doing better in DX12 partially due to the lack of overhead but a lot of it is still AMD's use and ability of true async computing. Something that Nvidia still can't do (yes even with the latest 10xx series).
So unless Nvidia somehow convince$ developer$ to not use proper asynchronization or comes out with some "SyncWorks" that dumbs it down Nvidia will in fact be at a disadvantage. I would say that when it comes to DX12 it...
No it doesn't. It still can't do compute and graphics simultaneously. It does them separately, they've just advised a way to make switching between the two faster in the pipeline. It just no longer hurts performance like it could with their previous GPU's but it doesn't improve performance either like it can with AMD GPU's.
Here's a good video that shows the difference:
Sucks for Nvidia. My money is on the fact that Nvidia will come out with "SyncWorks" or some shit once DX12 gets more popular and AMD starts pulling away since they have proper async support. Gotta hold the technology back somehow so their newer (and older) cards that don't properly support async don't start showing their incompatibilities too soon!
Remember these words..."SyncWorks". ..it'll happen.
Edit: Please, if you di...
My biggest like with AMD is their actual Async compute compatibility. Unlike Nvidia whose DX12 performance will either stay the same (1070/1080) or can actually be hurt by it (970/980) AMD's GPU's genuinely get performance boosts out of it.
It's also pretty telling when even Nvidias latest and greatest doesn't, technically, fully support DX12 when they keep going on about it. Seems pretty deceptive if you ask me.
I want those graphics in a MGS3 remaster. Fuck this pachi machine, make a decent MGS again and don't let MGS5 be the series fair well!
What GPU do you have? The Idaho Potato? I was running this game at 4K with a single R9 290X on launch day. Things have ONLY improved since then.
I sure would like to hear this reasonable explanation if he has one at least.
Hell yeah it is!
You seem to be. Parading around these comment sections. Those that are the most offended and outspoken against others are usually guilty themselves. What's your beef?
I know what Doom is. I was playing it before most people on this site were probably born. I know what it's about. I know what it sets to accomplish. I get it.
Still, it's not a game changer. It doesn't do anything new. It does get repetitive. It's not one of the best games ever.
Again, it's solid. I'm looking forward to Doom 2. But, again, it's not something special and articles like this just sensationalize the game. Wolfenst...
But both Halo and CoD are no longer being made by the same people that make the great originals to begin with so it's not really a "fair" comparison.
Regardless, my point is that Doom is a good game and was made well. It's just not some revolutionary thing like people around these parts are making it out to be. A 9 or 10 it certainly is not, especially considering everyone I know found the ~10 hour campaign to even get repetitive.
This article is a little out there. Doom, while good, wasn't some grandstand revolutionary thing. It was basically Doom 1 & 2 with a graphics upgrade and different weapon modes. I'd like to know why people are trying to make this game out to be something it isn't. Why they're trying to make it seem a lot better than it actually was. Of the two others that I know who played it, one a strong id fan and the other who is such a fan that he even goes to QuakeCon every year, bot...
Jesus Christ...can you just fucking quit spouting bullshit and just release the game when it's finished please? What's the point of constant release dates when you can't even keep them? And this isn't just for this game, it's all of them. Why do these companies think this shit is OK all the time?
Fucking really? How the hell they gonna have DLC when the game isn't even out yet? Why not just, ya know, make it part of the damn game? Jesus Christ this DLC shit is getting out of hand.
AMD still runs VR better. It's still the only GPU that has Async computing.
That's a shocker...not.
Nah, it's number of transistors and architecture that really makes a difference. I know the 1070 is also just using GDDR5 and not GDDR5X. Also, again, VR performance being much faster than that of the other games listed doesn't make sense. VR is just producing the same image twice (once per eye) so I fail to see how that could be so much faster but actual game performance is only like 1.4-1.6x faster.
It bothers me because developers KNOW what hardware they're working with and what it's capable of. They have no excuse with that shit anymore.
It looks so beautiful too...not that the original MGS3 looks bad (seriously go emulate that shit it's still a damn good looking game) but these remastered parts look phenomenal!