How did APUs overcome driver overhead? Or did they not?
Is there any performance advantage to being on the same die?
>>55405207
>How did APUs overcome driver overhead?
Not sure, did you try Googling?
>>55405207
>driver overhead
stop shitposting on this board with your shit meme you autist
>>>/v/
>>55405605
Driver overhead is a real issue since AMD is supposed to be the budget brand.
What does driver overhead have to do with the GPU being on the same die as the CPU?
>>>/v/
>>55405977
>is there any performance advantage to being on the same die
I don't see any "driver overhead" in that, do you?
>>55406217
Do you even know what driver overhead means?
>>55406267
Yes.
I fail to see how that's relevant to the cpu being on the same die as the gpu though, they're 2 separate questions .
>>55405906
>>55406267
>>>/v/
fuck off retard
>>55406360
You're right, computer components aren't technology!
Let's get back to posting desktops and cartoon child pornography!!!
>>55405207
>480 is a firehouse
debunked cause gtx 480 exists
>480 draws a nuclear powerstation of power
debunked cause its not
now paid shills are bringing driver overhead over dx11 as the last resort
and with that showing a 280 a 3 years old card
dis screams paid shill
>>55406277
Okay, since you're a retard I'll go and put what he's saying into perspective for you.
APU's aren't designed to be a powerhouse. They're a balance of CPU power, efficiency and graphical power.
Traditionally AMD CPU's perform worse with AMD GPU's than Intel CPU's because of the fact that AMD's drivers aren't the best optimised for DX11. It takes a stronger CPU to ignore this lack of optimisation. A normal Intel CPU has little issue with this, though an AMD FX processor does show the problems and it reduces maximum FPS.
What he's asking is, does putting the GPU cores onto the same die as the CPU affect the loss of maximum FPS still, to which the answer is that unless there's some optimisation in the single core performance of APU's over the older FX CPU's, no, an APU will still feel the burden of ill-optimised drivers.
'Driver overhead' = extra burden on the system, caused by drivers which get in the way as much as they help.
>>55406465
Op here.
My question was what's the advantages of them being on the same die and how does that affect the performance?
Also driver overhead doesn't affect max framerate, it affects average and minimum too...
>>55406722
Both AMD and NVIDIA are only a two-digit percentage of draw call performance apart. How is this such an issue for you? It sounds like you have a problem with DX11
>>55406828
>>55406828
>2 digit
so up to 99% difference?
>>55406841
No you stupid fuck
>>55406841
Let's not forget your stupid APU theory
>>55406855
So 8 cores ht off:
Amd 1.05 millions draw calls per second.
Nvidia 2.75 millions draw calls per second.
and that's why amd is pushing dx12 so hard.
>>55406920
Even with 4 cores its a major difference. Face it: DX12 is the future, along with AMD
>>55406942
I'm an amd user from a long time now, and i know that vulkan/dx12 are the future, but I'll like a propper dx11 driver too.
And if they can stop breaking 2d acceleration on firefox every ~2 drivers that will be great.
>>55406465
>Drivers are at fault
[citation neeeeeeeeeded]
everyone can say this shit, but can you actually proof that it's drivers that are reason and not actual hardware.
>>55406976
Quit bitching about hardware limitations if you have a weak cpu. It's your own fault for being a poorfag.
>>55407001
But that's why i bought amd to begin with.
>WHAT ARE DRAWCALLS
>>55407021
Then you should look to the game developers and their shitty ports for the blame. Remember Assasin's Creed? The game is issued approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly under powered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles.
>>55406416
>dx11
literally dead in the water its all about low level api dx12 and vulkan
>>55406841
Kek
>>55407042
>remember AC
Actually, remember anything by Ubisoft. They seem to be able to fuck literally every port they make. The only port worse than theirs is Dark Souls 2 (not sure if 3 is just as shit)
>>55407001
But AMD is supposed to dominate the budget end of the market? Most AMD users will be using older i5s, or an i3, or an AMD cpu
>>55407021
anything that adopts Dx12 will directly benefit users of lower-powered CPUs, freeing up budget to invest in better GPUs and other components. Quit living in the past.
>>55407042
Dude it doesn't matter what u do, dx11 driver on amd doesn't scale well with more cores so you need strong st performance to get their full potential so that excludes amd cpus and that's sad as hell.
>>55407090
*citation needed*
>>55407042
no wonder it stutters so much
shame too since syndicate is actually a pretty fun game
DX12 save us!
>>55407091
I already said that dx12 is the future but i would like a better dx 11 driver too so older games can run better.
Maybe they can use something like command streams or some way to make the driver use more cores.
>>55407097
Sad for AMD cpu buyers. You knew you were getting a budget cpu, and now you want to bitch about why your performance is so low. You couldn't just pay $50 more for a k processor?
>>55407128
Wouldn't have this problem with nvidia.
Wouldn't have this problem with Intel.
>>55407128
If amd is selling 8 cores cpus the least they can do is use them in their own software, how the hell they want other software vendors to use the eight cores if they are not doing it themselves.
>>55407149
>>55407163
AMD didn't make dx11, and yet you blame it's poor performance on them. Want your hardware to perform it's best? Want every core to work? Buy an AMD card, with it's superior DX12 performance. DX12 will greatly eliminate your "driver overhead" and unlock the true potential of your 8 core cpu for once.
>>55407201
It's sad that you need to upgrade to windows 10 and wait at least one more year for good games to come out on dx12 before you can start enjoying competitive performance on your HHD7950...
FUCK AMD.
I'm going to keep my i7 860 and just upgrade to a gtx107.
>>55407201
Their dx11 drivers are the problem, not dx11 itself.
>>55407201
Dude amd created their on drivers for dx11 and are bad threaded so i can blame them.
Dx12 is not created by amd but now i have to thrust they are going to do everything right this time... that will depends on vega and zen, if they fuck up again I'll go intel/nvidia even when i don't like nvidia practices.
>>55407254
their own* drivers
>>55407251
Oh wow you want your old ass hardware to perform like new. Do you really believe your expectations are realistic? You don't believe your i7 is a huge bottleneck in your system?
>>55407304
No I want my old ass hardware to perform as advertised when I buy it you dumb fuck.
My cpu wouldn't have been an issue with an nvidia gpu.
>>55407333
Single threaded rating: 1222
And you wan't top notch performance?
>>55407333
Not him but your shitposting is old, you're just going to have to deal with it. Even if you overclocked the shit out of it, it won't hold a match to the 2500k. Even if it did, the 2500k is starting to show its age too now.
>>55407201
I have the fx9590 and it works flawlessly. Never had this "firehouse" as everyone calls it above 45c either.
>>55407376
I've got it clocked at 3.9ghz, cpu performance shouldn't be a significant bottleneck yet.
I'm going to pick up a gigabyte 1070 when they're available and if it's holding me back from 1440p/60fps then I'll upgrade to an i5 6600k.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/m841vs3511
>>55407368
>top notch
When did I say that?
>>55407304
>worse than my AMD Athlon X4 860K
AMD is better than i7 CUNTFIRMED!
>>55407485
Your cpu would bn a 970, better plan on a full upgrade.
>>55407596
My cpu should be quite close to i5 4460 performance after that oc, so I think I'll be fine for a while. If I notice it's holding me back then I'll upgrade, but for now my problem is amd and shit drivers, so I'm definitely going for a gtx1070 instead of waiting for vega
>>55407596
Incorrect, it would not.
Shillpass isn't reality.
>>55407713
No it wont be close to a modern i5. Your issue is your 6+ year old cpu that is not enough for even a 970. This problem magically goes away when you have a competent cpu. No one cares what you buy or what your choice is you self absorbed pajeet. You upset I shit on your street/thread, and now nvidia will only pay you .5c today per thread, instead of .10c? You have about 3-4 you made today, making bank there, pajeet.
>>55407713
For me is not that bad but i hate when the gpu is not working at 100% when I've spare cpu cores and ram.
And i know that most of it are games engines shitty mt capabilities but there's some performance that could be obtained on the drivers side too.
>>55407750
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX0aeQSQkGM
Looks pretty far behind.
And until you come up with a metric for comparing performance, it is more realistic than whatever arbitrary metric you go by
>>55407713
>My cpu should be quite close to i5 4460 performance after that oc
Bwahahahahaha no. Not at all.
