Not upset, just bemused. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.Good job at the thread derail. You sound incredibly upset.
Not upset, just bemused. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.Good job at the thread derail. You sound incredibly upset.
Not upset, just bemused. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
I would put a lot more stock in AMD's claims they will fix their paltry 4GB issues with driver massaging if they could fucking put out a non-beta driver more than once or twice a year! I thought it was ridiculous last year when there was no proper WHQL release until may, but here we're creeping up on mid-june and last non-beta driver was six months ago!If the limitation of 4GB VRAM kicks me in the nuts, I'll be pissed and send it back and be far less likely to take that manufacturer's word for it at any point in the future. AMD better make damned sure this isn't an issue, otherwise the gaming fanbois will make it the Kilimanjaro of mole hills...
WHQL certification costs resources. Releasing WHQL drivers more often means worse drivers overall, as resources have to be diverted from fixing bugs/improving features. Nvidia can do it because they have more driver developers and (this is a total guess) more focus on the professional market.I'm to pay maybe upwards of a thousand bucks for a card with virtually no proper driver support, what the shit is AMD thinking?!
lot of assumptions
Why are people so sold on that WHQL logo? It only means that Microsoft does some automated tests on the drivers which are only put in place in order to placate OEMs. Even though they're officially labelled "beta", any driver that you can publicly download from AMD or Nvidia has gone through their full internal QA.
No shit, sherlock. However, if you lack the resources to release final drivers not even once every six months, you should just stop bothering and simply close up shop completely, because this is embarrassing. People are supposed to buy a 600-1000 dollar graphics card and run beta drivers on it 80% of the time? This is exactly why ATI started the whole catalyst scheme to begin with, to get away from their bad, irregularly released drivers label.WHQL certification costs resources.
Oh, so you think overtly labelled beta software is just as good as release versions? Maybe you should go bridge shopping later today... If there wasn't a reason to not call it beta I'm sure AMD wouldn't call it beta, even though it was to lack WHQL cert. I'm pretty sure there's no law that says you MUST have WHQL cert for your display driver or else it must be labelled as beta software.Even though they're officially labelled "beta", any driver that you can publicly download from AMD or Nvidia has gone through their full internal QA.
Nope, I specifically talked about drivers from AMD and Nvidia, as you should have noticed since you quoted it.Oh, so you think overtly labelled beta software is just as good as release versions?
AMD said:Download our latest beta driver and get a preview of what we're currently working on.
Note! This driver is provided "AS IS" and under the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement provided therewithin.
How do you qualify a driver for a WHQL logo? Isn't it just a matter of Microsoft rerunning some regression suite that you're supposed to pass anyway?WHQL certification costs resources. Releasing WHQL drivers more often means worse drivers overall, as resources have to be diverted from fixing bugs/improving features. Nvidia can do it because they have more driver developers and (this is a total guess) more focus on the professional market.
Oh, I think I know what your implication was, but extra points there for being slippery.Nope, I specifically talked about drivers from AMD and Nvidia, as you should have noticed since you quoted it.
That's actually neither here nor there. Like I said, if AMD's beta drivers were as good as a release driver, they wouldn't be called beta. This is obvious and self-evident to any non-apologist.That said, I wish some release versions of software, namely games, were as thoroughly tested as beta graphics drivers.
Really? AMD repeatedly released beta driver followed by WHQL-certified driver of the exactly same revision. AMD simply calls every non-WHQL driver "beta".This is obvious and self-evident to any non-apologist.
They have just extrapolated the rumored performance of being 54% faster than a R9 290X.http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance
3D Mark performance. Head to head with Titan X. Not very promising. (From an engineering point of view!)
I doubt it.They have just extrapolated the rumored performance of being 54% faster than a R9 290X.
http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance
3D Mark performance. Head to head with Titan X. Not very promising. (From an engineering point of view!)