Computer & Tech Guides, Tips and How To's from TweakTown's Tweakipedia - Page 4
Introduction & Test Setup
We've already seen how the new Catalyst Omega drivers perform at 1080p on our Radeon R9 290X Crossfire setup, so why not test them out at 4K? 4K provides us with a much harsher test environment, pushing four times as many pixels down onto the cards.
Let's see how the new Catalyst Omega drivers handle that type of pressure, and whether we see a redemption from the Omega drivers, as we didn't see much in the way of increased performance at 1920x1080, so let's see how 3840x2160 goes.
Introduction & Test Setup
You might be wondering why I'm writing this article, but our GPU Editor, Shawn Baker, is currently quite ill and in hospital. Some of you may know this, but for those of you that don't, he's currently unable to write a performance analysis of the new Catalyst Omega drivers.
I'm stepping in to test these drivers, but this is my first time with a set of drivers under NDA that I only had less than 48 hours to work with. So, this isn't a full run with all resolutions, with all of the bells and whistles enabled. I'll explain some more about that below, but first let's get you acquainted with the new Catalyst Omega driver suite.
Introduction & Our Setup
We've all been there, something has happened to our HDD, or our NAS, or you've accidentally wiped a folder from your cloud storage account. Well, for those who have multiple forms of backup, having your cloud storage backed up onto your local network attached storage (NAS) device, is definitely the best, and most secure way of having your precious data stored.
Google Drive is a great point to start with, and while there are plenty of other cloud storage services available, I choose to use Google Drive for its robust set of features, ease of access across virtually every desktop and mobile operating system, and much more. I own a QNAP TS-639PRO NAS, which is getting really quite old now, but it still does the job. I'm going to replace it in the new year, but for now, I thought I would backup my precious data from my Google Drive account, back down to my NAS.
I've been waiting patiently for Alien: Isolation to be released, holding back on reading reviews on it, or watching too much gameplay footage of it. After the absolute train wreck that was Aliens: Colonial Marines, I didn't have hesitations per se, but it looked so good from that first video, that I knew this wasn't going to be another mess.
Holding off until just last night, I gave it my first play. I decided to record my gameplay using NVIDIA's ShadowPlay, something I looked at not too long ago. I'm playing the game on my gaming rig, which consists of:
- CPU: Intel Core i7 4930K processor w/Corsair H110 cooler
- Motherboard: ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition
- RAM: 16GB of Corsair Vengeance 2400MHz DDR3
- Storage: 240GB SanDisk Extreme II and 480GB SanDisk Extreme II
- Chassis: InWin X-Frame Limited Edition
- PSU: Corsair AX1200i digital PSU
- Software: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
- Drivers: GeForce 344.07 (early release)
In the last week or so, I've written two popular articles that have involved AMD's cheap FX-8350 processor, running at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 (4K). Both of these tests have involved the use of NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 780s in SLI, as well as the new Maxwell-based GeForce GTX 980s in SLI.
The first test, at 2560x1440, was interesting, as it showed that the $319 setup that consisted of the AMD FX-8350 CPU and a GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD3 motherboard, could somewhat keep up with the Intel Core i7-4930K and ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition, which costs $1052.
At 1440p, the Intel system beat the AMD system in virtually every test, and in some of those tests, by a large margin. But, for 300% more cost, so it should have. Moving up to 4K though, presented an entire new world of possibilities for AMD, with the underdog actually taking swings, and beating Intel at the higher resolution.
Earlier on in the week, we pitted our AMD and Intel systems against each other, in a battle at 2560x1440. The GPUs in question were NVIDIA's reference GeForce GTX 780s in SLI, and the new GTX 980s in SLI. For $300, the AMD represents super value, and what most would think, the loser out of the two setups.
Especially when we're talking about Intel's still-powerful Core i7-4930K, which features 12 threads (6 physical cores and 6 Hyper-Threaded cores) in total. It is the company's LGA 2011 socket, and meant for enthusiasts. Mix this with a high-end ASUS motherboard, we're talking $1052 worth of goods compared to the $319 cost on the AMD gear.
These CPUs and motherboards aren't meant to be compared, and that's not what we
Shawn has been cranking out reviews of the new GeForce GTX 900 series GPUs since their launch, and on the day of launch I took a look of something a little different: GeForce GTX 780 SLI versus GTX 980 SLI on Intel's LGA2011-based Core i7-4930K CPU.
Well, we're back again with a new benchmark, testing the GTX 780 SLI vs GTX 980 SLI cards on AMD's more budget-friendly FX-8350 eight-core CPU. We did a similar test a few months ago which was quite popular, so now we're going to continue flicking between AMD and Intel on our flagship GPUs, to see the differences between performance, and whether the CPU is holding us back.
First up, let's introduce you to what systems we'll be comparing today - where we have most of the hardware identical thanks to our partners. The only thing that has changed between the two PCs is the CPU and motherboard, with every other part that matters (RAM, SSD, OS, drivers) identical to the other.
NVIDIA has just launched its new, 10th generation GeForce architecture, Maxwell. There have been two new Maxwell-based cards launched for the moment on desktop, the GeForce GTX 980 and GTX 970. NVIDIA were kind enough to send me two of their new GTX 980s, which I promptly threw into SLI and began partying with.
I have two GTX 780s here in SLI, so I decided to run some tests at 2560x1440 to begin with, with some more tests coming in the coming days and weeks. First off, we're going to run a bunch of benchmarks at 2560x1440, then we'll move onto 4K, and then we'll see how these bad boys overclock, since there is a heck of a lot of headroom left in the GTX 980s for some serious overclocking.
Our last Tweakipedia entry was one of our most popular yet, where we pitted the budget AMD FX-8350 processor against the likes of Intel's Core i7-4770K and Core i7-4930K on both the LGA 1150 platform, and the high-end enthusiast LGA 2011 platform.
Well, after this article went out, I had a few people ask me to update my AMD hardware - but I didn't have anything lying around at the time (apart from the hardware used in the test). I reached out to my friends at GIGABYTE and AMD who were more than happy to provide some swanky new hardware to put to work.
It wasn't long ago that we tested our two Intel systems at 4K, comparing the LGA 2011 and LGA 1150 sockets against each other, but now we're going to do it all over again, but this time we're going to compare AMD against Intel's two sockets, at 4K.
During the first article, we found out that the CPU didn't matter too much, even when it came to gaming at 4K, but does it matter by taking things down a notch and testing it with an AMD setup? Let's take a look, shall we? First, we'll provide you with all of the specifications of our test beds, so you know what we're comparing.
- CPU: AMD FX-8350
- Motherboard: GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD3
- RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro 186