The question of optimization.

Everything was good until the Ubination attacked.

Well the case doesn't just end with Ubisoft being the worst PC devs, it goes further. I noticed something. GTX770 and R9 280x are arbitrarily the same GPUs with the same performance, but in AC Unity whereas one can play at High settings with buttery smooth frame rates (40-60 fps) @1080p with the 770, I couldn't even get above 30 fps on medium settings @720p with the 280X. It was frustrating to the point that I almost wanted to throw my PC out of the window but then a brilliant idea hit me, why not just uninstall that piece of crap AC Unity is? so I did.

It's been the case with many 'Nvidia optimized games'. Not all Nvidia optimized games play like crap on AMD hardware but 95% of the time it's just Ubisoft doing the deed. The artifacts I'm seeing in Far cry 4 (no my GPU isn't running hot, it barely goes above 60'C) are haunting me. I've gotta give props to Ubisoft for at least making far cry 4 'playable' for us AMD users.

Shadow of Mordor was a breath of fresh air. Not only was that game well optimized (the textures are another story) but it also ran brilliantly on all hardware.

Now my question is, are AMD users really going to just get cut off from the mainstream? seeing how apathetic AMD is towards all this, I've really started to think that being an AMD user isn't the wisest option after all. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD GPUs. It's just that I kinda like the image quality on ATI gpus but that's subjective.

This trend might spread further as we can clearly see how more people will take sides with Nvidia and if things go on like this, I'm afraid that competition will one day cease to exist. No matter how powerful a GPU AMD pulls out, if the game is not optimized then what can be done? and we can't just say that "This is only Ubisoft who cares?" (just like they said about PC lol), because there are lots of people who upgraded their PCs for AC Unity and far cry 4 (not me though). So that counts as a loss for AMD as well.....

Sorry if I'm wrong on anything because admittedly I don't have much knowledge about how things actually work under the rug, so correct me if I'm wrong.

What say you?

It's laughable to see Nvidia-specific features run like crap on my 4gb GTX 770 and yet normal Ultra settings run okay (albeit using AO=SMCC, AA=SMAA).

I also use an AMD FX-8350 which I'm sure gets laughed at around here. But, get this. I didn't get much stuttering issues with either Watch Dogs and Far Cry 4. I finished the Far Cry 4 SP campaign (twice as quickly as FC3) and now recording videos with its Reset Outpost mode. Awesome game.

Edit:

I'm not interested in the Ubisoft TPS games. Watch Dogs just happened to come free with my 4gb MSI GTX 770 OC.

I'm not seeing everything being smooth over on the green side either. Some people I talked to noticed a lot of crashes in ubisoft games (fc4) whereas I had none. I believe they even removed the nvidia settings from one game due to issues? Vendor specific settings need to go the way of the dodo, we should have open standards so that both companies can optimize. AMD pushes open standards and I will continue to support them for it. Right now there is decent competition between the two vendors, AMD has a good never settle program and some decent GPUs. I have been Red for many years and will continue to be red even if it means slightly less performance.

Wait for the 7Gb patch, this should fix things up, also try beta driver

I have an 8350 too, its much better than people realize it is.

Me too. It's a great CPU.

7 GB? oh my...

I already have the latest drivers installed. The Omega drivers for 280x are coming somewhere around Jan/Feb. Hope that fixes things up.

I have the Omega driver for my 280X already, yes the 7Gb should fix the issues you're having - sadly only a month after the release date.

guys stop using AMD cpus and gpus.

nvidia and intel are the safe choice.

But 280X isn't supported by the Omega Drivers, or at least that's what I read on amd's site.

I think my AMD FX-8350 is fine...... No CPU spikes to 100% and core usage seems pretty good. Testing out the three biggest hogs I have. The fourth biggest hog is Crysis 3 and it doesn't come close to these three. It's these three games that make my GTX 770 put out the most heat.

I can also record fullsize (1080p) using FRAPS or Bandicam with little penalty.

It has become so bad that we praise a game like Shadow of Mordor for having a good PC version, when it should be the norm. Sloppy ports should be few and far between. The publishers are not dedicating enough resources for the dev teams to optimize for PC. These games are launching broken and it has to stop. Do not pre-order games and do not buy on release until it has been confirmed to work properly. Speak with your wallets. Do not support garbage.

Well, for every person who has a broken game experience, there's another person who will claim to have no issues with the product. Even if a ton of people stopped buying these games on the principal that they don't consistently work well on launch, these publishers still make a killing from otherwise high production values, marketing, publications, and intellectual property. This is something I don't see getting any better because there's really no clear-cut solution. Reviewers have seem to taken an extremely questionable stance of complacency when it comes to bugs on launch. The typical attitude is to ignore bugs and assume any issues people have will be patched soon (BF4 review for example).

Maybe if dumb media figures stopped focusing on clickbait ("Early access games that don't work! Oh noes!") and focused more on bringing attention to these ridiculous state of affairs, maybe there'd be some incentive for big publishers to improve the QA on the titles they release to the public. These lazy **** launches absolutely need to hurt the publishers, not exclusively the consumers.

The 8350 is cheaper than intels that offers similar performance and overclocks better. At the right price the 8350 is a good choice.

AMD GPU's are typically better than their CPU's too, although gotta admit I'm getting a 970 soon.

I was faced with the same dilemma with regards to Far Cry 4 on Day 1. I turned to YT so I can have a better idea of actual performance. The first video I looked at has an i5 4670k/R9 280x. The gameplay was very stuttery (Ultra) which didn't bode well since there was already a sh*tstorm about AC: U.

The next day, I finally saw a video showing FC4 on an AMD FX-8350/R9 280x. The gameplay (Ultra) was much smoother. Looking at key areas, I noticed the FX-8350 also had higher framerates.

After looking at some more videos, I felt comfortable enough buying FC4 without having to worry it'll be a mess.

I'll go with Intel when its hexacores (the minimum I'll go with) are priced low enough. For now, my FX-8350 is doing a fine job.

me too, but often those intel CPU's are a lot more expensive.

Not come across anything my 8350 has struggled with, games I've had problems getting great performance from are because my GPU is getting dated (7850)

Once I get a 970 I dont expect to have to upgrade anything for a few years.

The Intel prices aren't that bad. Then again, I paid over $500 for a mid-level Pentium 2 (P2-266) back in 1997. I'm used to it. He He.

Can you use VSR and the other features?

there's really no excuse for bad performing games. Devs should just finish their jobs before releasing games.

Oh thanks for the info. I've read it on a reddit forum that these features will come to 280X and the other cards of the R9 series somewhere around Jan/Feb season, so keep an eye out on that too.