enfrdeplesuk
Search find 4120    tg2 f2 lin2 in2 X icon 3 y2  p2 tik steam2

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Remastered - PC performance graphics benchmarks of Graphics Cards and Processors

BASIC GAME INFORMATION

MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 00 817

Year of construction: 30 Apr. 2020
Genre: Action (Shooter) / 1st Person
Developer: Infinity Ward, Beenox
Publishing house: Activision

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was one of the leading blockbusters of 2009. We invite you to replay the epic campaign from this game, recreated in high definition. The campaign begins immediately after the dramatic events of the revolutionary game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which won worldwide recognition. The exciting and dynamic story of Modern Warfare 2 is dedicated to repelling a new threat that has brought the world to the brink of disaster.

The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 campaign has received improved textures, animations, a realistic physics model, increased dynamic range lighting and a number of other next-generation technologies. Together with Soap, Price, Ghost and the rest of OTG-141, you will restore world order by participating in such classic episodes as "Cliffhanger", "Colony" and "Whiskey Hotel".

THE GRAFICAL PART

This subsection of our review highlights the main graphical aspects of this game. Particular attention is paid to the version of the graphics engine used, the version of the API used, graphic settings and the quality of development of the main visual aspects. 

SUPPORTED OS AND GRAPHICS API

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Remastered is supported Windows 7/8/10.

batlnet

The priority and main graphics API for Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Remastered is DX 11.

GAME ENGINE

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Remastered was developed by Infinity Ward and is based on the IW engine 7. In 2002, the three-dimensional shooter Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was released - one of the games in the Medal of Honor series, which takes place during the Second World War war. This game used the id Tech 3 game engine (then known as Quake 3 Engine, after the name of the first game in which it was used) from id Software as a technological base. The development of Allied Assault was carried out by the studio 2015, Inc., some of whose employees left the company after the game's release to found Infinity Ward.

Infinity Ward

Infinity Ward's first game was 2003's Call of Duty, which, like Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, is set in World War II. This game is also built on the id Tech 3 engine. The choice of this technology is obviously explained by the fact that Infinity Ward employees already had experience working with it. Compared to the original id Tech 3, the graphics component of the engine has undergone a number of changes. Thus, the game began to actively use post-effects (for example, “image blur”), water is processed using shaders, which made it possible to create realistic reflections, the lighting system was complicated and dynamic soft shadows appeared. Subsequently, an official addon was also released for Call of Duty - Call of Duty: United Offensive.

Call of Duty 2 3


This diagram illustrates the history of the development of game engines in the “IW Engine” series. On October 25, 2005, the game Call of Duty 2 was developed by Infinity Ward, which is a full-fledged continuation of the first part. Call of Duty 2 is considered the first game to use the IW engine. Technically, this engine is a largely redesigned id Tech 3, an evolved version of the engine used in the very first part.

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4

Compared to the original engine, this version has many improvements and changes built into it: instead of the OpenGL API, the image is processed using Direct3D, several bump texturing techniques are used, shadow processing is complicated, the particle system and post-effects are significantly improved. The next game based on the IW engine was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in 2007. This game uses the third version of the engine (IW engine 3.0); the technology was once again refined and improved: facial animation, processing of water surfaces, lighting effects were complicated, new post-effects appeared, such as depth of field, and the possibilities of color correction of the image were widely used to give it a special stylization.

Call of Duty World at War

In 2008, the fifth part of the game series was released - Call of Duty: World at War (developer: Treyarch). The game is built on the third version of the engine (IW engine 3.0), which was modernized by Treyarch developers. Another Treyarch game, Quantum of Solace: The Game, was made using the same version of the engine. In 2009, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released (development was again transferred to Infinity Ward). This game uses the next version of the engine, IW engine 4.0, with a number of improvements, including Streaming Textures technology.

On November 9, 2010, the seventh part of Call of Duty, Black Ops, was released. This game uses a significantly improved version of the IW engine 3.0, which was used in Call of Duty: World at War, which is likely due to the fact that the development of the game began in parallel with the creation of Modern Warfare 2. Compared to previous parts of the game, the graphical code was changed Several major improvements have been made, in particular, among other things, the lighting system has been completely redesigned and the operation of the particle system has been improved.

Call of Duty Black Ops

In the same year, the game GoldenEye 007, the “spiritual successor” of the original 007 GoldenEye 1997 for the Nintendo 64, was released on the Wii console. Eurocom was responsible for the development, and Activision was in charge of publishing. This game, according to some sources, also uses an internal modification of the IW engine (the exact version is unknown).

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

On November 8, 2011, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was released, based on an updated version of the IW 4.0 engine (working title - MW3 Engine); Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software were responsible for development. In October, Glen Schofield, founder of Sledgehammer Games, stated in an interview that the IW engine resembles a Porsche, and that criticism of the engine in reviews of Modern Warfare 3 was unfounded, as the developers are constantly modifying the technology and reworking it.

Call of Duty Black Ops 2

On May 1, 2012, the ninth game in the series and the sequel to 2010's Call of Duty: Black Ops, Call of Duty: Black Ops II, was announced. The game uses an updated version of the IW 3.0 engine used to create the first Black Ops game. HDR lighting, self-shadowing, bounce lighting and reveal mapping were added to the engine, and the PC version of the game had support for DirectX 11. According to Treyarch, their main priority is 60 frames per second (FPS) on any platform. The game was released on November 13, 2012.

blackops3 1

Call of Duty: Ghosts was released in 2013. The game was developed by Infinity Ward with the participation of Raven Software and Neversoft Entertainment. At the announcement, the game engine was described by representatives of the publishing house as “completely new”, but later the developers clarified that the engine is a development of their own engine - IW 6.0; Thus, the studio's animator, Zach Walker, said: “It is impossible to develop a new game engine from scratch in the two-year cycle that our games go through. We do things differently - we conduct research and draw conclusions about which systems and main parts of the engine are obsolete and update them, bringing them to the modern level. How much do we update them? I think enough to allow ourselves to call this engine new.” 

GRAPHICS SETTINGS

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Remastered has a sufficient range of graphic settings:

MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 07 361 MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 11 939

MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 16 503 MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 19 702
 

Below we have provided screenshots of the game at various graphics settings, where our readers can see the difference between the minimum and maximum graphics quality settings. 

DIFFERENT QUALITY MODES

VARIOUS SMOOTHING MODES

GENERAL VISUALS AND GAME PHYSICS

The graphics in Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Remastered have improved very much and are similar to the remaster of the first Call of Duty Modern Warfare:

MW2CR 2020 04 30 20 24 05 016 MW2CR 2020 04 30 20 32 58 887

MW2CR 2020 04 30 20 43 08 546 MW2CR 2020 04 30 20 46 41 246

MW2CR 2020 04 30 20 49 30 159 MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 03 26 400

Well, then we will move directly to gaming tests and determine what impact this game has on modern computer hardware.

TEST PART
Test configuration
test stands

GIGABYTE GA-Z77-D3H

GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD7

GIGABYTE G1.Sniper Z97

GIGABYTE GA-X99-Gaming 7 WIFI

GIGABYTE GA-Z270-Gaming K3

GIGABYTE Z370 AORUS Gaming 7

GIGABYTE GA-990FX-Gaming

GIGABYTE GA-AX370-Gaming 5

GIGABYTE X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI

AORUS RGB M.2 NVMe SSD 256GB

Multimedia equipment

Monitor Philips 326M6VJRMB/00

Seasonic PRIME TX-1000 power supply

Software configuration
Operating system Windows 10 Pro 1909
Graphics driver

Nvidia GeForce/ION Driver Release 445.87

AMD Radeon Adrenalin Edition 20.4.2

Monitoring programs

PlayClaw

MSI Afterburner

Action!

FRAPS

 
All video cards were tested at maximum graphics quality using MSI Afterburner. The purpose of the test is to determine how video cards from different manufacturers behave under the same conditions. Below is a video of the test segment:

 Our video cards were tested at different screen sizes of 1920x1080, 2560x1600 and 3840x2160 maximum game graphics quality settings. SSAA has been disabled.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX and GTX video cards are provided by LLC Business Development Center.

GPU TEST

MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 07 361 MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 11 939

 In the video card test, the default resolution is 1920x1080; other resolutions are added and removed manually. You can also remove and add any positions of video cards. You can also select any of our test processors from the list in the drop-down menu, comparing its performance with the given video card tests (by default, the most productive solution is selected). The test is performed on the most powerful CPU and is scaled to other processors, taking into account their testing on NVIDIA and AMD video cards.

CoD MW 2 Remastered - PC performance graphics benchmarks of Graphics Cards
  • Very high
  • Screen resolutions 1 of 3

  • Hide DLSS/FSR video cards

  • Loading ...


When resolved 1920x1080  an average FPS of 25 frames was shown by video cards of the Radeon RX 560 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti level. Minimum FPS of at least 25 frames can be provided by video cards of the level Radeon RX 560 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. A comfortable average FPS of 60 frames can be provided by solutions Radeon RX 470 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti.

When resolved 2560x1440 average FPS of 25 frames showed level video cards Radeon RX 560 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Minimum FPS of at least 25 frames can be provided by video cards of the level Radeon RX 470 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. A comfortable average FPS of 60 frames can be provided by solutions Radeon RX 470 or GeForce GTX 1650 Super.

When resolved 3840x2160 average FPS of 25 frames showed level video cards Radeon RX 470 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Minimum FPS of at least 25 frames can be provided by video cards of the level Radeon RX 470 or GeForce GTX 1650. A comfortable average FPS of 60 frames can be provided by solutions Radeon RX 5600 XT or GeForce RTX 2060.

VIDEO MEMORY CONSUMPTION

msi rx 2080

Testing of video memory consumed by the game was carried out by the program MSI Afterburner. The indicator was based on the results on video cards from AMD and NVIDIA with separate screen sizes 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 with different anti-aliasing settings. By default, the graph displays the most current solutions. Other video cards are added and removed from the schedule at the request of the reader.

CoD MW 2 Remastered VRAM test
  • Very high
  • All screen resolutions

  • Hide DLSS/FSR video cards

GEFORCE RTX 2070 Super 8 GB
5001
4588
4243
GEFORCE RTX 2080 Super 8 GB
5042
4625
4278
5283
4708
4471
5116
4716
4385
5220
4812
4473
5168
4764
4429
5271
4859
4518
3702
3576
3457

GameGPU

 - 3840x2160, Mbyte
 - 2560x1440, Mbyte
 - 1920x1080, Mbyte

When resolved 1920x1080 video memory consumption for video cards with 4 gigabytes 3500 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes 4200 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes 4300 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes 4300 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes 4500 megabytes.

When resolved 2560x1440 video memory consumption for video cards with 4 gigabytes 3600 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes 4400 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes 4600 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes 4700 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes 4700 megabytes.

When resolved 3840x2160 video memory consumption for video cards with 4 gigabytes 3800 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes 5000 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes 5000 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes 5200 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes 5300 megabytes.

CPU TEST

MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 07 361 MW2CR 2020 04 30 21 25 11 939

Testing was carried out at a resolution of 1920x1080. In the processor test, you can remove or add any processor positions. You can also select any tested video card from the list in the drop-down menu, comparing its performance with the given processor tests(by default, the most productive solution from NVIDIA is selected). Testing takes place on the most powerful NVIDIA and AMD video cards and scales to low-end models.

CoD MW 2 Remastered CPU test
  • Very high
  • All screen resolutions

  • All processors

  • Loading ...

When using video cards NVIDIA an acceptable rate of at least 25 frames was shown by the FX 4300 or Core i 3 2100 processors, and an FPS rate of at least 60 frames can be achieved by solutions of the level FX 8350 or Core i 3 2100.   

When using video cards AMD processors showed an acceptable indicator of at least 25 frames FX 4300 or Core i 3 2100, and an FPS of at least 60 frames will be able to provide solutions at the level Ryzen 1300X or Core i 5 2500

CoD MW 2 Remastered Test Cores
  • Very high
  • All screen resolutions

  • All processors

1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
7 core
8 core
1 HT
2 HT
3 HT
4 HT
5 HT
6 HT
7 HT
8 HT
53
34
28
28
19
15
23
34
20
6
14
11
14
9
13
54
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
7 core
8 core
55
80
38
31
27
25
39
77
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
1 HT
2 HT
3 HT
4 HT
5 HT
6 HT
54
38
32
28
3
34
54
41
27
29
28
59
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
67
70
52
34
34
84
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
1 HT
2 HT
3 HT
4 HT
70
52
48
52
67
46
55
64
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
89
88
81
91
1 core
2 core
1 HT
2 HT
88
89
83
80
1 core
10 core
11 core
12 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
7 core
8 core
9 core
1 SMT
10 SMT
11 SMT
12 SMT
2 SMT
3 SMT
4 SMT
5 SMT
6 SMT
7 SMT
8 SMT
9 SMT
75
33
23
22
44
39
55
47
38
20
19
14
5
0
2
6
44
39
2
3
0
2
31
2
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
7 core
8 core
1 SMT
2 SMT
3 SMT
4 SMT
5 SMT
6 SMT
7 SMT
8 SMT
47
38
41
28
27
41
48
22
50
23
17
16
14
27
19
44
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
7 core
8 core
64
56
59
58
66
67
53
66
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
1 SMT
2 SMT
3 SMT
4 SMT
5 SMT
6 SMT
52
41
38
41
56
58
30
36
45
38
39
34
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
5 core
6 core
70
72
66
67
77
72
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
1 SMT
2 SMT
3 SMT
4 SMT
45
55
48
49
45
47
56
77
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
86
88
91
92
1 core
2 core
3 core
4 core
95
92
94
95

GameGPU

 - 1920x1080,%

The game can load up to 12 streams. The game uses 6 cores as efficiently as possible.

RAM TEST

9900 k

The test was carried out on the basic configuration of Core i 9 9900K with 32 GB DDR4 3200 MGz pre-installed memory. All used RAM was taken as an indicator. The RAM test on the entire system was carried out on various video cards without launching third-party applications (browsers, etc.). In the graphics, you can add and remove any resolutions and video cards as desired.

CoD MW 2 Remastered RAM test
  • Very high
  • All screen resolutions

  • Hide DLSS/FSR video cards

GEFORCE RTX 2070 Super 8 GB
8629
8455
8313
GEFORCE RTX 2080 Super 8 GB
8699
8523
8380
8612
8621
8915
8547
8480
8549
8719
8652
8721
8633
8566
8635
8806
8737
8808
9709
9133
8716

GameGPU

 - 3840x2160, Mbyte
 - 2560x1440, Mbyte
 - 1920x1080, Mbyte

When resolved 1920x1080 RAM consumption of the system by a video card with 4 gigabytes 8900 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes 7700 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes 8300 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes 8300 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes 8900 megabytes.

When resolved 2560x1440 RAM consumption of the system by a video card with 4 gigabytes 9300 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes 7800 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes 8500 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes 8500 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes 8600 megabytes.

When resolved 3840x2160 RAM consumption of a video card system with 4 gigabytes 9900 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes 7900 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes 8600 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes 9500 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes 8600 megabytes.

IRON SPONSORS
AMD Seasonic 40 years logo image 2019 07 30T13 48 51 198Z nvidia philips
 

 

Тeating  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 87% [28 vote(s)] Graphics  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 50% [33 vote(s)] Optimization  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 64% [34 vote(s)]

 

android download

People participating in this conversation

Comments (104)

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Zenux

When a friend chose 1063, although I suggested taking a closer look at AMD, I fully realized that Count. AMD division in deep Zh.

What remains to be understood is what relation does the lack of critical thinking ability of lemmings (absorbers of marketing tripe) have to the real quality of a particular product? He launched a techno-prince or a similar would-be blogger, looked at what 1063 was carrying, like all the other zhifors and intels on his channel in tests against AMD, so he bought it.
This is nothing more than a flaw of AMD marketers

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Perhaps, but then why not say so, Idk, in short

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Zenux
so the stump is clear. Nikita told you correctly, but you yourself are indulging in this. And some of you then get a job (or already work) in tech. consultants in dns/eldorado, become bloggers, authors of publications. You yourself play along with the monopoly, strengthen it, so that marketers don’t even have to do anything, you can handle it yourself. And then you buy middles at the price of tops, but the most important thing is that the favorite is at the top and throw a brick towards the least favorite. To be a fan of American commercial companies is bad manners. Something from the area of ​​job-wanking and mascophilia

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

I once told two people “AMD has more interesting cards” and both took Nvidia, so yes, I agree, Nvidia’s marketers can rest, but AMD’s need to work off 7 sweats to make up for lost time. I don’t care about favorites, for example, I and Korn decide to update VK tomorrow and what can AMD offer? Well, here, and then they write to you “I took the 2080 (Ti) - I played along with the monopoly” and they don’t care that AMD’s TOP is at the level of 2017, you had to take it out of spite, right?
PS: And the bricks fly not because they are favorites, but because the competitor is already tired of being slow.

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Zenux

and I don’t care that AMD’s TOP is at the level of 2017, it was necessary to take it out of spite, right?

it was necessary to take the AMD tops when they were more interesting than the Nvidia tops, and not “buy Nvidia at any cost,” as they bought the 780 instead of the cheaper and faster 290.
Well, okay, I fully believe that you can switch to AMD when RDNA2 is rolled out, but Korn has already been irrevocably sucked in, “saturated with the spirit”

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

By the way, the fact that VK used to come out at about the same time, and then they were separated by almost half a year, also has a bad effect on the change of camp (that’s actually why they did it ) and yes, if AMD has interesting products, it will be “Good Buy Nvidia\Intel”, I’ve never been a fan of any camp, which is why I’m probably annoyed that AMD has screwed up the high-end segment, I have a desire to switch, but there’s nothing to do
PS: If you and Korn have the same VC, the universe will collapse, all when there should be only one favorite
PS2: By the way, check out the difference at the waterfall
AA Off
https://i.ibb.co/7jf4cRf/AA-Off.png
AA Low
https://i.ibb.co/xGHYytn/AA-On.png

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

I don't know when your time comes. I dare say that when Huang rolls out a new generation.
No.
7970 came out six months earlier than 680, and in fact was not surpassed by it - and nothing, you didn’t take it
The 7970 is an excellent card, the chance of it appearing on a PC was 99% with the update, but then I was going through dark times and had no time for it.
What does 1080Ti have to do with it? Still I do not understand. It's on the counter priced at 2060S. So compare it with her.
Apparently it’s not for nothing that AMD marketers eat their own bread, but oh well...
Yes, yes, this is nonsense, which has the MOST of the market...
Okay okay, these are great VKs, don't be nervous , Intel will soon throw more excellent products onto the market
...let Intel enter the market normally.
This hope died when AMD bought ATI, but with Intel's suitcases, Nvidia could well have a real rival.

then according to your logic, everything below your beloved 1080 is rubbish? I think you are one of those who, sitting on 1070, would shout that 1060 and 580 are crap.
No, according to my logic, a 2019 card for $400 should not be weaker than a 2017 card for $700, otherwise the question arises: “What kind of crap have you been sculpting there for 2 years?”

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Zenux
but then I had dark times, there was no time for him.
invidia didn't fire But previously there were 4870/4890 and 5870, but you were still on Invidia, no matter what
Apparently it’s not for nothing that AMD marketers eat their own bread, but oh well...
so far we see at least 1 excellent result of the fruitful work of Invidia marketers
Okay okay, these are great VCs, don’t be nervous, Intel will soon throw excellent products onto the market with a shovel
The "excellence" of cards in each segment is determined not by overall performance, but by performance per $. Even if you don’t really criticize the 2080, which came out with 1080 performance for the same $700 in dh11 and in what you call games (turkey yyo4), also with castrated memory
This hope died when AMD bought ATI, but with Intel's suitcases, Nvidia could well have a real rival.
Intel has no time for video cards right now

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Invidia didn’t fire But previously there were 4878/4890 and 5870, but you still sat on Invidia, no matter what
Look at my profile: Riva TNT 2 Vanta| GF2 MX 200| GF4 MX 440| 9000Pro| X1650Pro| HD2600XT| HD4890| 8800GT SLI| GTX470 "Dark Times" GTX780| GTX980 Ti| GTX1080 Ti| "Uncertainty".
The only thing I can’t say for sure is the dates of purchases are not saved
so far we see at least 1 excellent result of the fruitful work of Invidia marketers
By the way, I didn’t buy the 2xxx series, I didn’t change 4790K, marketers at the blast furnace are powerless
Even if you don’t really criticize the 2080, which came out with 1080 performance for the same $700 in dx11
They just don’t mention her here, as soon as they start, I’ll catch up
Intel has no time for video cards right now
In general, Huang was lucky that ATI went to AMD, if only the leather jacket would have been all mended by now

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

there is a terrible (or malicious) optimization of the game for Nvidia cards, when the 5700xt drains the 1660 - this is a clear shame, first of all for developers, because in other modern games the red card is 6-9% slower than the 2070 Super, take at least the latest Techspot tests or 3D results ixbt.com

proofs for those who are heavily smeared with fanboyism and whiners:

Techspot https://www.techspot.com/review/2015-geforce-rtx-2070-super-vs-radeon-5700-xt/
https://www.ixbt.com/3dv/video-chart-0420.html

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Proofs from whiners for whiners. :D:D

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Nikita RadeoForce
Because it’s not enough to release good hardware, you still need to actively promote it, collaborate with game/software developers, and AMD always relied on this, hence we have the following picture:
https://i.imgur.com/2mf8y1D.jpg
for some reason Nvidia and Intel were able to achieve excellent results, but AMD is always getting in the way, we got it

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

5xxx(XT), 16xx, 2060(S) and 2070 are some kind of rubbish from 2018-19, don’t assume that I’m not happy with AMD’s current, but Nvidia’s is all excellent.
PS: My faith in AMD CPUs is high, my faith in AMD GPUs is below average.

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

then according to your logic, everything below your beloved 1080 is rubbish? I think you are one of those who, sitting on 1070, would shout that 1060 and 580 are crap.

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Yes, yes, this is a nonsense that has the MOST of the market. With your approach, Giraffe sales should be less than 3 times, and there should be no Radikov at all. Great idea. Be sure to suggest to Huang and Lisa to remove the most profitable segment from the market - let Intel enter the market normally.

https://i.imgur.com/6ptWDJF.png

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

because amd screwed up the marketing campaign. And only now it is being revived, even the dns is trying to sell Ryzen, everything is plastered with Ryzen logos. Yes, the same dns that recently sold 770 (680) instead of 290 at a similar price, then 1050 instead of 578/588, i5 7400 instead of R5 1600. Even many bloggers changed their shoes. Yes, and 85%+ of sales is literally a victory for marketers, no matter how successful the risens are. Without investments in advertising, there are no good sales even for really successful products; 7950/290/Polaris/Vega56 will not let you lie.
And in fact, we already see that zen2, even in games, has practically no permanent failures, and sometimes Intel tops slap in the sirloin zone, in contrast to the much less stable zen1/zen+. And game makers cannot ignore the market leaders of the last couple of years. True, the performance of Ryzens is greatly hindered by the fact that they use an Intel compiler everywhere, and they either did not write their own, or they wrote it but did not promote it. But even in such conditions, fermented baked milk butts well. I’m afraid to even imagine what kind of brutal architecture Keller will roll out, given the financial and other capabilities of Intel, if he rolled out sensible Ryzens in the “Spartan” financial conditions of AMD

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

And that too.

This comment was made by the moderator on the site

Nikita

By inertia, we completed Fiji, honestly trying to compete with the 980 Ti, but ran into HBM restrictions, and openly screwed up the segment

In general, it’s true that it was Fury that stopped the struggle at the top, but the point here is more likely that AMD was faced with the same problems that Intel is facing now - mastering a new technical process. Emnip, the trucks were planned for 20nm, not 28nm. This is probably why they installed not 8GB, but 4GB HBM2 - stupidly 4 stacks of 2GB each did not fit (ala Radeon7 from 4 to 4GB), the 28nm chip turned out to be simply gigantic, and then the GPU did not exceed 600mm2. The first gaming card that "exceeded" - 2080 - 752mm2.
And even 4GB might not have been a hindrance for furies if the games were designed for Radeons with 2-channel 2048-bit video memory mode, and not for GIFs with 4-channel 64-bit. (perhaps the wording is not very correct)
Here is a short copy-paste of the text in bourgeois, only in Vega
HBM power efficiency is the answer why L1 cache level is so obscure in Vega. It is not due to limitations of 14 nm process but a profound intention. If you compare the cost of energy for transferring of roughly 1 command for DDR and HBM that is 600 pJ (picojoule) to 50 pJ respectively in favor of the latter one. In theory, HBM in Vega architecture (which is a variety of GCN) should crush the convenient video cards with DDR memory in games, but it is not happening. The reason for that lies in the nature of HBM stacks which technically presented as 2 channels with a bandwidth of 1024 bits each compared to 4 channels 64 bit each in DDR (for 256 bits). 4 channels are more efficient when GPU deals with a huge amount of small operations, which is a case for common game engines (especially those which are created with the Nvidia's "help", there are also some catches like super compression levels Nvidia uses to improve the rasterization performance). Usually, there are not that many large blocks of information that needs to be 1) input from CPU, 2) processed by vertex shaders, 3) processed by geometry shaders (for resolutions lower than 4k; that's actually might be the reason why Vega's performance does not plunge when moving from 1080 to 4k resolution). There are many look-alike objects in a typical game level which can be processed once and stored in cache or moved to/from memory in order to be rasterized by rasterization blocks. As Vega GPU simply does not have these cache levels and relies deeply on HBM memory it has to move all data to-from memory to load the shader engine, while a none HBM video card uses cache and memory in conjunction.
PS In scientific calculations, Vega shows much better results.

As you can see, the main scourge of AMD architectures is the loyalty of game makers to Nvidia architecture. Naturally, loyalty is not free for Nvidia. And this is largely why even Vega with a horsepower PSP sometimes have crazy performance gains from overclocking video memory and adjusting timings, which ultimately gives an increase from overclocking above linear (in the screenshots is Vega64, but on the left I lowered it to the frequencies of stock Vega56, for greater clarity, after all, the frequency potential of 56 and 64 all is the same, and on the right, in fact, my usual undervolt + overclocking)
https://i.ibb.co/2jST6v4/56.pnghttps://i.ibb.co/8dDSSBy/64.png

~25% core overclock gave ~35% performance
But still - how to catch up with the long-term technological lag?

But does it exist at all, is this a technological lag? After all, in terms of the level of support for various features under DH12/Vulcan, the same Pascal smokes nervously, only it was brought to Turing all, 3 years after the release of Vega. And in terms of raw power, Radeon 7 surpasses 1080 and 2080, and in games with radeon tuning, even after a mountain of patches (we remember the game at the start, when vega > 2080) the following picture is obtained
https://i.ibb.co/St9fQ5v/WWZ-1080p.jpghttps://i.ibb.co/KNGCCnH/WWZ-4.jpg

Now imagine if more than 90% of games were focused not on green ones, as is happening now, but on red ones, as in this game and others like it?
IMHO, it was not AMD's engineers who lost the competition, but its marketers.

Load more