[Various] Ashes of the Singularity DX12 Benchmarks - Page 143 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[Various] Ashes of the Singularity DX12 Benchmarks

 
Thread Tools
post #1421 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:04 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Mahigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,798
Rep: 878 (Unique: 234)
@Kollock

Thank you for the clarifications smile.gif

It's not about winning. It's about gathering as much information as possible. I hope NVIDIA will provide clarifications now:)

The only way to get information is to create a big deal out of something. If you don't, everyone tends to remain silent.

In this case we have AMD and oxide stepping up to provide answers. Only NVIDIA are left.

Ps. Out of context is out of order in my dialect.
Quote:
For content that does not contribute to any discussion.


[–]AMD_Robert- EmployeeAMD 11 points 14 hours ago




Oxide effectively summarized my thoughts on the matter. NVIDIA claims "full support" for DX12, but conveniently ignores that Maxwell is utterly incapable of performing asynchronous compute without heavy reliance on slow context switching.

GCN has supported async shading since its inception, and it did so because we hoped and expected that gaming would lean into these workloads heavily. Mantle, Vulkan and DX12 all do. The consoles do (with gusto). PC games are chock full of compute-driven effects.

If memory serves, GCN has higher FLOPS/mm2 than any other architecture, and GCN is once again showing its prowess when utilized with common-sense workloads that are appropriate for the design of the architecture
Therefore, yes... Maxwell 2 has a hard time with handling too much out of context switching.

It's like GeForceFX all over again. Where NVIDIA utilized a driver compiler in order to perform shader swaps because the FX performed poorly at this task.

I support that now, with DX12, it will depend on what developers will be doing.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
Zen
(16 items)
L3VIATHAN
(16 items)
Ryzen 5 2600
(12 items)
CPU
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x
Motherboard
Gigabyte X470 AORUS Gaming 7 Wifi
GPU
Sapphire Radeon 5700XT Pulse 8GB
RAM
32GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series
Hard Drive
XPG GAMMIX 512GB S11 Pro
Hard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro
Hard Drive
WD Caviar Black
Hard Drive
WD Caviar Black
Hard Drive
WD Caviar Red
Power Supply
OCZ ZX Series 1250W PSU
Case
Lian Li PC011 Dynamic XL Full-Tower Case
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
ViewSonic VX3258-2KC-MHD
Keyboard
CORSAIR Gaming K95 RGB Mechanical Gaming Keyboard
Mouse
Corsair M65 PRO RGB Gaming Mouse
Audio
Asus Xonar Essence STX
CPU
Intel® Xeon E5-1680 V2 @ 4.5GHz
Motherboard
ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme
GPU
Sapphire NITRO R9 Fury
RAM
32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum PC3-17066
Hard Drive
WD Black NVMe M.2 2280
Hard Drive
256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Hard Drive
2x 2TB WD Caviar Black RAID0
Power Supply
XFX PRO1050W Black Edition
Case
Cooler Master MasterBox Pro
Operating System
Windows 10
Operating System
Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
Monitor
Dell P Series P2419H
Monitor
Dell P Series P2419H
Keyboard
Corsair Vengeance® K90 Performance
Mouse
Logitech G9x Laser Mouse
Audio
Sound Blaster Z
CPU
Ryzen 5 2600
Motherboard
Gigabyte X470 AORUS Ultra Gaming
GPU
Sapphire Radeon Fury Nitro OC+
GPU
EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB SC GAMING ACX 2.0
RAM
Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro
Hard Drive
XPG SX8200 Pro
Hard Drive
500GB WD Black HDD
Hard Drive
2x 1TB WD Black HDD RAID0 (128GB SSD Cache)
Power Supply
OCZ-ZX850W ZX Series 850W
Case
Corsair Carbide Series Spec-DELTA
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Audio
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5 Pure Edition
▲ hide details ▲
Mahigan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1422 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:25 AM
Meeeeeeeow!
 
CrazyElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,227
Rep: 428 (Unique: 299)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahigan View Post

there's a difference...

The Fury-X is sometimes behind the GTX 980 ti, sometimes a little ahead. This is acceptable. Though if I were to recommend someone where to spend $650 for a DX11 GPU, it would be the GTX 980 Ti.

What you don't expect is a GPU from 2013 competing with a GTX 980 Ti.

There is one thing I'm not convinced about.

They gimped the FP64 compute performance on Maxwell in favor of more gaming performance. It's a Single Precision monster, but Double Precision is what is wanted for Compute.

To be honest, it doesn't matter either way. Pascal I think will, performance wise, leave this card in the dust.

We are getting:
  1. A die shrinks worth of more transistors
  2. HBM2 and the bandwidth it brings
  3. Potentially a more parallel architecture (we don't know yet)
  4. Potentially gains comparable from SMX to SMM, and perhaps other gains (they may improve their compression again for example)

Judging by history too, the driver optimizations may stop when the Pascal GPUs come out. And in the case of DX12, driver optimizations are simply not possible, so perhaps much sooner than that.


The Fury X I'm not sure is a good buy either for reasons discussed. Something is bottlenecking it.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Kollock View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think you are confusing a few issues. Tier 2 vs Tier 3 binding is a completely separate issue from Async Compute. It's has to do with the number of root level descriptors we can pass. In tier 3, it turns out we can basically never update a descriptor during a frame, but in tier 2 we sometimes have to build a few . I don't think it's a significant performance issue though, just a techinical detail.

In regards to the purpose of Async compute, there are really 2 main reasons for it:

1) It allows jobs to be cycled into the GPU during dormant phases. In can vaguely be thought of as the GPU equivalent of hyper threading. Like hyper threading, it really depends on the workload and GPU architecture for as to how important this is. In this case, it is used for performance. I can't divulge too many details, but GCN can cycle in work from an ACE incredibly efficiently. Maxwell's schedular has no analog just as a non hyper-threaded CPU has no analog feature to a hyper threaded one.

2) It allows jobs to be cycled in completely out of band with the rendering loop. This is potentially the more interesting case since it can allow gameplay to offload work onto the GPU as the latency of work is greatly reduced. I'm not sure of the background of Async Compute, but it's quite possible that it is intended for use on a console as sort of a replacement for the Cell Processors on a ps3. On a console environment, you really can use them in a very similar way. This could mean that jobs could even span frames, which is useful for longer, optional computational tasks.

It didn't look like there was a hardware defect to me on Maxwell just some unfortunate complex interaction between software scheduling trying to emmulate it which appeared to incure some heavy CPU costs. Since we were tying to use it for #1, not #2, it made little sense to bother. I don't believe there is any specific requirement that Async Compute be required for D3D12, but perhaps I misread the spec.
Regarding trying to figure out bottlenecks on GPUS, it's important to note that GPUs do not scale simply by adding more cores to it, especially graphics tasks which have alot of serial points. My $.02 is that GCN is a bit triangle limited, which is why you see greater performance on 4k, where the average triangle size is 4x the triangle size of 1080p.

I think you're also being a bit short-sighted on the possible use of compute for general graphics. It is not limited to post process. Right now, I estimate about 20% of our graphics pipeline occurs in compute shaders, and we are projecting this to be more then 50% on the next iteration of our engine. In fact, it is even conceivable to build a rendering pipeline entirely in compute shaders. For example, there are alternative rendering primitives to triangles which are actually quite feasible in compute. There was a great talk at SIGGRAPH this year on this subject. If someone gave us a card with only compute pipeline, I'd bet we could build an engine around it which would be plenty fast. In fact, this was the main motivating factors behind the Larabee project. The main problem with Larabee wasn't that it wasn't fast, it was that they failed to be able to map dx9 games to it well enough to be a viable product. I'm not saying that the graphics pipeline will disappear anytime soon (or ever), but it's by no means certain that it's necessary. It's quite possible that in 5 years time Nitrous's rendering pipeline is 100% implemented via compute shaders.


If this is the case, do you think that the Fury X might see a huge leap next generation in performance compared to the 290X? There are about 45% more shaders here in the Fury X than the 290X, but we don't see scaling right now. Is that because shaders are simply such a small part of the problem overall? If there are situations where the main bottleneck is in shader effects, texture effects, or bandwidtth, the Fury X should fly circles around every other GPU. Could AMD be playing the long game here too?

But elsewhere the gains are less impressive. I'll note that the pixel fill rates did not change at all from the 290X to Fury X. They remain at 67Gpixels/s. Nvidia's jumped between the 780Ti to 980 Ti from 37 to 95 (and it's 103 on the Titan X). In other words, on the 290X, it was vastly better than the 780Ti, but now Nvidia's has managed to leapfrog in a generation. This and perhaps more rasterizers per clock are a huge matter that AMD needs to improve upon. Where the Fury X is fill rate or rasterization bottlenecked, it's going to, well, frankly, suck compared to the 980Ti and not be a big improvement over the 290X.

Another matter is - why are we not seeing gains on the memory bandwidth? In theory this should be a substantial advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digidi View Post

Maybe they didn't Change the rasterizer because it's more than enough power?

If you see the DX12 Drawcalltest in 3dmark, its also a Polygonoutput test because each drawcall existst of 112-127 Polygons. That means that AMD can put out more Polygons through its rasterizer than nvidia. So rasterizer is no bottleneck under dx12 for amd.

Having a lot rasterizer is one Thing, the other Thing is to have them feeded from the command porcessor. At this Point Nvidia is very week at high drawcalls. And its a hardwarelimit. No big changes can be made by Driver update.


Out of curiosity, what do you think is the weak point of the Fury X then? There's gotta be something as we are seeing poor scaling.

You make a good point - the Fury X is better at high draw calls and where those are a bottleneck, the Fury X should outperform the 980Ti.
CrazyElf is offline  
post #1423 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:26 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
pengs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Devil's Castle moving south west
Posts: 2,009
Rep: 107 (Unique: 86)
It would be interesting to see a revisit of the performance per watt between GCN and Maxwell with a fully fledged DX12 title like Ashes.

[ 3770K delid AS5/TX4 ] * 4.7GHz @ 1.28v/+90mV * 4.6GHz @ 1.24v/+50mV * 4.5GHz @ 1.2v/+20mV * 4.4GHz @ 1.16v/-20mV [ P8Z68-V/Gen3, ASUS ] [ 16GB@ 2133/CL9/1.5v Ballistix Tactical, Crucial ]
[ RX Vega 64, Liquid, Sapphire ] * 1750/1050 @ 1.20v/+00mV,+00mV (HBM) * 1750/1050 @ 1.20v/+00mV * 1750/945 Stock
[ 250GB 840 EVO, Samsung ] [ 240GB M500, Crucial ] [ Mk II 950W, PCP&C ]

[ Pentium 133 MMX | Pentium 200 OD | K6-2 450 | Pentium III 800 | Athlon XP 2400+ | Athlon 64 3800+ | E6600 | Phenom II 955 | 2500K | 3770K ]
[ Rage Fury 128 | Voodoo 3 2000 | 7900GS | 8800GT | HD 4890 | GTX 275 | (3) GTX 470 | (2) GTX 670 | (2) R9 290X | R9 Fury | RX Vega 64 LC ]
pengs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1424 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:31 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Mahigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,798
Rep: 878 (Unique: 234)
Good job everyone smile.gif

You did the work tech websites used to do.

From this point on I'm out of this conversation. Time to spend more time with the wife.

smile.gif

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
Zen
(16 items)
L3VIATHAN
(16 items)
Ryzen 5 2600
(12 items)
CPU
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x
Motherboard
Gigabyte X470 AORUS Gaming 7 Wifi
GPU
Sapphire Radeon 5700XT Pulse 8GB
RAM
32GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series
Hard Drive
XPG GAMMIX 512GB S11 Pro
Hard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro
Hard Drive
WD Caviar Black
Hard Drive
WD Caviar Black
Hard Drive
WD Caviar Red
Power Supply
OCZ ZX Series 1250W PSU
Case
Lian Li PC011 Dynamic XL Full-Tower Case
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
ViewSonic VX3258-2KC-MHD
Keyboard
CORSAIR Gaming K95 RGB Mechanical Gaming Keyboard
Mouse
Corsair M65 PRO RGB Gaming Mouse
Audio
Asus Xonar Essence STX
CPU
Intel® Xeon E5-1680 V2 @ 4.5GHz
Motherboard
ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme
GPU
Sapphire NITRO R9 Fury
RAM
32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum PC3-17066
Hard Drive
WD Black NVMe M.2 2280
Hard Drive
256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Hard Drive
2x 2TB WD Caviar Black RAID0
Power Supply
XFX PRO1050W Black Edition
Case
Cooler Master MasterBox Pro
Operating System
Windows 10
Operating System
Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
Monitor
Dell P Series P2419H
Monitor
Dell P Series P2419H
Keyboard
Corsair Vengeance® K90 Performance
Mouse
Logitech G9x Laser Mouse
Audio
Sound Blaster Z
CPU
Ryzen 5 2600
Motherboard
Gigabyte X470 AORUS Ultra Gaming
GPU
Sapphire Radeon Fury Nitro OC+
GPU
EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB SC GAMING ACX 2.0
RAM
Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro
Hard Drive
XPG SX8200 Pro
Hard Drive
500GB WD Black HDD
Hard Drive
2x 1TB WD Black HDD RAID0 (128GB SSD Cache)
Power Supply
OCZ-ZX850W ZX Series 850W
Case
Corsair Carbide Series Spec-DELTA
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Audio
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5 Pure Edition
▲ hide details ▲
Mahigan is offline  
post #1425 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:35 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 2,280
Rep: 125 (Unique: 82)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
There is one thing I'm not convinced about.

They gimped the FP64 compute performance on Maxwell in favor of more gaming performance. It's a Single Precision monster, but Double Precision is what is wanted for Compute.

To be honest, it doesn't matter either way. Pascal I think will, performance wise, leave this card in the dust.

We are getting:
  1. A die shrinks worth of more transistors
  2. HBM2 and the bandwidth it brings
  3. Potentially a more parallel architecture (we don't know yet)
  4. Potentially gains comparable from SMX to SMM, and perhaps other gains (they may improve their compression again for example)

Judging by history too, the driver optimizations may stop when the Pascal GPUs come out. And in the case of DX12, driver optimizations are simply not possible, so perhaps much sooner than that.


The Fury X I'm not sure is a good buy either for reasons discussed. Something is bottlenecking it.
If this is the case, do you think that the Fury X might see a huge leap next generation in performance compared to the 290X? There are about 45% more shaders here in the Fury X than the 290X, but we don't see scaling right now. Is that because shaders are simply such a small part of the problem overall? If there are situations where the main bottleneck is in shader effects, texture effects, or bandwidtth, the Fury X should fly circles around every other GPU. Could AMD be playing the long game here too?

But elsewhere the gains are less impressive. I'll note that the pixel fill rates did not change at all from the 290X to Fury X. They remain at 67Gpixels/s. Nvidia's jumped between the 780Ti to 870 Ti from 37 to 95 (and it's 103 on the Titan X). In other words, on the 290X, it was vastly better than the 780Ti, but now Nvidia's has managed to leapfrog in a generation. This and perhaps more rasterizers per clock are a huge matter that AMD needs to improve upon. Where the Fury X is fill rate or rasterization bottlenecked, it's going to, well, frankly, suck compared to the 980Ti and not be a big improvement over the 290X.

Another matter is - why are we not seeing gains on the memory bandwidth? In theory this should be a substantial advantage.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is the weak point of the Fury X then? There's gotta be something as we are seeing poor scaling.

You make a good point - the Fury X is better at high draw calls and where those are a bottleneck, the Fury X should outperform the 980Ti.


Great points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahigan View Post

Good job everyone smile.gif

You did the work tech websites used to do.

From this point on I'm out of this conversation. Time to spend more time with the wife.

smile.gif

Do what you love, and love what you do.

Why not become an independent columnist for overclock.net? We can use some dissenting editorials here to keep things interesting.... smile.gif

Simplicity
provost is offline  
post #1426 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:41 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
RushTheBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 19
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
I want to preface by saying that i appreciate the discussion and everyone's input.

I'm going to admit that i understand very little about GPU architecture or the intricacies of the direct x API. That said, after reading through this thread as well as similar threads across other tech forums i still remain confused. I'm really trying to understand whats going on here and not go to Defcon 1. I do apologize but i need it broken down a bit further so that i can get a better understanding of everything as i'm still trying to determine if there is an actual bombshell issue here or not. I do apreciate clarification ahead of time as this is going to not only help me better understand whats going on but give me additional tools to make an informed purchasing decision.

So here are my questions:
  • Is asynchronous compute an actual hard requirement for doing things in DX12 (ie: it must be utilized) or is it simply something DX12 supports over DX11?
  • Is asynchronous compute simply a technology or architecture decision that AMD has made based on their philosophies or a hard requirement based off of research into low level APIs?
  • Is it possible that the Oxide developers chose to utilize asynchronous compute for various implementations instead of some other method or is asynch compute the only method of doing things?

Kind Regards

Rush
RushTheBus is offline  
post #1427 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:46 AM
Linux Lobbyist
 
mav451's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 996
Rep: 44 (Unique: 34)
Quote:
Originally Posted by provost View Post

Do what you love, and love what you do.

Why not become an independent columnist for overclock.net? We can use some dissenting editorials here to keep things interesting.... smile.gif

I would change that word to disruptive, not necessarily dissenting.
Dissenting implies there is a majority consensus on the topic. There isn't one just yet tongue.gif

http://heatware.com/eval.php?id=31362Build History (Click to show)
CPU History:
Thunderbird-C 800Mhz, 2100+ TBred B, 2600+ XP-M, Opteron 146, Core2 e8400, i5 750, i5 4670K

MB History:

A7V, A7N8X rev1.06, DFI NF4 Ultra-D, DFI LT P35, GB P55-UD3R, GB Z87-UD4H

GPU History:
Matrox G400, ATi 8500LE, ATi 9800Pro, Leadtek 6800NU, BFG 7800GT, BFG 8800GT, GTX 260, eVGA GTX 560 Ti, Zotac GTX 580, eVGA GTX 780, eVGA 980Ti
mav451 is offline  
post #1428 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 07:48 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Forceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10,880
Rep: 795 (Unique: 515)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

There is one thing I'm not convinced about.

They gimped the FP64 compute performance on Maxwell in favor of more gaming performance. It's a Single Precision monster, but Double Precision is what is wanted for Compute.

There is both single and double precision compute, and gaming uses single not double.

Forceman's Law: Any AMD/Nvidia GPU thread, no matter what the topic, will eventually include a post referencing the GTX 970.
Forceman is offline  
post #1429 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 08:18 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Joe-Gamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 204
Rep: 2 (Unique: 2)
As long as I can near max games at 96fps (monitor oc'ed to 96hz) at 1440p I wont care that much about the competition. But damn if my 980ti becomes weaker than a standard fury or a 390x, I'll be annoyed as heck. First flag ship card, should of stuck with 290 cf. DX12 has ruined me haha
Joe-Gamer is offline  
post #1430 of 2683 (permalink) Old 08-31-2015, 08:19 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
KenjiS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,723
Rep: 92 (Unique: 74)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RushTheBus View Post

I want to preface by saying that i appreciate the discussion and everyone's input.

So here are my questions:
  • Is asynchronous compute an actual hard requirement for doing things in DX12 (ie: it must be utilized) or is it simply something DX12 supports over DX11?
  • Is asynchronous compute simply a technology or architecture decision that AMD has made based on their philosophies or a hard requirement based off of research into low level APIs?
  • Is it possible that the Oxide developers chose to utilize asynchronous compute for various implementations instead of some other method or is asynch compute the only method of doing things?

Kind Regards

Rush

1. I do not believe Async compute is a hard requirement for DX12 or nVidia would be getting in deep poo for saying their cards are DX12 compatable.. actually I would be fairly certain they would have that yanked, it is likely an optional feature that CAN be used

2. According to what I see, support for Async compute was baked into GCN (the architecture that AMD is using) I'm guessing its a side effect of Mantle/Vulkan and their development for the PS4 and Xbox One silicon...

3. Its not the only method, but it can, in situations, improve performance, its somewhat like hyperthreading from the looks


on a side note, heres a news post from 5 months ago where AMD is talkikng about Async Compute... so this isnt really a new thing apparently, everyone just ignored it until now..

http://wccftech.com/amd-improves-dx12-performance-45-gpu-asynchronous-compute-engines/

In fact its not even really surprising...AMD built the chips for both new consoles after all.. so AMD might have known a lot more than nVidia about what was going to be happening with Dx12...


Now then, I just ordered a 980 Ti, do I regret it? Well.. no.. not really, Dx12 titles, besides Ashes of the Singularity and ARK Survival Evolved, are not quite here yet (in fact Wikipedia currently lists 6 games confirmed to use Dx12, the next game using it, as of right now, appears to be Deus Ex Mankind Divided which has a date of Feburary 16th, Will be curious to see how this turns out as AMD and Square Enix generally have close ties..also admittedly im very much looking forward to this game....)

Ashes is one benchmark, one very important Benchmark, but we're still a year away from seeing proper Dx12 titles on the market, heck, we're 6 months from the NEXT Dx12 title being on the market, by the time Dx12 is more common, Pascal will be out as will the Fury MAXX or whatever AMD will call it... its possible nVidia can get more of a gap through better driver optimization or other trickery, albeit unlikely. And its also not if we're saying the 980 Ti goes HURK and keels over dead in Ashes, its just not beating the Fury X to a pulp...

I'm actually excited in a way for a return to the old days where we had ATi and nVidia beating each other to a pulp and we watched with excited grins for the next big thing... its nice to see AMD get some ground back, I want to see the next Titan and Fury cards fighting it out, because at the end of the day all of us win.

So no, Not regretting my 980 Ti, its the best card at the moment and when something better drops I will sell it and get that. I did seriously consider the Fury X but 1. they're marked up a lot right now, 2. installing it would be a moderate inconvenience and 3. their drivers give me unpleasant flashbacks

Sony A7 III, 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss, 90mm f/2.8 G Macro, 70-200mm f/2.8 GM, Sigma 150-600mm C + MC-11
Inari Mk 1
(17 items)
CPU
Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard
Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
GPU
Asus STRIX GTX 1080 Ti
RAM
32gb Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR4 3600 CL16
Hard Drive
2x Corsair MP510 960GB NVMe SSD
Hard Drive
Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Hard Drive
2x 5TB Toshiba X300 7200rpm HDDs
Power Supply
eVGA 1000W T2
Cooling
Corsair H115i Platinum
Case
Corsair Crystal 680X
Operating System
Windows 10 Professional
Monitor
Acer Predator X27
Keyboard
Razer Huntsman Elite
Mouse
Razer Mamba Hyperflux
Audio
Sound Blaster G5
Audio
Sennheiser GAME ONE
Audio
Philips Fidelio X2
▲ hide details ▲
KenjiS is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off