AMD Releases Crimson 16.1 Hotfix Drivers

35 Comments

View All Comments

• looncraz - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  That's exactly what they've done. I've built four or five nVidia systems (and about as many AMD systems) in the last couple of years and the nVidia issues are more frequent than the AMD ones. Not sure if that's just a matter of the usage pattern for my customers or a matter of expectations, but each time AMD had a fix, and only once did nVidia have a fix.
  
  It is definitely a stark contrast to the past, though, where problems on an AMD card meant finding a 3rd party fix (which usually existed) or just dealing with it for a few months, whereas nVidia would usually release a fix in their next driver. It genuinely seems that AMD has picked up the ball just as nVidia has stumbled.
  
  nVidia is providing better support for outdated architectures, though... even if their hardware doesn't age anywhere near as well as AMD's.

• blppt - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  I cant remotely report the same. I have 2 systems currently, one with 2 290x (s) in CF and one with two Titan Blacks. I usually have to wait a couple of months for new games to get good CF support, whereas Nvidia's pretty much work from launch day. And AMD had been so slack in getting new drivers out in 2015 to get new CF profiles, I'm just about set on going single card for my next AMD build.
  
  The crimson control panel sure is slick though, and much less of an eyesore than Nvidia's. Actually, even the old CCC seemed more slick than Nvidia's CP.
  
  But I almost always have more issues with new games with AMD's drivers than Nvidia's. I'm sure some of it has to do with the rash of GW titles out there now, but for games like GTA5, which favored neither card (it had both AMD and Nvidia's own Shadow tech in game), or Battlefront, which if anything, favors AMD due to the Frostbite engine being AMD-friendly in the past (multiple Mantle releases) there is no excuse.
  
  Other than simply not having the resources to devote to the driver team that its competition does.

• LordanSS - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  I have two desktop computers, one running nVidia and other AMD cards.
  
  I've always been quite surprised by this idea people have, that AMD drivers are inferior. Perhaps they were, once in the distant past. For the past few years, I've had more issues with nVidia drivers than AMD's.
  
  To each their own I guess.

• silverblue - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  Maybe AMD are more forthcoming? I don't know.

• Colin1497 - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  Whether they list them or not, they're going to have a list of known issues. I'm going to say that publicly listing "known issues" is actually a good thing. It's insight into things that they're working to fix for users instead of them just being a black box.

• tuxfool - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  Yeah, lets never report what the currently known issue are, so then people can keep filing away at those bug reports ad infinitum.

• D. Lister - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  What you said reminds me of that South Park episode about the Catholic priests. I have no problem with them reporting the issues - the problem is with the number of issues.
  
  I say it time and time again, AMD makes fairly competitive hardware, but than takes far too long to catch up on the software side, and even then often forego reliability for raw performance.
  
  This generation, with both GPU makers stuck at 28nm, AMD had ample opportunity to make changes. If, for example, instead of spending money on hurriedly putting out a 28nm Fury with 4GB HBM1, only to still remain at second place even in raw performance, they focused exclusively on making their existing lineup of hardware more efficient, and put a greater emphasis on software development, they would be in a much better position for the next die shrink. Then they could release Fury2.0 at 16nm with 8GB HBM2 with a Crimson software suite with a much smaller "known issues" list.

• Holydiver19 - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  You're saying that just by changing to 16nm, it will magically resolve tons of issues like this? From my understanding, it's just going to produce more efficiently and less power consumption.
  
  Also if AMD didn't push out the Fury. Everyone would be shitting on AMD saying how they don't have a 4k card that is comparable to the 980/980ti. Not to mention, people don't like waiting for huge advancements in tech when they want something now.
  
  If anything, Nvidia has to pull their socks up for DX12 or AMD will pull ahead in my opinion.

• D. Lister - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  "You're saying that just by changing to 16nm, it will magically resolve tons of issues like this?"
  
  No, but allocating more resources to the software side certainly would. More money = More people working more hours = quicker fixes.
  
  "Everyone would be shitting on AMD saying how they don't have a 4k card that is comparable to the 980/980ti."
  
  Let's be realistic, the unfortunate fact of the matter is, they still don't. Having to resort to water-cooling just to barely keep up, with a 2GB VRAM handicap, isn't really comparable.

• Intel999 - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

  Funny, from all the reviews I've seen the Fury X holds up quite well against both the Titan and the 980ti. Go down to 1080P and that 980ti shines. Nothing better than 120 fps on a 60 hz screen. Money well spent!