HD 2k and 4k Resolutions.

[commander]

Will this game be ready and fully compatible with the highest resolutions of today?
I hope they bring patches to do just that. As I tested 4k downscale to 1920 x 1080p using the DSR options and it was choppy as well as I do believe there was a game crash.
The textures were also aliased, as I couldn't get the highets anti aliasing in the nvidia control panel at 32x csaa or in game anti aliasing, to remove the aliasing issues around textures, it's the pixelation. And for the first time, my frame rates actually dropped on those high resolutions, it's odd how some games don't drop in frame rates when at 4k resolution.

It was a few weeks ago in survival mode, testing the anti aliasing with the high end resolutions as well as other quality shaders with the game.

I can tell you this also, the high end resolutions gives me and everyone else reasons to upgrade their systems later on, that time is coming soon not just for 4k to be used by new game standards for new games coming out, but in the future, new cpus/gpus will have to be able to support it much better with those new games yet to come out.

If anyone was wondering on how to do this on your 1080p - 1920 x 1080 monitor.
You can learn how to set Dynamic Super Resolution here.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/214490/discussions/0/624075036381855678/

But I don't recommend using more than 1920 x 1080p resolution with Alien: Isolation for now.
That link will also help you with many other issues, and will give you download links that you need for your pc.

[bdlio]

I don't see any compatibility issues... the game seems to start at your screens' highest supported (DSR) resultion the first time you start it - it seemed to work without problems for me except my video card isn't up to handling the game at 4K (GTX 670) so I quickly dropped it down to native 1920x1200.
However even in very high resolutions (or with downsamling) the game seems to suffer from very visible aliasing - SMAA T2X gets rid of a lot of the jaggies but blurs the image/textures too much for my taste so I played with SMAA T1X instead.
There is no effective AA mode available for the game so that's how it will look like no matter what... still a great looking game though.

[commander]

Originally posted by bdlio:

I don't see any compatibility issues... the game seems to start at your screens' highest supported (DSR) resultion the first time you start it - it seemed to work without problems for me except my video card isn't up to handling the game at 4K (GTX 670) so I quickly dropped it down to native 1920x1200.
However even in very high resolutions (or with downsamling) the game seems to suffer from very visible aliasing - SMAA T2X gets rid of a lot of the jaggies but blurs the image/textures too much for my taste so I played with SMAA T1X instead.
There is no effective AA mode available for the game so that's how it will look like no matter what... still a great looking game though.

That's exactly what I mentioned above. xD


Also the SMAA T2X didn't blur them for me, it's just as clear as with 1920 x 1080p but looks better than SMAA T1X, although sometimes in some lighting when the alien is walking around those lights, depending on the light.. the alien will look better in SMAA T1X as I noticed when I first tested out the settings in survival mode at the basement, if the alien is on the left at the start, and is back to the far left room area near the stairway, have the alien walk down and around the flame shooting up with the lights on the wall to its right, walk backwards holding the flame thrower out so that you can control the alien's walk speed, keep your distance from the alien and watch carefully as it goes by those white colored lights, there is a bit of a difference between SMAA T1X and SMAA T2X, but SMAA T2X can look really good for other things, I noticed the alien color changes a little as well, more of a brown color at times it's not in the light from the settings. But I guess depends on your pc hardware, as everyone's probably going to see something else, but a little similar.

Yes even I noticed the aliasing with the high resolutions, there was also a feature in the nvidia control panel under the dsr resolution options, where you can choose DSR smoothness, by default it is on 33%, you can either have a smoother or sharper image, some games give alot of aliasing at the sharper quality image as it mentions, but there are other games where at 0% smoothness and 4k, where I actually found gave no aliasing and was a far higher quality image and shader quality over the 2k res that I tested which gave alot more aliasing than 1920x1080, it's odd how the 4k had better results than the 2k and better frame rates at that time. I wouldn't test 4k too much with high end csaa 32x antialiasing in the nvidia control panel along with other features, it's best to test 4k alone for now, as it's very buggy and first results found crashes in some games or system crashes, I don't see them now, but haven't tested the antialiasing with the 4k, and haven't got a crash with the new drivers that had recently came out, the 4k seems alright now with the new drivers and testing with the games again. It also looks a bit better as well and seems more stable with the new nvidia graphics drivers that came out recently.

Also I mentioned in other threads, be sure to update your graphics drivers to the latest out there as of the time of this message, the alien looks different, there's a little depth and shader notice, and noticable in other games as well.

It's been a while since I made this thread, I'm sure alot has happend for you as well since then.

Glad to see others are testing this!

[entspeak]

I turn off AA in-game and use the Nvidia CP AA as an override. But, I'm running dual GT750m's in SLI, so AA isn't really working at all for me. I hope they get around to fixing it.

[commander]

Originally posted by entspeak:

I turn off AA in-game and use the Nvidia CP AA as an override. But, I'm running dual GT750m's in SLI, so AA isn't really working at all for me. I hope they get around to fixing it.

It's because the game was made using alot of radeon graphical features. Even the logo at the start of the game hints that. Which was one thing I was dissapointed in. Since alot of games from past up to now were meant to be played on nvidia. =)
In my opinion.. how dare they use radeons as the base for contrustion on this game! =P
They did a good job with some graphics, textures, atmosphere, alien ai on hard, and other, but even the textures can be seen as less visual in some moments or on some DLC's, it could have gone way higher, I hope they put in physx.
As I mentioned on another thread.. there is no physx visual indicator either in the top left corner of the screen, when I try to enable it through the nvidia control panel under "3d settings" at the top of the window. The 3d settings tab at the top shows up, when you click on 3d settings or any of the tabs on the left, then select the physx visual indicator. Now go in other games to see it, then exit them and go into Alien: Isolation, you will notice there is nothing there. =(
Also the steam beta has a new frames per second option, when in game, go to the steam overlay by holding shift tab, and then select settings, click on "in-game" and find the fps option, select it and click ok, now go back to your game. You will notice at the top left corner, it will show the frame rates. =)
It's a new feature for steam.
I know alot use other programs to see the frame rates, but that's handy to have.

[Dicehunter]

Originally posted by commander:

I hope they put in physx.

Using a proprietary feature like that does add some nice eye candy but it's a bad move for gamers.

Graphical features should not be locked down to 1 vendor hence why most game companies stay away from Physx with only a handful of games supporting full Physx i.e The Batman Arkham series, Mirrors Edge, AC: Black Flag, The Borderland series, The Metro series and Alice: Madness Returns, There are others but they are tiny small no name games.

AMD has Mantle but that's just an API which "Can" help low end systems get a bit better performance but does not restrict graphical fidelity in any way like Nvidia does.

Just my 2 cents, AMD and Nvidia user BTW :-)

[commander]

Originally posted by Dicehunter:

Originally posted by commander:

I hope they put in physx.

Using a proprietary feature like that does add some nice eye candy but it's a bad move for gamers.

Graphical features should not be locked down to 1 vendor hence why most game companies stay away from Physx with only a handful of games supporting full Physx i.e The Batman Arkham series, Mirrors Edge, AC: Black Flag, The Borderland series, The Metro series and Alice: Madness Returns, There are others but they are tiny small no name games.

AMD has Mantle but that's just an API which "Can" help low end systems get a bit better performance but does not restrict graphical fidelity in any way like Nvidia does.

Just my 2 cents, AMD and Nvidia user BTW :-)

Actually there are far more titles that use physx than not since 2007, mostly all games use it, as most games were developed around nvidia graphics cards, hints the reason for most of the compatibility, and since 2013, I've been noticing alot of people complain in the forums about different games on steam, they either get black borders from the radeon video card or they have other issues where games won't start or work right, and have crashes, I don't get any of these and I've met many nvidia users that don't have the issue as well, I really have yet to see any issues other than with alien: isolation where I did notice 1 or 2 crashes because it's more radeon based.

To me.. alien: isolation is very isolated on the graphical features in game, it has features that aren't well used in my opinion, and of course.. that's because they are radeon features. As I always see games with nvidia graphical features and with physx as well.

I don't hardly ever see games with performance impacts because I've built a pc back in 2012, also it's good to see performance impact, that gives you reason to upgrade your systems, just like the old days with gaming when they used to always come on cd's for the pc, the old pc games, always had a performance impact but that gave reason and purpose to upgrading, and that's actually enjoyable to me because I know that I can get more benefits out of my pc and have higher graphical features enabled later on as well, this brings more meaning to the gaming industry, but sadly that is going in reverse, and if you want the game to do everything for you with the graphical settings, then stick to consoles.

I on the other hand, with many others, like to configure our games manually. That's a very simple thing to do, why be so lazy as to not click on the options in the game settings and set them? That's actually exciting to me for enhancements.

Physx is as I said, supported by almost all games, so I don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but I think you've been a radeon fan too long, without testing nvidia graphics cards of at least a geforce gtx 670. I was using physx back on UT 3 which wasn't all that good of a game, when I had a geforce 7600 GT at the time, and it looked beautiful absolutely.

Never go with radeon video cards unless you are asking for compatibility issues with games, I'm sure there are those out there that know what I mean if you have issues with your games, such as those I've described, the black borders in games, game crashes, and other problems, always go with nvidia geforce, no less than a geforce gtx 670, I recommend the latest geforce though, the 900 series as of the time of this message.

---
I'm not trying to say that some games weren't developed around radeons, but most games you see even today, almost any you come acrossed in the steam store or in your games list, was developed around nvidia graphics cards, with support for radeons.

Physx does better things for the gaming industry than not, and has for many years for most games. =)
It's an awesome move for gamers, if the developers implement it well, and no need to worry about the impact as it's a good reason to get a new video card just to see how much eye candy you get. lol
Could you imagine? Alien: Isolation with physx? Have you seen hawken's physx particles when they were first developed on that game? It was rediculously obsurd in amount so they decided to remove alot of it, but it was awesome looking. Imagine Alien: Isolation with those, but in the aliens atmosphere, meaning properly placed, to replace the sparks on walls that you see from the story or survival mode, and many other features, even the flame that shoots up in survival mode in the basement, wouldn't be a cheesy texture, it could be those actual particles, that would make the game amazing! Alien: Isolation looks good, but it misses alot of features, it's very limited on what it has, but great for what it has I admit. Although because of that limit.. that's why I would want more features, especially to support nvidia graphics cards better, that's rediculous that it was developed around a radeon video card, since I was waiting for it to come out for a year.

But yeah.. most games use physx and nvidia graphics cards.
I could litteraly find you a list of all games, but I think you can do that yourself. =P

[commander]

I've been in other games forums where I see some users complain that their game isn't working, the type that create threads, and some of them are very hard headed that I help, but when I help them.. they are very stubborn and when they finnaly tell me that they have a radeon, after trying to figure out using all solutions to their issues, then it finnaly hits me as to why their game wouldn't work right and there's little to tell them other than to go with an nvidia graphics card, and I've had to do this the past 2 years.. and wow.. how that has gone by so fast since early 2013. I'm not trying to say that 2013 and on is the only time that I've helped others, I've helped others for many many years, but since then.. I've heard alot of people complaining about why their games won't work and they use radeon graphics cards, so don't tell me about physx not being an industry standard, because it always has been, I would always recommend an nvidia graphics card, nvidia has been true since I was a teen with brilliant colors back on the tnt2 and I will always stay an nvidia owner, especially since the radeon 7000 and 9200 looked dull in games back around 2004, I never went back to them, but in 1998 was when I got my first nvidia graphics card when the voodoo 3500 wouldn't work in my pc since it was a pci and not agp port.
I've always been an nvidia with an amd cpu fan since 1998. And that combo is just awesome. Although has changed over time because of amd buying out ati's radeons. But that didn't stop me from continuing to use amd cpu's with nvidia geforce graphics cards. And there's nothing more better then that combination. Also if you go with sli or many other combinations, that's fine but you know what I was talking about.

[Dicehunter]

Originally posted by commander:

Physx is as I said, supported by almost all games, so I don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but I think you've been a radeon fan too long

Don't start that fan boy BS please, I only got my first radeon graphics card 2 days ago for my 2nd rig, I'm a long time Nvidia user, I have the following cards, 8800GTX, 580, 690, 780 Ti, Titan Black and an AMD 295X2 so please don't talk about fan boy BS.

And you are totally missing the point of what I meant when I said "Physx Titles".

A game with hardware accelerated implemented Physx, Not just part of the code but actual Physx options ingame like the batman series or borderlands for example, Like Physx smoke, Debris, Water, Cloth etc...These types of Physx implementations are far and few between and not many game companies implement full on Physx as it alienates a large audience.

There are actually only around 50 games with full on hardware accelerated Physx options like in the Arkham series and Borderlands such as debris, Smoke, Water, Cloth etc... you can see the full list here -

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

There are currently roughly 500 games that use tiny parts of the Physx code but as I said only 50'ish use full on Physx because it's not good business from a game developers point of view alienating a large portion of your potential customers.

Locking any graphical feature down to 1 electronics company is very bad from a consumer point of view, Everything should be open source so it benefits games and gamers alike.

Originally posted by commander:

But that didn't stop me from continuing to use amd cpu's with nvidia geforce graphics cards

Sorry to break it to you but if you''re still using AMD CPU's, Well, They kind of suck at this moment in time until 2016 when they bring their new architecture out.

I have an FX 8350 in my 2nd rig clocked to 4.80GHZ and my Intel 4790K at 4.0GHZ literally destroys the AMD chip, Even more when I clock the Intel to 4.80GHZ.

AMD's CPU's run too hot, Consume too much power, They haven't had an update to their architecture in 3 years and are generally weak when compared to 90% of what Intel has and that is fact no matter what way you try and spin it.

[commander]

Originally posted by Dicehunter:

Originally posted by commander:

Physx is as I said, supported by almost all games, so I don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but I think you've been a radeon fan too long

Don't start that fan boy BS please, I only got my first radeon graphics card 2 days ago for my 2nd rig, I'm a long time Nvidia user, I have the following cards, 8800GTX, 580, 690, 780 Ti, Titan Black and an AMD 295X2 so please don't talk about fan boy BS.

And you are totally missing the point of what I meant when I said "Physx Titles".

A game with hardware accelerated implemented Physx, Not just part of the code but actual Physx options ingame like the batman series or borderlands for example, Like Physx smoke, Debris, Water, Cloth etc...These types of Physx implementations are far and few between and not many game companies implement full on Physx as it alienates a large audience.

There are actually only around 50 games with full on hardware accelerated Physx options like in the Arkham series and Borderlands such as debris, Smoke, Water, Cloth etc... you can see the full list here -

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

There are currently roughly 500 games that use tiny parts of the Physx code but as I said only 50'ish use full on Physx because it's not good business from a game developers point of view alienating a large portion of your potential customers.

Locking any graphical feature down to 1 electronics company is very bad from a consumer point of view, Everything should be open source so it benefits games and gamers alike.

Originally posted by commander:

But that didn't stop me from continuing to use amd cpu's with nvidia geforce graphics cards

Sorry to break it to you but if you''re still using AMD CPU's, Well, They kind of suck at this moment in time until 2016 when they bring their new architecture out.

I have an FX 8350 in my 2nd rig clocked to 4.80GHZ and my Intel 4790K at 4.0GHZ literally destroys the AMD chip, Even more when I clock the Intel to 4.80GHZ.

AMD's CPU's run too hot, Consume too much power, They haven't had an update to their architecture in 3 years and are generally weak when compared to 90% of what Intel has and that is fact no matter what way you try and spin it.

Most already know about how the physx works, so you're already pointing out the obvious.

There's alot more than 50 games, and even those with small portions of physx still do the trick, and I'm always happy to use it, I would think anyone would agree on that.
I am a customer and so are you, but since I am happy with it and so are many customers, I would say that doesn't hurt business all that much, that actually improves, and it's no wonder why, it doesn't alienate anyone but radeon users, so don't talk to me about fan boys.
Which I pointed out in the other comment also.
And you are just trying to throw people off since you're a radeon user, and you have obviously something against nvidia for reasons to go against physx ever, why you would ever own a radeon these days is beyond me, since nvidia is a world leader and amd had to buy radeon just for ati to continue to compete, sad how it took 2 of them to try and match nvidia's graphics cards, but then they still can't, currently the best graphics card in the world is unmatched as of the time of this message, and it's the geforce 980 gtx series. Which is proven and told all over the web, even from the developers of the card themselves.

I have an amd fx 8350 as well, works nice, no need to overclock, not everyone has that kind of money to put out for overclocking to replace or for an intel processor, as the amd processors are the way to go.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to break it to you but if you''re still using AMD CPU's, Well, They kind of suck at this moment in time until 2016 when they bring their new architecture out.


You mentioned how I said that I was still using the amd cpu, well of course, obviously, as I said that is what I will always have, as I have always been an amd cpu and nvidia gpu person with the combination, and mostly all games work, I don't have any issues with other games like I've seen others say they have in threads from many forums the past 2 years in steam titles. So answer me that as to why I don't have the issues? Because I know what is best to have for gaming. Nvidia has always been the way it was meant to be played. It's no shock that people were surprised to see that alien: isolation was made with radeon development, when alot already discovered to use an nvidia geforce after what happend to aliens: colonial marines, and a good geforce gtx video card at that, when they had radeon issues with black textures and crashes and other issues as well, so they've had much more than a year and a half to figure that out, as well as from many other games I've recommended the geforce video card for from other game forums in steam over time. So it's no surprise there on what the winner is.

Amd cpus such as the amd fx 8350 at default settings don't get hot I'm sorry but i don't have issues with the cpu at all, unless of course the obvious dust is an issue. So what you said is false unless you were talking about overclocking, but not everyone overclocks, and it's rediculous unless you have the money to replace it. Some people do save up you know, and have other things to buy, so they take proper care of their hardware.
Also you think that I haven't noticed when amd has been slacking? I had heard even before I got the amd fx 8350 near the end of 2012, that they weren't going to be making another processor for a year or more, they have no the 8370 but it's not much more than a cpu auto boost of 4.3 ghz when needed. Also the 9000 series are water cooled but can be air cooled with a really good air cooling fan, but I have been told it still gets hot.
But amd was still right, people were saving alot of money if they were to get the fx 8350 for $200 dollars at the time, compared to intel's overpriced processors, which also were not as good for multitasking as amd's, and my fx 8350 is still good enough to game with even the latest games, even if they say intel's at this very moment is best for gaming and amd for multitasking. That's why I've been dissapointed in amd the past 2 years that have gone by so fast, waiting for them to pull off not only ddr4, but quad channel has been a need for a while since 4 sticks at 32 gigs doesn't allow over 1600 mhz ram speeds on an amd board because of the dual channel only option, unless I was to pull out 2 sticks for 16 gigs. And this ram was not cheap. But also the problem with amd not having pci express x16 3.0 gen3 as well, as I've been waiting for new amd motherboards to come out, and I've had this talk with other gamers before even in games about amd slacking so don't talk to me about it, besides.. you would be a hypocrite to do so since you use a radeon. Amd is the best choice for a cpu, since the fx 8350 8 core at 4 ghz with 4.2 ghz auto boost is good enough for any game, it would be foolish to choose anything else, especially with what is to come later. Intel has always been first, but amd cpu's are always better in the end, combined with an nvidia geforce gtx graphics card, and you have the best compatibility and reliability for gaming. Period.

[Dicehunter]

Originally posted by commander:

Most already know about how the physx works, so you're already pointing out the obvious.

There's alot more than 50 games, and even those with small portions of physx still do the trick, and I'm always happy to use it, I would think anyone would agree on that.
I am a customer and so are you, but since I am happy with it and so are many customers, I would say that doesn't hurt business all that much, that actually improves, and it's no wonder why, it doesn't alienate anyone but radeon users, so don't talk to me about fan boys.
Which I pointed out in the other comment also.

I have an amd fx 8350 as well, works nice, no need to overclock, not everyone has that kind of money to put out for overclocking to replace or for an intel processor, as the amd processors are the way to go.

You mentioned how I said that I was still using the amd cpu, well of course, obviously, as I said that is what I will always have, as I have always been an amd cpu and nvidia gpu person with the combination, and mostly all games work, I don't have any issues with other games like I've seen others say they have in threads from many forums the past 2 years in steam titles. So answer me that as to why I don't have the issues? Because I know what is best to have for gaming. Nvidia has always been the way it was meant to be played. It's no shock that people were surprised to see that alien: isolation was made with radeon development, when alot already discovered to use an nvidia geforce after what happend to aliens: colonial marines, and a good geforce gtx video card at that, when they had radeon issues with black textures and crashes and other issues as well, so they've had much more than a year and a half to figure that out, as well as from many other games I've recommended the geforce video card for from other game forums in steam over time. So it's no surprise there on what the winner is.

Also you think that I haven't noticed when amd has been slacking? I had heard even before I got the amd fx 8350 near the end of 2012, that they weren't going to be making another processor for a year or more, they have no the 8370 but it's not much more than a cpu auto boost of 4.3 ghz when needed. Also the 9000 series are water cooled but can be air cooled with a really good air cooling fan, but I have been told it still gets hot.
But amd was still right, people were saving alot of money if they were to get the fx 8350 for $200 dollars at the time, compared to intel's overpriced processors, which also were not as good for multitasking as amd's, and my fx 8350 is still good enough to game with even the latest games, even if they say intel's at this very moment is best for gaming and amd for multitasking. That's why I've been dissapointed in amd the past 2 years that have gone by so fast, waiting for them to pull off not only ddr4, but quad channel has been a need for a while since 4 sticks at 32 gigs doesn't allow over 1600 mhz ram speeds on an amd board because of the dual channel only option, unless I was to pull out 2 sticks for 16 gigs. And this ram was not cheap. But also the problem with amd not having pci express x16 3.0 gen3 as well, as I've been waiting for new amd motherboards to come out, and I've had this talk with other gamers before even in games about amd slacking so don't talk to me about it, besides.. you would be a hypocrite to do so since you use a radeon. Amd is the best choice for a cpu, since the fx 8350 8 core at 4 ghz with 4.2 ghz auto boost is good enough for any game, it would be foolish to choose anything else, especially with what is to come later. Intel has always been first, but amd cpu's are always better in the end, combined with an nvidia geforce gtx graphics card, and you have the best compatibility and reliability for gaming. Period.

Ok please just stop with the Nvidia fan boy behaviour, It's honestly cringe worthy.

And you don't seem to be grasping this Physx implementation properly.

I'll explain again.

A lot of games have Physx CODE in them this is true yes BUT not Physx features i.e hardware acceleration features such as debris, Clothes, Water, Smoke, Fog or particles, These are only present in roughly 50 games, That is FACT and not disputable unless you are blind to facts.

I'm honestly starting to realize I'm talking to someone who doesn't really have all the facts.

AMD make good CPU's yes but if you for 1 second think it would be foolish to choose anything other than AMD then sorry but that is extremely idiotic fan boy behaviour which shows extreme lack of knowledge and to think AMD CPU's are better in the end just confirms this even further which as an adult with technological understanding is not a good thing at all.

Sorry mate but you are completely deluding yourself, I have had AMD and Intel CPU's throughout the years but in the last 4 years not once would I ever even think an AMD CPU is better in the long run, That's just pure ignorance at it's peak.

[commander]

Originally posted by Dicehunter:

Originally posted by commander:

Most already know about how the physx works, so you're already pointing out the obvious.

There's alot more than 50 games, and even those with small portions of physx still do the trick, and I'm always happy to use it, I would think anyone would agree on that.
I am a customer and so are you, but since I am happy with it and so are many customers, I would say that doesn't hurt business all that much, that actually improves, and it's no wonder why, it doesn't alienate anyone but radeon users, so don't talk to me about fan boys.
Which I pointed out in the other comment also.

I have an amd fx 8350 as well, works nice, no need to overclock, not everyone has that kind of money to put out for overclocking to replace or for an intel processor, as the amd processors are the way to go.

You mentioned how I said that I was still using the amd cpu, well of course, obviously, as I said that is what I will always have, as I have always been an amd cpu and nvidia gpu person with the combination, and mostly all games work, I don't have any issues with other games like I've seen others say they have in threads from many forums the past 2 years in steam titles. So answer me that as to why I don't have the issues? Because I know what is best to have for gaming. Nvidia has always been the way it was meant to be played. It's no shock that people were surprised to see that alien: isolation was made with radeon development, when alot already discovered to use an nvidia geforce after what happend to aliens: colonial marines, and a good geforce gtx video card at that, when they had radeon issues with black textures and crashes and other issues as well, so they've had much more than a year and a half to figure that out, as well as from many other games I've recommended the geforce video card for from other game forums in steam over time. So it's no surprise there on what the winner is.

Also you think that I haven't noticed when amd has been slacking? I had heard even before I got the amd fx 8350 near the end of 2012, that they weren't going to be making another processor for a year or more, they have no the 8370 but it's not much more than a cpu auto boost of 4.3 ghz when needed. Also the 9000 series are water cooled but can be air cooled with a really good air cooling fan, but I have been told it still gets hot.
But amd was still right, people were saving alot of money if they were to get the fx 8350 for $200 dollars at the time, compared to intel's overpriced processors, which also were not as good for multitasking as amd's, and my fx 8350 is still good enough to game with even the latest games, even if they say intel's at this very moment is best for gaming and amd for multitasking. That's why I've been dissapointed in amd the past 2 years that have gone by so fast, waiting for them to pull off not only ddr4, but quad channel has been a need for a while since 4 sticks at 32 gigs doesn't allow over 1600 mhz ram speeds on an amd board because of the dual channel only option, unless I was to pull out 2 sticks for 16 gigs. And this ram was not cheap. But also the problem with amd not having pci express x16 3.0 gen3 as well, as I've been waiting for new amd motherboards to come out, and I've had this talk with other gamers before even in games about amd slacking so don't talk to me about it, besides.. you would be a hypocrite to do so since you use a radeon. Amd is the best choice for a cpu, since the fx 8350 8 core at 4 ghz with 4.2 ghz auto boost is good enough for any game, it would be foolish to choose anything else, especially with what is to come later. Intel has always been first, but amd cpu's are always better in the end, combined with an nvidia geforce gtx graphics card, and you have the best compatibility and reliability for gaming. Period.

Ok please just stop with the Nvidia fan boy behaviour, It's honestly cringe worthy.

And you don't seem to be grasping this Physx implementation properly.

I'll explain again.

A lot of games have Physx CODE in them this is true yes BUT not Physx features i.e hardware acceleration features such as debris, Clothes, Water, Smoke, Fog or particles, These are only present in roughly 50 games, That is FACT and not disputable unless you are blind to facts.

I'm honestly starting to realize I'm talking to someone who doesn't really have all the facts.

AMD make good CPU's yes but if you for 1 second think it would be foolish to choose anything other than AMD then sorry but that is extremely idiotic fan boy behaviour which shows extreme lack of knowledge and to think AMD CPU's are better in the end just confirms this even further which as an adult with technological understanding is not a good thing at all.

Sorry mate but you are completely deluding yourself, I have had AMD and Intel CPU's throughout the years but in the last 4 years not once would I ever even think an AMD CPU is better in the long run, That's just pure ignorance at it's peak.

There are some games such as the unreal engine type from around 2010 and on that never had it enabled, you can clearly see when trying to enable it, that it disables the moment you go into some of those games, that is how the developer wanted it, but that did not help the average gamer at all, most actually tell me they were dissapointed when it was disabled, I've been using the unreal engine for more than 15 years, so I should know how to get around it.
Yes I know how hardware acceleration works with the physx, you are telling me things that I already know again.

I think the only facts you have is the hot air fan boy type for radeon video cards and you had to come in here to put in your 2 cents just to have others avoid anything to do with nvidia, which sounds like you want to pull others away from nvidia.

Also to point out, if you look at most games, they come with the logo on the way it's meant to be made, so physx being made for nvidia graphics cards and having version changes alot since the first release, the nvidia graphics cards have been supporting it for years, there's no reason for it not to be used, obviously you don't know what you're talking about.

And as far as an amd cpu being better, of course they are, why would you not have a 4 ghz 8 core processor for $200 dollars, that can multitask and great for multimedia creation or other means, as well as can game at any level, compared to intel's expensive $$$? Exactly, and to make the wiser choice, you have done so yourself or you are still being a complete hypocrite since you own an fx 8350. Clearly you haven't seen the rest of the world as most people cannot afford intel's processors and who would want them when you can mutlitask and broadcast for twitch with games that many want to do that with, and other services like game creation, video editing, server efficiency and much more? Yes exactly.

[Dicehunter]

Originally posted by commander:

And you are just trying to throw people off since you're a radeon user, and you have obviously something against nvidia for reasons to go against physx ever

Originally posted by commander:

I think the only facts you have is the hot air fan boy type for radeon video cards and you had to come in here to put in your 2 cents just to have others avoid anything to do with nvidia, which sounds like you want to pull others away from nvidia.

Seriously ? Are you that much of an idiot ? I mentioned only a few posts up I have 5 x Nvidia cards in my house and only 1 AMD card.

This is a thread about me modding my 780 Ti to be all black - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/191191-guide-modding-your-gtx-780-ti-colour-scheme/

Originally posted by commander:

And as far as an amd cpu being better, of course they are, why would you not have a 4 ghz 8 core processor for $200 dollars, that can multitask and great for multimedia creation or other means, as well as can game at any level, compared to intel's expensive $$$? Exactly, and to make the wiser choice, you have done so yourself or you are still being a complete hypocrite since you own an fx 8350. Clearly you haven't seen the rest of the world as most people cannot afford intel's processors and who would want them when you can mutlitask and broadcast for twitch with games that many want to do that with, and other services like game creation, video editing, server efficiency and much more? Yes exactly.

Core for core AMD CPU's are weaker, Everything an AMD CPU can do an Intel one does faster, Cooler and all while using less energy, I honestly don't understand how the hell you are so ignorant to these facts.

AMD CPU's are good yes, I got one to overclock and play around with it but they can't stand up next to Intel CPU's for single or even multithreaded applications, That's simply fact dude, If AMD were faster than Intel, The AMD chip would be in my main rig.

[commander]

Originally posted by Dicehunter:

Originally posted by commander:

And you are just trying to throw people off since you're a radeon user, and you have obviously something against nvidia for reasons to go against physx ever

Seriously ? Are you that much of an idiot ? I mentioned only a few posts up I have 5 x Nvidia cards in my house and only 1 AMD card.

This is a thread about me modding my 780 Ti to be all black - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/191191-guide-modding-your-gtx-780-ti-colour-scheme/

So then what's the point with the name calling and temper problems? Sounds like a person problem to me, but you were still wrong about physx. I've known many with radeons and nvidia card users as well as I've owned many myself, but radeon is not the way to go, end of story.

Obviously you're not too bright yourself if you think one sided about intel and amd radeons as a combo is going to be the best option, you obviously have no idea about multitasking. If you did, then why are you argueing? I think you just have a temper problem and you can't stand to be wrong about physx, again it's because you use radeon and that's what you chose in the end, your opinion though was false and to throw others off, I was not wrong about that. But to sit here and name call and grow a temper problem only shows and proves me even more right. I guarantee even from your other post that you did admit to physx being eye candy, it doesn't alienate anyone, I've actually enjoyed it for many years and recommend it for most game development, the only fool would have to deny that and show the limitations that you see from Alien:Isolation, I agree the graphics are good in many ways but there are some it lacks, then I found out it was because of the development around a radeon video card, I have never been impressed with what they show in radeon development, any of the technologies into it were sad and turned me away.

[commander]

Originally posted by Dicehunter:

Originally posted by commander:

And you are just trying to throw people off since you're a radeon user, and you have obviously something against nvidia for reasons to go against physx ever

Originally posted by commander:

I think the only facts you have is the hot air fan boy type for radeon video cards and you had to come in here to put in your 2 cents just to have others avoid anything to do with nvidia, which sounds like you want to pull others away from nvidia.

Seriously ? Are you that much of an idiot ? I mentioned only a few posts up I have 5 x Nvidia cards in my house and only 1 AMD card.

This is a thread about me modding my 780 Ti to be all black - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/191191-guide-modding-your-gtx-780-ti-colour-scheme/

Originally posted by commander:

And as far as an amd cpu being better, of course they are, why would you not have a 4 ghz 8 core processor for $200 dollars, that can multitask and great for multimedia creation or other means, as well as can game at any level, compared to intel's expensive $$$? Exactly, and to make the wiser choice, you have done so yourself or you are still being a complete hypocrite since you own an fx 8350. Clearly you haven't seen the rest of the world as most people cannot afford intel's processors and who would want them when you can mutlitask and broadcast for twitch with games that many want to do that with, and other services like game creation, video editing, server efficiency and much more? Yes exactly.

Core for core AMD CPU's are weaker, Everything an AMD CPU can do an Intel one does faster, Cooler and all while using less energy, I honestly don't understand how the hell you are so ignorant to these facts.

AMD CPU's are good yes, I got one to overclock and play around with it but they can't stand up next to Intel CPU's for single or even multithreaded applications, That's simply fact dude, If AMD were faster than Intel, The AMD chip would be in my main rig.

That's sure funny because you are also telling everyone that those that developed and published the amd cpus as well as the customer feedback being wrong about amd beating intel's multitasking? You must have hardware issues with your amd cpu if you think that's the case. Or you have cooling issues clearly, either by your environment around you or your fans.
Amd has always been the better choice, it's cooler and uses less power, as well as cheaper for a 4 ghz 8 core amd 8350 how can you go wrong with that? Most users are going to buy that over an intel anyday, along with an nvidia graphics card, I wouldn't want it any other way, I've seen what both can do, obviously you bluntly think you know everyone since you seem to want to asume that I haven't seen both, you're the one not being reasonable. I have gone by what I've seen and heard, you're going by what you like only, your intel and radeon combo for what you ended up with enjoying in the end, clearly a fan boy situation, just to mislead others into believing something false about physx not being used and alienated.
That's sure funny because all the games I've used work just fine with it, and oh my! They always have. =)
So being a customer myself, I think you would be false considering a huge amount of people out there own an nvidia graphics card and could tell you otherwise about physx. You go around to most of those forums over the web and talk to some nvidia owners that have been true nvidia users more than radeon and ask them about their gaming experiences with physx. Yes there were times they should have put physx in games when they didn't, that's the sad part that alot have been wondering why they haven't. I have had alot of people ask me as well for those games right after I was wondering. I'm not all about graphics, but physx is a nice feature to have.

[Dicehunter]

Originally posted by commander:

So then what's the point with the name calling and temper problems? Sounds like a person problem to me, but you were still wrong about physx. I've known many with radeons and nvidia card users as well as I've owned many myself, but radeon is not the way to go, end of story.

Obviously you're not too bright yourself if you think one sided about intel and amd radeons as a combo is going to be the best option, you obviously have no idea about multitasking. If you did, then why are you argueing? I think you just have a temper problem and you can't stand to be wrong about physx, again it's because you use radeon and that's what you chose in the end, your opinion though was false and to throw others off, I was not wrong about that. But to sit here and name call and grow a temper problem only shows and proves me even more right. I guarantee even from your other post that you did admit to physx being eye candy, it doesn't alienate anyone, I've actually enjoyed it for many years and recommend it for most game development, the only fool would have to deny that and show the limitations that you see from Alien:Isolation, I agree the graphics are good in many ways but there are some it lacks, then I found out it was because of the development around a radeon video card, I have never been impressed with what they show in radeon development, any of the technologies into it were sad and turned me away.

You don't seem to bright either, Quite an idiot infact.

Not once have I been in a temper or mood as you moronically put it I'm simply just stating technological facts and you are adament to ignore facts for some extremely odd reason.

Remember you started flinging around accusations that I was an AMD fanboy, again you started aggro, Not me, You, So get your facts straight, I'm simply stating facts.

Originally posted by commander:

That's sure funny because you are also telling everyone that those that developed and published the amd cpus as well as the customer feedback being wrong about amd beating intel's multitasking? You must have hardware issues with your amd cpu if you think that's the case. Or you have cooling issues clearly, either by your environment around you or your fans.
Amd has always been the better choice, it's cooler and uses less power, as well as cheaper for a 4 ghz 8 core amd 8350 how can you go wrong with that? Most users are going to buy that over an intel anyday, along with an nvidia graphics card, I wouldn't want it any other way, I've seen what both can do, obviously you bluntly think you know everyone since you seem to want to asume that I haven't seen both, you're the one not being reasonable. I have gone by what I've seen and heard, you're going by what you like only, your intel and radeon combo, clearly a fan boy situation, just to mislead others into believing something false about physx not being used and alienated.
That's sure funny because all the games I've used work just fine with it, and oh my! They always have. =)
So being a customer myself, I think you would be false considering a huge amount of people out there own an nvidia graphics card and could tell you otherwise about physx. You go around to most of those forums over the web and talk to some nvidia owners that have been true nvidia users more than radeon and ask them about their gaming experiences with physx. Yes there were times they should have put physx in games when they didn't, that's the sad part that alot have been wondering why they haven't. I have had alot of people ask me as well for those games right after I was wondering. I'm not all about graphics, but physx is a nice feature to have.

Well your behavior confirms it, You're either a teen who is grossly under educated/misinformed, Likes to cause aggro for some very sick reason or an adult who acts like a child, Either way, Good night, I've read enough of your ignorance and idiocy to last quite some time.