Download AMD Radeon Software Crimson 16.3.2 driver

mtrai

2016-03-29 02:09

Thanks Undying! I guess the R9 290s do not have that feature. However I did disable ULPS first thing after installing so that might of removed it.

#5251137

TJccBR

2016-03-29 02:57

Guys, what about the performance increase? on Valley Benchmark 1.0 my R9 290 1Ghz make a score of 2312 with 16.3, now with 16.3.2 I got 2456!!! Good job AMD 😀

#5251140

lexer98

2016-03-29 03:05

Thanks bro ! 🙂

Need For Speed™ may experience poor scaling or flickering in AMD Crossfire™ mode. As a work around users can disable the profile through the Radeon™ Settings game manager.

Go %$#"$ yourself AMD ! :bang:

#5251147

The Mac

2016-03-29 04:09

Thanks Undying! I guess the R9 290s do not have that feature. However I did disable ULPS first thing after installing so that might of removed it.

only the 3xx/fury do. its a bios feature. its a bug that it shows up on anything else.

#5251165

PrMinisterGR

2016-03-29 05:56

Well, i live in europe, otherwise i wouldn't mind borrowing either from you. And i got no other gpu lying around. I would but they sell for 400-420 euros, 50 € less than the nano. So i opted for the nano, better tessellation, furyX performance when overclocked and kept cool, and would probably have more value when i sell it later on. I would wait if they were releasing the cards late april or early may, but i predict the cards to come late august since raj mentioned that the cards will be out on time with back to school season.

Won't a Fury make more sense? Beastly cooler, much less aggressive power management. It would probably end up being fasterr and more quiet.

#5251171

haz_mat

2016-03-29 06:58

Anyone try these out with XCOM 2 yet? It runs ok for me on 13.2.1 but there are still stutters, seems like it should be getting better GPU utilization.

#5251186

Passus

2016-03-29 08:12

For the first time ever I got an email from AMD saying these are available lol i came here to check the email was not dodgy as never seen one before :P cheers guru's

#5251189

miiksu

2016-03-29 08:34

3DMark Fire Strike GPU score raised 15.28K > 15.42K. 16.3.1 was my last driver.

#5251195

Passus

2016-03-29 08:58

quite a jump in valley benchmark 2970 16.3.1 and 3305 16.3.2 not bad at all 🙂 EDIT* Firestrike is also showing nice gains from 71xx to 7498

#5251226

Bloodred217

2016-03-29 10:57

I really hope these won't hang in Dragon's Dogma. Nothing above 16.2 works though, so y'know, I'm not holding out much hope here, this is AMD after all and the game isn't a major AAA release, so they may not even know that it exists.

#5251233

Fox2232

2016-03-29 11:28

quite a jump in valley benchmark 2970 16.3.1 and 3305 16.3.2 not bad at all 🙂 EDIT* Firestrike is also showing nice gains from 71xx to 7498

I wondered where people get those boosts from. But it looks like it is mainly improvement for AMD's CPU owners. So it may be improvement in draw calls which they deliver time to time. http://www.3dmark.com/compare/aot/125653/aot/126971 But I am always amazed by how much DX12/Mantle draw calls jump up and down with each driver.

#5251247

Undying

2016-03-29 12:22

Definitely a jump in firestrike score, 8287 standard - 9672 graphics. Getting close to that magic 10k. :P

#5251257

Blackfyre

2016-03-29 13:01

Definitely a jump in firestrike score, 8287 standard - 9672 graphics. Getting close to that magic 10k. :P

I got a jump in Firestrike too with these latest drivers (an increase of 65 points). Compared to 1 year ago I was getting around 7300 in Firestrike on Windows 8.1 (Prior to people on this forum porting the Windows 10 Drivers to Windows 8.1 which had overhead improvements), now with the latest drivers on Windows 10 I'm getting 8063 (the highest I've ever got). Mind you my GPU clock speeds are nowhere near yours.

#5251266

oGow89

2016-03-29 13:41

Won't a Fury make more sense? Beastly cooler, much less aggressive power management. It would probably end up being fasterr and more quiet.

Costs 50 euros more, and for 550€ i could get a gtx 980 ti on ebay. I bid on one last night and backed out last second, didn't want to spend anymore than i was going to for the nano. I think all gpus as of now are overpriced, even the r9 390 compared to when i purchased mine, but i just don't want to pay over 60€ to get the same. Nano is smaller, cute and lighter, and offers new tech and most likely won't bend my pci e slot like a 1kg fury with its heatsink.

#5251272

Undying

2016-03-29 14:01

I got a jump in Firestrike too with these latest drivers (an increase of 65 points). Compared to 1 year ago I was getting around 7300 in Firestrike on Windows 8.1 (Prior to people on this forum porting the Windows 10 Drivers to Windows 8.1 which had overhead improvements), now with the latest drivers on Windows 10 I'm getting 8063 (the highest I've ever got). Mind you my GPU clock speeds are nowhere near yours.

Yeah, same here. When i got this card it was around 7k and now 8.3k. AMD improved GCN cards so much. Looking at the scores your card would probably score 100-200 more if we ware using same clocks due faster CPU on your part.

#5251278

vancook

2016-03-29 14:21

Off or On it does not do anything on my card. Its just there... http://i68.tinypic.com/hskdwj.png

is a bug !! your card dont suport this feature, power eficiency is only for AMD Series 300, like a R9 390 "Power efficiency toggle in Radeon™ Settings is showing up for some unsupported products."

#5251281

THEAST

2016-03-29 14:29

Zero performance increase in Firestrike compared to 16.1.1 and anything in between them, I don't think I should have expected any, though. Compared to 15.11.1, I get 4% better score but chances are I had frame pacing turned on for the test I did with that driver, hence the lower score. I once ran Firestrike with frame pacing turned on using one of the 16.1+ versions and got the same result as the 15.11.1 result. I reckon people with mid and low-end CPUs are getting some performance increase due to AMD lowering the overhead of the driver but for people with OCed i7s, there isn't much to look forward to (other than buying a new GPU).

#5251283

Heat-40

2016-03-29 14:32

these drivers set my fan to manual at 20% had to set back to auto

#5251295

Alessio1989

2016-03-29 15:05

they fix only a few games every time, all others with problems have no chance...

A WHQL driver is usually 2 months old since WHQL tests take some times (the need to repeat each test for each supported devices). Most of "new" fixes come via driver profile, so you cannot expect too much magic 🙂

#5251304

aufkrawall2

2016-03-29 15:26

A WHQL driver is usually 2 months old since WHQL tests take some times (the need to repeat each test for each supported devices).

Uhm, no. WHQL test usually takes 5 days.