Quoting: tuubiWell, I bought an MSI Armor RX580 8G a few months back, and I actually avoid playing anything too GPU-heavy because of the hellish noise it makes, so I wouldn't bet on it. There's also an unhealthy, intermittent rattle coming from the bearings already. This is probably the first and the last MSI product I'll ever buy.
Weird thing is, I couldn't find a single review that had bad things to say about the heatsink back when I bought it. Now there seems to be a new version of the card/heatsink though, so maybe they made it better. Doesn't help me or Mohandevir or course.

This cooler is well-known on the AMD subreddit for being really bad.
The thing is, it's actually not awful (at least with a lower powered RX 570) if you undervolt/underclock the GPU a little AND have good case airflow.

That said my GPU experiences have been the following:
- few (used) high-end ASUS GPUs: good experience, no problems
That said their entry-level designs are a shame and absolutely terrible, and their high-end ones are overpriced. So I personally wouldn't buy an Asus GPU new.
- quite some MSI GPUs: not much real problems but always noisy.
I've decided to avoid MSI from now on.
- quite some Gigabyte GPUs: not much real problems and never noisy
I've decided to buy Gigabyte for the foreseeable future

Edit: oops forgot to add: the above is for NVidia GPUs!
Asus / MSI / Gigabyte will often reuse their NVidia cooler design as is for AMD GPUs (they don't want to invest as much R&D for AMD because sales are traditionally lower). So the cooler design can indeed end up being awful on an AMD GPU.
Sapphire/XFX don't have this problem as they only do AMD GPUs.
But Sapphire often cheapens out on component quality, I personally don't really trust them.
XFX seems meh from what I've read.
Unfortunately there's no EVGA equivalent on the red side.
That might change with the gen after Navi if AMD GPU department pulls out a Ryzen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlAMD claim they did, and I don't see why they would make that up.

You really take what a company says at face value?

Quoting: ShmerlIf you want more details, see overview of their new microarch. They basically put people who worked on optimizing Zen to work on RDNA. Their focus was to optimize power consumption explicitly. So Nvidia lost their edge now, but as with Zen vs Intel, it will take a few iterations to polish stuff. With Zen it took them 3 generations to start beating Intel point blank.

No AMD didn't caught up to NVidia. From AMD's own numbers Navi has slightly lower power efficiency than Turing even with a full node advantage! (7nm vs 12nm)
From all the rumours I've seen it doesn't seem like AMD will be able to beat Intel in gaming performance with Zen2. Not that it will matter much given the current horrid price of Intel cpus and the likely small performance difference.

Also AMD vs NVidia is way different than AMD vs Intel.
Intel sat there basically doing (almost) nothing for years and Intel also has a very BIG problem with its fabs.
On the other hand NVidia didn't stay idle and kept on improving gen after gen. Nvidia is also fabless just like AMD.

Quoting: ShmerlAre you even answering my comment? I already said it above. Nvidia has a bad history of support when it comes to drivers.

You mean the awful support history that made NVidia the only sane choice on Linux until AMD released Polaris 3 years ago?

On the other hand AMD has stellar support with eg my 2200G that kept hard locking with Firefox just a few months ago (it probably still does but I've upgraded to an RX 570 in the meantinme).
AMD also splendidly managed to support their own Freesync on Linux after NVidia did.

But where AMD shines the most is in Vulkan support: you get 3 drivers for the price of one! Isn't that great?! Of course, AMD doesn't support the main Vulkan driver that everyone uses but that's just nitpicking!

I also do love AMD support for features like Zero fan rpm at idle: you just have to install a third party tool (fancontrol), change the code to make it behave properly and maybe you'll get that feature working! NVidia is so boring with it working perfectly without any additional tweaking!

Sorry for the rant but I've grown quite tired of AMD GPUs on Linux lately.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorneThey said don't want Arch nor Debian.

Source?
They did say they're fed up with Debian tooling but they've not stated they don't want Debian itself.

In my opinion:

• OpenSuse: tumbleweed is a rolling distro and you don't want that for mainstream. Leap is only supported for 18 months that's way too short


• Arch based distro: come on, be serious, we're talking mainstream here


• Clear Linux: nope, rolling and controlled by a company that could shut it down without warning


• Centos or derived distro: with'ppas', why not. Still controlled by Redhat but Redhat has a good track record unlike Canonical. I still doubt Valve would want to be at the mercy of a company though


• Debian: most logical choice. Stable and with a really good track record, not vendor-controlled. Main problem is indeed some tooling is really showing its age. Apt was awesome back in the days but it's lackluster nowadays. Maybe Valve can contribute improvements?


• Ubuntu: Canonical has showed once again they can't be trusted. Going with a derived distro (like PopOs) would still be vulnerable to Canonical nonsense

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I wanted to buy it unfortunately it's not on steam (or GOG) and you need a Paypal account to buy it!
Like WTF!
It seems these days it's impossible to make a guest payment with Paypal.
I really hate Paypal :><:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Dunc

Quoting: liamdaweDown to one FPS?! Holy cow and I thought it performed badly on my end.

In the tutorial, yes, although it varied wildly and that was absolutely the worst case. On the planet it's okay. Not great, but okay.

I assume it's because the tutorial is basically built entirely from construction parts. They seem to be where the problem lies (a Ehvis says, it doesn't seem to be culling properly, so what you're actually looking at bears no relation to what framerate you might expect).

You might want to try with proton: I get a solid 50-60fps in 1920x1080 with high settings on the planet (GPU limited).
Though I've not played long enough under proton to see if there's still big performance drops when building lots of things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Thanks I didn't know NMS supported mods.

There are indeed mods that seem to improve planets diversity and personality to some degree.
But there's no such thing for space stations :(

Also the building really pales compared to Planet Nomads: it's like Playmobil vs Lego

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdaweTo each their own. NMS fills me wonder, Planet Nomads does not and looks like it never will. Such a let down.

You're right.
That said, I've read there are some plans to increase variety in NMS (planets and space stations) so I may very well end up changing my mind in the future. Who knows.

On topic, I just relaunched Planet Nomads and I must admit you're right: it's a buggy mess on Linux.
The save game feature doesn't work at all.

Fortunately the game seems to work perfectly with Proton.
Thanks Valve and Philip Rebohle!

But we shouldn't have to work around such huge bugs in the first place.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: gurvI strongly disagree about recommending NMS instead of Planet Nomads.
Having played both, I can tell you Planet Nomads is way more interesting than NMS.
NMS gets dull very quickly because every planet and every solar system feels so generic (the exactly identical space station interior doesn't really help with that).

I will respectfully disagree strongly. I won't get into a long debate about it but this is an incredibly inferior product when compared with NMS which continues to evolve with huge updates. NMS has incredibly different planets, I've never not even once visited a planet that was the same in it. Planet Nomads is the same every time and it's an unpolished mess.

In NMS, the planets all differ in some regard but the general feel of planets within the same biome is identical.
And it's really bland.
I've been thoroughly disappointed by NMS: sure it's infinite but it's infinite blandness.
And the building part is really lackluster.

I know it's a pet peeve of mine but I also can't stand that the space stations are always the same (interior wise). That's immersion-breaking level for me.

Edit: in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is that the grind in NMS is all too obvious while I have the feeling to actually construct something, make progress in Planet Nomads. And that makes all the difference for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I strongly disagree about recommending NMS instead of Planet Nomads.

Having played both, I can tell you Planet Nomads is way more interesting than NMS.
NMS gets dull very quickly because every planet and every solar system feels so generic (the exactly identical space station interior doesn't really help with that).

The building and discovery is much better in Planet Nomads, provided you have some creativity and like building and optimizing things.

Unfortunately, I must admit that Planet Nomads is plagued by performance problems that probably stem from their database storage (sqlite). This is what made me stop playing, but I still got 140hours out of it so can't complain.
And I will probably try to revisit it and check if performance is better (especially when I'll have my shiny new Ryzen 3000 series cpu :P)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hey Liam, why no € prices in the article?

View this comment - View article - View full comments