• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[benchmarks] The Division - Steam Release

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fine for this game to be demanding. Taken as a whole, this is the best looking game I've played. The lighting is incredibly good. HBAO+ is not that hard on performance, it's the other shadow settings with PCSS and that new one that cost a lot of FPS to activate. I ended up leaving that one on ultra to get a mostly steady 90+ fps.
 
Definitely go for it and have fun 😉

Might do a comparison of the midrange for the last 3 gens using Sapphire cards (best coolers).

AMD should change their reference card system.
They should dub a card the reference card. Someone will make a blower card for OEMs/WC enthusiasts. If there is a market it for it, it will be made. Although I see better coolers than reference blower coolers for cheaper than the blower cooler cards ANYWAY, so really I think that argument that we need blower cards for WC enthusiasts is a joke.
 
Might do a comparison of the midrange for the last 3 gens using Sapphire cards (best coolers).

AMD should change their reference card system.
They should dub a card the reference card. Someone will make a blower card for OEMs/WC enthusiasts. If there is a market it for it, it will be made. Although I see better coolers than reference blower coolers for cheaper than the blower cooler cards ANYWAY, so really I think that argument that we need blower cards for WC enthusiasts is a joke.

Sell it naked for WC or bust.
 
Anyway, I just upgraded from an HDD to a SSD for my game and storage drive and my average FPS jumped from 64 to 73.5 according to the Benchmark. I am not sure why. I haven't had much time to see if I noticed any difference in game yet. I suspect I wont notice any difference.

I haven't noticed much difference in game play with the SSD even though the benchmark suggests I am getting almost 10 extra frames per second.

Even though my system plays the game decently at ultra settings, I've been playing the game at lower settings. I actually used the GeForce Experience optimized presets (I know, I know...) and honestly, there is not that much of a difference in graphics quality between the ultra preset and the settings I am using now. It actually looks cleaner and clearer IMO. But the game play is smooth as butter anywhere between 120 to 80 fps. I am going to make some more based off of the GE optimized settings though.
 
Techspot results:

You can find which models they used by clicking on the list of GPUs tested in the first page.

The 970 and 980 are Gigabyte G1 models that are known to boost to ~1.4ghz out of the box. The 960

The 390 and 390X are clocked at the stock 1050mhz. The 380 is clocked at a stock 1ghz.

Ultra_1080p.png


Ultra_1600p.png


High_4K.png


CPU test: amazing that an open world game with really good environmental destruction and bullet physics is so very light on CPUs.

CPU_01.png
 
Last edited:
motherofgod.jpg


I feel stupid for selling my 7950 for peanuts.

Heh, amazing that such an old card is still capable in modern games with good settings.

High actually looks 99% identical to Ultra when you watch comparisons. And the 7950 has a massive OC potential to boot, bringing up above 7970 Ghz performance and more. My old 7950 @ 1.1ghz = 7970Ghz ed in performance. 🙂

High_1080p.png
 
This is definitely the best looking game I've ever played. The lighting plus the amount of detail is extremely impressive at times.
 
It looks way better in motion honestly. The weather effects are astounding at times. The fog, the heavy blizzards, the sunlight in the morning, really add to the game.
 
This is definitely the best looking game I've ever played. The lighting plus the amount of detail is extremely impressive at times.

yeah, it's been graphically downgraded compared against the early E3 videos, but the game still looks good
 
yeah, it's been graphically downgraded compared against the early E3 videos, but the game still looks good

For me at least, that is a non issue. I already have to back down a few settings to maintain ~60fps on my 980ti @ 1440p. I don't think my system could handle any more eye candy.
 
The game really looks absolutely fantastic. I'm blown away by how low the CPU requirements are by the graph. Especially because the object density in the game is the highest I've ever seen by a mile. There must be sorcery at work in their engine. And it still looks great and runs great at lower settings if you dont have the grunt. Had a buddy with a 2x270 CF w/ 2GB VRAM though that was really struggling at times so it may need a good amount of VRAM (3+) for even medium settings
 
Seriously?? This looks nothing like their promo videos. The original crysis looked almost as good as this and that was 10 years ago.

ALso its a little unrealistic, you gotta shoot guys like 20 times to kill them.
Looks a little cartoony for me graphically.
It's more of a rail shooter, I like open more explorable worlds.
 
Last edited:
Seriously?? This looks nothing like their promo videos. The original crysis looked almost as good as this and that was 10 years ago.

ALso its a little unrealistic, you gotta shoot guys like 20 times to kill them.
Looks a little cartoony for me graphically.
It's more of a rail shooter, I like open more explorable worlds.

You should play the game. Almost none of what you are saying is correct.

Some guys do take a long time to kill but that is a design decision because it is a Destiny/mmo style game.
 
Back
Top