computerbaseDirt Rally Benchmark
- Thread starter csbin
- Start date
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
KaRLiToS
Golden Member
- Jul 30, 2010
- 1,918
- 11
- 81
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,674
- 6,247
- 126
KaRLiToS
Golden Member
- Jul 30, 2010
- 1,918
- 11
- 81
You can always tell, because it works properly.
True, Works properly right out of the box, don't need to wait 3-6 months to have proper support, or none at all, aka Batman.
Where a 960/380 are enough for 50-60FPS at 1080p ultra settings, and a 980Ti more or less still leads the charts across the board or ties a Fury X.
A gimpworks game would have that very same 980Ti struggling to do 60FPS at 1080p, not to mention the other cards.
A welcome sight.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
He owned himself with that comment. SLI working on day 1 of release and performance is rock solid on even older cards like 770 2GB until you step up to 1440P. If this is somehow a negative development, please more AMD GE titles.
Even at 1440P, performance is good on 280X, 780, 970, 780Ti, etc. Even lower end CPUs like i3-2100 and FX4300 run this game like butter. What's the problem?
Granted, the graphics aren't impressive at all but at least the performance is smooth sailing and user rating on Steam is 92%.
"Conclusion – Is It Worth Your Money?
Despite being in such an early stage of development, DiRT Rally is the best Codemasters game in over a decade and truly shows what the studio is capable of. The physics model is marvelous and creates a wonderful sense of speed. This combines with the detailed courses and constantly evolving weather system. While there could be more content, it’s still well worth the asking price given the exceptional simulator experience and gorgeous graphics. This is the Codemasters of old producing some of the most enriching and innovative titles ever devised. Well done Codemasters; DIRT Rally is a masterpiece which beautifully honors the memory of Colin McRae." ~ Source
NV wishes GW titles like ProjectCARS were this good.
We are also getting this game on the PC first.
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
GWs running faster on XB1 than 980Ti:
http://wccftech.com/ark-xbox-one-runs-30-45fps-xb1-optimizations-coming-pc-soon/
Lol!
I guess that's what happens when you can integrate it into UE4 games in 1 hour!!!
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-gameworks-and-ue4
1 hour = 12 months of post optimizations
AMD GE = optimized on Day 1!
I think AMD should get more aggressive in their GE program and introduce ray tracing into a AAA game with their next generation products just to sabotage Nvidia ...
Micro-kernel ray tracing would give a serious advantage for AMD since they have tons of compute resources against their competitors ...
AMD really needs to increase their market share and their in consoles so they should really exercise their influence to developers by endorsing them to adopt fully bindless along with asynchronous compute shaders ...
Integrity means nothing as GW still has yet to be deemed anti-competitive by courts. AMD is royally screwing themselves for not capitalizing on their strengths IMO ...
But everyone said Gaming Evolved titles running good on Nvidia/AMD. Looks like AMD gimping Nvidia performance with possibly Forward+, global illumination, unoptimisable open standards but fanboys still blaming Gameworks and Nvidia.
It is hilarious, isnt it? D:
A 290X is 24%-31% faster than a GTX780TI und people are calling this game "well optimized".
Would a GTX780TI be 24%-31% faster they would calling it "unoptimized" like Project Cars.
You don't get the actual problem, so let me spell it out for you.
This game: Heavily favors AMD, but runs good enough on every card at the expected resolution. Seems more like AMD getting a performance benefit than them gimping Nvidia.
Most GameWorks games: Unoptimized trash that run like crap on everything. You need a 980 Ti to get 60FPS at 1080p, and it may still struggle.
You can deny it all you want, but this is reality.
Sure, because most Gameworks games are rally games with nothing but one car and trees.
This game runs "great" because it just a rally game. Rally games have always performed great - Dirt series, Colin etc.
This game runs "great" because it just a rally game. Rally games have always performed great - Dirt series, Colin etc.
Last edited:
nvidia are gimping support for those cards to get you to upgrade to maxwell so that performance deficit is not unexpected or surprising.....
Maxwell cards dont perform better. A GTX980 is on par with a R9 290, a GTX780 is as fast as a 280X...
nVidia is doing nothing. It's Codemaster and AMD who are "gimping support for those cards".
There is no difference between Project Cars and Dirt:Rally.
/edit: BTW, a 280X is 15% faster than a 380X. These AMD's techniques are just unoptimized memory bandwidth features.
nVidia is doing nothing. It's Codemaster and AMD who are "gimping support for those cards".
There is no difference between Project Cars and Dirt:Rally.
/edit: BTW, a 280X is 15% faster than a 380X. These AMD's techniques are just unoptimized memory bandwidth features.
Last edited:
Not the first title were 280X is in the same play pen as the 780 and OG Titan and those games weren't even GE titles......
Fact is, if the 700 series was still nvidia's top dog, the performance deficits you're trying to highlight as AMD gimping nV' s performance simple would not be there or be as large as it is.
There's a big difference, actually: Project Cars is unplayable on most AMD cards, while this is at least playable on the cards it should be playable on. This game is clearly extremely unbalanced, but not in the same way as GameWorks titles. You guys are just ignoring the actual problem with GameWorks titles.
It's not a serious debate from gameworks fanboys. It's a "amd has gaming evolved so it's ok for gameworks to trash performance for amd cards!"
That's all they care about nvidia vs amd.
The fact that gameworks titles need the fastest gpu possible just for 1080p while gaming evolved titles favor amd, but need a midrange card for 1080p from both vendors is lost on them.
They don't care about how playable the games are, just amd vs nvidia.
Some people... 
780ti beats 970 - a welcome change. Other than that, good to see a nice perf from both camps. Great improvement from the beta.
780ti beats 970 - a welcome change. Other than that, good to see a nice perf from both camps. Great improvement from the beta.
Last edited:
GodisanAtheist
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2006
- 8,081
- 9,332
- 136
I would argue AMD's GE program doesn't go far enough. What good is taking the high road if it doesn't get you more sales. Nvidia figured this out long ago, hopefully the Radeon Technologies Group adopts some of their tricks.
The fact that Nvidia users who play this game won't be cursing god and considering the competition due to poor performance, visual artifacts etc is a missed opportunity for AMD.
The fact that Nvidia users who play this game won't be cursing god and considering the competition due to poor performance, visual artifacts etc is a missed opportunity for AMD.
This is a terrible opinion. You like the idea of PC gamers needing two separate $650+ cards to fully enjoy games, and only at 1080p? Screw off. Your opinions on any subject are invalid if you can say stupid things like this.
That's short term thinking. Your customers will start to question the whole platform if there's too much vendor lock-in and competitiveness.
poofyhairguy
Lifer
- Nov 20, 2005
- 14,612
- 318
- 126
Looks about what I expected for a game given away with AMD cards for months.
I probably will get it in a steam sale.
I probably will get it in a steam sale.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter