• 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.

computerbasePvZ: Garden Warfare 2 Benchmarks

C

csbin

Senior member
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/...-2/2/#diagramm-pvz-garden-warfare-2-1920-1080

AMD Crimson 16.2 beta
Nvidia GeForce 361.91 WHQL


u73ZN.jpg


IaTPJ.jpg


E9xXC.jpg
 
Looks like the game performs well on both platforms but AMD pulling ahead in these newer games is starting to become a trend.
 
It looks like most people can enjoy this game at 1440p maxed out, which is awesome. This game looks like a lot of fun. I might actually end up getting this at some point.
 
Madpacket said:
Looks like the game performs well on both platforms but AMD pulling ahead in these newer games is starting to become a trend.
Click to expand...

They are preparing for Pascal. Maxwell is a little too sharp so they need to blunt the tip of that sword a little.
 
moonbogg said:
They are preparing for Pascal. Maxwell is a little too sharp so they need to blunt the tip of that sword a little.
Click to expand...

This late into the game, is anyone still considering 980 Ti or Fury X?

Time for some Polaris vs Pascal goodness!!! Bring on the next gen!
 
Mercennarius said:
AMD has really been doing a good job on their drivers lately, especially for newer games.
Click to expand...

frostbite. similar result to battlefront. The really well made engines with modern features rock on AMD apparently.


Good_fella said:
Unreal 4 favors Nvidia - not fair.
Frostbite favors AMD - fair.

:hmm:
Click to expand...


because frostbite is a million times better engine. Compare the games you get with it to what you get with unreal. They aren't even in the same league. Unreal is just really popular.
 
Last edited:
Madpacket said:
Looks like the game performs well on both platforms but AMD pulling ahead in these newer games is starting to become a trend.
Click to expand...
Intel Core 7-6700K, Asus Z170-Deluxe, vier Mal vier (4x4) Gigabyte DDR4-Speicher (angesteuert mit DDR4-3.000)
Click to expand...

Has to be considered as well,not a lot of people (who are going to play this game) have this kind of hardware.
Lower systems will have a lot more trouble overcoming AMD's driver overhead.
 
Good_fella said:
Unreal 4 favors Nvidia - not fair.
Frostbite favors AMD - fair.

:hmm:
Click to expand...

- Do people really say this?

The only argument I could follow for this is Epic integrated NV tech into their engine (which is a good move by NV, getting in on the ground floor) and the frostbyte engine being brand agnostic as far as third party plug-ins.
 
railven said:
This late into the game, is anyone still considering 980 Ti or Fury X?



Time for some Polaris vs Pascal goodness!!! Bring on the next gen!
Click to expand...


I am, but I bet I'm in the minority. I don't care about anything above 1080p however I want to turn the AA, AF, and all the other goodies at this resolution.
 
GodisanAtheist said:
- Do people really say this?

The only argument I could follow for this is Epic integrated NV tech into their engine (which is a good move by NV, getting in on the ground floor) and the frostbyte engine being brand agnostic as far as third party plug-ins.
Click to expand...

I could name them but... Member call out 3..2..1...
 
make it 50%-60% to be fair

and on those super duper clocked ones it goes on 80%-90% not even gonna mention the ones running on liquid helium they go OVER 9000%
 
GodisanAtheist said:
- Do people really say this?

The only argument I could follow for this is Epic integrated NV tech into their engine (which is a good move by NV, getting in on the ground floor) and the frostbyte engine being brand agnostic as far as third party plug-ins.
Click to expand...

The Unreal engine has, at least historically, not performed all that well on AMD hardware. Their CEO is a huge Nvidia fanboy. They don't hesitate to laud praise on Nvidia and are usually the first to implement anything Nvidia has to offer.
 
airfathaaaaa said:
make it 50%-60% to be fair

and on those super duper clocked ones it goes on 80%-90% not even gonna mention the ones running on liquid helium they go OVER 9000%
Click to expand...

I know how much it hurts to buy Fury X over GTX 980 Ti. I did not go through that experience ,however, i can understand the pain.
 
desprado said:
I know how much it hurts to buy Fury X over GTX 980 Ti. I did not go through that experience ,however, i can understand the pain.
Click to expand...
no you cant only a biased person will actually measure a refrence card with non refrence one

remember back to the days the people were crying when they started measuring 290trix with 780ti? yeah...seems legit eh:sneaky:
 
moonbogg said:
It looks like most people can enjoy this game at 1440p maxed out, which is awesome. This game looks like a lot of fun. I might actually end up getting this at some point.
Click to expand...
Check out the first one! The characters and abilities are a lot more balanced.
 
I played the first one and it was fun for a while but got boring eventually. Havent tried this one. I always thought it was weird that they used Frostbyte for it. Seems like serious overkill. Does this game support Mantle?
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I played the first one and it was fun for a while but got boring eventually. Havent tried this one. I always thought it was weird that they used Frostbyte for it. Seems like serious overkill. Does this game support Mantle?
Click to expand...

Frostbite allows you to downscale graphics down to NES levels which is exactly what you want for a online game, the easier it is to run on crappy cards the bigger your user base.

Also one of the best points of frostbite and why I think it's better that unreal,unreal games tend to have a lot of effects,or graphics stuff in general, that you just can't disable ,look at Xcom2 it runs like crap because even at minimalistic settings there are a lot of particles and fog (of war) and what have you that you can't disable.
 
desprado said:
OP always post AMD winning benchmarks and do not even bother to post this because AMD is losing in this one.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Plant...5633/Specials/Technik-Test-Benchmark-1187424/

As i said 100 times that plz do not post GTX 980 Ti reference benchmarks at stock. Mostly people buy custom GTX 980 Ti which are 20% to 30% faster then Fury X .
Click to expand...

So they took a custom 980 TI, then OC'd it even more (its 33% OC'd from stock) is 25% faster @ 1080p, 16% faster @ 1440p, and only 11% faster @ 4k... from a 33% Overclock.

Whats the power usage and heat like from that sucker? A 980 TI @ 25% OC was already using more power than Fury X according to Anandtech's testing.
 
Bacon1 said:
So they took a custom 980 TI, then OC'd it even more (its 33% OC'd from stock) is 25% faster @ 1080p, 16% faster @ 1440p, and only 11% faster @ 4k... from a 33% Overclock.

Whats the power usage and heat like from that sucker? A 980 TI @ 25% OC was already using more power than Fury X according to Anandtech's testing.
Click to expand...

Huur Duur power usage only matters when comparing stock clocked cards. You see any argument that make NVIDIA appear superior to AMD is what matters. Derp derp
 
Bacon1 said:
So they took a custom 980 TI, then OC'd it even more (its 33% OC'd from stock) is 25% faster @ 1080p, 16% faster @ 1440p, and only 11% faster @ 4k... from a 33% Overclock.

Whats the power usage and heat like from that sucker? A 980 TI @ 25% OC was already using more power than Fury X according to Anandtech's testing.
Click to expand...

Which clock are they using for that 1330mhz number? Base? Boost? Max Boost? Average in game?

Even though it's "clocked" at 1000mhz, a reference 980ti will run furmark at 1189mhz

The evga card they have comes with a base clock of 1102mhz. I can almost guarantee they are not running a +228mhz OC. I don't think I've seen an OC that high and it would absolutely require watercooling to keep from melting a hole in the earth.

It seems more likely they are listing the in game boost that they see from the card, which is in line with what I see on my evga 980ti sc at factory clocks.

If my guess is true, we're looking at a 10% factory OC 980ti vs stock Fury X. I'm sure pcgameshardware.de would be happy to test 10% OC Fury X, if one existed...

Edit: Anand found that a 25% OC gave a 20% improvement in performance at 4k. If we were to add the results of an imaginary 21% OC'd evga sc 980ti (33% OC from reference ), with a stock evga 980ti sc being 100% in the chart, our unicorn 980ti would be 117%.

That would give it a 28% edge over the Fury X at 4k.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top