• 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.

For Honor benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Happy to see SLI support out of the box. Looks like a ~40% performance boost at 4k and 1440p. I love hack and slash games so I may pick this one up pending reviews on release day.
 
It seems more like a twist on fighting games than hack and slash. Not perfectly like Street Fighter obviously, but in the sense that you have moves with different properties and reading and reacting to your opponent is important. Some modes are like MOBAs, but still have the PvP fighting aspect.
 
In Alpha and Beta i found duels very demanding, you always had to react and anticipated your opponents moves and act accordingly. Depending on the map you had to change your strategy as well on how to fight (defend first attack later or the opposite etc etc). I also believe low latency connections are king for this game but i couldnt see my or my opponents latency. 4 vs 4 was nice but it needs a lot of tactical and coordination from each team member in order to win.
 
Bacon1 said:
They are using full system power not just GPU power alone.

perf/watt gets worse as you OC
Click to expand...

Subtract OC system power from non-OC system power. OMG so hard. 20 some odd watts to overclock a GTX 1070 and get 10-12% performance. 50ish watts to overclock a 980 TI and get 20-25% performance. As I wrote out (because I did the EASY math but didn't show my work since it shouldn't be necessary), efficiency only goes down by a small percentage.
Bacon1 said:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_Z/27.html

http://i.imgur.com/xyuTnwO.png

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-10.html
Click to expand...

Custom AIB after market cards over-engineer power delivery systems, multiple fans consuming extra board power, and thus almost always consume way more power and have way less perf/w than reference models, regardless of clock speeds. If you're going to show AIB cards, then show the power consumption of an AIB card when it is at out-of-the-box and when it is manually OC'd, like this: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/05/asus_rog_strix_geforce_gtx_1070_o8ggaming_review/10, 23 watts, which is about a 14-15% increase on power consumption over a typical over-engineered AIB 1070 @ ~165 watts) for another 10% in power. OH NO! The efficiency drop is 5%! Whatever will we do with all that " power usage goes crazy when OCing."???

When AIB's don't go overboard on these items we end up with this for efficiency:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1070_SC/24.html

Bacon1 said:
And you talked about how its linear... completely wrong:
Click to expand...

It's not wrong. Your chart is showing performance vs. power consumption. I never said performance scales linearly power consumption (although in the case of maxwell and Pascal, it's not too far off). Mhz % increase drives power up linearly. Look up Idontcare posts, he is way way more knowledgeable than you can ever imagine to be and he lays it out pretty good.

Bacon1 said:
I'm not going to continue this discussion as its off topic. If you want to provide some OC results for For Honor along with the power consumption differences please do so.
Click to expand...

It's probably best that you follow your own advice and don't continue this discussion. You're grasping at straws in your attempts to distort facts / move goal posts in an attempt to discredit what is plain to see.

Bacon1 said:
The only thing thats wrong is saying that there is no extra power consumption
Click to expand...

Making up what other people are saying to try and validate yourself. Nice.
 
AMD just has to pull another 7950. 800MHz card that could typically OC 33-50% (golden samples even higher). Or you're right and they can always do the Fury X, 1050MHz card that typically OC's to a lower MHz number than the 7950, never mind measuring in percentages. The company can make whatever decision they want, even if it's bone-headed (7950 at a low clock was idiotic, it just made the GTX 580, 660 Ti, and 670 seem better than they really were). But I will admit it's unlikely to see AMD OC more when they have the technological disadvantage (performance per mm^2, watt, TFLOP).
 
crisium said:
AMD just has to pull another 7950. 800MHz card that could typically OC 33-50% (golden samples even higher). Or you're right and they can always do the Fury X, 1050MHz card that typically OC's to a lower MHz number than the 7950, never mind measuring in percentages. The company can make whatever decision they want, even if it's bone-headed (7950 at a low clock was idiotic, it just made the GTX 580, 660 Ti, and 670 seem better than they really were). But I will admit it's unlikely to see AMD OC more when they have the technological disadvantage (performance per mm^2, watt, TFLOP).
Click to expand...

Both my 7950's did over 1200MHz, but the best one did 1320MHz. My 7970 GHz does 1300MHz @ 1.3v as well. I miss the Tahiti days... Awesome GPUs for overclocking. Though I will say the 980TI is an amazing overclocker as well.
 
It isn't that a card SHOULD have high OC headroom it's all about max OC vs max OC and when we do it like that AMD cards fall further behind than what we typically see in benchmarks hence why they are not an accurate representation. The Fury cards in particular are the most maxed out reference cards we have seen in years and yet people keep trying to make them look better by comparing with reference Nvidia cards.
 
Only three of the posts on this page have anything to do with this game. Keep it up and you won't be posting in this thread anymore.

AT Moderator ElFenix
 
crisium said:
It seems more like a twist on fighting games than hack and slash. Not perfectly like Street Fighter obviously, but in the sense that you have moves with different properties and reading and reacting to your opponent is important. Some modes are like MOBAs, but still have the PvP fighting aspect.
Click to expand...

I just played the free beta, but I doubt much has changed. It's literally Mount And Blade: Warband's combat with fancier animations and combos. And since it has controller support, it's waaaaaay easier to not suck completely at it.

Big problem is that it's got the exact same free-to-play game design as Total War Arena, with a £40 price tag on top. I'd pay £10 for the game no problem, but £40? It's not exactly the modern successor to Daggerfall.

The game ran fine on my 7850 2GB. Didn't measure the FPS, but it only felt like it dropped below my refresh rate when playing the Dominion mode. Too many NPCs on screen.
 
Good results by 980TI.RX480 and 1060 have same performance
2017-02-15bese0.jpg
 
I played the beta and it didn't quite tick a checkbox for me to purchase it. It did run very well though and that was a surprise

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
After playing the beta -
Game looks great, and they did a pretty outstanding job on flowing animations together to keep it looking smooth. Definitely not an easy task. The player models look fantastic too. PC controls felt very clumsy, definitely a game to plug a controller in for. Performance was solid on 2x290, but this is another game where CF didn't work right away. I dont expect it will for another 3 months. I probably wont be getting the game because the skill cap seems very high and I just dont have the time or the will power to get good at it, and i wouldn't have fun getting beat on and losing. Also I'm just not interested in grinding all the content in the game to be available. I get tired of paying $60 and not having access to the game I payed for short of 30 hours of grinding

Graphically a very impressive release in no small part due to animation and model quality.
 
Usage on both my cards were in the 90s at 4k. However, I was probably getting around 40-50% extra performance due to the second based on benchmarks seen here which is still great considering the game was in beta.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
RX 470, 50-66 FPS range at 1080p. That's really begging for the cheap 470 + Freesync combo.

I still don't know why sites that bother to do over 100 runs like this, but can't grab just a handful of older mid-range or modern low-end to test Medium or High settings at 1080p instead of all maxed.

Thanks for showing us the 750 Ti gets 14-18 FPS at 1440p max and RX 460 2GB gets 8-10 FPS at 4K max. Definitely better to use your time to do that run then lower the settings for cards like these.

"Since the game seems well optimized, we didn't find it necessary to test many quality presets and instead focused on including every graphics card we had on hand."

Oh come on. 😛
 
Last edited:
AMD already added CF in the last driver update. So this game basically launching with both CF and SLI, which is pretty rare these days
 
Ohh the 980 Ti is faster than a 1070 in a newer game, what I am missing here ? not that I am complaining of course 😀
 
Jaydip said:
Ohh the 980 Ti is faster than a 1070 in a newer game, what I am missing here ? not that I am complaining of course 😀
Click to expand...
You're missing that its an anomaly as both cards are about equal in most game review benches. You will always find a card (whether from NV or AMD) where in some odd game that it performs a little better vs other cards close to it.
 
Jaydip said:
Ohh the 980 Ti is faster than a 1070 in a newer game, what I am missing here ? not that I am complaining of course 😀
Click to expand...
You missing that pcgameshardware testing aftermarket cards.
980TI runs there at 1330Mhz but in 99% other reviews they test only reference 980TI which runs at 1050Mhz.Thats why 980TI is faster than 1070 in pcgameshardware benchmarks.

Btw its not anomaly..aftermarket 980Ti is 5-10% faster in most games than aftermarket 1070.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top