• 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 beta benchmarks

H

Head1985

Golden Member
Again non reference cards.Pretty good results from AMD.Furyx is only 5% behind aftermarket GTX1070 in 2k.
RX480 slighly faster than 1060.
I am not sure about 1070 performance(no 980TI or 1080 results).But if is aftermarket 1070 only 5% faster than reference furyx.Its probably again pretty bad and 980TI will be again faster.
full review here http://www.pcgameshardware.de/For-H...t-Zeit-Dauer-Anmeldung-noch-moeglich-1219164/

2k
2017-01-271xwjzy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Since this is a closed beta there is scope for performance improvement from both GPU vendors before the game launches roughly 3 weeks from now. So we cannot conclude that AMD cards are faster than their Nvidia counterparts. The good thing is this game uses the Anvil Next 2.0 game engine which is also used in the Tom Clancy Rainbow Six, Tom Clancy Ghost Recon and Assassins Creed series of games and AMD cards have generally been slower in past Assassins Creed titles than their Nvidia counterparts. The performance in this game bodes well for Polaris and Vega cards in Ubisoft titles going forward.
 
Interesting showing here:

A RX 480 @ 1435MHz vs. GTX 970 @ 1555MHz vs. GTX 1060 @ 2100MHz


On another note, I really appreciate that PCGamesHardware shows actual boost clock speed of each card. I don't know why reviewers fail to do this.
 
Their benchmarks are weird to me.

For example, I have that exact XFX 470 and its clocks are 1256 MHz not 1160 Mhz. I would say its just a mislabel but no way in my experience does my 470 lag behind my 480 that much. With a little OC the 470 feels like the same card.
 
poofyhairguy said:
Their benchmarks are weird to me.

For example, I have that exact XFX 470 and its clocks are 1256 MHz not 1160 Mhz. I would say its just a mislabel but no way in my experience does my 470 lag behind my 480 that much. With a little OC the 470 feels like the same card.
Click to expand...

Yeah not sure where those clocks are coming from either. The black edition is usually XFX's pre-OC'd edition.

I don't see any under 1226 stock:

http://xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series#*
 
Head1985 said:
Maybe throttling
Click to expand...

No way. Can't be, unless it is a major user error.

This card has one of the nicest coolers I have ever seen in a $200 card. It BLOWS my Red Devil 470 off the map on temps, it is probably the best 470 on the market.

In my testing it is less than 10% slower than my reference 480 (that I have tweaked with undervolting but no overclocking), and when OCed it goes toe-to-toe with the 480.

Something screwy is going on.
 
Hell this Core 2 Quad 9450 still has some balls 😉

For Honor BETA : Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 3.2GHz + RX 480 8GB 1338MHz

 
Yea i havent had any real low fps drops even with Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 3.2GHz

For Honor BETA : Q9450@3,2GHz + RX480 1338/2200MHz 1080p Extreme preset no Blur

 
The game is a fighter, yeah? 4v4 With some trash AI thrown in a small arena. If it was on the scale of Oblivion, yeah I'd expect some CPU bottlenecks, but an arena game? Nah.
 
MajinCry said:
The game is a fighter, yeah? 4v4 With some trash AI thrown in a small arena. If it was on the scale of Oblivion, yeah I'd expect some CPU bottlenecks, but an arena game? Nah.
Click to expand...

Yeah its like a moba but over the shoulder combat vs the more common top-down.
 
SirDinadan said:
Our analysis didn't reveal any problems with the RX480 minimum frame rates, the frame time graphs are smooth enough as well - 1080p/Extreme preset w/ FX8370.
Click to expand...

Thanks for testing that. I've always thought that GN's results were skewed low for AMD since they are constantly behind compared with any other review. I really think something is broken with their AMD testing with how many issues they had vs yours with a much weaker CPU even. I wonder if they don't have xbox recording or something else interfering with their test setup.
 
Bacon1 said:
Thanks for testing that. I've always thought that GN's results were skewed low for AMD since they are constantly behind compared with any other review. I really think something is broken with their AMD testing with how many issues they had vs yours with a much weaker CPU even. I wonder if they don't have xbox recording or something else interfering with their test setup.
Click to expand...
Capturing, processing and visualizing frame time data is really time consuming and if everything is working as intended (no stutter or sudden drops) then it's really not worth the work as 99% of the users really don't have a clue about what is going on in the graphs.
On the other hand, if you have something weird, it's the only proper way to showcase the issue - don't know why they didn't include some evidence of it in their video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top