• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Forbes: 'Gears of War: Ultimate Edition' On PC Is A Disaster For AMD Radeon Gamers

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,632
593
136
It does not appear to like GCN 1.2. The 380X looks terrible, getting utterly killed by the 280X, and the Fury X is a mess higher than 1080. GCN 1.0 outperforming Kepler. Hawaii seems to be performing fine with 780 series and 970, outside of the minimums at 1440p.
 

Udgnim

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2008
3,654
83
91
other than porting it to DX12

what was updated graphics wise?

I'd honestly expect 60+ FPS @ 1440 from Hawaii / Maxwell GPUs considering how old GoW is
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,587
243
106
GameGPU actually seem to have tested the 2007 version at 4K/VHQ and everything from the 970 upwards just pegs at 62 which must be a hard limit :)

Looking at the game GPU charts, even the 290/x aren't doing well at 2560x1440 resolution. Their maximum frame rates are OK - neatly between a 970 and 80 - but their minimum frame rates are downright terrible.

Guess there's a reason they're recommending AMD people don't play above 1080, but goodness knows what they've done to get here!

Seriously hope this isn't indicative of things going forwards :( Especially with two fairly big new architectures coming quite soon.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,116
785
136
GameGPU actually seem to have tested the 2007 version at 4K/VHQ and everything from the 970 upwards just pegs at 62 which must be a hard limit :)

Looking at the game GPU charts, even the 290/x aren't doing well at 2560x1440 resolution. Their maximum frame rates are OK - neatly between a 970 and 80 - but their minimum frame rates are downright terrible.

Guess there's a reason they're recommending AMD people don't play above 1080, but goodness knows what they've done to get here!

Seriously hope this isn't indicative of things going forwards :( Especially with two fairly big new architectures coming quite soon.
The minimums at 1440p are terrible for the 290(X), but even the averages aren't great. There's all kinds of weirdness in those numbers though. For instance, the averages for the 290 are only 12% higher than a 280X. A 3GB 7970 is only 5% faster than a 2GB 7870, while that 7870 is 10% faster than a 7950.

In its current state, I'm not sure any meaningful performance trends can really be taken from this, other than don't waste your money here.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
560
126

Mahigan

Senior member
Aug 22, 2015
573
0
0
Its rather the developer than AMD. The issue with Fury is that its based on GCN 1.2. Remember Tonga and BF4/Thief with Mantle?

That's the kicker with low level APIs like this. Its really going to be fun with new uarchs and "older" games.

This game is only optimized for GCN 1.1 and possible somewhat GCN 1.0. GCN 1.2, Kepler, Maxwell, all in the trash. 8GB 390/390X owners really seem to be long term console port winners.



Yes, and imagine the patch for GTX980TI how far ahead it will pull.
The GTX 980 Ti is already optimized for the game. Game Ready driver already released by NV and the game devs worked closely with NV (hence the inclusion of gameworks HBAO+).
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,587
243
106
How is the 960 performing worse with 4 GB than with 2?
Error margins :)

It might be real mess in a lot of ways but the NV cards (even the 7xx stuff) do at least seem to be quite logically arranged. Wonder what the allusion to stuttering on a 980ti could have been?! Not frame rates, or min frame rates.
 
Last edited:

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
560
126
Error margins :)

It might be real mess in a lot of ways but the NV cards (even the 7xx stuff) do at least seem to be quite logically arranged. Wonder what the allusion to stuttering on a 980ti could have been?! Not frame rates, or min frame rates.
Dunno, but the video over at GameGPU didn't show any stuttering which surprised me.

Some of the youtube vids I saw of 980 Ti users didn't show stuttering.

This game is definitely weird. I really want to buy it, but I really don't want to spend more time trying to figure out issues than playing.

Wait and see time, I got other stuff I can do (sort of, haha).
 
Last edited:

PPB

Golden Member
Jul 5, 2013
1,118
168
106
Yet another unpolished gameworks turd, who would have tought.

Nvidia, pls stahp, you are making a joke out of pc gaming.
 

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
528
106
Same way a 7870 is 10% faster than a 7950 @ 1440p. :p
At least there I can see some ludicrously poor handling of differences between the chips causing that. It's the same thing with more memory, what have they done with this game? D:
 

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,632
593
136
At least there I can see some ludicrously poor handling of differences between the chips causing that. It's the same thing with more memory, what have they done with this game? D:
Right, the 7870 has 25% more pixel fillrate than the 800MHz stock 7950 so I suppose that could somehow manifest as higher performance if that is the bottleneck and you are running both stock. But seeing VRAM usage at 3-4GB and having a 4GB 960 perform worse than a 2GB 960 is bizarre. This game is a mess.
 

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
528
106
Is it bad form to say you should multiply the framerate by the fraction of the screen that actually isn't artifacts?
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,867
286
126
I couldn't even buy this game from the Microsoft store. Can't properly upgrade Windows 10 to the 1511 update! Ugh, I am tired of Windows 10's proprietary requirements and constant bugginess. I hope this game gets released on Steam or something soon. I am definitely not going to reinstall Windows along with my apps to play Gears.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
5
76
How is the 960 performing worse with 4 GB than with 2?
I would say in soviet russia... but this isn't it, just a case of tacking on DX12 on 2006 UE4 codebase. Weird things can happen like all the funky stuff here.

Really, there's no excuse for a game of this graphics quality to even stress the modern GPUs here. We're talking about small levels, a few enemies at a time, dated-looking and 1440p really mess up most GPUs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY