[GameGPU] Evolve Beta Tests

[RussianSensation]

Steam's Evolve game page shows that the last technical test on the PC was done January 16, 2015. The game is slated to launch on February 10, 2015, essentially relying on AMD/NV to extract more performance around launch date.

Evolve runs on CryEngine.

Will get SMAA. :thumbsup:

SLI and CF profiles are not currently supported.

4K performance on a single chip -- Ya, good luck with that. 😀

This game LOVES VRAM, which is why many have been hesitant about 2GB cards in 2015.

The game is locked to 60 fps.

All of this is Beta testing and isn't necessarily reflective of the final product but the game's launch is only 1 month away.

Source

 

[Silverforce11]

CryEngine has no issues with CF or SLI, it should release with it ready otherwise it's a piss poor effort.

 

[desprado]

These BS benchmark and fps capped.

See this
This is Evolve FPS unlocked benchmark from Beta.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1782-evolve-graphics-benchmark-nvidia-vs-amd

Game is properly optimized because GTX 770 and R9 285 is running it beyond 60fps with highest settings.

Infractions issued for inflammatory language and derailing thread. Banned from posting for one week.
-- stahlhart

 

[RussianSensation]

These BS benchmark and fps capped.

See this
This is Evolve FPS unlocked benchmark from Beta.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1782-evolve-graphics-benchmark-nvidia-vs-amd

You can't call 1 benchmark BS but then use another that shows the most ridiculous data ever with 780 having almost 2x the minimum fps of a 290X and call it credible? Like I said in my original post, this is Beta testing.

Also, GameGPU benchmarks often align with other sites. Sure, sometimes they don't but who the hell uses Gamer's Nexus as a credible site?

If you are going to try to dismiss data from GameGPU, it's perfectly valid, but I would expect data from some other semi-respected site.

I mean it's not hard to find small niche sites that contradict your Gamer's Nexus scores but I didn't start an Evolve Thread with them because no one knows or uses them!

You are saying by some magic a GM204 chip is now 50-75% faster than a 290X going from Alpha to Beta? :hmm:
http://www.hardwarepal.com/evolve-pc-benchmark-performance/

Game is properly optimized because GTX 770 and R9 285 is running it beyond 60fps with highest settings.

I find that hard to believe that a 770/285 will max out CryEngine at 60 fps in multi-player. Soon more sites will cover the game.

 

[5150Joker]

I've never heard of GameGPU but then again I'm not Russian and don't read Russian websites. So that has zero credibility with a US/North America based audience. :thumbsdown: It's funny though, this guy see's a result he's not happy with and immediately dismisses it with, "OH THAT'S NOT CREDIBLEZZ! ONLY benchmarks from Mother Russia are credible!". :\

Warning issued for member callout.
-- stahlhart

 

[Silverforce11]

There's plenty of sites from France (Hardware.fr) & Germany (Computerbase.de) that has more credibility than a lot of US/North American sites... but its not in English.

The World wants to say HI to you Joker. You may have heard of it. Seriously though, I didn't realize hardware perform that different depending on the country they are being tested in.

GameGPU has a long track record of covering a lot of games. There's times when their benches show NV GPUs dominating and was used as a valid source.

The only conclusion an unbiased person can make would be: It's beta. Not released. Benches are interesting but that's about it.

 

[RussianSensation]

I've never heard of GameGPU but then again I'm not Russian and don't read Russian websites. So that has zero credibility with a US/North America based audience. :thumbsdown: It's funny though, this guy see's a result he's not happy with and immediately dismisses it with, "OH THAT'S NOT CREDIBLEZZ! ONLY benchmarks from Mother Russia are credible!". :\

You don't need to read Russian to be able to understand GameGPU since Google Chrome's built-in translator will be sufficient to understand most of the key bits. Also, not sure where you've been as many of us here use foreign websites for GPU reviews.

Read again what I am saying. I didn't say he can't dismiss the scores of GameGPU but then I would expect something from Computerbase, PCGameshardware, TPU, TechReport, hardware.fr, etc.

GameGPU's article on DAI got 30K view, FC4 67K views, AC Unity 78K views, COD AW 53K views. That's pretty impressive for a single game bench. I am pretty sure OCN, HardOCP, AT have all referenced GameGPU at some point on their forums.

GameGPU's data doesn't show anything that unusual but Gamer's Nexus shows a 780 nearly doubling R9 290X's minimum fps scores in a CryEngine game. When was the last time you've seen that? This is why I called their scores into question.

 

[5150Joker]

There's plenty of sites from France (Hardware.fr) & Germany (Computerbase.de) that has more credibility than a lot of US/North American sites... but its not in English.

The World wants to say HI to you Joker. You may have heard of it. Seriously though, I didn't realize hardware perform that different depending on the country they are being tested in.

GameGPU has a long track record of covering a lot of games. There's times when their benches show NV GPUs dominating and was used as a valid source.

The only conclusion an unbiased person can make would be: It's beta. Not released. Benches are interesting but that's about it.

An audience reads what is in their native language. To assume on an English based site like this that a Russian site has "credibility" means nothing to someone who doesn't speak the language and therefore never visits said site or has ever heard of it. And yes, I have no use for Russian websites as I don't read or speak it. When I need hardware info, I visit English based sites so I can understand the context behind the benchmarks they post. And yes, agreed about the beta part, performance could wildly change depending on the optimizations they do.

 

[MeldarthX]

RS never; unless someone's using the wrong drivers......*shrugs*

 

[desprado]

You don't need to read Russian to be able to understand GameGPU since Google Chrome's built-in translator will be sufficient to understand most of the key bits. Also, not sure where you've been as many of us here use foreign websites for GPU reviews.

Read again what I am saying. I didn't say he can't dismiss the scores of GameGPU but then I would expect something from Computerbase, PCGameshardware, TPU, TechReport, hardware.fr, etc.

GameGPU's article on DAI got 30K view, FC4 67K views, AC Unity 78K views, COD AW 53K views. That's pretty impressive for a single game bench. I am pretty sure OCN, HardOCP, AT have all referenced GameGPU at some point on their forums.

GameGPU's data doesn't show anything that unusual but Gamer's Nexus shows a 780 nearly doubling R9 290X's minimum fps scores in a CryEngine game. When was the last time you've been that?

It is not GTX 780 and it is wrongly mentioned because it is GTX 780 Ti.Gamenexus dont have GTX 780 or R9 290 for testing.

 

[Lepton87]

I also don't discriminate sites based on their language. If I limited myself to only my native language I would be very... limited.

 

[thilanliyan]

I've heard of GAMEGpu more than I have GamersNexus lol, and I'm in NA.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Never heard of GamersNexus until now.

I've never heard of GameGPU but then again I'm not Russian and don't read Russian websites. So that has zero credibility with a US/North America based audience. :thumbsdown:

This makes no sense, why does it matter where the site is geographically and the language used? In fact some of the best game bench sites out there are not in North America.

 

[skipsneeky2]

GameGpu seems more credible then some sites like TPU,looking over their numbers lately and i don't think i want to use them anymore and would rather jump on GameGpu as they include cpu benches as well.

TPU is more hardware based but GameGpu is as awesome to retro games like the first Crysis and their numbers are miles off from TPU.....i hate when that happens too.

 

[Elfear]

Search results on Google for the Anandtech forums:

GameGPU = 2810 results
Gamersnexus = 210 results

GameGPU is a much more well known site vs Gamresnexus. Both results should be considered of course but I'd give a lot more credibility to GameGPU.

I can't see the graphs on my work computer but it sounds like Evolve still needs some work.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I've never heard of GameGPU but then again I'm not Russian and don't read Russian websites. So that has zero credibility with a US/North America based audience. :thumbsdown: It's funny though, this guy see's a result he's not happy with and immediately dismisses it with, "OH THAT'S NOT CREDIBLEZZ! ONLY benchmarks from Mother Russia are credible!". :\

My system is a better gaming machine than your system. That's in English, so you know it is true. 😉

And look at those FX's go.

 

[kawi6rr]

It is not GTX 780 and it is wrongly mentioned because it is GTX 780 Ti.Gamenexus dont have GTX 780 or R9 290 for testing.

From what I’ve read on these forums RS has always given unbiased posts. Its fanboy whining like yours that ruins threads.

Warning issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

 

[Magic Carpet]

GameGPU's data doesn't show anything that unusual but Gamer's Nexus shows a 780 nearly doubling R9 290X's minimum fps scores in a CryEngine game. When was the last time you've seen that? This is why I called their scores into question.

I was more touched by the GTX770/270X results in the said article. The 285 scores also look strange.

EDIT: GameGPU is fine. No need to bash it.

 

[Grooveriding]

Gamegpu.ru and computerbase.de are two of the best sites for reviews. Is this the new troll derail strategy ? Derail threads because of the location of the website in the OP ? 🙄

It's a shame this game is terrible because it has really nice visuals.

Infraction issued for thread crapping.
-- stahlhart

 

[stahlhart]

Thread closed.
-- stahlhart