• 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.

Grid 2 Preview test: Optimized for Graphics Core Next

C

csbin

Senior member
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Race-Driver-Grid-2-PC-239144/Tests/Grid-2-im-Technik-Test-1067659/

OUQaw45.png




Unique: The extended lighting is still better adapted to GCN chips of the Radeon HD 7000-series as on GeForce GPUs. This leads to the unusual result that a Radeon HD 7870 passes on a Geforce GTX 680 - as once in Dirt Showdown before nachhalf Nvidia driver with some tweaks. The following test shows that Geforce owners receive significantly higher frame rates if they sacrifice some quality:


qHVBEz5.png





:sneaky:

neversettle2.jpg
 
Last edited:
^ Graphs are broken... EDIT: Fixed

No cockpit view??? That's like taking the First Person Shooter view out of a First Person Shooter..
 
Last edited:
Depends, we could see a lot of that go away if nvidia releases new drivers.

Without that lighting the 680 handily beats the 7970 ghz edition.
 
When I saw the results I thought consoles. Guess it's one of the reasons why AMD won the contract. Looks like GCN has the potential if developers can harness the power trapped within. I doubt the game in question is fully optimized for GCN.
 
Enigmoid said:
Depends, we could see a lot of that go away if nvidia releases new drivers.

Without that lighting the 680 handily beats the 7970 ghz edition.
Click to expand...

you mean the HD 7870. the HD 7970 Ghz performance at the lower image quality setting is not shown. suffice to say that the perf relation between HD 7970 Ghz and HD 7870 at lower setting would be similar. so you are looking at 50% higher performance. so around 90 fps.
 
raghu78 said:
you mean the HD 7870. the HD 7970 Ghz performance at the lower image quality setting is not shown. suffice to say that the perf relation between HD 7970 Ghz and HD 7870 at lower setting would be similar. so you are looking at 50% higher performance. so around 90 fps.
Click to expand...

Didn't see that. I doubt the 7970 will pick up 50% more performance. 7870 lost 22% from the advanced lighting, 680 lost 39%. 7970 will probably get something like 22% more without the lighting (84 fps).
 
Enigmoid said:
Didn't see that. I doubt the 7970 will pick up 50% more performance. 7870 lost 22% from the advanced lighting, 680 lost 39%. 7970 will probably get something like 22% more without the lighting (84 fps).
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, both 7970ghz and 680 cards are tested at ultra details at 1080p in reviews, not with settings, in this case lower, that make nvidia look more competitive.

This is a huge win for AMD, the 7870 beating the 680 at high details in a AAA title is uncommon. nVidia will be working on drivers because they can't simply relie on a call to turn down settings to make their high end card look more competitive.
 
I'm sure the titan runs it just as well as the 7970.

Another reason why compute vs gaming performance is a totally false dichotomy.
 
Qbah said:
Reminds me of the days when a Radeon 9600XT was beating the FX5900 in HL2 :awe:
Click to expand...

FX Series was the worst series ever as far as graphics cards are concerned. Not at all comparable to kepler vs GCN. FX series was only good for DX 8.0 in DX 9.0 age.

In all seriousness it's probably going to be fixed by a driver update, just like DragonAge2, at first NV cards were utterly terrible at it and then after a few driver updates GTX480 was faster then Radon5870. Maybe GTX680 won't be faster then 7970 but it should be within 15%.
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 said:
I'm sure the titan runs it just as well as the 7970.

Another reason why compute vs gaming performance is a totally false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

If you look at the Dirt Showdown results, you will see that there is something holding back all Geforce cards with this AMD developed advanced lighting code, including Titan. So lack of compute horsepower is really not an explanation for these results.
 
ams23 said:
If you look at the Dirt Showdown results, you will see that there is something holding back all Geforce cards with this AMD developed advanced lighting code, including Titan. So lack of compute horsepower is really not an explanation for these results.
Click to expand...

So, tessellation isn't part of the compute but advanced lighting is? Nice try hiding dirty AMD's games. 🙄
 
What do you expect when AMD was directly involved in making the renderer? Same as Dirt Showdown. Nice for AMD, but hardly conclusive about general compute performance. If another one or two next-gen engines (where no IHV was involved in making them) show the same behavior, wake me up 🙂
 
Ibra said:
So, tessellation isn't part of the compute but advanced lighting is? Nice try hiding dirty AMD's games. 🙄
Click to expand...

The better question would be: is there a more efficient way to render advanced lighting effects on Geforce cards while maintaining similarly good image quality? The answer is probably yes, but since these are Gaming Evolved titles where AMD has more influence on the game code than NVIDIA, we may never really know.
 
Lepton87 said:
FX Series was the worst series ever as far as graphics cards are concerned. Not at all comparable to kepler vs GCN. FX series was only good for DX 8.0 in DX 9.0 age.

In all seriousness it's probably going to be fixed by a driver update, just like DragonAge2, at first NV cards were utterly terrible at it and then after a few driver updates GTX480 was faster then Radon5870. Maybe GTX680 won't be faster then 7970 but it should be within 15%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the FX series was pretty much nVidia's Pentium 4. I had an FX 5700 Ultra at the same time that I had a Radeon 9800 Pro in another machine. The Radeon blew the doors off the 5700 Ultra, even though there was only a $50 dollar price difference (200 vs 250). And the 5700 Ultra for the most part matched the FX5900 in some benches. Even a 9600 gave it a run for its money.
 
ams23 said:
The better question would be: is there a more efficient way to render advanced lighting effects on Geforce cards while maintaining similarly good image quality? The answer is probably yes ...
Click to expand...
With forward render the answer is no. With deferred you are right, but this render will not compatible with traditional MSAA.
Here is a very good presentation comparing tiled forward and deferred rendering. http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/...wdown_ForwardPlusPlusVsDeferredRendering.ppsx

Grid 2 is the same story as Dirt Showdown. The advanced lighting option use a very branchy code. The color pixel shader do serial for loops with all the point lights, the projective point lights and the virtual point lights. This is not an algorithm that suited for the GPUs, but the GCN architecture is designed to handle these branchy execution as efficient as a CPU can do. Kepler is a more traditional GPU architecture, and not designed for these heavy and branchy compute scenarios.
 
zlatan said:
With forward render the answer is no. With deferred you are right, but this render will not compatible with traditional MSAA.
Here is a very good presentation comparing tiled forward and deferred rendering. http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/...wdown_ForwardPlusPlusVsDeferredRendering.ppsx

Grid 2 is the same story as Dirt Showdown. The advanced lighting option use a very branchy code. The color pixel shader do serial for loops with all the point lights, the projective point lights and the virtual point lights. This is not an algorithm that suited for the GPUs, but the GCN architecture is designed to handle these branchy execution as efficient as a CPU can do. Kepler is a more traditional GPU architecture, and not designed for these heavy and branchy compute scenarios.
Click to expand...

HomerPondering.gif


So what you're saying is...it's all AMD's fault...
😛
 
Last edited:
Face2Face said:
No cockpit view??? That's like taking the First Person Shooter view out of a First Person Shooter..
Click to expand...

Lol at people who whine about the lack of cockpit view
I dont give a shit, I much prefer looking at my car in 3rd person, and so does the vast majority of players, which is why they thought cockpit view wasnt worth bothering with

Just go drive a real car if you want it that much
 
Wow performance is abysimal compared to Dirt Showdown and even worse compared to Dirt 3. And the graphics don't justify it at all. If you're an nvidia user, looks like you need 2 Titans just to run it at 60 fps at 2560. When compared to their previous titles, that's ridiculous. Good thing at least it runs a little bit better on AMD, otherwise the game would be unplayable by anyone.
 
JAG87 said:
Wow performance is abysimal compared to Dirt Showdown and even worse compared to Dirt 3. And the graphics don't justify it at all. If you're an nvidia user, looks like you need 2 Titans just to run it at 60 fps at 2560. When compared to their previous titles, that's ridiculous. Good thing at least it runs a little bit better on AMD, otherwise the game would be unplayable by anyone.
Click to expand...

You know, you don't have to max out every title, sometimes turning one option off or down increases your frame-rates by 50% and you can hardly spot any difference. I don't play all games max-out as I would need at least a second or a third titan for that. I look for options that gobble up fps without increasing IQ and turn them off or down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top