Grid 2 Preview test: Optimized for Graphics Core Next

[csbin]

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

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:

:sneaky:

 

[Face2Face]

^ Graphs are broken... EDIT: Fixed

No cockpit view??? That's like taking the First Person Shooter view out of a First Person Shooter..

 

[Enigmoid]

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.

 

[Kenmitch]

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.

 

[raghu78]

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.

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.

 

[Enigmoid]

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.

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).

 

[Attic]

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).

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.

 

[Anarchist420]

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.

 

[Lepton87]

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.

Well, that's great 1000$ card performing like a 400$ card.

 

[Qbah]

Reminds me of the days when a Radeon 9600XT was beating the FX5900 in HL2 :awe:

 

[Lepton87]

Reminds me of the days when a Radeon 9600XT was beating the FX5900 in HL2 :awe:

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%.

 

[ams23]

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.

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.

 

[Ibra]

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.

So, tessellation isn't part of the compute but advanced lighting is? Nice try hiding dirty AMD's games.

 

[blackened23]

So, tessellation isn't part of the compute but advanced lighting is? Nice try hiding dirty AMD's games.

I saw the response and immediately suspected it was an ibra post. Looking up slightly confirmed it, what a shock.

 

[boxleitnerb]

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

 

[ams23]

So, tessellation isn't part of the compute but advanced lighting is? Nice try hiding dirty AMD's games.

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.

 

[Stuka87]

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%.

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.

 

[zlatan]

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 ...

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]

What do you expect when AMD was directly involved in making the renderer?

The forward+ is mostly researched by Gareth Thomas when he worked for Codemasters.
The forward++ is an AMD technology because Gareth Thomas now work for them.

 

[thilanliyan]

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.

So what you're saying is...it's all AMD's fault...

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

No cockpit view??? That's like taking the First Person Shooter view out of a First Person Shooter..

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

 

[thilanliyan]

A racing game of all things should have a cockpit view...unless they want to market it as purely an arcade game.

 

[JAG87]

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.

 

[Lepton87]

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.

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.

 

[Zanovar]

I hate cockpit view,the reason being im always garbage when using it.i find it much harder.