([H]ardOCP) Dirt 3 gameplay review. Radeon vs GTX

[Madcatatlas]

Another "Gaming Evolved" title. it seems AMD is really "on" when it comes to "sponsoring" or partnering with the best games/game developers out there.

Hardocp has reviewed the 6970vs580 the 6950vs570 and the 6870vs560ti


Check it out if you havent:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/06/13/dirt_3_gameplay_performance_review/1

Seems like theres a pattern, with the 6970 being the best card for the highest resolutions, while the 570 is better at the more popular res of 1080 and a draw at the "lowest" end between the 6870 and the 560ti.


It seems like Dirt3 also has extensive options for controlling grahical detail, and this in turn could mean that its pretty much in your hands. You could by turning on and off some options, get a different result than Hardocp did.


More options is ALWAYS a good thing, as long the presentation is not wacked.

 

[notty22]

Techspot also does a gpu/cpu article on Dirt3 if anyone is interested.
They use the in-game benchmark.
I love this game, works great on my system.
I get 90fps with the settings used there.
Its a great racing game, with many tracks, time of day , weather options.

 

[OCGuy]

Doesnt really look like either side differentiates themselves at the more common resolutions.

 

[Madcatatlas]

My thoughts as well OCguy, i expect Nvidia to be able to optimize drivers as they are a bit lacking atm and thus it could very well be a winner for them.

What i think is just as interesting as single card scores, is CrossfireX and SLI comparisons. Hopefully someone does that soon. Would be nice to know if CrossfireX continues its superior scaling in what could be called an AMD sponsored game.

 

[notty22]

If you look at the chart I posted the 6990 gained almost 90% over the 6970, and the 6990's cores were probably clocked slightly lower, so its scaling well. SLI does also, imo, the game feels polish smooth.
Great surprise this game sequel did not disappoint (me) at all.

 

[dualsmp]

Looks like the GTX 590 ran out of memory.

 

[notty22]

Looks like the GTX 590 ran out of memory.

Thats the resolution for 3-2560x1600 monitors,in surround, so the lesson there is go for 2-3gb 580's if you rocking that freak resolution.

 

[dualsmp]

Thats the resolution for 3-2560x1600 monitors,in surround, so the lesson there is go for 2-3gb 580's if you rocking that freak resolution.

Your offending some of our forum members.

 

[RussianSensation]

I love this game, works great on my system.
I get 90fps with the settings used there.

GTX460 SLI is cleaning up!! Codemasters should have shipped a high resolution texture pack for guys like you with so much performance headroom.

 

[wahdangun]

Thats the resolution for 3-2560x1600 monitors,in surround, so the lesson there is go for 2-3gb 580's if you rocking that freak resolution.

or buy 6990, its cheaper and you can gain some profit by bitcoin mining

 

[OCGuy]

or buy 6990, its cheaper and you can gain some profit by bitcoin mining

That isnt a playable framerate even on the 6990, at least not for me. Frame rates that low with dual GPUs look like absolute crap.

 

[busydude]

That isnt a playable framerate even on the 6990, at least not for me. Frame rates that low with dual GPUs look like absolute crap.

EGO engine is really smooth IMO. There is a difference in this game at 30 FPS Vs 60 FPS.. but even at 30 FPS it is really smooth. I am able to max out F1 2010 on my 5770 as even an avg FPS of ~40 is really smooth.

 

[Dribble]

Typical [H] - obsession with stupidly high levels of AA, but no interest in high fps. Who in the real world would run 24*CFAA when it only gives them an average of 40fps. Anyone actually trying to play the game seriously and not just look at the pretty pictures would drop the settings as low as it took to get a really smooth experience.

Even if you are only looking at the pretty pictures, surely it looks better with 4*AA and higher fps then it will with 24*CFAA and a much lower fps.

 

[timma]

buy 6950 2GB and above is good choice for Dirt3~

 

[-Slacker-]

Typical [H] - obsession with stupidly high levels of AA, but no interest in high fps. Who in the real world would run 24*CFAA when it only gives them an average of 40fps. Anyone actually trying to play the game seriously and not just look at the pretty pictures would drop the settings as low as it took to get a really smooth experience.

Even if you are only looking at the pretty pictures, surely it looks better with 4*AA and higher fps then it will with 24*CFAA and a much lower fps.

They do have an apples to apples comparison, though, as always, where they only use 2x or 4x AA.

 

[Firestorm007]

or buy 6990, its cheaper and you can gain some profit by bitcoin mining

Good luck finding one. I was on Newegg yesterday and added an MSI one, and no less than 2-3 minutes, it was gone. Nevertheless, Codemasters did a fantastic coding job and the graphics look great to boot...

 

[nemesismk2]

I want to see a review of Dirt 3 using older hardware like the 4870 and 4850. What do you think my chances are? The old Powercolor Radeon HD 4870 PCS 1GB just eats Duke Nukem for breakfast lol

 

[notty22]

Here is a site that used a 6950 , switched between XP and win 7, dx11 takes a big hit in fps to run. Similar to what we saw in Dirt 2.
http://benchmark3d.com/dirt-3-benchmark

As you can see differences between x32 and x64 are almost none. Again I am not testing XP against 7 because the game runs in DX9 in XP and in DX11 in Windows 7 so no fair contest.
If I were to say something about the differences between the two operating systems I’d say: graphics ( what a shocker). The lighting in XP is a bit dull while in Windows 7 it’s great, the Sun’s flare seems almost real, the color of the cars look great. There are a lot of differences between Dirt 3 played in DX9 and DX11: better shadows for dx11, better car colors for dx11, less jaggies for dx11 (although both DX9 and DX11 have jaggies it seems to me that DX11 has a lot less) etc.
Dirt 3 is one of the very few games that are worth letting performance go for looks. So if you have a DX11 graphics card and Windows 7 I’d say screw the extra 20 frames and go for it ! You’ll end up with a beautifull unplayable game

In conclusion DiRT 3 is well optimized with no big differences in performance when played in x32 or x64 operating systems. The game’s DX11 is really worth it despite the performance loss.

 

[Anubis]

any reviews out there with SLI/CF benches, didnt see any in the ones linkes so far.

 

[wahdangun]

Good luck finding one. I was on Newegg yesterday and added an MSI one, and no less than 2-3 minutes, it was gone. Nevertheless, Codemasters did a fantastic coding job and the graphics look great to boot...

yeah, its look like bitcoin crazyness have made AMD graphic card value gone up, I'm predict if the next HD 7XXXX series card gonna sell like hot cake if bitcoin still around at that time

 

[Carfax83]

Why is it that HardOCP's benchmarks always seem to be way off compared to other websites? Is it because of the driver settings they use? It's well known that AMD's default driver settings is geared towards performance more so than quality, unlike Nvidia's.

And Benchmark3D's benches show the game running faster on dual cores than on quad cores, which is in direct conflict with techspot's and pcgameshardware's review.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Why is it that HardOCP's benchmarks always seem to be way off compared to other websites?

If you actually read their reviews, you would know.

It's well known that AMD's default driver settings is geared towards performance more so than quality, unlike Nvidia's.

This is not "well known" and it is also false. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but overall image quality between the two is often impossible to tell apart.

 

[Carfax83]

If you actually read their reviews, you would know.

Yes I know they have a different testing methodology and don't use scripted benchmarks, but still, I don't think it would account for such a large difference.

This is not "well known" and it is also false. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but overall image quality between the two is often impossible to tell apart.

Right... you must have missed the fiasco where AMD was caught using FP16 demotion in games to boost performance, among other things, and led to them being forced to implement a way to turn off these optimizations in the drivers as no such option had existed before hand..

There's a reason why some websites now use high quality settings for AMD's drivers as adversed to the default settings.

But I'm sure you won't let these minor details sway your beliefs..

 

[Madcatatlas]

Yes I know they have a different testing methodology and don't use scripted benchmarks, but still, I don't think it would account for such a large difference.



Right... you must have missed the fiasco where AMD was caught using FP16 demotion in games to boost performance, among other things, and led to them being forced to implement a way to turn off these optimizations in the drivers as no such option had existed before hand..

There's a reason why some websites now use high quality settings for AMD's drivers as adversed to the default settings.

But I'm sure you won't let these minor details sway your beliefs..

So you really went for the "nvidia has better image quality than amd" argument?

Im sure moderator BFG can chime in with some comments to that.

Fiasco is such a funny word... How are the 580s holding up? I mean those things probably cost about 200$ more each and yet they still lose out to the 6970 in the resolutions where you`d need that kind of juice.

 

[-Slacker-]

Wasn't the image quality thing settled with like cat 10.10, or 10.9? Or am I thinking of something else?