[HARDOCP] GTA V - The death of Kepler and GCN 1.0

[Insomniator]

Who cares if you have to turn down a few settings? I don't expect my 780 to run everything on ultra @ 1440p -- its a two year old card that only goes for ~250 used (if that?) at this point. Also, if its only a few specific settings that kill performance across the board then its even more meaningless. I can get by with less than ultra grass -- I guess some peoples e-peens just get too hurt by it.

Also not saying this is the case with GTA 5 -- but if 'ultra' made the game look substantially better than anything else ever released, I wouldn't care if SLI Titan X's couldn't play it. Crysis looking so good and being unplayable on ultra for years was a good thing -- it actually pushed the envelope. Sorry about your e-peens though.

However, if its really Nvidia purposely ignoring/not improving performance on older cards in an effort to get people to upgrade then THAT is messed up. I don't know how we could prove it though.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

The 780 is probably slightly better than a 280X OC. So if somebody is open to an AMD card he won't spend more than USD 150-200 tops for a 780 custom OC. Closer to 150 for a custom highly OC one in fact.

 

[Leyawiin]

My GTX 780 was $270 new this past winter (PNY Custom Cooler). Fair price for what it can do. I'm not going to pee and moan when it performs more or less the same as the R9 290 (which [H] lists as the go-to 1080p AMD card).

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._gpu_performance_review_part_1/6#.VT-77iFViE0

 

[SlowSpyder]

GTA V runs great on my system at 19x12. I'm using 2xMSAA and have almost everything maxed (I think grass is the only one I have set to normal / high).

 

[aaksheytalwar]

You're day dreaming if you think 780 is as fast as a 290. In older games maybe. Not in newer stuff. And based on experience with time the lead will only grow to 20-40% as new games come.

 

[RussianSensation]

Agreed. There's not doubt it would choke and spit at max settings @ 1440p out in the county where they tested, but so does everything else from what I can see.

Now if it chokes on The Witcher 3... I'll revisit.

I know most forum members will disagree with me but ^ that type of performance is not acceptable for a game with such average graphics like GTA V imo. It may be the best looking game of its type, but the character models, the cars, trees, foliage/grass and some building textures look downright ugly compared to the best PC games. Compared to The Witcher 3 graphics, GTA V looks simply last gen and it's clear in side-to-side comparisons.

When we look at the in-game character models, level of detail, particle effects, foliage/grass/trees, TW3 blows GTA V away. Sounds like while GTA V is more optimized compared to the turd that was AC Unity, but compared to the best PC games, it's still very poorly optimized. 30 fps at 2560x1600 with FXAA for a game made primarily for last gen consoles is nothing to brag about on behalf of Rockstar. Just because PC gamers had to deal with very poorly unoptimized Watch Dogs and AC Unity, they think GTA V is somehow the God's gift of console port optimization!

Another proof that GTA V's highest settings are poorly optimized/highly inefficient in their usage is when you go to a mix of Normal settings from all High settings, yet graphics hardly improve but performance increases 50-100%. I mean the fact that some people with 1.4-1.5Ghz Titan Xs can't even max this game out and it drops to 30-40 fps in places also highlights this point. When 8800GTX Ultra SLI or even GTX280 SLI couldn't max out Crysis 1, that was understandable because hands down Crysis 1 was not just the best looking game at that time, it was a full generation ahead of ANY game out. GTA V is nowhere close to the best looking PC game. It does look like you need hefty hardware to max out GTA V but even when you do, the game hardly has revolutionary graphics in the way Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 or Metro 2033 had in their day. This is my personal opinion as I am rarely impressed by graphics in any 3rd person open world game (as a result of such large draw distances and so many things to shade, the graphics in these types of games are always compromised). TW3 in that sense is shaping up to be far more impressive because even up close the characters alone look better than anything in GTA V.

Even at just 1080P, TW3 looks better than GTA V does at 4K! People say well GTA V has lots of grass, grass, grass, but it looks ugly so what? TW3 has forests and trees, animal fur that moves, not just grass.....

If GTA V had graphics like TW3, it would probably run at 15 fps on a Titan X. :biggrin:

vs.

GTA V's otherwise average polygon models, textures and physics are all saved by the great shadow and lighting model in motion. If you take that great lighting model away, the rest of the game is just OK looking imho.

So in the end, you might need more than 1.5Ghz Titan X SLI to max out GTA V but it doesn't mean anything other than so-so optimization if the graphics can't live up to those GPU requirements. GTA series is one of those games that always get forgiven for having average graphics (GTA IV had outdated graphics from day 1 imo) and physics and insanely high GPU and CPU requirements for the level of graphics it actually presents just because it's an "open-box/open world style massive game". My 2 cents and I know GTA V fans will hate my post.

 

[96Firebird]

You're day dreaming if you think 780 is as fast as a 290. In older games maybe. Not in newer stuff. And based on experience with time the lead will only grow to 20-40% as new games come.

Did you bother to click the link at the end of the post? The 290 and 780 are very close when it comes to GTA V maxed @ 1080p in HardOCP's benchmark.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

No links right now. You'll see 1 yr down. The same story 680 and 7970ghz. Just check their FPS in recent games and 7970 ghz often has a lead of 0-40% over 680.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

And they aren't very close, lower settings are used on the 780. The 780 and 290 are tested separately with separate settings.

 

[cytg111]

.

- OT, those TW3 shots looks awsome, double-awsome, like next-gen-crysis awsome.

 

[RussianSensation]

Did you bother to click the link at the end of the post? The 290 and 780 are very close when it comes to GTA V maxed @ 1080p in HardOCP's benchmark.

They are close but R9 290 is closer to the 970 than it is to the 780 because they can both turn on 1 extra IQ features that 780 cannot.

Both GTX970 and R9 290 can run with high resolution shadows on. The main difference is 780 cannot.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._gpu_performance_review_part_1/4#.VT_WhyGqpBd

vs.

But anyway, this just highlights my previous post earlier that GTA V really isn't as well optimized as some people kept hyping it up to be at launch OR this review is bullocks. GTX970 can only manage 1 extra setting over a stock 780 but yet the reviewer attacks Kepler for being an old architecture instead of discussing how unoptimized the highest settings in GTA V are. 780 is 36% faster than a GTX960 and yet in GTA V they can manage about the same level of settings? His own testing shows 780 beating 285 by only 13%. Shouldn't that jump out to him that either the game requires patches or the drivers aren't yet fully optimized or something is wrong with his test rig?

Also, let's not forget this is the only site out of all sites on the Internet which ended up with better performance on a GTX960 than an R9 280X in their last review. NO other site in the world shows this. And now they are back again with a review showing 780 barely beating a 285 and 970 barely beating a 780.

 

[Face2Face]

I'm pretty sure the GTX 780 cannot run the highest shadow setting because it only has 3GB of VRAM.

On another note, the performance of the 7970Ghz and 280X is getting better and better with driver updates. Getting pretty close to the GTX 780 and titan in recent games.

I actually have both cards, I just need to find the time to do my own benchmarks...

 

[RussianSensation]

- OT, those TW3 shots looks awsome, double-awsome, like next-gen-crysis awsome.

I agree. I've noticed for a while now that so many people online and on our forum can't separate graphics from gameplay when it comes to their favourite games. Alternatively, when there is a game they don't like (The Order 1886 or Ryse Son of Rome), they rarely give praise to its technical merits.

If we set aside gameplay of GTA V, the graphics are average. Since we are discussing hardware/videocard performance, the discussion of the level of graphics absolutely has to be considered. For the level of graphics that GTA V offers, its performance optimization is mediocre, yet people defend it.

or The Order 1886 which looks like real life almost.

It seems whenever the discussion is about some open-world game or especially the GTA game franchise, nearly everyone closes their eyes at all the graphics, story line and and physics flaws. I realize that GTA V was one of the most anticipated games for millions of gamers but it doesn't mean it should be held on some pedestal. If this was some other franchise like Splinter Cell with this level of graphics/performance optimization, the game would be ripped apart. :sneaky:

This brings me to my original point - not only is the performance poor on older cards like 280X or 780 but it's also not great on even the 970, 980 and Titan X. Maybe instead of criticizing older GPU generations, the author should have looked at context and compared the level of graphics and performance of GTA V to other games that blow it away like TW3, Ryse Son of Rome, The Order 1886, Crysis 3, etc., as well as looked at the massive performance hit GTA V's highest settings induce despite a minimal increase in graphical fidelity. But no, that would have placed the blame on the developer and the game itself.....can't do that cuz it's GTA people, GTA!!! The holy grail of PC gaming....

 

[96Firebird]

And they aren't very close, lower settings are used on the 780. The 780 and 290 are tested separately with separate settings.

Open link, look at first and third charts. Same settings. I'll even post the numbers for you.

R9 290 - Min: 20, Max: 60, Avg: 30.8
GTX 780 - Min: 20, Max: 60, Avg: 29.0

Looks pretty close to me, but what do I know...

 

[Leyawiin]

And they aren't very close, lower settings are used on the 780. The 780 and 290 are tested separately with separate settings.

Not on the page I linked. The apples-to-apples for 1080p is using max settings for all the cards. They just happen to be on two different graphs. Both have a minimum of 20 FPS. Both have a maximum of 60 FPS. The R9 290 has a little higher average FPS. Plus if you peruse other reviews of the game the two cards are very close (with the GTX 780 slightly beating it sometimes). You can prognosticate how its going to play out in a year with drivers, but right here are now they seem to be about equal in GTA V.

 

[escrow4]

Strange they didn't add in the 780 Ti at least.

 

[Silverforce11]

@RS You cannot compare smaller play area games with less activity in it to a sprawling open world game.

GTA V looks heck better than Watch Dogs and runs a lot faster with functional CF/SLI on release. That's a tall order given what other AAA titles have been showing us of late on release, bugged to hell.

Know that there are trade-offs when designing open world games. It's similar to MMOs, in that expecting large scale MMOs to have graphics as fancy as single player games is not realistic, certainly when designed at similar hardware requirements.

Epic scale is a quality of its own.

 

[Subyman]

Compared to The Witcher 3 graphics, GTA V looks simply last gen and it's clear in side-to-side comparisons.

It is last gen.

 

[ocre]

@RS You cannot compare smaller play area games with less activity in it to a sprawling open world game.

GTA V looks heck better than Watch Dogs and runs a lot faster with functional CF/SLI on release. That's a tall order given what other AAA titles have been showing us of late on release, bugged to hell.

Know that there are trade-offs when designing open world games. It's similar to MMOs, in that expecting large scale MMOs to have graphics as fancy as single player games is not realistic, certainly when designed at similar hardware requirements.

Epic scale is a quality of its own.

Yeah, you should see the PC gaming threads. Haters gonna hate. (this is not restricted/specific to RS, there are countless that put down games they havent even played)

I think people who actually own the games and enjoy them should have more say. GTA 5 is a monumental achievement in my opinion. And i own many of the games that are bragged on. Crysis 3, it is beautiful. I find the staged and set up scenes do look wonderful. But i am just as impressed if not more with GTA 5. It is much more captivating, but that is just my opinion. As a person who enjoys both games.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Not bad, but instead of explaining what exactly wrong with the older GPUs, they went to label them, just as "old". Not really professional.

Tbh, I'm surprised people pay attention to [H] anymore. Both their forums and the reviews are pretty awful places to be. FWIW, 2x GTX670 @ 1080 affords me high settings without any stutters...

 

[poofyhairguy]

I'm pretty sure the GTX 780 cannot run the highest shadow setting because it only has 3GB of VRAM.

On another note, the performance of the 7970Ghz and 280X is getting better and better with driver updates. Getting pretty close to the GTX 780 and titan in recent games.

I actually have both cards, I just need to find the time to do my own benchmarks...

That would be awesome.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If we set aside gameplay of GTA V, the graphics are average. Since we are discussing hardware/videocard performance, the discussion of the level of graphics absolutely has to be considered. For the level of graphics that GTA V offers, its performance optimization is mediocre, yet people defend it.

I have to say, GTA V is a mixture of very good looking elements and average looking parts. The characters in particular look 'meh' to me. But other things like the water and lighting are really sharp, I like the populated city. Overall I'd say it looks good, but is certainly isn't jaw dropping good.

 

[futurefields]

I know most forum members will disagree with me but ^ that type of performance is not acceptable for a game with such average graphics like GTA V imo. It may be the best looking game of its type, but the character models, the cars, trees, foliage/grass and some building textures look downright ugly compared to the best PC games. Compared to The Witcher 3 graphics, GTA V looks simply last gen and it's clear in side-to-side comparisons.

When we look at the in-game character models, level of detail, particle effects, foliage/grass/trees, TW3 blows GTA V away. Sounds like while GTA V is more optimized compared to the turd that was AC Unity, but compared to the best PC games, it's still very poorly optimized. 30 fps at 2560x1600 with FXAA for a game made primarily for last gen consoles is nothing to brag about on behalf of Rockstar. Just because PC gamers had to deal with very poorly unoptimized Watch Dogs and AC Unity, they think GTA V is somehow the God's gift of console port optimization!

Another proof that GTA V's highest settings are poorly optimized/highly inefficient in their usage is when you go to a mix of Normal settings from all High settings, yet graphics hardly improve but performance increases 50-100%. I mean the fact that some people with 1.4-1.5Ghz Titan Xs can't even max this game out and it drops to 30-40 fps in places also highlights this point. When 8800GTX Ultra SLI or even GTX280 SLI couldn't max out Crysis 1, that was understand because hands down Crysis 1 was not just the best looking game at that time, it was a full generation ahead of ANY game out. GTA V is nowhere close to the best looking PC game. It does look like you need hefty hardware to max out GTA V but even when you do, the game hardly has revolutionary graphics in the way Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 or Metro 2033 had in their day. This is my personal opinion as I am rarely impressed by graphics in any 3rd person open world game (as a result of such large draw distances and so many things to shade, the graphics in these types of games are always compromised). TW3 in that sense is shaping up to be far more impressive because even up close the characters alone look better than anything in GTA V.

Even at just 1080P, TW3 looks better than GTA V does at 4K! People say well GTA V has lots of grass, grass, grass, but it looks ugly so what? TW3 has forests and trees, animal fur that moves, not just grass.....

If GTA V had graphics like TW3, it would probably run at 15 fps on a Titan X. :biggrin:

vs.

GTA V's otherwise average polygon models, textures and physics are all saved by the great shadow and lighting model in motion. If you take that great lighting model away, the rest of the game is just OK looking imho.

So in the end, you might need more than 1.5Ghz Titan X SLI to max out GTA V but it doesn't mean anything other than so-so optimization if the graphics can't live up to those GPU requirements. GTA series is one of those games that always get forgiven for having average graphics (GTA IV had outdated graphics from day 1 imo) and physics and insanely high GPU and CPU requirements for the level of graphics it actually presents just because it's an "open-box/open world style massive game". My 2 cents and I know GTA V fans will hate my post.

Those GTA screenshots look better than the Witcher ones.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Really comparing GTA V, a game built up for the last gen consoles, to Witcher 3? Kinda pointless IMO.

GTA V does look amazing at night as well, or early sunrise. No other game has that sense of scale.

 

[5150Joker]

apples vs oranges comparison snipped

Those TW3 shots aren't impressive. GTA V is impressive because two years later with a slight revamp for PC it still impresses. It's also a massive open world game and if you avoid using ultra grass, it has stellar framerates even on mediocre cards while looking good. You don't own GTA V so trying to bash it without having seen it in person is pretty funny.