Medal of Honor: Warfighter - CPU and GPU Benchmarks (GameGPU.ru)

[Makaveli]

A Thanksgiving gift would be better. You'll get it sooner and still be able to get yourself something else for Christmas.

Hmm not a bad idea!

Have to get the girlfriend something for christmas :\

Hardware or Love ?

 

[lavaheadache]

true, but in all fairness the 9700 pro and 8800 gtx were both from a time period where graphics were still progressing fast. graphic advancements in the last 3 years or so has definitely slowed down increasing the longevity of a lot of GPU's

I don't know man. Crysis came out in 2007, and I don't think that either bf3 or moh are *that* much better.

 

[Vesku]

Mostly it was people jumping on the bandwagon, and not looking at things logically. Take a new generation of GPU when it is first released, and compare it to the previous generation on mature drivers, and you won't be all that impressed. But this happens every single time, drivers improve, games come out that push the new architectures, and they pull away from the previous generation.

Yeah, I've been tempted to make a thread of all the people shouting how terrible this gen was while a few of us were saying 1. launch performance is not as bad as all that and computer hardware pricing is pretty volatile so price/performance will change over time 2. Don't discount driver improvements.

Unfortunately such a thread wouldn't add much to the forum. Hopefully being wrong will make some of those posters more considerate the next time around.

It did take AMD longer to find some real GCN gains then I thought it would. Perhaps the drive to crank out a monthly-ish driver update was hindering progress in that regard. Notice this performance driver comes after they went to a "it'll be ready when it's ready" driver policy.

 

[RussianSensation]

Too bad the reviews are awful for this game. Sounds like the campaign is only 5-6 hours long and it is full of bugs. Might not be worth even $5!

 

[2is]

5-6 hour long SP campaign on a CODish fps is pretty much par for the course really.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

I played it, the only thing I enjoyed was the completely out of place driving. SP was pretty much your generic America F****YES! thing. MP is the only redeeming quality of it, but the interface is so horrible.

The game is great looking, but I get the impression that the textures all look muddy. Crysis still wins in my books.

 

[RussianSensation]

The game is great looking, but I get the impression that the textures all look muddy. Crysis still wins in my books.

The PS3/360/Wii console generation lasting 2x longer than normal is the worst thing that happened to PC gaming.

 

[raghu78]

The PS3/360/Wii console generation lasting 2x longer than normal is the worst thing that happened to PC gaming.

Its the developers who need to do a better job on the PC version. BF3, Alan Wake, Sleeping Dogs, Deus Ex are good examples where the developer did a good job on the PC version.

Blaming the consoles is the easy way out. Certain developers show that extra attention which the PC version deserves. others don't.

the reviews are very negative for MOH Warfighter. its just a shame that the frostbite 2 engine's capabilities were wasted on a badly designed game.

 

[alphascout]

GTX 480 is still relevant sigh when can i have an excuse to upgrade 😡

 

[tviceman]

So I want to know if the same people that bitched and complained all through 2010 and 2011 that it wasn't fair when reviewers included TWIMTBP games will be crying foul when GE titles are in reviews (and perform better on AMD hardware, at least initially) OR if the same said people are going to hypocritically tout how fast such and such GE game is on their AMD graphics card and how it is perfectly fair and normal for these games to be used to compare competing graphics cards.

I say this as someone who doesn't care which games are used and believes any and every game is fair grounds (but I am sure there will be several idiots who will chime in and say something wrong and and completely stupid about me being butt hurt or whatever when I couldn't care less as I have said time and again). I just find it highly, highly amusing at the amount of animosity certain posters had when a game came out earlier this year or last year and performed substantially better on Nvidia hardware, but now that the tables are turned it's nothing but praise.

Again, I think whatever is fair play in the industry - developers and publishers are comprised of grown adults who are making what they believe to be the best decisions for their games. I am just finding it highly amusing that now when then situations seem to be reversed it's no longer a problem or unfair.

 

[Jaydip]

Exactly tviceman.I remeber how everyone reacted when Bl2 came out and 660Ti was faster than a 7970.

 

[AnandThenMan]

So I want to know if the same people that bitched and complained all through 2010 and 2011 that it wasn't fair when reviewers included TWIMTBP games will be crying foul when GE titles are in reviews (and perform better on AMD hardware, at least initially) OR if the same said people are going to hypocritically tout how fast such and such GE game is on their AMD graphics card and how it is perfectly fair and normal for these games to be used to compare competing graphics cards.

If you can show me games where AMD specifically cripples or even removes features doing a vendor ID check, then I will cry foul. Not to mention completely disabling a software layer when your competitors hardware is detected. But I've been on record that the dev releations could very well mean a division of PC gaming, it is a slippery slope. I hope both AMD and Nvidia adhere to DX11 and OpenGL standards at the very least, and it is ultimately up to the game devs to make the right choices that benefit all gamers.

I just find it highly, highly amusing at the amount of animosity certain posters had when a game came out earlier this year or last year and performed substantially better on Nvidia hardware, but now that the tables are turned it's nothing but praise.

I assume you have nothing but praise for AMD pushing devs to take full advantage of Radeon hardware?

 

[Jaydip]

If you can show me games where AMD specifically cripples or even removes features doing a vendor ID check, then I will cry foul. Not to mention completely disabling a software layer when your competitors hardware is detected. But I've been on record that the dev releations could very well mean a division of PC gaming, it is a slippery slope. I hope both AMD and Nvidia adhere to DX11 and OpenGL standards at the very least, and it is ultimately up to the game devs to make the right choices that benefit all gamers.

I assume you have nothing but praise for AMD pushing devs to take full advantage of Radeon hardware?

If I am not mistaken they probably created a vendor specific subroutine in Dirt showdown.I have no problems with GE titles at all but I hate double standards.

 

[3DVagabond]

If I am not mistaken they probably created a vendor specific subroutine in Dirt showdown.I have no problems with GE titles at all but I hate double standards.

That's the first I've heard that. Are you assuming? Or did you source that somewhere?

 

[Jaydip]

Nah I remember reading it in Techreport review.This is perfectly fine by me though.Here you go check SKYMTL's post
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/56126-gtx-660-ti-review-comment-thread-9.html

 

[AnandThenMan]

If I am not mistaken they probably created a vendor specific subroutine in Dirt showdown.

They didn't.

 

[Jaydip]

They didn't.

Check my earlier post

 

[AnandThenMan]

Check my earlier post

see here

As David states, Showdown was being coded long before they knew exactly what Nvidia was going to bring to the table, plus it uses DirectCompute, it doesn't attempt to turn off any visuals or outright disable an abstraction layer when it detects an Nvidia card.

BTW, SKYMTL is making stuff up when he says, "Showdown uses a PROPRIETARY shader sub-routine" no it does not. Although he does hold TWIMTBP is high regard and basically threatens anyone that would talk badly about it.

And I suggest you step very carefully around TWIMTBP. That program has done more to foster DX11 game development that any other initiative.

 

[Jaydip]

Check this reply from him
"If there is anything proprietary then it is proprietary to Codemasters, not to AMD. The Forward+ rendering mechanism is based on industry standard API code and any DX11 complaint GPU can operate it, and the source code of the Leo demo featuring it is available to anyone; as per the previous comment numberous devs have been playing around with it and variations thereof."

So there may be a shader subroutine specifically suited for AMD.If they worked with devs and poured money it is simple that it will run better on their hardware.I don't understand what is wrong with that?

 

[AnandThenMan]

So there may be a shader subroutine specifically suited for AMD. If they worked with devs and poured money it is simple that it will run better on their hardware.I don't understand what is wrong with that?

You seem to be intentionally avoided the key point, which I already discussed. You said, "If I am not mistaken they probably created a vendor specific subroutine in Dirt showdown" which is false. Now you say, "there may be a shader subroutine specifically suited for AMD" which was not done by design, because the coding was started or even completed before they had any chance to run it on Kepler.

There is nothing wrong with leveraging the hardware as much as possible, no one is saying that. Where it all goes south is when you intentionally make sure your competitors hardware runs poorly, or has visuals completely missing. Or disables a feature outright just because the system has a competitors card installed. See the difference?

 

[Jaydip]

You seem to be intentionally avoided the key point, which I already discussed. You said, "If I am not mistaken they probably created a vendor specific subroutine in Dirt showdown" which is false. Now you say, "there may be a shader subroutine specifically suited for AMD" which was not done by design, because the coding was started or even completed before they had any chance to run it on Kepler.

There is nothing wrong with leveraging the hardware as much as possible, no one is saying that. Where it all goes south is when you intentionally make sure your competitors hardware runs poorly, or has visuals completely missing. Or disables a feature outright just because the system has a competitors card installed. See the difference?

You actually believe AMD or NV to disclose their optimizations for a game? David would of course deny such things just like NV would.I would take the words of any rep with grain of salt.If optimization is not there how 660Ti can beat 7970 in BL2?What would NV say regarding that.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It's like you don't even read what I post. :\

 

[Jaydip]

I did and I see no reason to believe any rep's statement like its a gospel truth.

 

[toyota]

which really makes me question some people that say this gen wasn't much of a step up

does that really have to be explained all over? here is a quick summary...7970 was only about 40% faster than 6970 at launch while costing almost 50% more than the 6970 launched at. that was PISS POOR. gtx680 was only about 35% faster than gtx580 but at least cost the same as the gtx580 launched at. still a VERY POOR leap.

just because things are finally getting better after all this time does not change what was fact for many months.



why is Medal of Honor: Warfighter so demanding? it does not look all that great but seems to kill most cards.

 

[zaydq]

I did and I see no reason to believe any rep's statement like its a gospel truth.

The only point he's trying to make is that nVidia and it's game devs make sure to hinder the competitor's gpus in some titles via a low blow while AMD and their devs simply use technology that nVidia didn't see fit to incorporate.

AMD uses hardware advancements, nVidia simply makes a software limitation. Whose playing in the dirt, and whose playing down-right disgusting?

I think thats pretty much the jist of this argument.