• 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.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst Benchmarks Megathread

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Digital Foundry made a video showing the 970 beating the 390 @ Hyper, but its obvious to anyone who watched the video that the 970 wasn't running in Hyper mode.

Need to make sure reviewers do IQ checks!

713bca1bec.jpg


https://youtu.be/6JhDRtA8Vg4?t=74
 
Bacon1 said:
Digital Foundry made a video showing the 970 beating the 390 @ Hyper, but its obvious to anyone who watched the video that the 970 wasn't running in Hyper mode.

Need to make sure reviewers do IQ checks!

713bca1bec.jpg


https://youtu.be/6JhDRtA8Vg4?t=74
Click to expand...

Yep. But too be fair it looks like crap on both rigs.

I'd imagine if it was a highly anticipated game that it would at least have it's own thread in the PC Gaming sub-forum.

Hyper mode looks to be over hyped viewing the screenshots.
 
Kenmitch said:
Yep. But too be fair it looks like crap on both rigs.

I'd imagine if it was a highly anticipated game that it would at least have it's own thread in the PC Gaming sub-forum.

Hyper mode looks to be over hyped viewing the screenshots.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, reviewers need to be doing IQ comparisons and actually testing to see if the performance hit is worth it or not. Hyper vs Ultra? Some shadows look different (hard vs soft) but is that worth a massive 25% performance hit??

Hell many games its hard to tell high vs very high for many settings but you can get massive amounts of performance.

This whole "max everything run benchmark record results" without any analysis is terrible and does a disservice to anyone reading / watching. It seems like they are just trying to upsell you by not bothering to see if the performance hit is actually worth it for better IQ.
 
Problem is a lot of people already have seen this bullcrap and blamed it yet again on amd and their drivers...
 
So I decided to buy the game. I'll try Hyper with the memory management off for kicks, but I'm planning to run just on Ultra. I'll let you know how the 4GB handles it. I'll fit some time in after work today.
 
x3sphere said:
Is this game DX12? That's the biggest gap between 980 TI and 1080 I've seen yet. Seems the 1440P bench from computerbase was not done at Hyper but Ultra so VRAM issues should not have come into play here either.
Click to expand...

Not surprised...

NV has shifted focus on "Game Ready" drivers to Pascal already.

25% lead goes to 40%.

It's what I said about Pascal a few months back. That launch reviews will show a ~25% lead, but the gap will grow very quick in new games. 🙂
 
Silverforce11 said:
Not surprised...

NV has shifted focus on "Game Ready" drivers to Pascal already.

25% lead goes to 40%.

It's what I said about Pascal a few months back. That launch reviews will show a ~25% lead, but the gap will grow very quick in new games. 🙂
Click to expand...
"how will they gimp maxwell when the architectures are similar!" they asked. Never under estimate Nvidia...
 
Hyper mode is a stutterfest if you uncheck "GPU Memory Restriction" on my Fury, even when I tested only at 1080p it is always below 30fps. Not realistically possible to play the real Hyper with 4GB.

While using the GMR it is possible to use Hyper, and it uses basically the full 4GB (more than Ultra which is usually around 3.5-3.9 at 1440P).

I would guess Hyper with GMR is a mix of Ultra and Hyper, dynamically scaling more Ultra when it is low on memory. Given that I'm already fairly close to 4GB on Ultra, it's probably much more Ultra than Hyper on a 4GB card.

In the Digital Foundry video it is likely that they played with Hyper GMR enabled, and the 970 was actually running nearly entirely Ultra due to the dynamic scaling. With a full 8GB, the 390 was likely running the full Hyper.

DF has quite the reputation for analyzing any tiny PS4 vs Xbone detail difference. It is quite embarrassing they did not realize this, and are now likely spreading misinformation.
 
Last edited:
Yep the DF test is completely wrong, yet they've left the video up for hours now even after admitting they might have made a mistake. They should have taken it down or at the very least put up a warning message on top of the video. People aren't going to read the description.

You have to wonder why they didn't test Ultra settings and instead went all the way down to medium in the later part of the comparison... probably because the 970 framerate was the exact same? :\
 
crisium said:
Hyper mode is a stutterfest if you uncheck "GPU Memory Restriction" on my Fury, even when I tested only at 1080p it is always below 30fps. Not realistically possible to play the real Hyper with 4GB.

While using the GMR it is possible to use Hyper, and it uses basically the full 4GB (more than Ultra which is usually around 3.5-3.9 at 1440P).

I would guess Hyper with GMR is a mix of Ultra and Hyper, dynamically scaling more Ultra when it is low on memory. Given that I'm already fairly close to 4GB on Ultra, it's probably much more Ultra than Hyper on a 4GB card.

In the Digital Foundry video it is likely that they played with Hyper GMR enabled, and the 970 was actually running nearly entirely Ultra due to the dynamic scaling. With a full 8GB, the 390 was likely running the full Hyper.

DF has quite the reputation for analyzing any tiny PS4 vs Xbone detail difference. It is quite embarrassing they did not realize this, and are now likely spreading misinformation.
Click to expand...

Is there an optimised driver for this yet from AMD? I'm wondering if that might help with the HBM cards as iirc they need to optimise the memory usage specifically on a per game basis to get the best performance at that level.
 
littleg said:
Is there an optimised driver for this yet from AMD? I'm wondering if that might help with the HBM cards as iirc they need to optimise the memory usage specifically on a per game basis to get the best performance at that level.
Click to expand...

There might be another driver for Fury series, but honestly the Hyper settings aren't worth the performance hit regardless. Massive (20%+) hit for "hard" shadows which you probably won't even notice as you fly through the game running as fast as you can.
 
boozzer said:
this thread actually showed the other thread to be complete fud.
Click to expand...

User reviews:

PC - 3.4/10
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mirrors-edge-catalyst

PS4 - 4.1/10
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mirrors-edge-catalyst

XB1 - 3.4/10
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/mirrors-edge-catalyst

Also, the number of reviews for such a high profile game is dismal. I am also not aware of any PC game worth buying that benefits from 8GB of VRAM without requiring a Titan X/1070/980Ti SLI to run it at 1440/4K anyway. Chances are those cutting edge PC gamers on Fury X CF would upgrade to 1070/1080 SLI anyway even without Mirror's Edge Catalyst, simply to lower power usage while preserving the resale value.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top