• 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.

PCLabNeed for Speed - Graphics Card Benchmarks

Sweepr

Diamond Member
Tests conducted during the passage of one of the busiest streets in the view behind the car.

nfs_1080p_low.png


nfs_1080p_medium.png


nfs_1080p_ultra.png


nfs_1440p_ultra.png


nfs_2160p_ultra.png


http://pclab.pl/art68903.html
 
Last edited:
Those tests use FXAA that looks horrible in this game. It leaves random pixels all over the screen. Thay didn't test TAA because it introduces performance hit on Nvidia cards much larger than AMD cards.
FXAA vs TAA http://imgur.com/a/ihRcc
 
Those tests use FXAA that looks horrible in this game. It leaves random pixels all over the screen. Thay didn't test TAA because it introduces performance hit on Nvidia cards much larger than AMD cards.
FXAA vs TAA http://imgur.com/a/ihRcc

That's really weird :|

On another note: why do nvidia cards lose so much performance going to 1440p?

For example the GTX 970 goes from being WAY over the r9 390 to being equal/a bit under.
 
Last edited:
On true max settings, when TAA is applied other tests here show 390 on par with GTX980 in 1080p, and going over it in 1440p.

980Ti dethroned in Max settings 1440p by Fury X.
 
Last edited:
Those tests use FXAA that looks horrible in this game. It leaves random pixels all over the screen. Thay didn't test TAA because it introduces performance hit on Nvidia cards much larger than AMD cards.
FXAA vs TAA http://imgur.com/a/ihRcc
It is understandable, because TAA is temporal effect, and its uses an algorithm called sum of absolute differences. This has a default mode for the standard GPUs, and an accelerated mode for GCN, because this architecture can execute the whole algorithm in one native instruction. It's logical that GCN can execute this effect faster.
 
Last edited:
Tell you what, this test isnt all that fair, they put it up against a chip that cost 2 times the price of the AMD. If they wanted to be fair, they should of picked a chip from Intel that cost $109 like the AMD and then see how they did against each other. Doing a test when one is $109, and the other costs $319 isnt really apples to apples there 😛

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...peed_komputer_z_nitro_mile_widziany?page=0,11


Interesting results. After an overclock to 4.5, the 6300 doesn't fall that far off the 4790. The 390x however really takes to the 4790 way more than the 980 lol.
 
It is understandable, because TAA is temporal effect, and its uses an algorithm called sum of absolute differences. This has a default mode for the standard GPUs, and an accelerated mode for GCN, because this architecture can execute the whole algorithm in one native instruction. It's logical that GCN can execute this effect faster.


Holy moly! Thanks, that gives me another argument in fanboy wars for GCN. Are there any whitepapers about this topic?
Could this be used in The Division "Temporal AA supersampling" mode also? As I noticed it is very light weight even on GCN 1.0 and improves quality a lot.
 
It is understandable, because TAA is temporal effect, and its uses an algorithm called sum of absolute differences. This has a default mode for the standard GPUs, and an accelerated mode for GCN, because this architecture can execute the whole algorithm in one native instruction. It's logical that GCN can execute this effect faster.

So it is unoptimized for nVidia and a feature which needs to be disabled for a fair test. :thumbsup:
 
Back
Top