PCLabNeed for Speed - Graphics Card Benchmarks

[IllogicalGlory]

The game is always online (for DRM purposes), but there's single player mode; I assume PClabs tested in single player mode as well. They didn't specify that it was online with other people, and if it was, the results are even more suspect as online games are far more dynamic than a single player game, which would produce inconsistent results.

Nearly every review from PClab shows NV ahead, pretty much no matter what the game, so when they mention something about testing in a specific area with lots of cars, which may or may not be representative of normal gameplay and they don't provide a benchmark run video, and other review sites show different results, I'll naturally be suspicious.

Gamegpu, for example, does provide a video showing the benchmark run, and that Tom's review that you perhaps criticized provided more specific information about their run than PClabs did and did actually play it as far as I can tell.

 

[Silverforce11]

well said. :thumbsup:

There are other sites too which show better performance for AMD cards. pclab is known to be extremely pro-Nvidia. so no surprises.

http://www.tomshardware.de/ea-need-...hmarks-performance,testberichte-242070-2.html

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...563/Specials/Benchmarks-Technik-Test-1188606/

http://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-gonki/need-for-speed-test-gpu.html

And Overclock3d.net's results as well.

Even their fellow Polish site, Pure PC:

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...speed_komputer_z_nitro_mile_widziany?page=0,8

Pretty much PCLab always get worse AMD performance, I wonder what they are doing to get those numbers, or whether they just make it up randomly. Every single game bench they have done, AMD performs much worse comparatively.

Similar to ABT in that way. Results just don't match the major review sites and AMD tanks in performance.

Lastly, this is a Frostbite engine game, optimized like Battlefront, runs great on all hardware with good visuals. AMD has an advantage clearly, so shill sites that show otherwise are simply and obviously wrong.

 

[linkgoron]

BTW:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...563/Specials/Benchmarks-Technik-Test-1188606/

also pretty much agrees with gamegpu

EDIT:
ah sorry, I didn't see that it was already posted.

 

[Silverforce11]

Duplicate thread also, you're a few weeks late.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2466527

 

[Game_dev]

GTX 970 faster than 390X on the AMD-sponsored Frostbite engine.

Nuff said.

It's not too surprising really. After the 970 took down Fury in Tomb Raider directx 12.

 

[Sweepr]

Duplicate thread also, you're a few weeks late.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2466527

I don't see PCLab results there. Did you forget to post?

BTW PurePC puts OCed GTX970 ahead of OCed R9 390 - nice to know they're a credible website (according to you).

 

[Silverforce11]

I don't see PCLab results there. Did you forget to post?

You are free to post PCLab results in the thread. -_-

Edit:

BTW PurePC puts OCed GTX970 ahead of OCed R9 390 - nice to know they're a credible website (according to you).

That's not a wrong result btw. A 1.56ghz 970 vs a 1.1ghz 390, is not going to look good for the 390. OC is silicon lottery. If they did a 1.2ghz 390 vs a 1.4ghz 970, it's not going to look good for the 970. Capiche?

 

[kawi6rr]

You are free to post PCLab results in the thread. -_-

But that would go exactly against his agenda, ()

 

[Sweepr]

But that would go exactly against his agenda,

Personal attacks allowed now? Nice to know.
Plenty of shills to post pro-AMD results and never the opposite, readers deserve to know the full picture. You are free to disqualify the results, just explain why.
BTW, currently using a factory OCed Radeon 7970 in this rig (sold a faster VGA, now waiting for Pascal/Polaris).

 

[Silverforce11]

Would probably qualify as thread crapping, given the purpose of that thread.

The purpose of that thread, as I posted in the OP, is to inform and I invited others to post benches as they find them.

You are free to post from any site, including ABT or PCLab. But most people here know about these two sites very well. The owners are public about being anti-AMD and NV fans. In fact, one of them even was banned from AnandTech forum for much trolling in the old days.

ps. Pcgameshardware.de isn't Pro-AMD btw, they run massively OC NV GPUs vs stock AMD. You can see even in their results, the 390 wrecks the OC 970. This is simply because Frostbite favors AMD. Posting results like PCLab where AMD runs much worse in a new Frostbite engine game, is like claiming NV performs much worse in an UE4 game. It's unreal, fake.

 

[PPB]

Rename the thread please to "And this is why PCLab is such a joke" to make more sense. Even Polish people lurking around this forum will tell you that.

Tests conducted in the only place that probably exposes Maxwell in a better light.

FTFY.

 

[Piroko]

Not if I overclock....:thumbsup:
I will overclock my i3 more soon and later my new Kabylake 7700k on the same board..

Aside that you can already find z170 boards for 70$ - even with Skylake I'd prefer recommending a native quad core over a dualie with HT in the first place. Even in this thread there's a graph showing the i5 4670k @3.4GHz posting 35% higher minimums than an i3 4330 @3.5GHz. That's worth mentioning at least in a discussion about value.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Aside that you can already find z170 boards for 70$ - even with Skylake I'd prefer recommending a native quad core over a dualie with HT in the first place. Even in this thread there's a graph showing the i5 4670k @3.4GHz posting 35% higher minimums than an i3 4330 @3.5GHz. That's worth mentioning at least in a discussion about value.

Definitely. I'd rather go for a $70 Z170 board with some fast RAM + an i3, or step up to an i5 with the same board rather than spending another $70 for very little performance increase. BCLK overclocking is impractical anyway, given all the features it disables.

 

[happy medium]

Aside that you can already find z170 boards for 70$ - even with Skylake I'd prefer recommending a native quad core over a dualie with HT in the first place. Even in this thread there's a graph showing the i5 4670k @3.4GHz posting 35% higher minimums than an i3 4330 @3.5GHz. That's worth mentioning at least in a discussion about value.

I don't buy junk featureless boards or psu's , for me its the most important part of your entire system.
My i3 6100 clocks at 3.8 without an overclocking bios ans will beat up on a i3 4330 @ 3.5. Fast ram like my ddr4 3000 also helps with Skylake cpu's. A i3 6100 is also 40% cheaper than a 4670k and runs every game I have at 50fps or higher. I don't need a native quad core. Have you seen the cpu benchmarks of the latest games? They are not very cpu intensive.

 

[tential]

I don't buy junk featureless boards or psu's , for me its the most important part of your entire system.
My i3 6100 clocks at 3.8 without an overclocking bios ans will beat up on a i3 4330 @ 3.5. Fast ram like my ddr4 3000 also helps with Skylake cpu's. A i3 6100 is also 40% cheaper than a 4670k and runs every game I have at 50fps or higher. I don't need a native quad core. Have you seen the cpu benchmarks of the latest games? They are not very cpu intensive.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10127...permicro-c7h170-m-intel-core-i3-6100te-review

The reason this isn't popular is simple, the value is bad. You buy a more expensive mobo, that could have gone into the CPU. You buy a cheaper CPU. You then wait for the next round of CPUs, that are not much faster, upgrade to that and now have spent more money overall and had less performance over the same period of time.

Or, you just buy 6700k..... The value of the low threaded CPUs is so pathetically low I can't understand how people continually get suckered into it. Sandybridge i7 users still are considering holding onto their CPUs, while other i3 users have gone and upgraded to new i3s, or got some common sense and upgraded to i5s/i7s. But it's i7 users that really look at CPU benches and go "I have no reason to upgrade...". So do yourself a favor if you want a CPU for the longhaul and just get the i7 and stop screwing around. Until CPU computing drastically changes for gaming, we're going to see the i7 continue to last 5-6 years if you want it to especially with your requirements for gaming. And that's being conservative IMO for people who just want to game and aren't chasing super high fps/resolutions.

 

[Piroko]

I don't buy junk featureless boards or psu's , for me its the most important part of your entire system.

The funny thing is that we bought the same category in motherboards, only in different generations. I picked up an Asus z97-AR for ~130$ back then. Though I tend to prefer boards that only come with the features I actually need, way less chance for some buggy sh...stuff annoying me. And I wouldn't really call the 150$ category feature packed either, most of them cheap out hard on the onboard sound.

My i3 6100 clocks at 3.8 without an overclocking bios ans will beat up on a i3 4330 @ 3.5. Fast ram like my ddr4 3000 also helps with Skylake cpu's. A i3 6100 is also 40% cheaper than a 4670k and runs every game I have at 50fps or higher. I don't need a native quad core. Have you seen the cpu benchmarks of the latest games? They are not very cpu intensive.

No need to defend your purchase, you plan to upgrade to a faster CPU anyways. But those who don't are better off with getting a CPU that can keep up with 60fps or higher now and live with a CPU that can still do 50fps or higher with the games that get released in two years. Imho, at least.

 

[littleg]

It's not just features. There's stuff like power regulation and component quality to take into account too. Basically there's two parts i'll never try and save money on, the power supply and the motherboard.

 

[Piroko]

It's not just features. There's stuff like power regulation and component quality to take into account too. Basically there's two parts i'll never try and save money on, the power supply and the motherboard.

Power regulation: Did a quick check, I've only seen at least 7 power phases in Asus z170 boards and identical controllers no matter the price. The more expensive boards get enough components to do arc welding if that's what you want. All caps seem to be japanese as well. If that's the level of cheaping out that we're talking about, then I'm not bothered.

Now PSUs I'll overspend as well, but those can be a fire hazard if you cheap out.

 

[happy medium]

No need to defend your purchase, you plan to upgrade to a faster CPU anyways. But those who don't are better off with getting a CPU that can keep up with 60fps or higher now and live with a CPU that can still do 50fps or higher with the games that get released in two years. Imho, at least.

Let me explain my decision makin process.
When I purchased my i3 6100 at release, it was 125$ and the prices of the 6600k/6700k were through the roof @ 260$/380$ ,and still are.

I figured I have a q9550@ 4.0 (gave it to my parents) and the i3 was much faster .
I can easily game on this for a year or so , sell it for 85$ easily, total cost =40$.
Now I will skip the 6700k and buy the hopefully better Kabylake high end chip or at the very least buy a 6700k for ~ 300$. AND the new, faster gpu's will be available.
I will use the 6100/gtx960 till performance starts to tank, and sell them both.
I should get 200$ back on my 300$ spent on the 6100/gtx960 later this year.

If I went the other direction the 6700k would be 388$ and say a r9 390 for 350$ ( a few months back) would cost me 738$. I game @ 1080p, how much difference in performance would I actually see from my i3 6100/ overclocked gtx960 for my extra 438$? I drop few settings yea but 438$ for a few settings is not worth it to me.

SOme things I'm counting on are Zen will drop and mabe the 6700k/7700k cpu prices might drop to where they belong at ~300$ at the end of the year. The initial price gouging for the gtx1070/Polaris 10 will be gone and I should get 2x the performance of a 390 for ~400$ with much lower power usage.


Need for speed 2016 video of a i3 4130 @ 3.4 and a stock gtx960 2gb getting about 50/60fps @ high settings @ 1080p.
With my 960 overclock and cpu, I should get an easy 60fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WONc85s8k-8