Resident evil 7 full game benchmarks

[IEC]

Only played about an hour so far, but as long as shadow cache is disabled in options it seems like I can run it at 4K high settings/SSAO/TAA with no issue.

 

[dark zero]

So... Shadow Cache needs to be polished along nVIDIA and AMD drivers. This game is pretty well optimized, but it can still get more juice from it.

 

[greatnoob]

Sounds like there would be a performance increase w/ shadow cache on if medium or lower settings are used for shadows on <4gb cards. My guess is the game is just storing everything without purging and regenerating old items on demand, leading to 2gb and 4gb cards running out of VRAM and swapping to system memory.

 

[Krteq]

So... Shadow Cache needs to be polished along nVIDIA and AMD drivers. This game is pretty well optimized, but it can still get more juice from it.

Shadow Cache is quite simple - it caches shadows for static objects to VRAM. But if you don't have enough space in VRAM for cache, it prolongs frame time due to continual cycle of clearing and storing cached shadows.

I doubt that drivers could improve this.

 

[casiofx]

Tell me who cares about 999 TITANX when aftermarket 980TI is 15-20% faster and cost 650usd?Problem with 1070 is that its slower than aftermarket 980TI and aging pretty bad.In almost all new games there is 30% gap vs 1080 and aftermarket 980TI is faster in new games.Also furyx is faster in alot of new games.

This argument 1070 is faster than 999 TITANX makes me mad.When there is 20% faster 980TI at almost half cost.

And how exactly faster 980ti is?

Like negative 3% faster?
Geforce GTX 980 Ti vs GTX 1070 vs GTX 1080 Overclocked Performance

Oh do you need a reminder that 980ti was 650 with customs models are even more expensive?
Turns out the one aging badly is 980ti and not 1070

 

[crisium]

Apparently gtx1070 which has the speed of titan x ($999) is a worse x70 series since gtx470 even though it is only sold for around 400

People paid for extra $150 just for 10% faster performance from 290 to 290X

Now a high end performance for $400 is a worse purchase

Okay

There goes the objective logic down the drain

Seems like you’re falling for Nvidia marketing that the $1000 Titan line allows. $1000 Titan X speed in the $450-$380 GTX 1070 just over a year later! This ignores the $650 980 Ti. This also ignores that the 970 was $50-120 cheaper at launch, and closer to the x80 in performance.

It’s overall more cutdown than any other x70 series ever (not counting Kepler 700 refresh), and also is tied for the most expensive with roughly the same price as the GTX 670 ($400 launch) while being radically more cutdown. It is likely the worst x70, but the lack of proper AMD competition makes it a very viable card, don’t get me wrong. For a ~$380 budget it’s arguably the best choice right now, but that doesn’t mean we cannot see the holes.

But I can’t help but see something almost ironic in your post. You praise the 1070 for $400 Titan X performance, but then criticize the 290 series? The series that brought Titan performance to $400 and superior than Titan performance for $550. And of course the 290 was a better price-per-dollar than 290X. But while $400-$550 for 10% more performance was questionable, how about the 780 Ti that was $700 vs $400 and only 15% faster at launch, and equal or slower in the modern era, plus less VRAM.

Hawaii is the golden goose of GPUs, alongside Tahiti. Almost always cheaper than 780 Ti and 980, and now stands above them much of the time. The fact that Hawaii is so stellar in this game relative to Nvidia should have given you pause alone, never mind the 3+ years of excellent performance-per-dollar and raw performance. What a bizarre reaction to criticize a 290X in the face of the benchmarks from this thread.

 

[tg2708]

All I can say is the 980ti (OC'ed one but it boosts to 1400 on it on its own) I have produces highers scores than the ones I see in benchmarks so I think head is right when he says they are using low clocked gpus. Pretty happy with the purchase over both the 1070 and 1080 since I do not game that much and the performance level for it prices is very good. On the other hand performance of this game has been great as I have still yet to download the game ready drivers.

 

[Carfax83]

Seems like you’re falling for Nvidia marketing that the $1000 Titan line allows. $1000 Titan X speed in the $450-$380 GTX 1070 just over a year later!

The Titan line are halo products, but they are still subject to technological progress; as it should be.

 

[nurturedhate]

The Titan line are halo products, but they are still subject to technological progress; as it should be.

The Titan line is marketing to make people think it's worth a certain price. There was no Titan GF110. There was no Titan prior to Kepler period. We had massive gpu's prior to GK110 but no Titans. What changed? A name and a price tag. That's it. Marketing is marketing, there's nothing inherently wrong with a Titan but to blindly go "but but but it's a HALO product" is simply ignoring the actual world. Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

 

[Carfax83]

The Titan line is marketing to make people think it's worth a certain price. There was no Titan GF110. There was no Titan prior to Kepler period. We had massive gpu's prior to GK110 but no Titans. What changed? A name and a price tag. That's it. Marketing is marketing, there's nothing inherently wrong with a Titan but to blindly go "but but but it's a HALO product" is simply ignoring the actual world. Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

You're wrong. Before the Titan line we had the GTX 590, and the GTX 295 which are essentially halo products as well. NVidia has always had halo products in one form or another, and so has AMD for that matter. There will always be people willing to pay large sums of money for the absolute best in performance, even if the performance increase isn't significant.

 

[happy medium]

The Titan line is marketing to make people think it's worth a certain price. There was no Titan GF110. There was no Titan prior to Kepler period. We had massive gpu's prior to GK110 but no Titans. What changed? A name and a price tag. That's it. Marketing is marketing, there's nothing inherently wrong with a Titan but to blindly go "but but but it's a HALO product" is simply ignoring the actual world. Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

Whats changed?

Well the Fermi Titan was a gtx590 and the Kepler Titan was a gtx690. They were the Halo products of 5 or 6 years ago.

I believe AMD stopped making Halo dual GPU cards also, they call them the Fury X / Vega line now. unless you count the Halo $1500 Duo card?

My guess is AMD and Nvidia could see that lower powered large single gpu cards were better.
Mabe they knew crossfire and sli would someday suck and be a pain to support for all games 4 years ago.

Halo = the best and most expensive

 

[MajinCry]

-snip-

As a wee aside, not everybody has a banging power supply. The people on a 960 and such are probably on OEM or budget builds. Me? I'd love a 290, but that thing guzzles power, and it'd fry my 500w Cooler Master.

 

[krumme]

As a wee aside, not everybody has a banging power supply. The people on a 960 and such are probably on OEM or budget builds. Me? I'd love a 290, but that thing guzzles power, and it'd fry my 500w Cooler Master.

Sure about that? We have had a slightly oc 7970 running on a 400w ps for years. No probs. Look at the specs on the rails and add it all up. No need to use a 960 on a 500w ps. Seems like waste of energy to me.

 

[MajinCry]

Sure about that? We have had a slightly oc 7970 running on a 400w ps for years. No probs. Look at the specs on the rails and add it all up. No need to use a 960 on a 500w ps. Seems like waste of energy to me.

https://forum-en.msi.com/faq/article/printer/power-requirements-for-graphics-cards

Them amps.

 

[daxzy]

https://forum-en.msi.com/faq/article/printer/power-requirements-for-graphics-cards

Them amps.

They're probably being overly conservative, as most sh!t PSU's don't hit their ratings in a real world environment.

I have a i7-6700K with a R9-280X/RX 480 (which that site says apparently requires 30A 12V) on a Silverstone SFX 450W PSU (37 or 38A 12V). No problems. Kill-a-Watt system power was around 240W for the R9-280X; 170W for the RX 480 during games.

Edit: That list is also suspect because apparently a GeForce 750/Ti has recommended 20A 12V (despite the fact these cards can be bought without a 6 pin PCI-E power). Yet the GTX 1060 is rated at the same 20A 12V?

 

[tential]

390x performing better than fury x at 4K... another reason I HATE Fury X.

 

[nurturedhate]

You're wrong. Before the Titan line we had the GTX 590, and the GTX 295 which are essentially halo products as well. NVidia has always had halo products in one form or another, and so has AMD for that matter. There will always be people willing to pay large sums of money for the absolute best in performance, even if the performance increase isn't significant.

Whats changed?

Well the Fermi Titan was a gtx590 and the Kepler Titan was a gtx690. They were the Halo products of 5 or 6 years ago.

I believe AMD stopped making Halo dual GPU cards also, they call them the Fury X / Vega line now. unless you count the Halo $1500 Duo card?

My guess is AMD and Nvidia could see that lower powered large single gpu cards were better.
Mabe they knew crossfire and sli would someday suck and be a pain to support for all games 4 years ago.

Halo = the best and most expensive

See, there you both go altering history. Now I know good and well you both know the 295, 590, and 690 are dual gpu solutions so why the duplicity? Secondly they were priced at $500, $700, and $999 respectively. Want to compare something similar? How about the Titan Z at $3000. Kinda kills everything you want people to think huh? And Happy? Yea, there's no Fermi Titan but there was a Kepler Titan and it was called Titan, then Titan Black, then the dual gpu Titan Z. See it all goes back to marketing. Now, for the both of you, show me in my statement where i stated "THERE IS NO HALO PRODUCT!!!!!". I'll wait. ... ... ... Yea, that's what I thought. I said the Titan branding is marketing designed to convince people that a similar product as to its predecessor is now worth far more and I said there's inherently nothing wrong with marketing. It has clearly worked on the two of you. Your posts demonstrate as much.

As for RE7 the game runs fantastically. The atmosphere and suspense it is able to build is amazing. Character animations look great. As for game play it is massively unsettling in a good way, a way I haven't felt since Silent Hill 2.

 

[IEC]

390x performing better than fury x at 4K... another reason I HATE Fury X.

Did you miss my post? It runs just fine on 4K on my Fury. Provided you disable Shadow Cache.

 

[happy medium]

there's inherently nothing wrong with marketing. It has clearly worked on the two of you

Yea I bought a Gigabyte gtx1070 Extreme with 8gb of Vram instead of a 4gb Fury X for $590, just like you did. Marketing must have us both! hahahaha
You talk about us?
At least I didn't buy a $750 gtx780ti like you did.

Hey Bacon can I get a like for that?

Yea Resident evil runs great on my system too.
I jumped like 20 times. Good graphics.
I give it a 8 out of 10.

 

[casiofx]

Seems like you’re falling for Nvidia marketing that the $1000 Titan line allows. $1000 Titan X speed in the $450-$380 GTX 1070 just over a year later! This ignores the $650 980 Ti. This also ignores that the 970 was $50-120 cheaper at launch, and closer to the x80 in performance.

It’s overall more cutdown than any other x70 series ever (not counting Kepler 700 refresh), and also is tied for the most expensive with roughly the same price as the GTX 670 ($400 launch) while being radically more cutdown. It is likely the worst x70, but the lack of proper AMD competition makes it a very viable card, don’t get me wrong. For a ~$380 budget it’s arguably the best choice right now, but that doesn’t mean we cannot see the holes.

But I can’t help but see something almost ironic in your post. You praise the 1070 for $400 Titan X performance, but then criticize the 290 series? The series that brought Titan performance to $400 and superior than Titan performance for $550. And of course the 290 was a better price-per-dollar than 290X. But while $400-$550 for 10% more performance was questionable, how about the 780 Ti that was $700 vs $400 and only 15% faster at launch, and equal or slower in the modern era, plus less VRAM.

Hawaii is the golden goose of GPUs, alongside Tahiti. Almost always cheaper than 780 Ti and 980, and now stands above them much of the time. The fact that Hawaii is so stellar in this game relative to Nvidia should have given you pause alone, never mind the 3+ years of excellent performance-per-dollar and raw performance. What a bizarre reaction to criticize a 290X in the face of the benchmarks from this thread.

Did you even managed to read my last post before you posted this?
And from your post I can conclude that you have english comprehension problems.

My post of

People paid for extra $150 just for 10% faster performance from 290 to 290X

means = "People are willing to pay 37.5% more to get 10% more performance"
How did that interpreted by you to be "criticizing 290 series"
Wow, just wow. People are talking Apples, you replied oranges

And last but not least, I'm talking objectively, you're talking like I'm a so much Nvidia lover, did you checked my previous card was the R9 290 Tri-X?

 

[Bacon1]

I bought a Gigabyte gtx1070 Extreme

So a $460 card which in this game ties or gets beat by a $240 Fury Air at 1080p/1440p?

Thats over twice the price for the same or less performance.

Hey Bacon can I get a like for that?

I'd like for you to answer my post here:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-game-benchmarks.2497847/page-2#post-38702188

to provide proof for any of your claims.

 

[casiofx]

390x performing better than fury x at 4K... another reason I HATE Fury X.

You should look at the updated benchmark numbers. The previous numbers gets skewed due to shadow cache tanking 4GB cards. Just like what happened on COD Advanced Warfare (shadow cache tanking 4GB cards too)

 

[Carfax83]

See, there you both go altering history. Now I know good and well you both know the 295, 590, and 690 are dual gpu solutions so why the duplicity?

There's no duplicity. My point was to show you that the Titan lineup is just another halo product variant, and that halo products have always existed in one form or another throughout the years. Whether they're single GPU or dual GPU it doesn't matter, they're both marketed towards people that are willing to spend a lot of money to have the fastest hardware available.

Secondly they were priced at $500, $700, and $999 respectively. Want to compare something similar? How about the Titan Z at $3000. Kinda kills everything you want people to think huh?

The Titan Z was targeted simultaneously towards professionals and enthusiasts, hence the high price point. Of course, it was a failed product and the last dual GPU made by NVidia.

Now, for the both of you, show me in my statement where i stated "THERE IS NO HALO PRODUCT!!!!!". I'll wait. ... ... ... Yea, that's what I thought. I said the Titan branding is marketing designed to convince people that a similar product as to its predecessor is now worth far more and I said there's inherently nothing wrong with marketing.

You never said it explicitly, but you implied that you distinguished between the Titan series and the former dual GPU flagships. Other than the obvious difference of single GPU vs dual GPU, both products are marketed towards the same people.

NVidia likely gave up dual GPUs and focused on bigger single GPUs because of the inherent unreliability of the former.

 

[happy medium]

So a $460 card

WOW, I paid $400. My card is worth more now,

 

[krumme]

They're probably being overly conservative, as most sh!t PSU's don't hit their ratings in a real world environment.

I have a i7-6700K with a R9-280X/RX 480 (which that site says apparently requires 30A 12V) on a Silverstone SFX 450W PSU (37 or 38A 12V). No problems. Kill-a-Watt system power was around 240W for the R9-280X; 170W for the RX 480 during games.

Edit: That list is also suspect because apparently a GeForce 750/Ti has recommended 20A 12V (despite the fact these cards can be bought without a 6 pin PCI-E power). Yet the GTX 1060 is rated at the same 20A 12V?

Yep. If we take the coler master 500w ps of the cheap type its 38a and 456w solely on the 12v rails. And got those 2x 8pins.
http://www.coolermaster.com/powersupply/b-series/b500ver2/
With a i5 or i7 and the usual ssd and hd or two drive that 290 plenty fine.
I think all that strong ps is a myth in reality these days. It depends but its always worth going into in more detail as having ps that is loaded 60-80% when gaming ynder stress is good for efficiency. Most of these cheap ps lowers efficiency when going below 50% load.
Unfortunately it excactly keeps people from buying strong gfx and instead get some expensive low range at high cost.
Eg 1050ti or especially 960.