So we are hand picking games? You said previously that Dirt Showdown was basically cheating Nvidia outright. Now you change your mind. Sleeping Dogs just came out and it's an AMD Evolved title to boot. I have never seen Skyrim shown to run better on AMD hardware. As for Batman...Physx adds a very real effect to the game. There are whole sections of smoke and effects that are gone when physx is off. It's a big deal for that title when taken side by side IMO. That outweighs any performance differences to me.
I am not denying that Dirt Showdown, Sleeping Dogs and Sniper Elite are cheating NV.
AMD Gaming Evolved. What I am saying is that AMD put $ behind their developer relations and now these 3 games perform faster on AMD. In which games is GTX680
much faster? Shogun 2, Lost Planet 2, Hawx 2, Project Cars, Hard Reset, World of Planes, Wargame: European Escalation, maybe a couple other games escaping me. That list is getting smaller every day AMD's driver team is at work trying to claw back the performance delta, while NV fixed none of their performance issues in Anno 2070, Bulletstorm, Serious Sam 3, Alan Wake, Arma II Operations, Dirt Showdown, Sleeping Dogs, Sniper Elite 2, Metro 2033, Crysis 1/Warhead, etc.
So if you look at 20-30 games, NV barely has any wins left and where it loses, those losses are huge.
As for Skyrim, it has been running faster on HD7970 series since June 22nd, with Cats 12.7. AT tests it at 1080P with no mods and 4xMSAA, which is CPU limited for modern cards. If they are going to test Skyrim at 1080P, they should enable ENB mods or something:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti/24/
Alternatively, take up the settings to shift the load to the GPU:
As for Batman, I said before that it's one of the best PhysX implementations on the NV side. Not denying that it looks better with PhysX. But it runs worse with MSAA on NV cards:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti/28/
I think PhysX > MSAA in Batman, so overall the NV cards provides a better graphical experience. Then again, it's not just 5 games. Look at the list of games I noted above. My point is I can't think of many games where GTX680 is actually faster by 20-30%, but I can think of plenty of games where 7970 Ghz edition is.
You also mentioned in this thread that BF3 doesn't matter.
I said BF3 doesn't matter because the performance difference between an OCed 670/680 and OCed 7970 is single % digits. At your resolution,
it's just single frames. BF3 now is a game where the performance between an OC 7970 and OC 680 is so close, it's a wash. Before GTX680 was killing 7970 in it. Of course if you don't overclock, the something like a Gigabyte Windforce 3x 670 > 925mhz 7970 in BF3.
You made a thread talking about the new Medal of Honor running better on Nvidia hardware with the Frostbite 2 engine. So now you're going back on those comments?
Medal of Honor does look great for NV right now in Beta, not denying that. But look at what happened with Guild Wars 2? AMD's driver team has time to fix their performance. If Medal of Honor driver issues are fixed by AMD where it's again just single digits, then it won't matter again.
Also have you played Dirt Showdown? It looks almost exactly like Dirt 3 but runs 10 times worse. That's ridiculous...I don't even call that fair at all. Just like I didn't call Crysis 2 very fair to AMD when it used tessellation oceans underground that were unnecessary. I'm talking specifically about the graphics. It doesn't look that different from Dirt 3 but runs much worse which is pretty lame IMO.
Ya vs. Dirt 3, I am not seeing anything worth a 10-15 fps hit, nevermind a 50-60 fps performance hit. I am hoping someone comes up with a way to have more realistic global lighting model without such a severe lighting hit. At the same time when HDR came out, it hammered GeForce 6800 series in Far Cry. So maybe we need 2-3 generations of cards to see if this is a problem with modern cards.[/quote]
I think the performance hit in Dirt Showdown is not worth the graphical improvement personally. So I agree with you on that. But the game is playable on AMD cards nonetheless. I also don't think the performance hit with SSAA and HDAO is worth it in Sleeping Dogs. I think Crysis 1 looks better than Sleeping Dogs and actually runs smoother. But if DirectCompute is the direction future games will go more and more if AMD starts throwing more $ at developers, it could grow from 3 games to 5-10 games, etc.
Actually I am amazed that since Crysis 1, Metro 2033, Witcher 2, BF3, hardly any new games have come out that look pretty, despite them having a huge performance hit with their global lighting/HDAO/contact hardening shadows, etc. From that point of view I am not overly impressed with the level of optimization these new graphical features provide vs. their performance hit. I am not sure if these new extra features will really eat GPU performance or they are just not optimally coded in games at the moment.
Facebook
Twitter