Starcraft AA benchmarks: ATi vs nVidia

[Skurge]

That pcper review shows the 460 doing very well against even the 5870 @19/12. I'm guessing NVIDIA will get back their marketshare no problem.

I'm still waiting for those benches dude.

 

[3DVagabond]

That pcper review shows the 460 doing very well against even the 5870 @19/12. I'm guessing NVIDIA will get back their marketshare no problem.

Mate, one card isn't going to save the day.

 

[Wreckage]

I'm still waiting for those benches dude.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30253832&postcount=45

 

[Gikaseixas]

hey WRECK what do you think about 5870 vs GTX480??? really close too don't you think? Do you recommend the 5870 over the GTX480?? I know the answer... talk about double standards.

You and happy should just get married, great couple

 

[Skurge]

Would it make you feel better if I add the Xbit review where in wins 3 other benchmarks?

Once again, I don't see Stracraft 2 on that list. So show the benches or rectify this post.

 

[Skurge]

hey WRECK what do you think about 5870 vs GTX480??? really close too don't you think? Do you recommend the 5870 over the GTX480?? I know the answer... talk about double standards.

You and happy should just get married, great couple

To him, that bench doesn't exist.

 

[Grooveriding]

That pcper review shows the 460 doing very well against even the 5870 @19/12. I'm guessing NVIDIA will get back their marketshare no problem.

It's a pity the 460 can't provide a playable framerate with AA at any resolution over 1680x1050. Looks like the 5870 is much faster than the 460 and can.

Unfortunately the pcper benchmark posted in this thread is flawed and inaccurate. My 480s are not much higher than their single 480 scores.

In short, misleading troll post quoted above. Ignore it.

 

[Skurge]

It's a pity the 460 can't provide a playable framerate with AA at any resolution over 1680x1050. Looks like the 5870 is much faster than the 460 and can.

Unfortunately the pcper benchmark posted in this thread is flawed and inaccurate. My 480s are not much higher than their single 480 scores.

In short, misleading troll post quoted above. Ignore it.

WOW, the 5870 is faster at 1920x1200 than the 460 is at 1680x1050. Man, that 5870 is some really good value for money huh.

 

[evolucion8]

Jum, wreck, what can you say about it?

 

[Voo]

From what I read, they use real life situations, whats wrong with that?

You forgot to answer this part?

No they're using replays - which seems to skew the results, since - and that's the important part here - everyone who really PLAYS the game, gets completely different results.

If your benchmarks just don't match up with reality, you probably should look at them again and find out what's going on (and the only thing I see there is their use of replays, but who knows, maybe it's something different)

 

[Wreckage]

hey WRECK what do you think about 5870 vs GTX480??? really close too don't you think? Do you recommend the 5870 over the GTX480?? I know the answer... talk about double standards.

You and happy should just get married, great couple

I don't see the 5870 overtaking the 480 in these benchmarks, maybe I missed it?

Looking at the pcper review the 460 was getting a higher minimum framerate @ 19x12 and is a signifcantly less expensive card.

Funny thing is I'm not saying the 460 is faster in every game or benchmark. I was just noting that a card that cost nearly half is performing very close in this benchmark. I guess to some people that is upsetting. :shrug:

Once again, I don't see Stracraft 2 on that list. So show the benches or rectify this post.

Where did I say they were Starcraft benches...? I did not. You are just stirring up trouble. Apologize to me and stop stalking me through this thread.

 

[Grooveriding]

I don't see the 5870 overtaking the 480 in these benchmarks, maybe I missed it?

Looking at the pcper review the 460 was getting a higher minimum framerate @ 19x12 and is a signifcantly less expensive card.

Funny thing is I'm not saying the 460 is faster in every game or benchmark. I was just noting that a card that cost nearly half is performing very close in this benchmark. I guess to some people that is upsetting. :shrug:



Where did I say they were Starcraft benches...? I did not. You are just stirring up trouble. Apologize to me and stop stalking me through this thread.

“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.”

 

[lopri]

It depends on how you use the replays to measure the FPS. If you set the camera to a certain player's view then that represents exactly how the game was played from that person's point of view. (You can see the frantic mouse clickings and hotkey productions, etc.) I'd say that's as accurate as can be, though I am not aware how PCPer measured their replays.

 

[Skurge]

Where did I say they were Starcraft benches...? I did not. You are just stirring up trouble. Apologize to me and stop stalking me through this thread.

Apologize for what?

This is a Starcraft 2 AA thread and you said the GTX460 beats the 5850 in 3 other XBIT benchmarks. If you were talking about tessellation remove your post form this thread and put in one that talks about tessellation, not this one.

Once more show me those benches or edit your post. It doesn't belong here. If you cant produce them. Remove your post and apologize to everyone in this thread.

 

[evolucion8]

I don't see the 5870 overtaking the 480 in these benchmarks, maybe I missed it?

But comes so close, the HD 5870 is closer to the GTX 480 that the GTX 460 1GB against the HD 5870. Look at these links;

See, does it make it the better card? Please...., talk about double standards.

Funny thing is I'm not saying the 460 is faster in every game or benchmark. I was just noting that a card that cost nearly half is performing very close in this benchmark. I guess to some people that is upsetting. :shrug:

Doesn't mean because the GTX 460 can come close in some scenarios, it makes it the better card, because the HD 5870 comes often close to the GTX 480, more often than the GTX 460 1GB to the HD 5870 and obviously it doesn't make it the better card, talk about double standards buddy.

Where did I say they were Starcraft benches...? I did not. You are just stirring up trouble. Apologize to me and stop stalking me through this thread.

You deserve a permaban, nothing more. You are the one stirring up trouble using cheap psychology like "If the GTX 460 is faster at Tessellation than the HD 5870, it is clearly the better card". The better card for what? Who the hell's gonna buy an HD 5870 to play under low resolutions where the GTX 460 will be more useful?

 

[golem]

It's a pity the 460 can't provide a playable framerate with AA at any resolution over 1680x1050. Looks like the 5870 is much faster than the 460 and can.

Unfortunately the pcper benchmark posted in this thread is flawed and inaccurate. My 480s are not much higher than their single 480 scores.

In short, misleading troll post quoted above. Ignore it.

In regards to the GTX 460 and 1920x1080, you don't consider 29 min fps in a rts playable?

 

[Cerb]

In regards to the GTX 460 and 1920x1080, you don't consider 29 min fps in a rts playable?

The point is that us real folk are getting different results during actual play, and while it may be impossible to mimic with a replay, the Xbit labs and TechSpot reviews show performance much closer to what actual gameplay gives.

It's difficult, given that there is no standard benchmark, but I even get performance lower than TechSpot's CPU scaling shows I should be, at higher detail levels.

What they need to do is:
1. Get a minimum 4-player game going, where everyone is allowed to freely expand early in the game, turtle, and tech up, really fast. All races should be used.
2. When everyone is done with tech, and has hit 200/200, and has some of every halfway useful unit, have a giant battle at a known point on the map, panning the camera so that the replay is stuck showing as many units engaged as possible during the battle.
3. Once that battle is over, the losers should surrender, ending the replay.
4. Test replays at different detail settings, with time plots, in addition to min/avg FPS.
5. When putting up the review, also put the replay up for download.

 

[golem]

The point is that us real folk are getting different results during actual play, and while it may be impossible to mimic with a replay, the Xbit labs and TechSpot reviews show performance much closer to what actual gameplay gives.

It's difficult, given that there is no standard benchmark, but I even get performance lower than TechSpot's CPU scaling shows I should be, at higher detail levels.

What they need to do is:
1. Get a minimum 4-player game going, where everyone is allowed to freely expand early in the game, turtle, and tech up, really fast. All races should be used.
2. When everyone is done with tech, and has hit 200/200, and has some of every halfway useful unit, have a giant battle at a known point on the map, panning the camera so that the replay is stuck showing as many units engaged as possible during the battle.
3. Once that battle is over, the losers should surrender, ending the replay.
4. Test replays at different detail settings, with time plots, in addition to min/avg FPS.
5. When putting up the review, also put the replay up for download.

I just have a problem with with the statement that the gtx 460 is not playable at anything besides 16x10. I think this statement is very misleading since based the the xbit graphs posted along with that statement, the 5850 is barely any better at all. The GTX 470 and 5870 show better avg fps, but their mins are at best only 10% better at 19x10. But the OP only mentions the GTX 460 as non playable. Based on how closely the numbers cluster, they either all are or all aren't playable based the the data given.

I think it would be rare for 4 players to reach top tech and each have 200/200 units unless it was friends playing co op against the AI. But that would be an interesting near worse case scenerio.

 

[Cerb]

I just have a problem with with the statement that the gtx 460 is not playable at anything besides 16x10.

...at Ultra settings, where you already need a high-end CPU, before you even think about video.

They need to do a review accounting for all four basic detail levels, rather than constantly focusing on Ultra. IE, do a CPU review, like techSpot's, but with all detail levels, with a kickass card, and then use a stock fast i7 for a GPU review--again, at all detail levels. That, or set up actual graduated systems systems, with some parts/driver consistency (FI, i7 + GTX 480, PII X4 + GTX 460 1GB, AII X2 + GTX 460 768MB, C2D + GTX 260). Make sure that, at Ultra, any common old/low-end CPU, like a stock C2D, stock AII/PII, or i3, slows to a crawl during battles and/or sitting atop an active base, before bothering to test lower settings with that replay. And, of course, have a link to the replay for download.

Since the game was made to look good on a beast of a machine, but run on a DX9.0C-compliant toaster, it's not dead nuts simple to give a real performance review with such a narrow range of hardware and game settings.

I think it would be rare for 4 players to reach top tech and each have 200/200 units unless it was friends playing co op against the AI. But that would be an interesting near worse case scenerio.

Yes, but getting close to a worst-case scenario would be the point. Most games with canned benchmarks try to make the benchmark have scenes that are exceptionally stressful included, so that it makes for a test that you can use to predict how it will play on your hardware.

 

[pmanipole]

been playing it at 1680*1050 with 4aa and 16aaf on my Sapphire 5850. game runs great and is a real treat on the eyes. the only slow down i get is when a game first starts and it is a little jumpy for about 20 seconds.
for the $255 i am more then happy with this card.
the game is ok, nothing groundbreaking but the story line is great so that makes up for it.

 

[happy medium]

WHo said Starcraft was NOT playable @ 1900x1080 with a gtx 460?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...tarcraft-ii-gpu-performance-comparison-6.html

 

[Madcatatlas]

Wait. directx9???? using a Dx11 card to play the game at dx9 lvl seems ..counterproductive.

 

[Qbah]

So I'm almost at the end and the game's unplayable even with MSAA at 1920x1080. I am literally getting 1-2s pauses every few seconds with regular FPS <10. The amount of units is crazy and all those graphs showing 60FPS with 40MIN are bullshit. The last several missions have been like that and there's no way I can play them with any AA at all.

So happy, stop reading silly reviews and stop basing your opinion on them. Most of them are very wrong. People have been telling you that yet you continue to ignore gameplay facts. Or better yet, buy the game and see for yourself.

 

[golem]

Wait. directx9???? using a Dx11 card to play the game at dx9 lvl seems ..counterproductive.

Are you joking? SC2 is a directx9 game.

 

[golem]

So I'm almost at the end and the game's unplayable even with MSAA at 1920x1080. I am literally getting 1-2s pauses every few seconds with regular FPS <10. The amount of units is crazy and all those graphs showing 60FPS with 40MIN are bullshit. The last several missions have been like that and there's no way I can play them with any AA at all.

So happy, stop reading silly reviews and stop basing your opinion on them. Most of them are very wrong. People have been telling you that yet you continue to ignore gameplay facts. Or better yet, buy the game and see for yourself.

Interesting, I haven't progressed that far in the game yet, looks like I'll have to turn res down or AA off later on in the game. But it looks like it's not only a GTX 460 that will have problems in the late game, since you are using a 5850.