Titanfall 2 Benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Magee_MC

Senior member
Jan 18, 2010
217
13
81
Single player from PCGH so far, they did have this note not sure if someone can do a real translation as google translate isn't very clear:





http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Titanfall-2-Spiel-55363/Specials/Test-Benchmarks-Singleplayer-1211709/




http://www.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/titanfall-2-test-gpu







GameGPU looks like they did singleplayer testing, but they do have fighting in their scene compared to just walking around in PCGH

Game looks beautiful though, amazing that this is the source engine. Great to see PCGH doing ultrawide testing too!

Anyone able to take screenshots of PCGH review so I can post them here?
Fury X edging 980Ti and 1070 in 1440 and 4k? Has it been taking lessons from Hawaii?
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,601
112
106
A game as God demands... NVIDIA and AMD are doing really good here and without problems.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
NVidia posted TF2 optimized divers today. Hopefully PCgameshardware.de will do a retest so we can see whether or not they improve performance..
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
764
126
All cards are doing what is expected, not bad.
Except Kepler and lower end Maxwell. Yet another AAA game where Kepler bombs.

@ 1080p, R9 280X is only 2 fps behind GTX780Ti. R9 290, the GTX780 competitor, is 34% faster.
@ 1440p, R9 290X, a GTX780Ti competitor, is 31% faster and GameGPU uses thermal throttling reference 290X.

980 looks pretty awful, as usual. @ 1440p, looking at prices during the era, $280-325 R9 290X is just 1 fps behind the $550 GTX980. I remember when people took it personally or defended the GTX980 when I ripped it apart. Everything I said about the 980 came true in the last 15 months. The card was and continues to be an overpriced failure. Today, I wouldn't even pay $200 for a used 980.

Excellent showing for Tahiti, with HD7970Ghz/R9 280X still beating GTX960 4GB by 23% at 1080p. Tahiti 7970 is a true legend. Even in late 2016, the card just won't die for 1080p gaming. With slightly reduced settings, there are so many games where HD7970Ghz/R9 280X can still manage close to 60 fps average in AAA titles. Insane longevity.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
980 looks pretty awful, as usual. @ 1440p, looking at prices during the era, $280-325 R9 290X is just 1 fps behind the $550 GTX980. I remember when people took it personally or defended the GTX980 when I ripped it apart. Everything I said about the 980 came true in the last 15 months. The card was and continues to be an overpriced failure. Today, I wouldn't even pay $200 for a used 980.
A GTX 980 was a much better buy than the R9 290x at the time (and still is), because it was faster, quieter, cooler, used less power and last but not least, could gain an additional 20% performance via overclocking without even messing with the voltage. One of my GTX 980s could hit 1500/8ghz easily, and the other, slightly less at 1480/7800. At these speeds, they were faster than the Fury X, much less the 290x..

Once again, you continue to show how myopic your perspective is by using reference clocked parts, and thinking this is what the people who actually bought those cards ran them at.. Maxwell v2 GPUs had so much extra performance on tap, that you would be a fool not to exploit it.

And FYI (since I know you keep track of peoples purchases and what not), I sold my GTX 980s on CL, one for $420, and the other for $400 when I decided I wanted to drop SLI and get a single GTX 980 Ti. So all in all, I didn't pay a red cent for my GTX 980 Ti and was able to recover most of the value of what I initially paid for my 980s :D
 

kawi6rr

Senior member
Oct 17, 2013
567
156
116
Comparing a 980 to a 290x shows how poor that 980 really is. The 290x came out as a competitor to the 780ti a gen before the 980. Come one now you can't be serious!
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
Comparing a 980 to a 290x shows how poor that 980 really is. The 290x came out as a competitor to the 780ti a gen before the 980. Come one now you can't be serious!
It was your buddy RS that compared the 980 to the 290x initially, and you "liked" his post ironically :D

I wonder why you didn't call him out on comparing the 290x to the 980? :smirk:
 

nurturedhate

Golden Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,697
534
136
It was your buddy RS that compared the 980 to the 290x initially, and you "liked" his post ironically :D

I wonder why you didn't call him out on comparing the 290x to the 980? :smirk:
Your response to 980 vs 290x is "look at everything I have to do to get the 980 to be better than the 290x" that is the issue. A prior gen card priced at <$300 (at release of the 980) is competing well with a card that released at $550 and yet you don't see the issue. The 980 at stock should crush the 290x and yet here they are competing.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
Your response to 980 vs 290x is "look at everything I have to do to get the 980 to be better than the 290x" that is the issue. A prior gen card priced at <$300 (at release of the 980) is competing well with a card that released at $550 and yet you don't see the issue. The 980 at stock should crush the 290x and yet here they are competing.
So just because something costs more, it should always be faster? o_O That's not how things work, as many things determine the value of a GPU, and not just performance.

290x was $550 at launch, but because of how terrible the launch was (card ran hot and loud and was barely faster than a GTX 780), AMD was forced to lower the price substantially to sell them after the mining craze died down.. NVidia cards on the other hand, have always held their value much better than comparable AMD ones.

Also, taking a single game like TF2 (especially after it just launched) as an example to prove your point is ridiculous. Some games perform better on a particular architecture, and a game's performance can change over time due to patches and driver updates. What's to stop someone else from using Civilization VI or Shadow Warrior 2 as counterexamples?

Nothing, but it would be just as silly.. Any PC gamer knows it usually takes about 3 to 6 months or even longer for performance to peak..
 
  • Like
Reactions: tviceman

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
290x was $550 at launch, but because of how terrible the launch was (card ran hot and loud and was barely faster than a GTX 780), AMD was forced to lower the price substantially to sell them after the mining craze died down.. NVidia cards on the other hand, have always held their value much better than comparable AMD ones.
I'm confused are you re-writing history here?

AMD didn't lower prices because the 780 it was competing against was $625-650. Nvidia was the one who massively lowered prices right after to $500 from $650 MSRP.

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/images/perfrel_1920.gif

The better buy was always the 290 though which came in at only $400 and matched the 290x in "quiet" mode which means it also matched the 780.

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/images/perfrel_1920.gif

So even after the $150 price break the $500 780 was being beat by the $400 290.

And those were the crappy cooled versions which throttled. The AIB were much faster for almost no extra.

Nvidia countered with the $680 780 Ti which is now worse than the $400 290.
 

ConsoleLover

Member
Aug 28, 2016
137
43
56
A GTX 980 was a much better buy than the R9 290x at the time (and still is), because it was faster, quieter, cooler, used less power and last but not least, could gain an additional 20% performance via overclocking without even messing with the voltage. One of my GTX 980s could hit 1500/8ghz easily, and the other, slightly less at 1480/7800. At these speeds, they were faster than the Fury X, much less the 290x..

Once again, you continue to show how myopic your perspective is by using reference clocked parts, and thinking this is what the people who actually bought those cards ran them at.. Maxwell v2 GPUs had so much extra performance on tap, that you would be a fool not to exploit it.

And FYI (since I know you keep track of peoples purchases and what not), I sold my GTX 980s on CL, one for $420, and the other for $400 when I decided I wanted to drop SLI and get a single GTX 980 Ti. So all in all, I didn't pay a red cent for my GTX 980 Ti and was able to recover most of the value of what I initially paid for my 980s :D
This is a joke right, it must be! You are joking. There is no way anyone who's sane that would compare the GTX 980 to the 290x which came a generation before it to compete with the 780ti which now blows it out of the water, while basically being neck and neck with the overpriced(at the time and still is) GTX 980. Back then a 980 would set you back $650 at first, later one after the 980ti was released and basically Nvidia screwed over every 980 buyer, the price dropped to $550, while the 290x was selling for $300 for 10% of the performance delta.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
I'm confused are you re-writing history here?

AMD didn't lower prices because the 780 it was competing against was $625-650. Nvidia was the one who massively lowered prices right after to $500 from $650 MSRP.
NVidia does that all the time. Whenever they introduce a new flagship GPU, the price of the older flagship is reduced.. But the point is, that the value of a GPU is more than just its performance..

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/images/perfrel_1920.gif

The better buy was always the 290 though which came in at only $400 and matched the 290x in "quiet" mode which means it also matched the 780.

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/images/perfrel_1920.gif

So even after the $150 price break the $500 780 was being beat by the $400 290.
You go and make the same mistake that RS makes every time. Nobody cares about reference clocked GPUs. Posting benchmarks of reference clocked GPUs, smacks of desperation on your end..

And those were the crappy cooled versions which throttled. The AIB were much faster for almost no extra.
Indeed, but by the time the AiB cards had been introduced, the damage had already been done to Hawaii when it comes to perception.

Nvidia countered with the $680 780 Ti which is now worse than the $400 290.
Right, and there are several reasons for this, the most obvious being the console effect of the PS4 and Xbox One, plus the increased leveraging of compute in games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tviceman

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
This is a joke right, it must be! You are joking. There is no way anyone who's sane that would compare the GTX 980 to the 290x which came a generation before it to compete with the 780ti which now blows it out of the water, while basically being neck and neck with the overpriced(at the time and still is) GTX 980. Back then a 980 would set you back $650 at first, later one after the 980ti was released and basically Nvidia screwed over every 980 buyer, the price dropped to $550, while the 290x was selling for $300 for 10% of the performance delta.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The 290x can certainly be compared to the GTX 980. 290x is a 28nm GPU, just like the GTX 980. 290x has a 512 bit memory bus, whilst the 980 has a 256 bit bus. Both GPUs also have a 4GB frame buffer.

Last but not least, the 290x and GTX 980 have comparable FP32 performance. The 290x at 5.6 Tflops, and the 980 at 5 Tflops for stock clocks. So before you start to doubt the sanity of other people, you should check your facts. :rolleyes:

Also, the GTX 980 was never priced above $600 to my knowledge, so I don't know where you're getting your info from. I paid $550 for both of mine, and these were EVGA FTW versions with much higher clock speeds than reference..o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: tviceman

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
"thesmokingman said:
All cards are doing what is expected, not bad."

Except Kepler and lower end Maxwell. Yet another AAA game where Kepler bombs.
To be fair though isn't Kepler bombing pretty much what is expected of it these days?

I mean it's generally taken as a positive surprise on the (few) occasions where it can keep up with it's AMD contemporaries.

A GTX 980 was a much better buy than the R9 290x at the time (and still is), because it was faster, quieter, cooler, used less power and last but not least, could gain an additional 20% performance via overclocking without even messing with the voltage.
Being faster, quieter, cooler, less power hungry, and a better overclocker doesn't make a card a better buy. Being all those things and charging a reasonable premium for them, makes a card a better buy.

So question is if the $250 premium of the 980 over the 290X was a reasonable premium. That obviously depends upon the individual, but personally I would say no.

And besides the 980 wasn't just overpriced because of the $300 290X available at the time, it was also overpriced because of the $330 970.
 

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,632
593
136
It's a source game? Pretty good looking and relatively demanding for that engine!
 

PontiacGTX

Senior member
Oct 16, 2013
383
25
91
A GTX 980 was a much better buy than the R9 290x at the time (and still is), because it was faster, quieter, cooler, used less power and last but not least, could gain an additional 20% performance via overclocking without even messing with the voltage. One of my GTX 980s could hit 1500/8ghz easily, and the other, slightly less at 1480/7800. At these speeds, they were faster than the Fury X, much less the 290x..

Once again, you continue to show how myopic your perspective is by using reference clocked parts, and thinking this is what the people who actually bought those cards ran them at.. Maxwell v2 GPUs had so much extra performance on tap, that you would be a fool not to exploit it.

And FYI (since I know you keep track of peoples purchases and what not), I sold my GTX 980s on CL, one for $420, and the other for $400 when I decided I wanted to drop SLI and get a single GTX 980 Ti. So all in all, I didn't pay a red cent for my GTX 980 Ti and was able to recover most of the value of what I initially paid for my 980s :D
it really wasnt, with a slighly OC 290x matched 980 performancealso performed better in mgpu and it has support for asynchronous shaders. the 290x was a 1.5years old card and it had much better price/performance

and if you wanted a true 980 competitor the r9 nano and r9 fury had similar price and perfomed better in most DX11 games and All DX12 games with async shaders


So just because something costs more, it should always be faster? o_O That's not how things work, as many things determine the value of a GPU, and not just performance.

290x was $550 at launch, but because of how terrible the launch was (card ran hot and loud and was barely faster than a GTX 780), AMD was forced to lower the price substantially to sell them after the mining craze died down.. NVidia cards on the other hand, have always held their value much better than comparable AMD ones.
.
R9 290X beat GTX Titan while having similar compute capabilities and 1/2 price and AMD lowered the price of the 290/xs to keep the card competitive against Maxwell which had slighly lower price (970)

NVidia does that all the time. Whenever they introduce a new flagship GPU, the price of the older flagship is reduced.. But the point is, that the value of a GPU is more than just its performance..[&quote]reakky they do it if the flagship they had is losing like GTX 780 was and GTX Titan(as a compute card)



You go and make the same mistake that RS makes every time. Nobody cares about reference clocked GPUs. Posting benchmarks of reference clocked GPUs, smacks of desperation on your end..
they are the ones released first generally so you cant really compare a r9 290x non reference when it wasn released
Right, and there are several reasons for this, the most obvious being the console effect of the PS4 and Xbox One, plus the increased leveraging of compute in games.
then Maxwell should be suffering or having lower performance in same games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kawi6rr and Bacon1

ConsoleLover

Member
Aug 28, 2016
137
43
56
You have no idea what you're talking about. The 290x can certainly be compared to the GTX 980. 290x is a 28nm GPU, just like the GTX 980. 290x has a 512 bit memory bus, whilst the 980 has a 256 bit bus. Both GPUs also have a 4GB frame buffer.

Last but not least, the 290x and GTX 980 have comparable FP32 performance. The 290x at 5.6 Tflops, and the 980 at 5 Tflops for stock clocks. So before you start to doubt the sanity of other people, you should check your facts. :rolleyes:

Also, the GTX 980 was never priced above $600 to my knowledge, so I don't know where you're getting your info from. I paid $550 for both of mine, and these were EVGA FTW versions with much higher clock speeds than reference..o_O
You are definitely not sane. That is like saying you can compare the GTX 980 to R7 270x because they are both 28nm and both have 4GB of memory. It doesn't make any sense.

Or saying GTX 970 is same as 1060 3GB, because both have 3gb of memory, it doesn't make any sense, not unless you are hardcore shilling for Nvidia or a giant troll.
 

dogen1

Senior member
Oct 14, 2014
739
40
91
It's a source game? Pretty good looking and relatively demanding for that engine!
Not really. Way too different from source now to really be considered the same thing I think. It's more like a highly evolved customized fork of the source engine.

They chose source to get all the code from Valve's games, but all the important stuff has probably been mostly or completely replaced.

Actually, I just found some of the stuff they changed for titanfall 2 here.

https://www.titanfall.com/en_us/news/pc-specs/

Under the section, new tech in titanfall 2. That's in addition to all the modifications and improvements they made for titanfall 1.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-respawn-the-titanfall-interview

Yeah, I mean we've replaced... it's a whole new renderer, all-new audio code, all-new net code, all-new input code for gamepad. There's some stuff that we've just improved but we've done massive changes. We have our own level editor, we have our own lighting, the way that maps are compiled...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY