• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

TRESSFX: A NEW FRONTIER OF REALISM IN PC GAMING

Top man thanks Rusty :)

I was hoping someone was going to give me the way to work it out...Now you know why I sit up a crane all day :D
 
Ultimate and SMAA 4x (i.e total maxed):

ultimatesmaa4x.png


Ultimate preset:

ultimatex.png


Edit not sure what those minimums are. Probably a fractional second drop but it was smooth enough on both and I definitely didn't perceive a drop to 3 FPS :D.
 
Rusty0611 said:
Edit not sure what those minimums are. Probably a fractional second drop but it was smooth enough on both and I definitely didn't perceive a drop to 3 FPS :D.
Click to expand...

Can you match my clocks? 1200/1750.
Wondering if you could try a single 7950 at my clocks with your settings (ultimi +4xSS) to put to sleep the clock for clock 50vs70? a lot of different figures get thrown about :D
 
So as I expected Fermi architecture gets the **** kicked out of it by TressFX while GCN and (big) Kepler manage a bit better.

EDIT: On stock clocks losing 76% to TressFX - think the memory bandwidth on this card is too gimped to handle it all on stock.
 
Last edited:
Tonester0011 said:
Can you match my clocks? 1200/1750.
Wondering if you could try a single 7950 at my clocks with your settings (ultimi +4xSS) to put to sleep the clock for clock 50vs70? a lot of different figures get thrown about :D
Click to expand...

Won't do 1750 on the memory. 1700 is the very max but it can be sketchy still. The 7970 memory is better all round.

Will do it at some point if I remember.
 
Tonester0011 said:
Can you match my clocks? 1200/1750.
Wondering if you could try a single 7950 at my clocks with your settings (ultimi +4xSS) to put to sleep the clock for clock 50vs70? a lot of different figures get thrown about :D
Click to expand...

Tommy is the man you should listen to seeing as he has owned both cards (7970+7950) at the same time and compared them before. :)
 
Yes be he only compared them on a synthetic benchmark so it's not incredibly useful hence the request to actually compare it on something useful. :D
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
He may have compared more but only provided proof of the benchmark. He might be right: I'm just yet to see proof. :D
Click to expand...

Your excel results were proof/good enough for me at the time buddy;), but anyway, feel free to call it as you see.:)

Compute benchmark was 10% dead, heaven was almost 7%(proof posted months ago on both of them so feel free to sift through countless threads because I'm not, I believe myself:p) so it varies, which resulted in my 5-10% ballpark figure, I'll draw a line under it there.

I'm in agreement though that ultimately, the 70 has better vram capability than the 50 when you oc to the max.

In actual gaming between the two@1080p, you aren't going to notice the difference clock for clock, you probably need to go high res eyefinity to notice any difference.


It's definitely 10% bigger when Lara runs real, real fast though rusty.:D
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
This article looks at CPU and GPU scaling in the new TR:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html

Edit!!

It also looks like the SB Core i3 CPUs don't do relatively well either:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Tomb Raider/test/TR proz.jpg
Click to expand...


I like that review site, been following their gaming reviews for a while. I pulled a few of the images and will post them here to save people from waiting for the slow page loads. Looks like i should be able to max this at 1440p if i keep aa off.

GLkU22D.jpg


cRWdVwp.jpg


C475hDb.jpg


HdWjaDZ.jpg


qPooaEp.jpg


fFUee6A.jpg
 
The nVidia performance is quite poor. The 660Ti looks atrociously bad value for money even with AA and TressFX off. (below a stock 7850).

Should be some large performance increases in the bag though hopefully.
 
wolvers said:
You just wait until [H] get wind of this, oooohhh Nvidia are going to get a right telling off. :p
Click to expand...

It won't be mentioned, or if it does they will have mixed and matched settings so the Nvidia cards win. They managed it with sleeping dogs, a game that is CLEARLY faster and smoother on AMD hardware. I have faith in their ability to find a way. ;)
 
LtMatt said:
It won't be mentioned, or if it does they will have mixed and matched settings so the Nvidia cards win. They managed it with sleeping dogs, a game that is CLEARLY faster and smoother on AMD hardware. I have faith in their ability to find a way. ;)
Click to expand...

lol stop going on about this, Matt. They didn't.

The graphs were quite clear what they were saying with regards to max playable settings. I admit I didn't read the comments in depth to see if there was implicit bias but the graphs showed (from memory) marginally higher FPS on nVidia cards at LOWER settings.

The Apples to Apples comparison showed the AMD card being faster.

I dislike HardOCP but I think although I don't like that particular way of displaying information it isn't an automatic reason to suspect bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom