Ryse: Son of Rome GPU performance benchmark

TonyTurbo78 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:12

haha i'll leave it there.

shankly1985 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:13

Gregster said:
Yer I do, or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Only one guy I read getting all huffy about the other brand

No I just pointing out that it tuck brute force to get it on top. If I cared don't you think i would be overclocking and trying? The answer is no I couldn't care less. So long am getting my needs I am not interested. Reason you only see stock results from me.

Tonester0011 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:13

shankly1985 said:
I can take it you think i really care? lol Nope 290's

I don't think you can take it, more lube maybe? Remember, start small.
I do think you care

Otherwise you wouldn't get so cry cry over 1 benchmark where Nvidia slaps AMD about.

shankly1985 said:
No I just pointing out that it tuck brute force to get it on top.

1600boost isn't brute force, i might agree if it took 1600core for 0.1fps lead, not 27fps!!

andrewohare · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:14

VincentHanna said:
Why you would buy this instead of say...Shadows of Mordor (also very stabby) I have no idea.

Shadows of Mordor is an excellent game id say better than ryse

i fancy Ryse .. didn't know it was out yet!

Ayahuasca · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:14

shankly1985 said:
No I just pointing out that it tuck brute force to get it on top.

Yet out of all the cards in the list Pulse88 is the one who's went nuts with the overclocking. Think about what you're saying.

Gregster · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:19

shankly1985 said:
No I just pointing out that it took brute force to get it on top.

Not sure you understand the difference between brute force and basic overclocking. Like Tones is saying, 27fps isn't brute force being needed, that is a proper hiding. The 980/970 is voltage locked with no chance of upping volts over what is available as of yet, so no brute force needed.

shankly1985 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:19

Ayahuasca said:
Yet out of all the cards in the list Pulse88 is the one who's went nuts with the overclocking. Think about what you're saying.

Taking a 1216 core to 1500 or 1600 is brute force... Are these game ready clocks? or these just benchmark clocks?

Can a 980 run and play a game without crashing at these clocks? if the answer is yes then I'll leave now.

shankly1985 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:20

Gregster said:
Not sure you understand the difference between brute force and basic overclocking. Like Tones is saying, 27fps isn't brute force being needed, that is a proper hiding. The 980/970 is voltage locked with no chance of upping volts over what is available as of yet, so no brute force needed.

You be right I no nothing about GTX overclocking. but to me taking something from 1200 to 1500 or 1600 is massive.

Gregster · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:22

shankly1985 said:
Taking a 1216 core to 1500 or 1600 is brute force... Are these game ready clocks? or these just benchmark clocks?

Can a 980 run and play a game without crashing at these clocks? if the answer is yes then I'll leave now.

shankly1985 said:
You are right, I know nothing about GTX overclocking. But to me taking something from 1200 to 1500 or 1600 is massive.

You clearly are showing some incredible naivety.

thefogo · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:22

I think the 980 SC runs at ~1400mhz out of the box. To get to 1500 from there isn't really huge.

Silent_Scone · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:22

shankly1985 said:
Taking a 1216 core to 1500 or 1600 is brute force... Are these game ready clocks? or these just benchmark clocks?

Can a 980 run and play a game without crashing at these clocks? if the answer is yes then I'll leave now.

I can game at 1540...

How is it brute force when some can do that at stock voltage?

Just to put a spanner in the works for you, my card didn't exceed 29c in the AI bench.

Here's your coat

x

There is a lot of leg room, have a read up on them.

Tonester0011 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:23

shankly1985 said:
Taking a 1216 core to 1500 or 1600 is brute force... Are these game ready clocks? or these just benchmark clocks?

Can a 980 run and play a game without crashing at these clocks? if the answer is yes then I'll leave now.

Yes.
See ya.

Geeman1979 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:23

shankly1985 said:
Taking a 1216 core to 1500 or 1600 is brute force... Are these game ready clocks? or these just benchmark clocks?

Can a 980 run and play a game without crashing at these clocks? if the answer is yes then I'll leave now.

Going from what I've seen on here, both the 970/980 will game at 1500+ on the core more often than not.

Ayahuasca · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:23

1500 will certainly be game stable for most, brute force overclocking would be using tools like 8pack does and acheiving 2000mhz+

Overclocking on stock bios with no tweaks in afterburner to allow extra power or voltage is certainly not brute force.

_Alatar_ · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:24

there are plenty of 980s that are 1500MHz gaming stable.

Never compare architectures clock for clock unless you're interested in something purely theoretical that doesn't have anything to do with real life usage scenarios. Also no one would ever have made these "omg but it needs so high clocks" arguments back when Cypress and Cayman clocked clocked much higher than GF100/GF110.

NV cards clock higher at stock and with OCs. Nothing left to do but to deal with it and look at the fps numbers instead of frequency.

TheRealDeal · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:25

Gregster said:
Not sure you understand the difference between brute force and basic overclocking. Like Tones is saying, 27fps isn't brute force being needed, that is a proper hiding. The 980/970 is voltage locked with no chance of upping volts over what is available as of yet, so no brute force needed.

It is a proper hiding around 20% but would it change your gaming experience at those frame rates. In Ryse the extra performance you get from the radeon's just might. As the settings go up in Ryse so the gap widen's between the 290x/290 v the gtx980/970 and the frame rates are on the really low side.

Any how the Radeon's with there old tech are keeping up pretty well in the new releases from what i am seeing.

Gregster · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:28

TheRealDeal said:
It is a proper hiding around 20% but would it change your gaming experience at those frame rates. In Ryse the extra performance you get from the radeon's just might. as the settings go up in Ryse so the gap widen's and the frame rates are on the really low side.

Any how the Radeon's with there old tech are keeping up pretty well in the new releases from what i am seeing.

Well for one, this and the thread mentioned are benching threads, so I don't care for gaming experience and give it some to try and get my e-peen nice and high, and in the aforementioned Alien Isolation bench thread, my dinosaur Titan (and Neil's) is kicking the much, much newer Radeon's butt

Tonester0011 · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:31

TheRealDeal said:
It is a proper hiding around 20% but would it change your gaming experience at those frame rates. In Ryse the extra performance you get from the radeon's just might. As the settings go up in Ryse so the gap widen's between the 290x/290 v the gtx980/970 and the frame rates are on the really low side.

Any how the Radeon's with there old tech are keeping up pretty well in the new releases from what i am seeing.

We'll see after the game is released and drivers are up to date from both teams. Remember though, bench threads are only there for the numbers. Higher = better.

Silent_Scone · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:33

So Hawaii is old tech now?

Didn't seem to matter that Kepler was cracking on a year lol.

I can't actually see the goal posts anymore

_Alatar_ · 10 Oct 2014 at 14:34

TheRealDeal said:
Any how the Radeon's with there old tech are keeping up pretty well in the new releases from what i am seeing.

You know what's even funnier?

The almost 20 month old original Titan that still hasn't been beaten by any AMD GPU when it comes to OCing results. In the vast majority of titles and benches at least.