• 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.

Ryse: Son of Rome GPU performance benchmark

It's pretty funny how AMD were on top through their 'brute force' approach (hot/fast/noisy/more cores/more mhz) but suddenly when the top end card gets beaten by a 980 it doesn't count or it's not a 'legitimate' score.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Nah paying more for Nvidia means you have to win at all cost's or the extra money ain't worth it. It's a little like buying a Ferrari 456 and being stomped around a track by a Nissan Gtr. The Ferrari driver is not going to be pleased where as the Nissan driver won't care to much as he knows he got plenty for his money.

:D:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

What a terrible analogy. Nice try though.
 
kaku said:
It's pretty funny how AMD were on top through their 'brute force' approach (hot/fast/noisy/more cores/more mhz) but suddenly when the top end card gets beaten by a 980 it doesn't count or it's not a 'legitimate' score.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Nvidia "brute force" method of using a 565MM2 GK110 for so long?? :p

Even their own GM204 embarrassed the GK110 in that one major metric.

Heck the 400MM2 GM204 and older 440MM2 Hawaii outperform it on performance/mm2 and Hawaii had all that Trueaudio stuff taking up die space too(not sure why they integrated that on a GPU).

If its embarrassing that a GM204 can beat a Hawaii chip which is only 10% bigger with a larger than needed memory bus and audio DSPs onboard released a year ago,how does it look when a 40% larger chip is beaten within a year of its fully enabled version being released(GTX780TI)??

The GTX780TI was a £550 card.
 
Last edited:
Simple answer: just buy whatever card is on top for the games you play the most.
I don't care how they get there. If it meets my needs for playing the games, I'll buy it.
 
All these analogies lol,

Its like amd are a skoda, Used to be crap but they are a lot better now, but the badge is still there.

Or Nvidia is like a ferrari, over priced for what it is and equalled by another company for cheaper. ( 970 excluded )
 
kaku said:
Simple answer: just buy whatever card is on top for the games you play the most.
I don't care how they get there. If it meets my needs for playing the games, I'll buy it.
Click to expand...

If you don't care then you won't be making claims of AMD "brute-forcing" it unless you think using a 565MM2 chip to compete with a 440MM2 is not "brute-forcing" it either,or a 400MM2 chip one year later mauling a chip 40% larger one is not the same.

So I assume you think the GK110 was "brute forcing" it as much as Hawaii is when compared to the GM204??

I would agree to a degree.

However as you also know BOTH the GK110 and Hawaii were also built for non-gaming DP workloads in the supercomputing market too,meaning they dedicate a decent amount of transistors towards that too,and the large memory buses also are targeted towards such markets too,and they are older designs.

The GM204 is a pure gaming focused/SP compute focused GPU so should win in all metrics against the older competition,and is a newer design.

Hence,I suppose we could argue that we cannot really compare GPUs that easily since they are not all designed to fulfil one market.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:


Ouch, thats a big dip for the 980.
Click to expand...

Did you even listen to the guy talking there?

He said that that level is the only place where for some reason Nvidia cards do really poorly. Other than that the 980 was clearly offering a better experience in that video, something that the guy again quite clearly said.

Also that specific forest level is the one where pcgh (the site in the OP) did their testing. They used the one level that's an anomaly and offers super bad performance on Nvidia hardware.
 
Last edited:
Thats not what i said at all ^^^ he said there is that in that part, he did not say "it was the only part"

---

970/80 vs 290/X don't really compare as they are new vs old.

Maxwell is a pretty nice GPU, but they don't look particularly quick to me, they look to have about the same performance as their GK110 predecessor if it wasn't for them running higher clock rates. (or Hawaii GPU's for that matter) even then there seems to be some exceptions to maintaining that performance.

Efficiency is pretty good, no arguing with that.

When AMD bring in thier new GPU's we will see whats really what.
 
Last edited:
_Alatar_ said:
Other than that the 980 was clearly offering a better experience in that video, something that the guy again quite clearly said.
Click to expand...

Well i would hope a £450 ish 98- would beat a £220 290 , especially and only 1080p lol.

But Nvidia drivers are still immature im hoping we will see some good improvements over the next month or so.
 
humbug said:
Thats not what i said at all ^^^ he said there is that in that part, he did not say "it was the only part"
Click to expand...

He quite clearly said and I quote: "it's interesting to note that campaign level 4's forest stages appear to hit the hardware significantly to the point where frame rates here occasionally dip below the performance level set by the R9 290."

So yes, it's specific to campaign level 4's forest parts.

And he also says: "of course it's the GTX 980 that hands in the best overall performance level"


Besides I can cherry pick as well:

t2il2Df.png


nKSWfwK.png


bA9XMKG.png


bf2wvpv.png


^ and those btw are more representative of the gameplay experience because they were from different levels and happened more often than the Nvidia drop that you screen capped.
 
humbug said:
Thats not what i said at all ^^^ he said there is that in that part, he did not say "it was the only part"

---

970/80 vs 290/X don't really compare as they are new vs old.

Maxwell is a pretty nice GPU, but they don't look particularly quick to me, they look to have about the same performance as their GK110 predecessor if it wasn't for them running higher clock rates. (or Hawaii GPU's for that matter) even then there seems to be some exceptions to maintaining that performance.

Efficiency is pretty good, no arguing with that.

When AMD bring in thier new GPU's we will see whats really what.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you just said you cant compare new vs old. Or is that a rule when it suits ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom