• 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.

*** Stunning COD Advanced Warfare Benchmarks ***

Gregster said:
Not really, so long as we discuss the bench results from COD AW, I can't see a problem. There has been other benches posted in here from AMDMatt, so you should have known it was fine.
Click to expand...

Well i remember this next time people start saying am going Off-Topic.. thread Title is miss-leading..

It don't even say Benchmarks... Just one Single bench result to talk about..
 
humbug said:
Look at the frame times, more FPS doesn't always result in a better experience, the 970 has slightly higher FPS, but not far off twice the Frame Times, in reality the experience seems much smoother on the 290.
Click to expand...

Erm, the elephant in the room being that one chart shows a "min fps" of 88, and the frametime chart says the max frametimes were around 28ms... Frame time and fps are directly interchangeable, a frame time of 28ms equals a dip to 35 fps, so one of the two charts is nonsense
 
Last edited:
Tonester0011 said:
Stop going off topic, annoying. Mods won't be happy deleting your OT rubbish.

Moral highground.

Bench results - Stunning :cool:
Click to expand...

stunningly innacurate yes

andybird123 said:
Erm, the elephant in the room being that one chart shows a "min fps" of 88, and the frametime chart says the max frametimes were around 28ms... Frame time and fps are directly interchangeable, a frame time of 28ms equals a dip to 35 fps, so one of the two charts is nonsense
Click to expand...
 
hilly said:
Amended title. Any issues then I'll change it :)
Click to expand...

Thanks! :D

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare VGA grapics performance
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,1.html
Unlike the other benchmark, this using 14.9.1 not 14.9.2 how much a difference this makes is anyone's guess.


"Wrapping things up

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare will NOT make it into our regular benchmark suite for videocards. As stated in the intro, there are many things odd and off. As such we recommend you to look at the performance benchmarks you've just read with a grain of salt as I have been at the verge and threshold of asking myself the question whether or not to post these results. One test run will result on 50 FPS, the second 46 FPS and another 56 FPS. This means that the results shown today are indicative, not a precise measurement. Another problem was that some levels average out at say 40 FPS, yet there are a handful of scenes where the framerate will crumble down to say 25 FPS or where running a luxurious 60 FPS all of the sudden. But hey, 80% of the game plays with excellent framerates, even with a mainstream card. Overall the game feels smooth in game-play, nothing negative to mention there. In fact dare I say this; the gameplay and rendering overall seems to be much smoother opposed to the previous COD Ghosts."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom