Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
-
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.
(gamegpu) Battlefield 1 Benchmarks
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
390x faster than the GTX 980 Ti.
EDIT: nvidia seems to be losing performance with DX12 so it's not really a great comparison.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Min frames are even more important if they keep you in adaptive sync range as well... People seem to forget that and think it's only high fps that matters, my screen has a range of between 40 -144 for Freesync, I can frame cap say The Division at 120fps to keep at the upper end, dx12 makes sure my lower end mins are higher to keep from dropping too low
Why does that matter? It won't get any better.
Well it would matter if DX12 offered anything of note - like better visuals/effects.
What does DX12 actually do in BF1, other than hobble the Nvidia cards a bit and remove mgpu support?
it doesn't hobble anything does it ?
it helps performance of those cards that can utilise it
quite a difference
I'm sure it drastically improves framerates for people with weaker CPUs, which was always cited as one of the main benefits. I was using a Phenom II X6 earlier in the year and the Rise of the Tomb Raider DX12 patch boosted my minimum framerate by 33fps.
Just meant that comparing dx12 vs dx12 doesn't make sense when one is performing better under dx11.
No, if you look at the benches in the OP, the framerate actually reduces on Nvidia cards (about 10% in some cases).
For example the 1080 and 1070 at 1440p.
This - if you were , for example, a 1080 or 1070 owner with an i7 cpu why would you use DX12, as all it seems to do is reduce frames (minimums and average)?
In DX11 the Fury/Fury X and 1070 are all pretty much equal at 1440p. Then with Dx12 on, the 1070 just randomly loses 9fps whilst the Fury cards gain a couple.
Oh right. Yea that's the most fair way. Basically no point running dx 12 on NVidia here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,165
- Location
- South Wales
Just saw a video of it running in 4K, frame rate looked really rubbish.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2013
- Posts
- 10,052
- Location
- M28
Fury X kicking ass in DX12
aaaaand, 1080 kicking ass in DX11 and 12, it is faster is it not
Have you checked your DPC Latency using latencymon? DX12 really sensitive.
aaaaand, 1080 kicking ass in DX11 and 12, it is faster is it not
He said nothing of the 1080 not kicking ass its expected as its newer gen and more expensive.
Its seems that for you personally only the fastest card counts as kicking ass, many don't share that view.
Last edited:
How much system ram do you have ?
so many varibles in bf.
single player vs mp worlds apart.
game mode and player size.
some maps with different weather conditions on 64 man maps can be 20 fps different to others.
also min fps which many dont measure but probably the most important.
single player vs mp worlds apart.
game mode and player size.
some maps with different weather conditions on 64 man maps can be 20 fps different to others.
also min fps which many dont measure but probably the most important.