• 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.

Resident Evil 7 Benchmarks

Silent_Scone said:
You're still not getting it...The graph posted in the OP was taken off the site because it is wrong. All is explained in the conclusion.

Some people just don't have the capacity to read what is in front of them, which is why arguments happen.
Click to expand...

Perhaps its better to remove the whole article and replace it with a placeholder with new review coming Soon™.
 
The third review, the one with the cache off, was done on Nvidia's "Resident Evil 7 Game Ready Driver"

So thats nonsense, just as not having key for doom vulkan was nonsense, its free in the demo as they know because they benchmarked the RX 480 in doom demo vulkan mode days before.
 
Last edited:
I am of the opinion if turning off the shader cache has ZERO impact on the visual image displayed before me but alters the performance for the better, than ultimately that is what the end user wants no? Better performance for no impact on visual candy?

I bet if the card vendors and the game developer put out a joint statement that said "We advise users with xxGB of Ram to use xx Setting to aid in performance" and then everyone who used the correct setting saw appropriate gains, everyone would herald them as brilliant for such good optimisation no?

Way i see it, if i am looking at a game and i want maximum eye candy for as little performance hit as possible, i am going to use the optimal settings for my card.

Benchmark sites "try" to find settings that are agnostic, i think we all know thats not always the truth, so they often just use "Max" settings, quite often these include proprietary settings that one vendor favours over another (HBAO etc?) and this often shows in the results.

In scenarios like this Resident Evil instance, they done the right thing in benchmarking again with the settings changed, they show 2 sides of the coin. What would be fair is if they kept their original benchmark scores up, and re-run the tests on all cards in the particular cards "ideal" scenario, its a lot of work, but it would show how that card performs with the optimal settings for that game.

Things are going to get even more long winded soon anyhow with regards to game benchmarking, once Microsoft release the next update and introduce "Game" mode, you better hope review sites include this in their testing.

Games will end up being benchmarked in multiple ways soon

DX12 game, Win10, Game Mode On
D12 Game, Win10 Game Mode Off
DX11 Game Win10, Game Mode On
DX11 Game, Win10, Game Mode Off
DX11 Game Win8/7 etc.

Because people are going to want to know what is the best scenario to run their game on their hardware.
 
Raelgun said:
Vulcan is literally a setting one up from open GL, also a lot of reviewers do seem to provide both APIs results.

Why would you use a -1 setting in a performance benchmark anyways?
Click to expand...

No.
Vulkan is not a setting it is a renderer as is dx11, dx12 and OpenGL is. It says how the graphics cards will render a scene depending on its architecture and it's features. So obviously, since nvidia and amd cards have totally different architecture's some cards are going to run better on one platform than on another depending on what features the gpu may or may not have.
 
Lokken86 said:
No.
Vulkan is a renderer as is dx11, dx12 and OpenGL is. It says how the graphics cards will render a scene depending on its architecture and it's features. So obviously, since nvidia and and cards have totally different arcitechturea some cards are going to run better on one platform than on another depending on what features the gpu may or may not have.
Click to expand...

Then that becomes a tweaking guide, not a Performance benchmark, benchmarks always have max settings and the latest features.

Again I ask, why would a reviewer reduce settings or use older settings for in a PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK, this is not to be mistaken with a tweaking guide.
 
Raelgun said:
Then that becomes a tweaking guide, not a Performance benchmark, benchmarks always have max settings and the latest features.

Again I ask, why would a reviewer reduce settings or use older settings for in a PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK, this is not to be mistaken with a tweaking guide.
Click to expand...

You're coming across as very misinformed.
 
maonayze said:
Yep totally agree. With both graphs shown (Original and Current) it would have been Nvidia mindshare that would have been rekt. (Okay, dented ;) )

Most people just skip to FPS and the graphs, which in this case would have shone a different light overall to the majority of users IF the original graph had been left in to go with the explanation. It certainly would have swayed a few looking into getting either a 1060 or a 480/390X :D

It alters the perception for sure in regard to current mindshare.

As for Guru3D, lets just say they know which side their bread is well and truly buttered on. :p
Click to expand...

Hopefully a more credible site will benchmark the game and show the true performance of each card. Guru3D is now a proven shill so pointless to rely on it.



humbug said:
The review author deleted all the posts.
Click to expand...

wow.. he sure has. When I read it earlier he told a guy to F... OFF when challenged. What a joker.

Here's the link to the discussion anyway.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=412306&page=3
 
Last edited:
It sounded way off to me anyway. The fact is I am playing it maxed out (but with DOF and Motion Blur turned off) with my 1070 and was getting much better fps than shown on those charts.
 
hyperseven said:
Do you have proof of these so called deletions, screenshots, linked to cached pages etc?
Click to expand...

Straight from the horses mouth...

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5385355&postcount=64



I've just cleaned up this thread and said goodbye to one more user.

I'll repost what I stated earlier. There have been an unfortunate three revisions of the benchmarks with results all over the place. The last batch is the most valid. The Shadow Cache settings disabled offers the best game-play for the majority of cards hence it is the preferred and recommended setting, for 6GB and upwards shadow cache enabled can offer better results, use it at your own peril.

In-between revision 1 and 3 of the review a lot has happened, new drivers 5 minutes after I posted the article, totally weird anomalies but also an error on my side that boosted perf on the earlier tests. I think this was the cause of my having interlaced modus activated (mistakenly) on some of the cards as I have been goofing around with that on day 1. Totally my bad, but I am not even 100% sure either that was issue as the game remains difficult to measure.

A mentioned several times now, I will retest the game in a few weeks when the drivers on both sides have mature and when the game has had a patch or two. The initial results up-to revision 3 have been far from ideal, but the rev3 results do match what you guys should get gameplay / FPS wise closest.

I have also retested an rx480 with both the shadow cache on and disabled. The perf differential is not far away from each other really. However on the opposite side, going to a 4GB card with shadow cache enabled brings in issues, stutters and game perf differences as shown in the FCAT results.

That said, the results as they stand ever since yesterday evening with rev3 stand and are sound.

Last thing, I am getting very tired of the attacks on my personal account here. I spend hours offering you guys un-biased results. Commenting is absolutely fine as mistakes do happen. But the verbal attacks lately are beyond what I deem is acceptable. The near sociopath behavior that some of you guys have been able to witness from the two users is just unacceptable. It partly comes with this job I know, but please do have some respect as I certainly do not deserve the incredibly crap that has been outted here.

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...
 
humbug said:
There isn't much in there, just what agrees with him or at least isn't critical of the review http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=412306

The rest he deletes.
Click to expand...

See, you cant have a reasoned debate/discusson if you are going to delete any comments that do not agree with your take on things. However, there's no need to call people nasty names or swear at them etc...But this seems to be ridiculously one sided on Guru 3D and in my opinion reduces his credability somewhat.

Another thing that sprang to my mind......

Within the last few months we have seen some review sites putting the DX11 results for Nvidia Cards up against the DX12 results of AMD cards....simply because that was the fastest FPS that either card got out of a game. Okay I am good with that.

However with this approach in mind why isn't this being done now with shader cache on or off to show the fastest FPS for each card with Res 7 ?

We must keep a level playing field and not move the goalposts when it suits us.....and indeed this is what it looks like is happening here. It seems it is okay to mix n match DX versions to get the fastest results per card but not with Shader/Shadow Cache......when it doesn't suit the green team.

Also if this is indeed a bug in Nvidia drivers which is not using shader caching correctly, when they do fix it and Nvidia cards do get a boost from it....that is when it will be okay to use it, yes?. Mark my words...same goes for Async Compute when Volta finally has it. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom