Gears of War 4 Bench Thread

nashathedog · 12 Oct 2016 at 12:58

I'm back on my old monitor now

So here's my result at 1920 x 1080

4790k @ 4.5
Fury pro @ 1130/500

Radeon Software Version
16.10.1
avg = 69.5

Greebo · 12 Oct 2016 at 13:27

Ouch not even cpu limited with a fury pro.

jonathan_phang · 12 Oct 2016 at 15:33

The insane settings are definitely not worth putting on. In fact didn't the Coalition say that those were put in for future hardware? Kind of makes you think of the original Crysis, when nothing at the time could run it with top settings. Funny how that was heralded with awe and more likely nowadays we will hear people say "Its not 'Optimised'"

Greebo · 12 Oct 2016 at 15:39

To be fair the two insane settings which each cuts the framerate in half arent hardly noticeable.

With crysis there was a noticeable difference in settings.

Its almost like coalition just put a stupid setting in to cripple framerates so they can say that its for future, yet to be built gfx cards to handle it.

ANyway, Titans can handle it except for 2160p.

Kaapstad · 12 Oct 2016 at 15:50

hyperseven said:
looked at some of the results and the resolution scale is not 100%, does that matter ?

Yes and no.

What you are looking at is the in game resolution setting. It is the only way to select 1080p in game if you are using a 2160p monitor for example and will appear as 1920x1080(50%) in the settings.

You can set 1080p on a 2160p monitor before you start the game and then you will see 1920x1080(100%) in the settings.

Using either method above gives identical results so there is no problem.

Below are two runs on my GTX 1080 (same GPU and CPU clockspeeds) using both methods.

There is a game option to run higher than your screen size (200% on a 1080p screen to get 2160p for example). These I won't accept as all the output is not going to the screen. I have also tried it and the results are poor compared to using the actual resolution and the image quality is bad.

Kaapstad · 12 Oct 2016 at 15:54

jonathan_phang said:
The insane settings are definitely not worth putting on. In fact didn't the Coalition say that those were put in for future hardware? Kind of makes you think of the original Crysis, when nothing at the time could run it with top settings. Funny how that was heralded with awe and more likely nowadays we will hear people say "Its not 'Optimised'"

Greebo said:
To be fair the two insane settings which each cuts the framerate in half arent hardly noticeable.

With crysis there was a noticeable difference in settings.

Its almost like coalition just put a stupid setting in to cripple framerates so they can say that its for future, yet to be built gfx cards to handle it.

ANyway, Titans can handle it except for 2160p.

For use in the bench thread I had to use the insane settings to keep the fps down to manageable levels or it would have turned into a massive CPU bottleneck. I was only using a stock GTX 1080 for testing too. :eek:

Greebo · 12 Oct 2016 at 16:01

Kaapstad said:
For use in the bench thread I had to use the insane settings to keep the fps down to manageable levels or it would have turned into a massive CPU bottleneck. I was only using a stock GTX 1080 for testing too.

Yeah I know, I think its runs really well on modern gfx cards and I dont think its really pushing them at all. I have seen worse games performance wise.

oldestgregg · 12 Oct 2016 at 17:23

Single 1080 here @3440x1440. Everything on insane except...

Motion blur-low
DOF-low
MSAA-2x

Game is running smooth as butter with Gsync and FPS limited to 75hz which I have my monitor set at. If there are dips in FPS I never notice them and Afterburner is showing it at 75 and locked everytime I check. The only reason I turned those settings down is because I hate blurriness of any kind in my games

RSR · 12 Oct 2016 at 18:13

Here are mine:

1080P

Score 106.7, Min 96.7, GPU 1080 @2062/2903, CPU 6850K @4.4, RSR DX12 Link 372.90

Gears%20of%20War%204%2012_10_2016%2017_50_10_zpsbj2rlbhd.png

1440P
Score 61.6, Min 57.8, GPU 1080 @2062/2903, CPU 6850K @4.4, RSR DX12 Link 372.90

Gears%20of%20War%204%2012_10_2016%2017_53_48_zpswdvvarcc.png

21:9 - 1440P
Score 44.9, Min 40.7, GPU 1080 @2062/2929, CPU 6850K @4.4, RSR DX12 Link 372.90

Gears%20of%20War%204%2012_10_2016%2017_58_12_zpsddnsjvjb.png

Razor Time · 12 Oct 2016 at 21:51

LegendaryDread said:
I think Insane SSR is a huge waste - literally cuts performance in half when compared to Ultra, and looks worse... reminds me of the DX11 Depth of Field in Metro 2033 in some ways.

Insane settings is not meant for today's hardware and have been included so that the game can scale for the future.

http://wccftech.com/gears-war-4-graphics-performance-guide-now-available-nvidias-website/

As already revealed a while back, Gears of War 4 PC will also come with Insane settings, which are meant to make the game scalable with future hardware.

Edit: I see it has been mentioned a few times already.

jonathan_phang · 12 Oct 2016 at 23:14

Well, might as well chuck mine on here too. Just got my 1080 yesterday, so no OCs yet (need to figure out how). Also, clear to see that its time to start saving for a new CPU/mobo/RAM combo too.

CPU = I7 930 @ 4.2 (No laughing!)
Drivers = 373.06
DX12
GPU = EVGA 1080 FTW @ 1923/1253

1920x1080 = 91.6 Avg

2560x1440 (Native) = 57.4 Avg

I'm toying with running at 2160p but at High settting vs 2560x1440 at Ultra. Only targetting 60fps, and with the insane settings on Ultra, theres enough horsepower to tinker. Really must actually play the game though!

Greebo · 12 Oct 2016 at 23:17

If you switch off insane you might be close to 60 fps on ultra on 2160p. You can maybe tweak the odd one down to high to get your magic 60fps

YB2ndBEST · 12 Oct 2016 at 23:19

CPU - 4930k @4.5ghz
Drivers - 16.10.1
GPU - AMD Fury X (stock)
DX12

AVG gpu fps - 40.9 @ 1440p

jonathan_phang · 13 Oct 2016 at 00:20

Greebo said:
If you switch off insane you might be close to 60 fps on ultra on 2160p. You can maybe tweak the odd one down to high to get your magic 60fps

Yeah definitely. Need to play though a number of sequences in-game really to see how smooth it feels. I don't actually mind using the dynamic resolution to be honest, so I have been giving that a shot. Lots of options to get to the target you want. Me likey.

Kaapstad · 13 Oct 2016 at 09:23

Scoreboard updated.

hyperseven · 13 Oct 2016 at 09:26

1440P
4970K @4.7GHz
GTX 1080 @2101/2717
372.90 driver
AVG = 61.4
AVG min = 56.4

jonathan_phang · 13 Oct 2016 at 11:53

Quick question, the CPU (Game) part of the graph on the benchmark results, what does that indicate, pardon my ignorance. My graph is noticeably less 'tidy' (its a technical term) that others and just wondering what the graph is showing.

I know I have a pretty weak CPU relatively so I'm sure its something to do with that.

Asa · 13 Oct 2016 at 13:02

oldestgregg said:
Single 1080 here @3440x1440. Everything on insane except...

Motion blur-low
DOF-low
MSAA-2x

Game is running smooth as butter with Gsync and FPS limited to 75hz which I have my monitor set at. If there are dips in FPS I never notice them and Afterburner is showing it at 75 and locked everytime I check. The only reason I turned those settings down is because I hate blurriness of any kind in my games

Off the benching topic a little, but generally if you hate blur (as I do) you don't want to select "low". Lowering the quality of these effects is usually very different to switching them off.

On benching, I thought Gears 4 had native mGPU settings yet I see no mGPU results, even with Kaap benching. Has it been cut?

jonathan_phang · 13 Oct 2016 at 13:59

Asa said:
On benching, I thought Gears 4 had native mGPU settings yet I see no mGPU results, even with Kaap benching. Has it been cut?

It was shown in one of the demos previously (when they were going through all the options). However, Coalition have said they wanted to spend a bit more time on mGPU - or concentrate on a stable initial release at any rate - and that it will come in a patch soon.

EDIT: Here you go.

Kaapstad · 13 Oct 2016 at 15:18

Scoreboard updated.