Last edited:
-
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.
5870 - DirectX11 vs 10 in battleforge
- Thread starter straxusii
- Start date
Reckon they got the min framerates on the 295 the wrong way around.
No I mean it shows the 295 as 16 min at 1920x1200 and 21 min at 2560x1600, reckon they are the other way around.
LOL yeah.
Ye that's kinda peculiar.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Who cares, it doesn't matter 
The thing about minimum framerates though is that they can be affected by transient spikes. Like, say your computer hiccups randomly (accessing a file, computing something in the background etc), it can show up in the benchmark. Such things would be smoothed out in the average FPS, but not neccesarily in the minimum value.
The ideal way to measure the minimum framerate is to run the test several times, and take the "maximum minimum", i.e. the largest of the recorded minimum values. If they just run the test once, or they take the absolute minimum of all the runs, it's entirely possible for a faster benchmark to have a lower minimum framerate for the reasons stated above.
The ideal way to measure the minimum framerate is to run the test several times, and take the "maximum minimum", i.e. the largest of the recorded minimum values. If they just run the test once, or they take the absolute minimum of all the runs, it's entirely possible for a faster benchmark to have a lower minimum framerate for the reasons stated above.
Who cares, it doesn't matter
ROFL!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
A game which just uses optimisations of both dx11 and dx10.1, showing that the 4890 is faster than the 285gtx(at half the cost) and likewise the X2 beating the 295GTX comftably, as we saw similar numbers with Assasins Creed in dx10.1 vs dx10.
If Microsoft hadn't buckled like a cheap whore being punched in the stomach, ATi would have likely had the performance league in the majority of titles for some time.
Nvidia would probably have been forced to add dx10.1 in much sooner(maybe with their refresh products) and everyone would have been better off.
If Microsoft hadn't buckled like a cheap whore being punched in the stomach, ATi would have likely had the performance league in the majority of titles for some time.
Nvidia would probably have been forced to add dx10.1 in much sooner(maybe with their refresh products) and everyone would have been better off.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 245
I have nto tired this game yet I was going to install tonight to see if there was any use of dx11 but are you saying that there is no visual difference between dx10 & dx11?
Sure but they are also caused by the graphics card being hammered
What we need in addition to minimum is minimum 95th percentile so sort the results in order and report the result at 5% in.
Couldn't agree more. The 95th (or even 99th) percentile would be a much better measure of the minimum framerate than the true instantaneous minimum value.
Not as easy to report, and not as tangible though, so probably wouldn't be a popular measure
*Inhales*In this game only there is no visual difference, purely because all the dev has done is to use some DX11 features to boost performance.
Not saying there is no visual dif between DX10 & 11 in general!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
A game which just uses optimisations of both dx11 and dx10.1, showing that the 4890 is faster than the 285gtx(at half the cost) and likewise the X2 beating the 295GTX comftably, as we saw similar numbers with Assasins Creed in dx10.1 vs dx10.
If Microsoft hadn't buckled like a cheap whore being punched in the stomach, ATi would have likely had the performance league in the majority of titles for some time.
Nvidia would probably have been forced to add dx10.1 in much sooner(maybe with their refresh products) and everyone would have been better off.
Which is why they had Dx10.1 taken out of Ass Creed, as when it was in, the performance boost it gave ATi cards, brought them right up to theirs, which of course they didn't want, as their cards were much higher priced.
Last edited:
I reckon there is something up with the drivers with this, it's quite choppy I get about 40FPS avg with 8xAA 1920x1200 DX11.
A lot of dips though which hurts the average and apparantly I got a max fps of 200 odd.
Seems odd that it is very stuttery though.
A lot of dips though which hurts the average and apparantly I got a max fps of 200 odd.
Seems odd that it is very stuttery though.
Which is why they had Dx10.1 taken out of Ass Creed, as when it was in, the performance boost it gave ATi cards, brought them right up to theirs, which of course they didn't want, as their cards were much higher priced.
This is the clearest demonstration I have seen of how badly Nvidia have shafted gamers in the name of corporate greed. I find it totally unacceptable that a company uses their position of influence to gimp the gaming experience of those who chose to buy a competitors card. Until they come clean about this unethical behaviour I will not buy another of their cards, chipsets or anything else.