• 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.

Gears of War 4 Bench Thread

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
9RIFKY6.png
 
Last edited:
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'"
 
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. :P
 
hyperseven said:
looked at some of the results and the resolution scale is not 100%, does that matter ?
Click to expand...

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.

pBeYkh5.jpg


OH9Oopm.jpg

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.
 
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'"
Click to expand...

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. :P
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.:eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


Edit: I see it has been mentioned a few times already. :)
 
Last edited:
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
1080_zpszseeb1hq.jpg

2560x1440 (Native) = 57.4 Avg
2560_zpsjmp1ghan.jpg

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!
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom