-
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.
HardOCP Max Payne 3 performance review
- Thread starter straxusii
- Start date
That's HardOCP for ya.
Oh how things have changed!
January 2011:
'Configuring SLI and CrossFireX was a breeze. We installed both video cards, connected appropriate power cables, bridge connectors and display ports. We had no issues installing drivers, or setting up SLI or CrossFireX. At this point, it really is plug-and-play; the technologies have come a long way. We setup Eyefinity and NV Surround easily as well.'
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_cfx_nvidia_580570_sli_review/1
'Alternatively to Catalyst 12.4 WHQL, if you are daring, you can run instead the recently released Catalyst 12.6 Beta driver. BUT, even if you have this 12.6 Beta driver installed you still need to install the 12.6 CAP Beta 1, or else your Max Payne 3 experience will be rather sad. In the tests we ran for this preview article, we used 12.4 WHQL and 12.6 CAP Beta 1.
Overall, it is simpler setting up NVIDIA GPUs, single or SLI to run in Max Payne 3; one driver to install, no fuss.'
June 2012, it's suddenly become harder to install a Cap and not use the latest driver that gives considerably better performance:
LOL, I feel a little bit dirty inside as I was daring!
It's a shame the way HardOCP have gone with stuff like that. It's so blatant now, they're surely in Nvidia's pocket. 
I ran the game first off without the 12.6 CAP and performance was totally fine. Lovely smooth vsynced gameplay at max settings. It wasn't a sad experience at all.
It's their blatant biasness that's really the sad thing.
And as for the xfire scaling thing, well yes it's not quite as good but the game is a pure Nvidia backed game. There's no way they would have had the time to optimise it like Nvidia have, and considering the 7970 is arguably beating the 680, and at a lower clock speed, I think they've done great. No mention of that of course. Very sad times for gaming when a site gets like that.
I ran the game first off without the 12.6 CAP and performance was totally fine. Lovely smooth vsynced gameplay at max settings. It wasn't a sad experience at all.
It's their blatant biasness that's really the sad thing. And as for the xfire scaling thing, well yes it's not quite as good but the game is a pure Nvidia backed game. There's no way they would have had the time to optimise it like Nvidia have, and considering the 7970 is arguably beating the 680, and at a lower clock speed, I think they've done great. No mention of that of course. Very sad times for gaming when a site gets like that.
I don't see the problem really. They used the latest official drivers for the review didn't they? And mentioned the beta drivers?
I'm using the 12.6 betas and they seem really good to me, some performance increases too, but they are still a beta driver. Don't know many sites that do reviews with beta drivers.
I'm using the 12.6 betas and they seem really good to me, some performance increases too, but they are still a beta driver. Don't know many sites that do reviews with beta drivers.
I don't have a problem with the driver they choose to use, as you say using the latest official driver is good reason, it's more the language they use to describe the AMD experience. It's completely unnecessarily negative and as tommybhoy points out it shows an obvious change in their attitude to the same thing, without real reason. They're embarrassing themselves really and producing something far removed from unbiased professional journalism.
Either you use the latest drivers even if they are beta in every test or do not. How else can you have some modium of control over testing unless you set the 'rules' ?
They used the latest non Beta drivers, what is wrong with this? If AMD lose out on review performance because they were late to the party with driver updates then it's their own fault and it bloody well should reflect in the review and conclusion.
Or do you just want the fact that AMD had scaling driver issues with the title and fixes are still in beta to be glossed over just because?
I would expect the same treatment of nVidia if they were lax with updates. Considering that cards are so close these days these are the sorts of comparison points consumers need to make informed decisions.
This is true, but with the same reasoning they certainly shouldn't overlook the fact that a 7970 is clearly faster clock for clock in a game that has been so heavily influenced by Nvidia. There is no justification for 'glossing over' that.
Also, if the 12.6 beta driver has optimisations specifically aimed at MP3 it is logically the driver to use in testing that game.
I dare say my 7950 at 1275 core kicks the arse of the 680 in this game
Yes it will do. Also, you can run it maxed out AND with 8xMSAA no problem on a 7970. Nvidia recommend no more than 4x MSAA with the 680.
Using beta drivers just because they are tailored to the review title is not logical at all.
AMD do not have launch day non-Beta drivers, that is just tough luck. As it would be for nVidia if the tables were turned.
What if HardOCP had internal review drivers only with MP3 tweaks? Would it be logical to use them also? It would be logical to make reference to them and perhaps provide insight into how they would perform but it would be stupid to use them for the actual review.
Launch Day Review = What is available at launch day in my opinion.
Beta drivers are beta for a reason and potentially messing up other titles to review 1 title in 'better light' would be a pretty bad move if readers start using those beta drivers and start getting issues.
Last edited:
The problem though is AMD wasn't late to the party, the driver and cap and improved performance was available before the game was released.
[H] has used beta drivers loads of times in the past for both AMD and Nvidia:
'For the MSI GTX 580 Lightning 3GB video card we are using ForceWare 290.53 Beta.'
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/star_trek_online_dx11_performance_review/2
'NVIDIA - For all NVIDIA-based video cards in this evaluation, we are using ForceWare 290.36 BETA driver package, dated 28 November 2011. There is no increased performance or SLI profile for Serious Sam 3: BFE with this driver.'
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/12/21/serious_sam_3_bfe_performance_iq_review/2
That's just 2 out of the first 3 gaming IQ comparison tests performed at [H] using their search, that's why I highlighted my findings in my previous post.
Another point is why no MSAA tests?
If my 6950>70 CrossFire can run it@1080p, why can't the big boys run it@2560?
Someone still has a tampon up their behind because their BF3 server got urinated on. I approve.
Why were they referred to as beta drivers then?
Take your personal grudges elsewhere? If you have issues email them so I can file them in Spam. Otherwise keep them out of Graphic card discussions?
Child.