• 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.

Killer Instinct DX12 benchmarks

Lol seeing those titans at same perfomance as the 7970 is all the money.

But ok they didnt want to put fury on the benchmark, nor even an aircooled nano, no excuse for the 390x which is a 290x with better clocks??

As for the vile comments from NV fanboys, my watercooled and heavily overclocked nano works fine with 16.4.1 and gained fps on DX11 games also.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Can you remember all the people saying AMD having the console sweep meant entirely nothing for PC gaming, that Nvidia didn't even care about consoles because they were completely unimportant.

However I'm not entirely sure I agree on the no other optimisations. What I think it means is Nvidia can't exert as much pressure on a dev to make a game that doesn't work well on AMD as fundamentally the engine is designed to work well on GCN architecture. So while whatever crap Ubisoft is making today has Nvidia in their ear from day one, anything coming from console or even more the case on Xbox One, is specifically geared to a GCN type architecture to begin with meaning AMD is getting great optimisation.

Because there are also several PC only DX12 titles that are running better on AMD, it's not like they don't work or don't work well on Nvidia architecture, it's that AMD cards are being better utilised than they were previously.
Click to expand...

Thing is MS doesn't seem to care about NV, they just port their games fast from xbox to PC. They don't care about NVs money as well for obvious reasons. They just port the games as is, with the GCN optimization and thats it. Lately Ubisoft using newer engines, and see them closing to AMD is another thing. Their latest games ran fine on AMD cards
 
Oh my...

Seems like some are starting to get very salty with all these recent game benchmarks ;) :D :p

And yup my 290 has been flawless, no GPU frying or windows corrupting etc. drivers to worry about ;)

Mtom said:
Thing is it seems that MS is doing what was envisioned a long time ago, that they can just pull the console games to pc fast with their already implemented GCN optimization, and they don't really care about other optimizations.
That makes some questionable quality ports, but also looks like very-very bad news for NV.
Click to expand...

This.

Just a shame that Microsoft store and policies are awful though.
 
BTW the game runs fine, if you look at NV cards they all bring good FPS numbers. So its not that the game is crap at optimization. Its just run much-much better on GCN.
 
Actually that's good timing for AMD just before the new lineups coming from both sides, NV gets the beating, and AMD seems strong in DX12. (not to mention the latest nv driver fails)

I can imagine they grab some market share in Q1 and Q2, and more after the launches if they have competitive hardware. They are gathering momentum while NV seems to lost steam a bit.
 
Mtom said:
Actually that's good timing for AMD just before the new lineups coming from both sides, NV gets the beating, and AMD seems strong in DX12. (not to mention the latest nv driver fails)

I can imagine they grab some market share in Q1 and Q2, and more after the launches if they have competitive hardware. They are gathering momentum while NV seems to lost steam a bit.
Click to expand...


Well 390/x is a very strong card and in dx12 it is crazy performance for what it costs even the 380/X are doing well.

When we see the new cards out and there is a few games what are dx12 we can see what we can expect in the year or so but games will need more performance once they start making games from the ground up in dx12.
 
maonayze said:
Andybird, I know you luvs your Nvidia card(s) but come on...that was poor, even by your standards.

My Fury Tri-X has been rock solid from the get go and I am very pleased with it. Great solid performer.

The grapes are green, but very sour and in extremely poor taste. :)
Click to expand...

Same here apart from the odd annoyance like the power saving issue with the first Crimson release that got fixed pretty quickly and slow driver support for ROTTR my Fury Tri-x has been flawless giving me a cool quiet gaming experience over the last 6ish months which is the total opposite to life with the pos MSI 290x gaming it replaced, I couldn't be happier with it.
 
Mtom said:
Gamegpu.com made a nice test:
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/killer-instinct-test-gpu

WOWkogz.jpg


Wzie9tB.jpg


jUmpWt3.jpg


jQNZ9K1.jpg


Qgxxz7h.jpg

At the first moment when i just seen the green and red libes i was "NV doing well".... then i read the card nanes and i was " WTF?" :)
Click to expand...

Looking at results like the 7950/7970 and 670/680 at 1080p is an eye opener too.
 
The aliasing in that screenshot is awful.

Still, an extremely impressive showing for the 290X. Interested to see if this trend continues.
 
Farious said:
+1. Having a repeat of what happened in the CPU market happening in the GPU market is not good for anyone.
Click to expand...

Let's just hope people won't be stupid enough to keep buying Intel/nVidia if AMD can offer better price/perf. Right, trust in general population, it can't go wrong :)

To the person asking why there's no 390X in the bench-> The 290X had only 5% lower minimums than the Ti, guess what would have 390X and Fury (which failed the test from some reasons, like it says in the article) done with the Ti.

They also have a chart for CPUs, showing the game is heavily GPU bound
e7gGQRa.jpg
From 5960x to Fx4300 no change lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom