• 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.

Project cars benchmarks

andybird123 said:
A somewhat self defeating argument, with AMD's already thin market share, if AMD users aren't buying the game there's even less reason to spend money fixing the problems
Click to expand...

Well the devs should have tested and optimised the game on AMD cards if they want the sales. It appears that they obviously aren't bothered with potentially alienating 15-20% of the market. The Nvidia payout may have covered them though.

Why would any self respecting AMD users pay the price for an inferior product? A paying customer has the right to good quality, not some half assed attempt like this appears to be.
 
Can't speak to much for AMD as I swaped my pair of 7970's for a pair of 780's early on in the development of this title, I was an early backer, but it runs great for me. I run triple screens at 5900*1080 and with everything set to high bar detailed grass + motion blur but with 4xMSAA enabled, I can get well over 60 fps. Actually it is normally around 100FPS once the start/first lap are out of the way but I prefer adaptive v-sync and a silky smooth 60 FPS locked at my monitors refresh rate. This is with large fields of 30+ cars and includes wet conditions.

Worst case scenario in my standard test, 36 car mixed GT3 field, wet conditions with me starting in the middle and letting the field drive by. It will drop to 50FPS briefly before recovering. Ultra settings in this title really do mean ultra. There are some very computationally heavy effects going on, especially in the wet where it will have the nearest thirty-two cars to you generating spray! That is a lot of particle effects to handle for any system. On the high setting that drops down to a more manageable eight.

There are also some crazy AA options if you want them. The top option, DSX9 does a custom 3x3 down sample. Better have those Titan-X's at the ready.

Back to AMD v Nvidia this game does run better on the equivalent Nvidia card due to I believe, their drivers being a little more efficient in terms of CPU resources consumed. Remember that this title has a very complex physics simulator running at its heart. There are some command line options you can run to enable mutli threading in the renderer and change the number of threads used for the physics engine. I don't know if the multi threaded renderer is now the default but most people have found this gives better results with AMD cards. Up until recently single threaded gave the best performance on my system (CPU is an i7 4930K @ 4.3Ghz) but in the last couple of months multi threaded has taken the lead.

Edit: BTW the suggestion that this title has been deliberately gimped to run badly on AMD hardware could not be further from the truth as anyone who has backed the title and followed its development from the start can attest. Slightly Mad Studios are a relatively small independent developer, do you really think they want to cut off a large proportion of their target market who are using AMD CPUs/GPUs?
 
Last edited:
r7slayer said:
I didn't realise AMD and nVidia had to spoon feed devs when they are making games?
Click to expand...

When spoonfeeding developers is the difference between having a game perform optimally on ones hardware and running average/terribly, why would you not spoonfeed them when you're in the business of selling performance hardware? Developers are responsible for getting their game running at playable rates so people can play their game, it's not in their interest to spend weeks optimising performance for different hardware for a tiny minority of benchmark obsessed enthusiasts.

It's the easiest thing in the world to sit back with high expectations and then point fingers when those expectations aren't met, it's not very conducive to having happy customers though.
 
Last edited:
If I can get 60fps out this at 1440p maxed out I'll happily buy it.. I very much doubt having 100fps vs 60fps in a car game will make any difference tbh.

As it stands I'll be staying away from this toll I see numbers from people or sites I can trust.
 
Last edited:
Couple of laps from the same track as Neil.
Cockpit veiw, 2560x1440 and all turned up to 11. Settings will be knocked down, feels very sluggish. Single TX@1330.

Min - 32
Max - 41
Avg - 37.744
 
Wow! that's some performance hit.. Is it just me, I don't even think the games looks that good for its performance hit??

And that Benchmarks showing 980 with 90+ fps??
 
Haven't fired this game up for months, but thought I'd have a quick run just before bed to see just how badly my system performs.

Practice lap (no AI cars) in a Renault Clio at Donnington on a sunny day. All settings in "Visual FX" turned on, 5760x1080 res, AA set to MSAA, no FXAA, no SMAA, Stretched Headlight Reflections turned to off, everything else set to the maximum of Ultra/High. Behind car view was between 51-60FPS through a whole lap, in car view gave me 60-80FPS through a lap. Crossfire showed high usage on both cards.

I didn't try any other settings, simply went into Options, whacked a few things from Medium to Ultra, and left most of it alone, then fired up the first practice lap it suggested. Not very scientific, and by the sound of some of the other posts when it rains the frame rate is going to tank, but certainly looks like the game can be made to be playable on AMD systems, which was my concern after seeing the benchmarks in the opening post.

If you're running AMD GPUs, don't despair yet! Wait until other review sites have had a chance to benchmark the game at different settings before we start panicking. :)
 
MSTRBKR said:
Does TX mean Titan X?

1440p is over twice the number of pixels (x2.39) as 1080p though.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's right, its less than x1.8 if memory serves me correct. 2073600 pixels in 1080, 3686400 pixels in 1440. I'm sure it works out about x1.8, cant be arsed to work it out now.
 
Last edited:
Confused Stu said:
If you're running AMD GPUs, don't despair yet! Wait until other review sites have had a chance to benchmark the game at different settings before we start panicking. :)
Click to expand...

Or don't buy the game yet and wait until they sort the **** out. If they can't get a 290X to beat GTX 660 then not worth handing your cash over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom