• 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.

Resident Evil 7 Benchmarks

VincentHanna said:
I could play this at 4k on my 65" OLED with HDR...

Instead I have opted to play the game in PSVR and it's already made me jump more than any other game I've played. It's funny because on PC I would care about getting 60fps/Ultra.

On PSVR (PS4 Pro) I couldn't even tell you the framerate, but everything is smooth.
Click to expand...

One of Candylands other video's mentions that on the Playstation it's 1080p 60 fps, I imagine VR won't be far off that.

Simon Belmont said:
Xbox One looks better then PS4
Click to expand...
I don't think there's much in it, If I was shown them one after the other I couldn't tell which was better.
 
390x above a 1080...never, clearly something very unoptimised with the game/nvidia driver (yes I know a new one has dropped) Nice to see my card holding up very nicely still.
 
Last edited:
I definitely think that 390x is a typo/misplaced in the graph perhaps, maybe swap it around with the TitanX (maxwell)??

But then, would you also expect the 390/390x to be out gunning a 1070? I don't think so, clearly a lot is fubar here.
 
Last edited:
It's quite possible a setting that isn't optimised for nvidia driver they was using and is for AMD?
I know the demo had to be patched because of AO was too demanding.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Furys ****** as games using more than 4GB at every res :D
Click to expand...

Maybe but why is the 980ti tanking even more at 4k?

Edit: Its shadow cache that's using up all the memory. Turn that off if you're running 4gb or less they said. They also updated the results with newer drivers for Nvidia and I think with shadow cache off on the Fury's since they seem to be doing a lot better.
 
Last edited:
Lokken86 said:
Maybe but why is the 980ti tanking even more at 4k?

Edit: Its shadow cache that's using up all the memory. Turn that off if you're running 4gb or less they said. They also updated the results with newer drivers for Nvidia and I think with shadow cache off on the Fury's since they seem to be doing a lot better.
Click to expand...

;)

lowrider007 said:
A few people are saying disabling shadow cache seems to help performance out quite a bit, any of you getting lower performance tried that out?
Click to expand...
 
One thing I noticed was HBAO+ had a big impact on my fps at 4K when I tried the demo when it came out. Now with new drivers on my second playthrough on the main game I decided to go from SSAO to HBAO+ and the impact is a hell of a lot less so Nvidia definitely optimised something on that one. Can play with HBAO+ now.

Basically playing with everything on max and turned off the crappy DOF and Motion Blur and it is buttery smooth at 4K on my 1070 :D
 
Lokken86 said:
Maybe but why is the 980ti tanking even more at 4k?

Edit: Its shadow cache that's using up all the memory. Turn that off if you're running 4gb or less they said. They also updated the results with newer drivers for Nvidia and I think with shadow cache off on the Fury's since they seem to be doing a lot better.
Click to expand...

The results certainly make more sense now, They still show AMD with a good advantage, for example the Fury is only 1 frame behind a 1070 at 1080p, And at 4k the 390 and 390x beat out the Fury X and Fury by a few frames which is presumably down to memory usage. The 8gb 480 and the 390x are doing a good job too with around a 6 or 7 frame advantage over the 6gb 1060 at 1080p & 1440p. Good show from AMD which is nice. Too many more like this and the 1070 won't be looking like a worthy upgrade. I reckon Vega's gonna kick butt, shame it isn't out now,
 
Kaapstad said:
That graph is very dodgy indeed.

Why is the 390P 20fps slower than the 390X ?
Click to expand...

They've smoothed out there testing now and have updated the graphs.

AMD have still done a damn good job with this title,

New 1080p
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/resident_evil_7_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

New 1440p & 4k
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/resident_evil_7_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

In the conclusion he said "you can sometimes literally see textures being filled into objects."

??? How can it be literally? You either see it or you don't.

Rage was bad for that.
 
Last edited:
nashathedog said:
The results certainly make more sense now, They still show AMD with a good advantage, for example the Fury is only 1 frame behind a 1070 at 1080p, And at 4k the 390 and 390x beat out the Fury X and Fury by a few frames which is presumably down to memory usage. The 8gb 480 and the 390x are doing a good job too with around a 6 or 7 frame advantage over the 6gb 1060 at 1080p & 1440p. Good show from AMD which is nice. Too many more like this and the 1070 won't be looking like a worthy upgrade. I reckon Vega's gonna kick butt, shame it isn't out now,
Click to expand...

Well at least there is one game that Vega will outperform a TitanXP :p . I think shader cache is meant to boost performance if you have the memory for it. Is that correct?
 
Just ordered a 480 8gb.. still think that this game is a ropey example and needs a good patch or driver optimizations or both, not something you judge a card on in it's current state in isolation.
 
I'm really looking forward to vega moreso than 1080 Ti as I know the Ti will be a silly price! just bought this game now will test on my laptop tomorrow GTX 680M custom Vbios 1001mhz and then my desktop at 4k with 980 Ti see how it performs :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom