Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,413
- Location
- UK.
Titan X Pascal is a beast..
You will be mine one day my pretty...
You will be mine one day my pretty...
-
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
- Thread starter AlamoX
- Start date
The Guru3D updated results show the 390X getting 92fps but the original test showed 140fps. How is that even possible unless they turned off a performance boosting option just so the results can show Nvidia beating the AMD cards. The new results show the Nvidia cards getting the same fps as the old results but AMD getting far worse...WTF.
Original GURU3D test (Shadow Cache = ON).........................................................Updated GURU3D test - 1080P (Shadow Cache = OFF)
If shadow cache or other setting for AMD gives a huge performance boost then that should be shown in the benchmarks. Highly dubious benchmarks to say the least. It's like the old Doom benchmarks running OpenGL only when we all know Vulkan gives AMD the best performance.
EDIT: Apparently they did turn off shadow cache for all cards in the updated results, essentially gimping the AMD cards with 8GB. The original test with the 390X rivaling the 1080 is the correct result for AMD. Nvidia drivers are to blame for the current performance and should be improved in another update since the older driver had better performance. Rather poor benchmarking by some sites.
No one would go into their drivers to do something that makes the card perform worse.
This is Guru3D editing AMD's drivers to gimp their performance so that nVidia's performance doesn't look as bad as it actually is in comparison to AMD, what they did was deliberately manipulate AMD's settings to drag them down to nVidia's poor level.
For me this just proves these so called reviewers are not independent, in fact they work for nVidia.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,541
Has anyone here got an RX480 and a 1070 to do some tests? Someone reliable and not Nvidia (gregster) or AMD (humbug) fanboys?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Isn't this the same as testing amd cards with gameworks off?
So you honestly think they purposefully gimped performance on AMD to make the 1080 look better? Do you not think the original results were questionable with the 390X smashing the Fury X and miles ahead of the 390?
You get worse!
Not really since turning off gameworks resulted in both AMD and Nvidia cards to gaining performance and thus not disadvantaging either one. It was only turned off because AMD cards couldn't be optimized for closed properietary Gameworks features and suffered greatly.
Here the problem is that 8gb Nvidia cards don't seem to gain or lose anything by turning off shader cache but AMD 8GB cards lose significant performance.
A better comparison should be shader cache ON for all 6-8GB cards but turned OFF for 4gb or less cards.
AMD's cards performed a lot higher in this with shader cache on 'the default setting'.
He went into the settings to turn it off, retested, put the resulting lower performance up and took the uninterfered with higher performance down, he even said in a post on page 3 of comments that he ran them all with shader cache off in the redone reviews.
Its a fake review, the original one, the one he took down was the real one.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
Priceless lol. Nothing like unsubstantiated slander.
Last edited:
It is amusing but it also doesn't help with competition in the market when you have reviewers with this much mindshare pulling stunts like that.
If a healthy market is what we want we shouldn't be tolerating things like this, we are the ones who pay the price for it in the end.
If a healthy market is what we want we shouldn't be tolerating things like this, we are the ones who pay the price for it in the end.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
lol
Last edited:
Did you read what the Shader Cache was doing to cards with less than 4GB of VRAM or did you ignore that for the sake of your own self justification?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Ive got the cache off 
On or off it makes no difference to nVidia in this, it does to AMD.
Its on by default in AMD's drivers, for an AMD user to get the same lower performance he/she would need go into the driver CP to set the same options Guru3D set.
Why would anyone go into thier drivers to turn off options to make the card much slower?
You just wouldn't.
Its on by default in AMD's drivers, for an AMD user to get the same lower performance he/she would need go into the driver CP to set the same options Guru3D set.
Why would anyone go into thier drivers to turn off options to make the card much slower?
You just wouldn't.
The option being turned off for all cards is the whole issue here. Only cards with less than 6GB should have this turned off since it eats into VRAM causing stuttering.
However on cards such as the 390X it is giving a huge boost which is not shown in the updated benchmark.
A good review would identify the memory issue in this game and provide seperate results for 6GB+ cards.
I think you may be mixing up 'shader cache' available in AMD drivers with the RE7 game option called 'shadow cache'. It may be doing the same thing but it's a RE7 developer implementation which can be disabled in the game menu.
Afaik shadow cache is not an exclusive feature for AMD only but probably gives a huge boost to AMD due to some architectural reason..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
he is lol.