• 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.

TRESSFX: A NEW FRONTIER OF REALISM IN PC GAMING

LtMatt said:
Lol didn't notice the SLI/CFX results. :p

Good point TheRealDeal. I have not run the benchmark in ages so will check soon. My runs were certainly a long time before 12.11 drivers.
Click to expand...

Odd as when I ran a bench recently on 7950 CF both GPUs were 100% utilised suggesting a limit other than the CPU.

LtMatt said:
@Rusty my original point was and still is 7970 is faster than a 680 at HIGH or Extreme. Clearly. That point still stands.
Click to expand...

I was assuming - like you - that AMD performance has remained constant but that appears not to be the case as some fairly impressive gains look to have happened since we ran those benchmarks (which is what I was going off).

LtMatt said:
However your super clocking 680 result was impressive, but that does not represent general performance. Infact i imagine that if a 7970 was clocked as much as your 680 was the gap would widen, not get closer. I will be testing this theory shortly and will come back with some results.
Click to expand...

The difference between average and my 680 isn't that much difference when you convert it to an FPS number so I think you're overstating it. I expect with the obvious driver improvements which seem to have occurred you'll comfortably beat 89.7 average FPS :).

LtMatt said:
I also believe that at no point was the 680 even. It might have been close but it was never even or ahead. Your super clocking 680 might have made it even but that was with 7970's clocked lower.
Click to expand...

As above - you're grossly overstating the impact that an extra 25 MHz over average has on the actual FPS. Even if you chop a bit off of my result to account for it's uberness, it's still in the ball park to be classed as even.
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
Odd as when I ran a bench recently on 7950 CF both GPUs were 100% utilised suggesting a limit other than the CPU.



I was assuming - like you - that AMD performance has remained constant but that appears not to be the case as some fairly impressive gains look to have happened since we ran those benchmarks (which is what I was going off).



The difference between average and my 680 isn't that much difference when you convert it to an FPS number so I think you're overstating it. I expect with the obvious driver improvements which seem to have occurred you'll comfortably beat 89.7 average FPS :).



As above - you're grossly overstating the impact that an extra 25 MHz over average has on the actual FPS.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But to go back to my original point which i believe still stands. AMD have always been faster (maybe not by much back when these tests were run) with SSAA at High or Extreme. I just don't see how they could be even when SSAA uses compute and 6xx cards don't have any compute units. AMD will always, even with slower drivers have a small advantage here. Unless the 6xx card is clocked higher, as was the case with your result they would never be even in this title.

Good debate Rusty nice and civil. I look forward to the next one soon. :p

So back on topic... Tomb Raider, any good? :D


EDIT

This isn't the Tomb Raider thread. Urgh i need a drink.
 
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
Agreed.

But to go back to my original point which i believe still stands. AMD have always been faster (maybe not by much back when these tests were run) with SSAA at High or Extreme. I just don't see how they could be even when SSAA uses compute and 6xx cards don't have any compute units. AMD will always, even with slower drivers have a small advantage here. Unless the 6xx card is clocked higher, as was the case with your result they would never be even in this title.

Good debate Rusty nice and civil. I look forward to the next one soon. :p
Click to expand...

If we're talking margins of < 5% then I would agree then yes, AMD cards would have been faster if both were clocked to "max" levels.

Yep, good debate :).

LtMatt said:
So back on topic... Tomb Raider, any good? :D
Click to expand...

It is. Seen the benchmark? I'll FRAPS it later (fully maxed) and upload it in 1080p for you (20MB upload connection). It's spectactular.

LtMatt said:
This isn't the Tomb Raider thread. Urgh i need a drink.
Click to expand...

Alcoholic.
 
Rusty0611 said:
I
It is. Seen the benchmark? I'll FRAPS it later (fully maxed) and upload it in 1080p for you (20MB upload connection). It's spectactular.
Click to expand...

Please do. Going to get this game when i see it in the MM or when i see a good offer for it. Hoping that i can convince tommy or petey to sell me theirs for a good price. :p
 
Obviously a lot of definition is lost in the conversion but you get the idea. :)

Edit: massively off topic but check this video I made when my friend and I were playing BF3 ages and ages ago. Uploading something to Youtube reminded me:


Again in 1080p.

Rampage.
 
Last edited:
TombRaider2013-03-0618-59-56-94.jpg


Everything maxed including the hair shampoo.

@ Rusty, that video looks a little jerky? Could you do your frame latency times for the bench please?

Edit:

Here is mine

TombRaider2013-03-0619-09-50-86-Time.jpg


Very pleased and good SLI performance.
 
Last edited:
Would gladly run up my 7970's to do this, in surround and 1920x1080, if someone sends me a copy of the game :D

Looks like it could be one to get after I've finished FarCry 3. Maybe the new AMD drivers with the rewritten memory management will be out by then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom