• 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.

Wolfenstien 2 Vulkan benchmarks:

jigger said:
So Nvidia might actually be be further behind than it seems?
Click to expand...
hyperseven said:
What? that didnt use the highest quality settings, big whoop, 1080P, that's pushing it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now now gents, play nice. Comparison video below for you to pick holes in. :p

AMDMatt said:
1080TI AIO Vs Vega 64 AIO, similar performance at 1080P.
Vega perhaps higher overall average and min FPS, but lower maximum.

Same settings 1080P, except Async Compute is disabled for Vega and the Vega GPU is running a 120 FOV vs a 90 FOV on the 1080TI.

MqrOTMd.jpg

aRxuOoD.jpg

u39k58n.jpg

TyzGyOK.jpg


Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, i've only played part of the first level but it seems to run exceptionally well on my old 290/4770k, mostly over 100fps maxed out (for my spec) at 1080p. I take it later levels are a lot more demanding?
 
I've been playing this at 1440p 60hz v-sync & my 56 barely even wakes up at Mein Leben (image streaming on uber). I've just been playing around with VSR at 4k. Currently in New Orleans & even with Mein Leben & image streaming uber (hbcc on) I'm still over 60 pretty much all the time (v-sync off to test:P). Beta patch, 17.10.3 & async on. My 56 is having to work now though.

I know it's VSR not true 4k but I'm getting a lot higher fps than for example the guru3d bench result. Will have to test more areas I think. I remember the first outdoor are you get to in NY was a bit wonky in places with fps - although this was before the beta patch & async being enabled again- but that's been the exception so far.
 
Nice to finally see 1080Ti vs Vega 64 as they are both the top cards not the older 1080.

@docsonic, I and I assume others here always get higher FPS than reviews sites, we are not gauging the game across a level but going by FPS counter on screen at any one time or hovering mouse over the timeline in Afterburner after game is closed.

If you ran some benching software you would probably see overall a lower FPS.

I was hitting 240FPS at 1440p in some outdoor parts with Mein leben.
 
Link
g649Zr7.png


AHPIPj5.png


Vega 64 is a fair bit ahead of the the 1080 in this title, interesting thought that Pascal card narrows the gap a bit with the bump in resolution, I wonder if A-sync is running/working?

In terms of bang for buck, if you say an average retail price for 1080 Ti (air) is £650, a 1080 (air) is £520 and Vega 64 (air) at £470 you get this £ per frame at 4k (based on above results and prices from a quick glance at the OCUK store):
1080 Ti = £10.48
1080 = £10.83
Vega 64 = £8.70

Weirdly enough the 1080 Ti is better value then the 1080 but Vega does deliver the best bang for buck.
 
Interesting that the gap between the 1080 and the Vega 64 is wider at 1080p than 4k in vulkan whereas in DirectX the 1080 is normally ahead at lower resolutions with the Vega closing up at 1440P and 4K. Something to do with the CPU overhead in DirectX?
 
Freddie1980 said:
LiVega 64 is a fair bit ahead of the the 1080 in this title, interesting thought that Pascal card narrows the gap a bit with the bump in resolution, I wonder if A-sync is running/working?

In terms of bang for buck, if you say an average retail price for 1080 Ti (air) is £650, a 1080 (air) is £520 and Vega 64 (air) at £470 you get this £ per frame at 4k (based on above results and prices from a quick glance at the OCUK store):
1080 Ti = £10.48
1080 = £10.83
Vega 64 = £8.70

Weirdly enough the 1080 Ti is better value then the 1080 but Vega does deliver the best bang for buck.
Click to expand...
That is only one game and one resolution. Results will be completely reversed using a different example. Maybe someone could do the same for the many 30+ game averages that are out there to give a more realistic figure.
 
Brazo said:
That is only one game and one resolution. Results will be completely reversed using a different example. Maybe someone could do the same for the many 30+ game averages that are out there to give a more realistic figure.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear though I'm not saying Vega is great and everyone should rush and buy it as Wallenstein is a best case scenario but the point was to show what is possible with Vega and provide some balance to the the normal arguments that it's overpriced and not good enough.
 
Brazo said:
That is only one game and one resolution. Results will be completely reversed using a different example. Maybe someone could do the same for the many 30+ game averages that are out there to give a more realistic figure.
Click to expand...

Its a start though and that what really matters. Hell Vega has even been beating out the 1070 and 1080 in recent titles!
VEGA will grow to become better, the 10 series will fade off just let it always has been!

Remember VEGA release it was behind almost all games, 1070 was even beating the 56 now look at the turn around.
Come back to this replay in a year time and lets see where these GPU are.
Games optimisation doesn't just happen over night! VEGA needs games built around it. Think of it like a new console release, early games just run ok but latter titles end up using the full hardware and make better use of it.
 
Big deal the 10 series is older now (May 2016), Volta will be here and Vega will be even further behind and for now a 1080Ti beats it.

Honestly some peeps are delusional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom