[benchmarks] Need for Speed 2016

[Silverforce11]

Pure PC @ http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...speed_komputer_z_nitro_mile_widziany?page=0,8

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...563/Specials/Benchmarks-Technik-Test-1188606/

Feel free to post more sites as they come online.

1080p

1440p

1440p 21:9

4K data is pointless since they are all unplayable slow. Needs multi-GPU.

Fiji once again looks very unoptimized out of the box here, similar to all the 2016 AAA titles we've seen. Hawaii and other GCN SKUs are performing superbly.

I suspect HBM requires separate optimizations from AMD for it to perform, because they have had to release Fiji specific "Game Ready" drivers for every single major title so far in 2016.

Kepler taking a dirt nap as usual in these modern games.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

My word, it goes over 30! What's next? wheel support?

 

[PhonakV30]

I think they install windows , bench , Format then Install windows again , due to DRM.

 

[BlitzWulf]

at 4k the 390 is 20% faster than the 980 and at those clocks its more like a 290

 

[dacostafilipe]

My word, it goes over 30! What's next? wheel support?

There's wheel support

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzasXdg5Dhw

 

[csbin]

4K

390 faster than the 980

780ti.......LOL

 

[raghu78]

R9 390 is impressive and is 15% faster than MSI GTX 970 Gaming at 1440p. Its embarrassing to see the Kepler flagship 780 Ti Phantom get hammered by the R9 390 which is basically an overclocked R9 290.

 

[ShintaiDK]

4K

390 faster than the 980

780ti.......LOL

And all unplayable. What a super win there. Cinematic effect?

 

[crisium]

So 390 minimum for smooth 60fps at 1080p maxed. Looks like 1440p maxed 60fps may be out of reach, though we still don't have Fury X and 980 Ti OC results which may get there.

That's fine... you are permitted to change settings in PC games.

 

[KaRLiToS]

And all unplayable. What a super win there. Cinematic effect?

And your point is? Faster is faster.

 

[csbin]

And all unplayable. What a super win there. Cinematic effect?

OK

@1080p 390(1010Mhz） faster than the 970（1330Mhz）:sneaky:

 

[Good_fella]

So AMD is better for unplayable fps, Nvidia is better for playable fps.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Some people on this forums are....

....Huge facepalm.

At 1440p, the stock 390 is equal to a GTX 980 strix.

 

[96Firebird]

Some people on this forums are....

....Huge facepalm.

I know right, I also enjoy playing a racing game at 30FPS average! ()

 

[linkgoron]

I haven't been following the 780ti so much, I usually look for 970/290 and above. Was the difference between the 780ti and 970 always ~15% for the 970, or is it because of the 970 OC?

According to old benchmarks it wasn't like this in the past:
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/review/g...nvidia-gtx-780-ti-amd-radeon-r9-290x-3584978/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/27.html

Is this a game anomaly, OC effect or is this something standard nowadays?

 

[KaRLiToS]

I know right, I also enjoy playing a racing game at 30FPS average! ()

I thought 4k is the future. I guess you guys all have 720p monitors. Poor little fellas. Sometime you guys are hard to follow. It's actually pathetic.

We'll see when we have Crossfire results or SLI results.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I thought 4k is the future. I guess you guys all have 720p monitors. Poor little fellas. Sometime you guys are hard to follow. It's actually pathetic.

We'll see when we have Crossfire results or SLI results.

98%+ on steam got 1080p or below. Think on that for a while.

I myself got a 1440p and I belong to a tiny niche. 4K is an ultra niche.

And if you think 4K is the future, why worry about cards that get obsolete soon?

 

[xthetenth]

So AMD is better for unplayable fps, Nvidia is better for playable fps.

And the 390 is the competitor to the 980. What a deal!

 

[96Firebird]

I thought 4k is the future. I guess you guys all have 720p monitors. Poor little fellas. Sometime you guys are hard to follow. It's actually pathetic.

It seems you have a problem with my post, its ok, you'll get over it! :thumbsup:

When it comes to hardware, I don't plan for the future, I live in the now. And right now, playing a racing game at 30FPS is really the only pathetic thing in this thread.

 

[Good_fella]

And the 390 is the competitor to the 980. What a deal!

Tied in 3440x1440. Point?

 

[dark zero]

I know right, I also enjoy playing a racing game at 30FPS average! ()

Old games were at that FPS and loved it. Wondering why people only sees FPS and not the funfactor... Low FPS can be handy in certain situations.

 

[PPB]

I see the spin now is to dismiss higher resolutions. So the 980 was only a 1080p card all this time? So sad for the most advanced gpu uarch to be this mediocre at scaling in higher resolutions.

Longeveity and Maxwell are the new euphemism for "water and oil".

 

[crisium]

So AMD is better for unplayable fps, Nvidia is better for playable fps.

This is an odd statement to make when so far the game is shown to favor AMD at all resolutions.

 

[Kenmitch]

Tied in 3440x1440. Point?

Price difference is insane on them.

Cheapest prices on newegg

R9 390 $275 after rebate
GTX 980 $469 after rebate

Nobody buys the GTX 980 these days....Unless they're crazy nvidia lovers.

 

[Gloomy]

I haven't been following the 780ti so much, I usually look for 970/290 and above. Was the difference between the 780ti and 970 always ~15% for the 970, or is it because of the 970 OC?

According to old benchmarks it wasn't like this in the past:
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/review/g...nvidia-gtx-780-ti-amd-radeon-r9-290x-3584978/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/27.html

Is this a game anomaly, OC effect or is this something standard nowadays?

Because its a garbage architecture. Anything shader heavy destroys performance on it. Its a shame newer gaphics tech is all shader heavy... pbbbt.

When games get more number crunchy and literally nothing else then obviously an architecture designed around big honking shader arrays is going to shine... and ones designed with a lesser emphasis on those are going to falter,