I didn't refer to any excuses or repeat a mantra. I was just addressing the fact your reasoning was flawed. In the same way that quoting my post then responding to it with talk of excuses and fooling yourself is.
Bad excuses is bad excuses. :thumbsdown:
The mantra that its always someone elses fault than AMD is nothing but fooling yourself.
I don't. Everyone should read this thread.
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/666419-what-are-your-opinions-on-dx12vulkanmantle/#entry5215019
I was intrigued with what a poster said about the game running better on radeons in previous versions of the game, but Gameworks was updated to make the game run worse on the final version.
So I did the following test (spicy wallpaper alert on vids ).
Project Cars (0.831 vs 1.2) 1920X1080 maxed (SMAA) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860@4Ghz
What this is, is an automated run in the Azure coast, which I benchmarked with fraps and recorded with a digital recorder.
Of course I did the same run on both game versions, 0.831 and 1.2.
I have used the same maxed settings on both runs (smaa only), but there is one discrepancy. I missed the streched headlights reflections setting on the 1.2 run and left it to No, while it was Yes at 0.831. Still this has no effect on the performance. I redid the runs after I recorded the video and was getting the same results within a margin of error. I am using a morning setting, so I guess the headlights should be turned off anyway.
Also the 1.2 version has a track detail setting at Ultra where it was only High at 0.831. That is not of my own doing. This is what these versions are offering.
Now here comes the interesting part. The old version scored 20fps while the new version scored 29fps. That's a 45% performance increase!
I cannot vouch for what happens on other Radeons though. Maybe Hawais do get a performance hit, I don't have one to test.
Also what I would like to point out, is that the GPU load was at maximum in the 0.831 run, while it had some minor cpu limits on the second run (gpu load droped from maximum). So with a better cpu, I would have more than 45% better performance, maybe 50%.
Also regarding the cpu heaviness of this game, these are my runs of the 970 with 3 different cpus. These are from the 0.831 version. I guess I will have to redo them with the 1.2. (December 2015 note-Unfortunately I did not )
Project Cars 1920x1080 Maxed (SMAA) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8G - 62 fps
Project Cars 1920X1080 maxed (smaa) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz - 53 fps
Project Cars 1920x1080 Maxed (SMAA) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Q9550 @4GHz - 34 fps
I could be wrong, but what I see is not consistent with hidden hardware accelerated PhysX, unless this is something totally new.
I believe we will see a HUGE performance increase with future drivers and/or patches, on the Radeons. Remember Assassin's Creed Unity?
Thank you mr moderator, sir.
Now the reason I requested the re-opening of the thread, is that I revisited the performance tests I had done before. Quoting myself..
Now the other day I did some new tests on version 6.0 of the game.
I was glad to find that all systems received a hefty performance boost and that is the reason I requested the re-opening of this thread to update the performance info and get some insight of what's going on.
This is how the performance looks like, right now (spicy wallpaper alert if you decide to watch the vids )
You will notice that I named the previous settings as maxed smaa and the new ones as ultra smaa, but they have the same exact settings. I just decided that maxed smaa was not a correct term. Still there is one new vid with truly maxed settings on the 970 below.
Project Cars 6.0 1920x1080 Ultra (SMAA) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 98fps
Project Cars 6.0 1920x1080 Ultra (SMAA) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz - 52fps
Project Cars 6.0 1920x1080 Ultra (SMAA) 7950 @1.1Ghz Q9550 @4GHz - 43fps
Project Cars 6.0 1920x1080 High (SMAA) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz - 57fps
Project Cars 6.0 1920x1080 Maxed GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 37fps
Project Cars 6.0 1920X1080 High (SMAA) 5850 @950Mhz Core i7-860 @4GHz - 33fps
Now if you do a direct comparison, you will see that the 970+2500k was scoring 62fps before and now it scores 98fps! The 970's benchmarks of my previous post, where done with the beta 0.831 however. Still, that's a 58% increase in performance. Also what is crazy here is that the gpu usage in 0.831 was at 100% while it is hitting cpu limits in 6.0, so the result would be even higher. To top that off, the 6.0 has increased track quality setting to ultra, which I used.
As for the 7950, which I had indeed tested with the 1.2 version, as you can see, it is also now much faster. Actually it went from 29fps to 52fps, giving a huge boost of 79%! Actually the performance gain of the 7950 is much more important, because it took a performance of 30fps and shot it to above 50fps. The 970 going from 60 to 100 will have little importance for most users.
It is also note worthy, that the 7950 going from ultra to high settings, did not gain much performance. This was the case before too, but with much worse performance of course.
Last but not least, the old 5850 is now able to run the game even at high settings at 33fps, while it was unthinkable before. Basically it was a slideshow.
Of course the reason I am posting all this, is because I don't understand what is going on here and I thought you guys may have some input. Sure we are probably looking at some straight engine optimizations that gave this huge performance boost. I can't help wondering, if the settings have been tinkered however. I mean it could be a placebo, but the 1.2 seems better to me, judging by my captured videos.
I would dare say, that all in all the game still seems to favor Nvidia, but it doesn't matter because the radeons also work fine.
Also if a new discussion will follow, let's please not fight this time.
Bad excuses is bad excuses. :thumbsdown:
The mantra that its always someone elses fault than AMD is nothing but fooling yourself.
Now if you do a direct comparison, you will see that the 970+2500k was scoring 62fps before and now it scores 98fps! The 970's benchmarks of my previous post, where done with the beta 0.831 however. Still, that's a 58% increase in performance. To top that off, the 6.0 has increased track quality setting to ultra, which I used.
As for the 7950, which I had indeed tested with the 1.2 version, as you can see, it is also now much faster. Actually it went from 29fps to 52fps, giving a huge boost of 79%!
Last but not least, the old 5850 is now able to run the game even at high settings at 33fps, while it was unthinkable before. Basically it was a slideshow.
So, you requested for the thread to be reopened so you could rub this in people's faces?
So, you requested for the thread to be reopened so you could rub this in people's faces?
So, you requested for the thread to be reopened so you could rub this in people's faces?
you can't isolate to just the game update if you are using updated drivers and Windows 10,
remember 8.1 vs 10 had a big difference for AMD even with older game versions
58% increase for 970 also came from AMD's drivers? Clearly if the game's performance magically goes up 60-80% on both vendors cards, the unoptimized nature of the game is 100% on the developer. This developer is known for releasing broken games and months later magically adding 44% performance increases, all without the GPU vendor's help.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...-2-accelerates-Radeon-graphics-cards/Reviews/
When this fact was pointed out for months wrt to PC, it was completely ignored to keep pushing the agenda of "crappy AMD drivers".
This is why broken launch games such as Black Ops 3, Anno 2205, PC, AC Unity, Batman AK, etc. should never be purchased for $60 by us to send a message to the developer that it's better to delay a game 6-12 months than spend that long fixing a broken game. If we don't, the industry will not change since they see us accepting these business practices.
as I said, you can't isolate these gains to the game patch, since he is also running different driver and OS for all cards apparently
for AMD we know for a long time that there were some driver/OS problems since win10 was a lot faster than 8.1 with the same game version, also I think a few weeks after the game release AMD released an optimized driver with some gains,
and for Nvidia, he used a beta version for the 970, and it's possible that drivers were also improved
that's not to say some game update didn't bring big gains, but it's not the only factor here,
OK you win. 2% because of AMD/nVidia/Intel the rest because the dev optimized the POS!
Funny my systems been running this game at high settings at around 60fps for months.
I don't remember having problems with it. My system is not exactly high end.