psolord
Platinum Member
- Sep 16, 2009
- 2,092
- 1,234
- 136
I just finished my custom pc gameplay benchmarks for anyone that is interested.The benchmark contains the first 15 minutes of the game, including most real time cutscenes, hence it is mainly focused on the GPU.
The end part is the Franklin and Lamar mission, which tends to shift the cpu/gpu load balance. I should have thought to extract a different benchmark number on that part, but I can still show you what I found out.
For starters, GTX 970 on 2500k,860 and Q9550, maxed settings with no MSAA (spicy wallpaper alert on all links)
Grand Theft Auto V 1920x1080 v.high GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 97fps
Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4Ghz - 92fps
Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 V.High GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Q9550 @4GHz - 82fps
Secondly
GTX 970 vs 7950, both on the 2500k, again maxed settings with no MSAA (first below video is the same as the first above)
Grand Theft Auto V 1920x1080 v.high GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 97fps
Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i5-2500K @4.8GHz - 62fps
and last but not least
GTX 570 vs 5850 on the Q9550, quite high settings (1480MB vram needed), no MSAA, 570 has one degree higher tesselation setting. This discrepancy occurred because I figured the 5850 would manage the same settings and while it did for the most part, the higher tesselation made it stutter a lot, so I had to turn it down a notch.
Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high(-) GTX 570 @850Mhz Q9550 @4GHz - 56fps
Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high(-) 5850 @950Mhz Q9550 @4GHz - 38fps
Now the interesting part comes in exactly this last test, because it has again to do with AMD's driver higher cpu needs.
Here are two captures from their respective videos, that show the framerate, along with the cpu usage.
You will see that the q9550+570 combination can produce ~50fps, while the 5850 is even more severly cpu limited and the system can only achieve ~30fps.
Here is a side by side comparison, with the two runs at the same location. You will need a fast internet connection and you may want to increase to 720p for both windows, to see the OSD better.
The same thing happens in the 970 vs 7950 on the 2500k.
For about the same cpu load, the 970 is producing 65+fps while the 7950 less than 50fps.
I think it will be best to do a q9550+7950 test with the 5850 settings, to see if this 30fps limit will also manifest in this configuration.
Be aware of what desktop background you post screenshots of. Nudity, even partial, isn't allowed.
-Elfear
Sorry about that, won't happen again.
-Psolord
Hello again. Sorry for the large quote. I just wanted readers to have easy access on my previous post. Spoiler tags work weird in this forum. :S
Soo..in succession to the above post and since I was fairly disappointed by the 5850's outdoors framerate of 30fps, which also showed cpu limits, I decided to do the same test, same settings, same system on the 7950 this time.
Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 V.High(-) 7950 @1Ghz Q9550 @4GHz
In all honesty, since the gpu load was not at max and cpu load was very high, I thought I was seeing an AMD driver overhead issue. However, I was mistaken and I recall my previous assumption. After doing benchmarks all these years, I should have known better.
So here are the q9550+7950 and q9550+5850 graphs from MSI AB, of course on the same system.
Also side by side comparison, of the 7950 vs the q9550. Both systems do not go to max gpu load, while having very high cpu load, but the end result is totally different.
What would be much more enlightening, is if I had a 290/290X and do the same run on the Q9550, to see if I would get any more performance, or the same.
Since I do not though, I did something different.
I run the same test on the 7950, using the same settings I did on the GTX 970, in 1280X720p resolution, thus shifting the bottleneck to the cpu, so I could see what the difference of the two drivers would be.
Here are the graphs. Remember that 970 is running the game in 1080p and the 7950 in 720p.
So things are overall not as bad as I had initially thought.
I will revisit the subject once the 390X comes out (with hopefully not crazy prices)
Last edited: