Gears of War 4 Benchmark

[moonbogg]

Played last night well past my bed time. Didn't want to put it down. This is a good game. Nice story telling and just really good. Also it looks great and runs great as well. I loved that level where I had to defend the base in the hills or whatever it was. I placed the defense items and all that from that magic box that builds stuff. Fun level. I just hooked up with my dad and he gave me a bunch of guns and now were running through his jacked up house that I wrecked. That's where I left off, actually right before a storm hit. We hunkered down in a shed or something and I looked at the clock and said FML I have to sleep.

 

[railven]

Just when I'm about ready to bite, I then read
"Windows Insider Build 14936
Insider Build 14936 of Windows has a known issue with UWP games. If you wish to play Gears of War 4 you will need to temporarily roll back until the next Insider Build is released."

Come, be an insider, help us make Windows a great experience. Wait you wanna play our games? Hahaha, oh you're serious?"

 

[Carfax83]

Played last night well past my bed time. Didn't want to put it down. This is a good game. Nice story telling and just really good. Also it looks great and runs great as well. I loved that level where I had to defend the base in the hills or whatever it was. I placed the defense items and all that from that magic box that builds stuff. Fun level. I just hooked up with my dad and he gave me a bunch of guns and now were running through his jacked up house that I wrecked. That's where I left off, actually right before a storm hit. We hunkered down in a shed or something and I looked at the clock and said FML I have to sleep.

So how do you think it compares to Doom in the looks department? Personally I think both games look great, but Gears 4 obviously has a lot more stuff going on at any given time, which is why I have to give it the nod.

 

[Phynaz]

Just when I'm about ready to bite, I then read
"Windows Insider Build 14936
Insider Build 14936 of Windows has a known issue with UWP games. If you wish to play Gears of War 4 you will need to temporarily roll back until the next Insider Build is released."

Come, be an insider, help us make Windows a great experience. Wait you wanna play our games? Hahaha, oh you're serious?"

Well, that's kinda the point of being a tester.

 

[railven]

Well, that's kinda the point of being a tester.

Welps, it seems you're either testing Windows with a new build or your testing UWP with a new game, but you're testing both systems, just one is more explicitly telling you.

People having to download 60+GB then another 60+GB called a "patch" is just downright insane. Throw in the 1990's dial-up "you've been disconnected, download will restart FROM THE BEGINNING" bullocks and you've made an enemy out of me.

 

[moonbogg]

So how do you think it compares to Doom in the looks department? Personally I think both games look great, but Gears 4 obviously has a lot more stuff going on at any given time, which is why I have to give it the nod.

I'd have to agree I think. I'd actually call it a tie, but the weather effects and all that stuff put Gears over the edge for that reason.

 

[Carfax83]

I'd have to agree I think. I'd actually call it a tie, but the weather effects and all that stuff put Gears over the edge for that reason.

Doom is great, but it has no real advanced technology like Gears 4 has. No destructible environments either.. The most impressive thing about Doom are the particle effects, and the plethora of dynamic lighting and shadows. In fact, I'd say that Doom edges out Gears 4 when it comes to particle effects, because the latter runs some of the particle effects at 30hz which can be really weird when you're playing at 60+ FPS.. I really hope they fix that in a patch!

 

[moonbogg]

Doom is great, but it has no real advanced technology like Gears 4 has. No destructible environments either.. The most impressive thing about Doom are the particle effects, and the plethora of dynamic lighting and shadows. In fact, I'd say that Doom edges out Gears 4 when it comes to particle effects, because the latter runs some of the particle effects at 30hz which can be really weird when you're playing at 60+ FPS.. I really hope they fix that in a patch!

Honestly you know what I have a difficult time discerning? Technology advantages vs artistic advantages in the games. If I say a game looks better, a lot of my reasons have to do with the art direction of the game and how creative the people were in creating interesting atmospheres with great colors and all that. I'm not sure how much a game's good graphics depend on art vs technology.

 

[tg2708]

Anyone here wants a gow 4 code? I was given a second code after I exchanged my graphics card. Not sure if they will blacklist it but since its free you lose nothing trying.

 

[RussianSensation]

Utter BS yet again RS!..It appears your reading comprehension on the reason of a short lived GPU is lacking!

Huh? There is no reasoning he provided that was logical. HD7970 became HD7970Ghz and then R9 280X. The original HD7970 could overclock to 1050-1125mhz on stock voltage of 1.175V and with a voltage bump to 1.256V could hit 1175-1250mhz overclocks on air. The HD7970 becames THE most long-lived GPU of all time until now. 5 years from release, HD7970 Ghz is providing 60 fps averages in BF1. There is no videocard in existence that came out before HD7970 that could still play modern AAA games at 1080p at 60 fps averages 5 years from release. 9700Pro and 8800GTX were not even this good.

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1267/bench/1080p.png

In modern titles, the HD7970Ghz has outperformed GTX680, 770 and GTX960 since November 2014. Today, the GTX780 is barely faster, a card that cost more than 2X the $ of the HD7970Ghz refreshed R9 280X the same year they both launched. In Gears of War 4, the R9 280X is getting 51 fps at 1080p. That's a remarkable level of GPU prformance for a 5 year old Tahiti GPU in an Unreal 4 engine that heavily favours NV.

The NV-biased ABT was wrong on Tahiti and the author removed his vitriol article trashing HD7970 from the interweb. I remember reading it back in the days but unfortunately was not able to save a copy.

As of right now, HD7970 is THE best GPU ever made because:
1) It is the ONLY GPU ever made that could play modern AAA games at 1080p at 50-60 fps 5 years from release
2) It is the ONLY GPU ever made that outperformed not 1, but 2 NV competing cards from the same generation - 680 and 770, and still ended up enroaching on the $650 780 years later. Insane.
3) On top of this the 7970 made bucketloads of money over its life-time with bitcoin, litecoin and ethereum mining. No GPU even comes close to the longevity of the HD7970 3GB. Hawaii would have to last 2 more years for that to happen and it's not looking like that will happen.

I just love the way you twist your opinions as fact to prove an argument. Dont forget your legendary GPU had broken CF drivers for the first 18mths.

There is nothing to twist. Did you bother looking at HD7990 vs. GTX690 results in the last 3 years? It's a complete slaughter for the 690. BTW, HD7970Ghz outperform every AIB 680 outside of MSI Lightning and EVGA Classified as of June 2012. The myths that 680 had the lead for most of its generation are just revisionist history at its finest.

Even a GTX680 overclocked to 1290mhz boost could not beat an 1165mhz 7970 and 1165mhz overclock on the 7970 was nothing special.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/gr...eforce-gtx-680-msi-radeon-hd7970_6.html#sect4

Face it, ABT was and never will be a reputable GPU review site until the owner(s) change. The fact that the reviewer has consistently tested NV GPUs in overclocked states while keeping AMD GPUs at base stock speeds is extremely biased. By just moving the Power Tune to 112% on my 1070, my GPU clocks skyrocket all the way to 1885mhz. At least be man enough to admit it that increasing the Power Tune on NV cards IS overclocking because Boost 2.0/3.0 increase GPU clocks as long as the power allowance permits and the 83-84C GPU clock barrier isn't reached. Because of how AMD and NV GPU boosts work, applying maximum power tune to AMD cards even at +10-20% and applying the 10-20% increase in Power Target/Tune to NV cards will NOT produce the same level of "pre-overclocked results" for both camps.

Good job derailing another thread with whining about a review site, some people just never learn.

Reviews from blatantly biased or incompetent review sites that don't provide a fair testing environment should not be posted. Given that you have personally owned Kepler and Maxwell, you should be well aware that adjusting the power target/tune to the maximum on NV cards results in a GPU overclock. The only time testing with maximum power tune or fan speed is acceptable is when the SKU (reference) is thermal throttling or is power-limited due to flawed design to account for the fact that AIB cards are unlikely to have these issues. The same reason testing NV GPUs with texture set to Performance vs. Quality but leaving AMD GPUs on Quality/HQ setting is also flawed.

 

[railven]

Honestly you know what I have a difficult time discerning? Technology advantages vs artistic advantages in the games. If I say a game looks better, a lot of my reasons have to do with the art direction of the game and how creative the people were in creating interesting atmospheres with great colors and all that. I'm not sure how much a game's good graphics depend on art vs technology.

I can go with this. Lots of games that amazed me visually, I'm sure posting a picture here the pixel counters will jump down my throat about sub-16K textures and how the shadows aren't real enough to fool a groundhog.

DOOM, however, amazed me visually, and technically - it looked SO GOOD and ran SO GOOD. I'm still itching to buy GOW4, but I'm a wait for a few more patches. SO when I go download I download only one 1156GB file instead of 20 60GB files.

 

[sxr7171]

I checked it out at a friend's. It's funny how after ACT3 it seems like a whole new game. It's like Act 1 and 2 were built on a different system and around Act 3 they changed everything.

The game looks good, but this is no 80GB game period. Textures are not impressive at all. That was the hallmark of the first GOW. Most impressive textures of its day.

 

[Carfax83]

The game looks good, but this is no 80GB game period. Textures are not impressive at all. That was the hallmark of the first GOW. Most impressive textures of its day.

I agree that the textures are the weakest part of the game IQ wise. I think they lowered the texture quality in the campaign due to the multiplayer maps, to save on space as the installation is already exceptionally large.

 

[NesteaZen]

Read almost the entire thread. Loved the input, thx. Thx RussianSensation

What I dont get is, even though AMD is touted to reign supreme in DX12, almost all benchmarks showed 1080/Titan was always double as good. You pay double the price for double the performance even though GCN is supposed to be better. Where is that bad?

I mean I get the price angle but GCN 3rd is clearly AMD's a-game at the moment and Pascal is Nvidia's. Plus if you consider current DX12 titles might not appeal to some, for w/e reason, and you're locked in DX11, I just dont see much value for AMD except for the price. As it has always been as far as I can remember.

 

[moonbogg]

Just finished the game and holy crap its amazing. Wanted to share some screenies of the huge mech levels. Damn fine game and looks incredible, especially toward the end. I was just like telling myself, "Are you serious? No way does this game look this awesome right now".
Looks like they might release a new one to continue the story. I'd buy it on day 1.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[tg2708]

bogg a spoiler tag should be added especially for the last pic

 

[moonbogg]

bogg a spoiler tag should be added especially for the last pic

Agreed and fixed, thanks.

 

[Red Hawk]

So the game is on sale on the Windows Store for $35.99 right now. Is it worth the purchase? I've never played a Gears of War game before.

 

[Carfax83]

So the game is on sale on the Windows Store for $35.99 right now. Is it worth the purchase? I've never played a Gears of War game before.

For $35.99, heck yeah it's worth it! It's a fun 10 hour campaign, and the game uses UE4, one of, if not the most technically accomplished engines out there.. And it runs on DX12 natively..

 

[moonbogg]

The game is fantastic. Grab it for that price.

 

[RussianSensation]

Read almost the entire thread. Loved the input, thx. Thx RussianSensation

What I dont get is, even though AMD is touted to reign supreme in DX12, almost all benchmarks showed 1080/Titan was always double as good. You pay double the price for double the performance even though GCN is supposed to be better. Where is that bad?

I mean I get the price angle but GCN 3rd is clearly AMD's a-game at the moment and Pascal is Nvidia's. Plus if you consider current DX12 titles might not appeal to some, for w/e reason, and you're locked in DX11, I just dont see much value for AMD except for the price. As it has always been as far as I can remember.

Thanks! AMD has nothing above RX 480 at the moment, which is why 1070/1080 look great regardless of how they perform. 1080 could have been just 10-15% faster than 980Ti and it would have still sold just as well. If you got the $, 1070 is a great card to own as prices have dropped to as low as $365-370 on Newegg. 1080 can be found for $570-580, which is a nice reduction from the $650-750 that most cards sold for in the first 2-3 months. RX 470/480 look good in their pricing segments. Hopefully 2017 brings more competition though.

You say AMD has been the "value" choice for as long as you remember but: HD6990>GTX590, 7970/7970Ghz > 680, HD7990>GTX690, R9 290>780, R9 290X>780Ti, R9 295X2>780Ti SLI. In the mid-range segments, AMD slaughtered NV completely during those generations. GTX660/660Ti, 760, 950/960 were very mediocre videocards and yet sold like hot cakes.

For those who switched videocards every 15-18 months, NV did well. If you tend to keep a GPU for 3-4 years, AMD won those generations no contest. Even today 980 barely beats 290X despite costing 2X the price during their generation. You say "except" the price as if it doesn't matter to you. A logical comparison cannot be made then. What if I make $50K a month and NV releases a $5K videocard and AMD's top card is $1K. Is it fair to compare? It's actually pathetic to me that $1300 980 SLI barely outperformed $650 R9 295X2 throughout their generation and yet almost no one bought the R9 295X2 over far inferior $550-600 980. I've been around these forums for a long time and most people here who buy flagship NV cards either never bought, will never buy or barely buy AMD flagship cards. It has nothing to do with performance because these same gamers still bought GeForce 4, 5, 6, 7 despite ATI wiping the floor with NV in performance + IQ in each of those generations. What do you say to that?

A large chunk of NV users on these forums are also G-Sync locked and I bet they wouldn't switch sides unless AMD released a card 50% faster for lower price than NV.

----

Gears of War 4 sold horribly for Microsoft. One of their biggest flops of 2016.

Here is how Gears of War 4' first week sales compare to other games in the franchise:

1. Gears of War 3 (X360) - 2.96M
2. Gears of War 2 (X360) - 1.87M
3. Gears of War: Judgment (X360) - 0.76M
4. Gears of War 4 (XOne - 0.62M
5. Gears of War (X360) - 0.61M
6. Gears of War: Ultimate Edition (XOne) - 0.28M

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/266...an-estimated-617k-units-first-week-at-retail/

A lot of you guys are in denial about how the AAA gaming industry is teetering on the precipice of a disaster. For anyone outside of Blizzard, Activision, EA, Bethesda and the likes, 1-2 failed AAA launches risk bankrupting the entire firm.

Gears of War 4 would have cost over $100M to make — and could have killed Epic Games
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.polyg...s-of-war-4-100-million-budget-epic-games-sale


"The very first Gears of War game cost $12 million to develop, and it made about $100 million in revenue," he said. "It was very profitable."

2011's Gears of War 3 cost "about four or five times more" to make than Gears of War did in 2006.

The ONLY reason Gears of War 4 even exists is because MS is footing the entire bill of its failure. MS has so much $ that the very fact they NEVER made $ on the original Xbox and Xbox 360 doesn't phase them.

Former Xbox head says original Xbox lost 'between $5 billion and $7 billion'
http://n4g.com/news/1789459/former-xbox-head-says-original-xbox-lost-between-5-billion-and-7-billion

Xbox 360 was another EPIC disaster for them
"Microsoft makes nothing from its xBox/Kinect entertainment division, while losing vast sums in its online division (negative $350M-$750M/quarter)"
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/syst...-zero-profit-from-xbox-360-for-thei-29402125/

The ONLY reason flops like Gears of War 4 are allowed to exist is because Microsoft keeps taking 2 arrows in each knee, and likes falling with its face into a money pit dreaming one day it might actually make up enough $ to recoup the massive losses they took with the first 2 Xbox generations. We'll have to see how XB1 does but it cannot be great for them when Gears of War 4's development budget was estimated at $100M by EPIC Games and there is probably no chance Gears of War 4 sales will be sufficient to make profits on this title.

Point is, many of you guys aren't seeing the big picture, but all the signs are there. Just impinge how much $ was lost on Mafia 3, Gears of War 4, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Dishonored 2, Forza Horizon 3, etc. because these massive firms can withstand tens of millions of losses. Watch Dogs 2 will join this list. No matter how amazing Metal Gear Solid V Phantom Pain was, the often hated Konami was taking arrows in the knee while Hideo was getting paid and Konami was burdening ALL of the financial risks:
http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/r...-lots-on-metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain/

I am sure I am forgetting other games as I recall Rise of the Tomb Raider was supposed to sell 8M copies or something. Another title that probably took an arrow to the knee, if it wasn't for MS bribe $ for its exclusivity.
https://www.google.ca/amp/uproxx.com/gammasquad/rise-of-tomb-raider-pc-disappointing-sales/amp/

In many ways, the industry is in serious trouble right now as game Sales/Revenues NDP reports fail to account for actual corporate profits after development and marketing costs. The catastrophic financial risks that come with just a handful of failed AAA launches are downplayed.

A lot of people on here are praising this game, but why were its launch sales such a massive flop? As far as PC sales go, there is no way that forcing gamers to buy the game solely from the MS store was a great idea. Yet, another strategic fail by MS to guarantee that PC sales would never reach their true potential.

 

[Arachnotronic]

A lot of people on here are praising this game but why were its launch sales such a massive flop?

Why don't you play it and tell us?

 

[RussianSensation]

Why don't you play it and tell us?

My opinion doesn't matter since it's going to be discarded. You have to ask long-term fans of the franchise:

1) "I've never played a Gears game that has been in development for this long be this bad... the matchmaking is almost unplayable, the hit detection is so bad no game feels official. Horde has less features, and the fortifications don't hold up well... this is half the game Gears 3 was, and it's almost double the price if you include the pass."

2) "gears of war mechanically is a good game, all the new weapons feel good and the game feels awesome, the problems i have are with the story and the progression system. The story is meh and i didn't connect to the characters"

3) "It's far from bad but it's also a ways away from great. It does improve the combat system from Gears of War 3 and is a total overall improvement over Judgement BUT the storytelling and amount of content (at launch) is SO weak compared to Gears 3 that it's almost painful. The horde mode is fun but the class system isn't as deep as it could be, and again, the content to be unlock just feels weak"

4) "I really don´t know what The Coalition pretended to do with this Gears. The entire game itself looks like an entire Fanservice demonstration from star to end.

The main characters are empty, there is no emotional link between them and the player, mecanically the game feels exactly like the rest of the franchise titles, forcing combat situations and making the scenarios artificial with the only purpose of placing coverages to shooting enemies.

Also the ending doesn´t add a thing to the saga, it´s just a story with new characters, children of the famoust soldiers of the Gears... but thats all."

Those are "Mixed" reviews from MetaCritic, not even bad reviews. The proof is in the first week sales.

Right now it's picking up sales since it's discounted and bundled with XBoxes, which means once again MS is taking more arrows in the knees.

All the games I mentioned earlier too failed to sell well, and many of those, if not all of them sold far worse than their predecessors. See a trend forming? Gamers are tired of sequels. Gamers are tired of broken launch games. Gamers are tired of being forced into 1 store platform. Gamers are getting tired getting milked for DLC. They want new experiences, flexibility and free DLC.

"No more DLC that gamers have to buy for the full experience" - Ubisoft
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.games...s-have-to-buy-for-the-full-experience-ubisoft

The guys with 1080/980Ti/1070 SLI/Titan XP do not represent the gaming market. They are a tiny fraction of the gaming market. And everyone else is getting tired of paying $60-80 to be beta testers. Unfortunately, good games like GoW4 suffer because of so many other disappointing, over-hyped and poorly optimized AAA games that came before it. This is really an alarming trend.

 

[happy medium]

For $35.99, heck yeah it's worth it! It's a fun 10 hour campaign, and the game uses UE4, one of, if not the most technically accomplished engines out there.. And it runs on DX12 natively..

Hmmmm I have 42,000 bing rewards points , I could get this game for free , if this game is that good, I'm may give it a go.

 

[Carfax83]

You say AMD has been the "value" choice for as long as you remember but: HD6990>GTX590, 7970/7970Ghz > 680, HD7990>GTX690, R9 290>780, R9 290X>780Ti, R9 295X2>780Ti SLI. In the mid-range segments, AMD slaughtered NV completely during those generations.

The way you tell "stories" by skipping entire pages of history can be truly disgusting at times RS..

For most of Kepler's lifespan, Kepler was outperforming its AMD counterparts at practically every turn... When the GTX 680 launched, it was faster than the 7970 whilst using much less power. Then AMD came out with the 7970 Ghz which was slightly faster for a while. Then NVidia came out with the GTX 780, GTX 770 and the original Titan, and had the performance lead until AMD came out with the R9 290 and 290x. AMD kept the performance lead until NVidia came out with the GTX 780 Ti, which totally demolished Hawaii.

By the time the page started to turn due to developers heavily using compute, and more importantly, the CONSOLE FACTOR, Maxwell had long been introduced which gave NVidia more than a fighting chance, as Maxwell had seriously beefed up compute capabilities and IPC vs Kepler.

So trying to make it sound as though AMD "slaughtered" NV completely during those generations is FACTUALLY INCORRECT and just a story told by you to balm the fact that Kepler dominated AMD for the relevant period of its lifetime..

I challenge anyone to go and look at the benchmarks themselves which were done at the time of launch for each of the Kepler GPUs and tell me I am wrong.

Gears of War 4 sold horribly for Microsoft. One of their biggest flops of 2016.

Here is how Gears of War 4' first week sales compare to other games in the franchise:

1. Gears of War 3 (X360) - 2.96M
2. Gears of War 2 (X360) - 1.87M
3. Gears of War: Judgment (X360) - 0.76M
4. Gears of War 4 (XOne - 0.62M
5. Gears of War (X360) - 0.61M
6. Gears of War: Ultimate Edition (XOne) - 0.28M

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/266...an-estimated-617k-units-first-week-at-retail/

This may as well be completely worthless, as VGchartz only tracks retail purchases, and not digital. Digital ownership has expanded greatly since the time of the Xbox 360, so a large chunk of the game purchases were digital for the Xbox One. And of course, you can only buy the digital version for PC..