Gears of War 4 Benchmark

[Alqoxzt]

PCGH has updated their benchmark to the latest drivers:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gears-of-War-4-Spiel-55621/Specials/Performance-Test-Review-1209651/

Couple of noteworthies from their text:
GOW4 currently runs very choppy in non-native resolution. Assumed to be a bug in UWP. All tests that were done on non-native resolution are potentially invalid (especially min fps, looking at you, GamersNexus).

The 16.10.1 driver did improve performance according to PCGH.

Good thing rx480 also gets 7% from async while 1080 gets 3%.

 

[Grooveriding]

I really dont like GTX1070 performance in new titles.Its always slower than 980TI and GTX1080 leads around 30-35%.
BF1
Deus ex
And now this...

Nothing new. This was clear right from release of both 1070/1080. They both look underwhelming if you use overclocked 980ti benchmarks. 1070 being slower and 1080 10-15% faster. Both cards got the overhype treatment. GP102 is the real GM200 successor, with GP104 being mid range.

 

[Sweepr]

As usual great testing from PCLab. All settings covered (except Insane):

• AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.10.1 Hotfix;
• Nvidia GeForce 373.02 WHQL;

http://pclab.pl/art71543.html

GTX 1060 19.2-38.4% faster than RX 480 at 1080p Ultra. Also a significant advantage relative to Maxwel-based GTX 980. Just like PCGH indicated, Fury X tanks at 4K Ultra. Any card above GTX 980 Ti can sustain >30 FPS - definitely playable (although some would prefer lower settings and locked 60 FPS).

 

[Riek]

As usual great testing from PCLab. All settings covered (except Insane):

GTX 1060 19.2-38.4% faster than RX 480 at 1080p Ultra. Also a signifcant advantage relative to Maxwel-based GTX 980. Just like PCGH indicated, Fury X tanks at 4K Ultra. Any card above GTX 980 Ti can sustain >30 FPS - definitely playable (although some would prefer lower settings and locked 60 FPS).

More importantly, the 1060 is only 7% slower than the 1070... which makes it about 18% slower than the 1080.

 

[PhonakV30]

Pclab shows that GTX 1060 6GB is faster than fury X while others reviews show Fury X is faster than GTX 1060.yep they call it Great Test!

 

[Piroko]

As usual great testing from PCLab. All settings covered (except Insane):

http://pclab.pl/art71543.html

GTX 1060 19.2-38.4% faster than RX 480 at 1080p Ultra. Also a signifcant advantage relative to Maxwel-based GTX 980. Just like PCGH indicated, Fury X tanks at 4K Ultra. Any card above GTX 980 Ti can sustain >30 FPS - definitely playable (although some would prefer lower settings and locked 60 FPS).

So these passed your basic sniff test? And you even used PCGH as a second reference which have posted massively different scores? No warning bells ringing with the 1060 being about as fast as a 1070? Really?

 

[kraatus77]

More importantly, the 1060 is only 7% slower than the 1070... which makes it about 18% slower than the 1080.

And that is totally normal. right ? "As usual great testing "

 

[raghu78]

More importantly, the 1060 is only 7% slower than the 1070... which makes it about 18% slower than the 1080.

funny we are supposed to believe that. 480 is on par with 1060 in every other review.

 

[Phynaz]

Deleted

 

[Head1985]

Nothing new. This was clear right from release of both 1070/1080. They both look underwhelming if you use overclocked 980ti benchmarks. 1070 being slower and 1080 10-15% faster. Both cards got the overhype treatment. GP102 is the real GM200 successor, with GP104 being mid range.

I know that, but i didnt expect 980TI will be faster even under dx12 and it is.I know its faster under dx11.
This is 3rd dx12 game where is 980TI faster.

Btw GTX1080 is 30% faster in this game than 1070.You cant say its underwhelming.

 

[Despoiler]

I was trying to place where I've seen numbers like these before in DX12. ie Nvidia ahead in some instances. It was another MS studio game on the UE4 engine Fable Legends. DX12 with an async "lite" implementation. It looks like this is what you can expect from anything MS + UE4. Granted the UE4 4.11 update brought a lot of changes to the engine that make it more favorable to AMD. The gap on UE4 between AMD and Nvidia is smaller than ever. AMD console wins paying dividends.

https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/unreal-engine-4-11-released

 

[tg2708]

I know that, but i didnt expect 980TI will be faster even under dx12 and it is.I know its faster under dx11.
This is 3rd dx12 game where is 980TI faster.

Btw GTX1080 is 30% faster in this game than 1070.You cant say its underwhelming.

You always seem disgusted by the 1070. Why didn't you just spend the extra money and go with the 1080? It makes no sense to get a card and end up keeping if it's not at your desired performance bracket. It's a very dumb move. I myself prefer the 1080 but when I can get a 1070 for 326 I'll have to give up the 1080.

 

[Erenhardt]

As usual great testing from PCLab. All settings covered (except Insane):

http://pclab.pl/art71543.html

GTX 1060 19.2-38.4% faster than RX 480 at 1080p Ultra. Also a significant advantage relative to Maxwel-based GTX 980. Just like PCGH indicated, Fury X tanks at 4K Ultra. Any card above GTX 980 Ti can sustain >30 FPS - definitely playable (although some would prefer lower settings and locked 60 FPS).

I LOLed so hard that my boss heard it. Went to my desk and asked what is so funny at the end of the week when we are far from completing our weekly tasks.
So I showed him this post. Guy ROFLed through the office slaloming between desk right into his dungeon laughing good 5 minutes.

Your sarcasm is a top notch. Thank you for brightening our day.

 

[Sweepr]

I LOLed so hard that my boss heard it. Went to my desk and asked what is so funny at the end of the week when we are far from completing our weekly tasks.

Really amazing how Fury / Fury X performs rather well in Medium settings, only to take a huge hit at Ultra. Might be a sign of what's to come with future titles - I'm surprised. Honestly this card looks like a poor choice right now when you can get RX 480/470 8GB for much lower prices and GTX 1070 for a few extra bucks.

 

[Erenhardt]

As usual great testing from PCLab.

That sums it up nicely. Typical PCLab.

There are game benchmarks, and there are PCLabs wundercharts.

 

[Piroko]

Really amazing how Fury / Fury X performs rather well in Medium settings, only to take a huge hit at Ultra. Might be a sign of what's to come with future titles - I'm surprised. Honestly this card looks like a poor choice right now when you can get RX 480/470 8GB for much lower prices and GTX 1070 for a few extra bucks.

You know, I'm pretty sure by now that you're trying to get this thread closed through flamebait posting.

The low minumums for all cards should be the first sign that they didn't test each run at native resolution, but everything on the same 4k screen which gives bugged results currently. PCGH had no issues getting consistently high minimum readings after noticing that exact issue, even backed up with frametime graphs. But you referenced them, so surely you were aware of this.
The second, and more severe, warning sign should be that their benchmark scores don't align at all with Nvidias own benchmark scores. The 4k results are a lot higher (well, ok, aib cards) and the 1080p results are far too low, except for the 1060 which gets a very high result. And Nvidias performance guide sticks to a 4790 @ 4 GHz, PCLab uses a 6700k @ 4.7GHz so no CPU bottleneck at 1080p. Danger, Will Robinson, danger! PCGH again has no issues matching Nvidias results except for the 1060 which consistently underperforms in their benchmark run.

 

[Sweepr]

PCGH had no issues getting consistently high minimum readings after noticing that exact issue, even backed up with frametime graphs. But you referenced them, so surely you were aware of this.

Yes, I am aware that the GTX 980 Ti they tested delivers 40% higher minimum FPS than a Fury X - after the updated results. I made my point clear a few times by now, so it's the last post on the matter. You need more than 4GB VRAM to be on the safe side @ 4K on future titles.

 

[kondziowy]

And you need a beefy CPU if you are using Nvidia. Computerbase showed some severe CPU bottleneck on weak models, and every test we see here is done using i7-6700k. Not everybody will be using this CPU. And Pclamb didn't test on 1080p panel. They only have 1440p and 4K so who knows what else they did wrong As always.

 

[Piroko]

You need more than 4GB VRAM to be on the safe side @ 4K on future titles.

You also need more performance than a 980 Ti to be on the safe side @ 4k on already released titles, so we have to agree to not come to the same conclusions it seems.

 

[Head1985]

You always seem disgusted by the 1070. Why didn't you just spend the extra money and go with the 1080? It makes no sense to get a card and end up keeping if it's not at your desired performance bracket. It's a very dumb move. I myself prefer the 1080 but when I can get a 1070 for 326 I'll have to give up the 1080.

I never buying FULL SKU.Last time i did it was 7800GTX and short after NV released 8800series.I upgraded to 8800GTS640 MB which was more than twice faster and cost even less than 7800GTX.So i will never again buy full SKU.
Btw GTX670 was awsome.Best card along with HD5850 i own.GTX970 was much worse and GTX1070 is even worse than 970 in my opinion.

 

[Gikaseixas]

1070 is not a bad card at all, it's much less expensive than 1080, therefore it's performance/price ratio is more than justified. You complain too much for someone who has the 3rd fastest card (only 1080 and Titan cards beat yours) in terms of pure performance.

 

[Head1985]

My problem is i compare GTX1070 to all cards from past i own.GTX670 was just better, same with 5850 and 8800GTS 640mb.I just dont feel i have top performance like when i oc GTX670 to 1280/7400 and it was 15% faster than GTX680.
Or when i OC 5850 to 1Ghz and it beat GTX295 dual card.
Its just not there with GTX1070.its slower than 980TI OC vs OC.980TI is almost 2years Old 28nm card and GTX1080 is another league.

 

[tg2708]

My problem is i compare GTX1070 to all cards from past i own.GTX670 was just better, same with 5850 and 8800GTS 640mb.I just dont feel i have top performance like when i oc GTX670 to 1280/7400 and it was 15% faster than GTX680.
Or when i OC 5850 to 1Ghz and it beat GTX295 dual card.
Its just not there with GTX1070.its slower than 980TI OC vs OC.980TI is almost 2years Old 28nm card and GTX1080 is another league.

Your gripe in terms of performance is understandable and we get your point since it's always repeated but the 1080 should be faster considering it's price. Why would nvidia make with just a simple overclock the lower tier card as fast as the higher tier one? You also can't expect it to be that much faster than 980 ti also since it's a last gen ultra high end card. Neither the 1080 nor 1070 is it's direct replacement. My card had a issue out of no where so I could not order the 1070 before it sold out but the card is still a very could performer.

 

[Head1985]

Why would nvidia make with just a simple overclock the lower tier card as fast as the higher tier one? You also can't expect it to be that much faster than 980 ti also since it's a last gen ultra high end card. Neither the 1080 nor 1070 is it's direct replacement.

Why would Nvidia do that?Well they do that on every single card prior GTX1070. Also look at TITANX vs 980TI why they disabled only 2 SMX???
980TI is just BIG cutdown SKU not ultra HIGH-end.So was GTX580 that was FULL SKU and BTW GTX670 destroyed it in every single way.
Also look at 5850 at 1Ghz vs Dual GTX295 or GTX285
5850 at 1Ghz is 50% faster than GTX285.That i call good card.

Yeah GTX1070 maybe look good today, but i always comparing it with cards i own in past.And with them GTX1070 is just bad.Maybe i am just too old for this because i remember so much better cards in past than GTX1070 so i cant be hyped by this card.Maybe for someone who dont know a thing about 5850 or 8800GTS or GTX670 may think GTX1070 is great card but not for me.

 

[kraatus77]

Last best x70 card was gtx670 (i had 3 of them for tri-sli but unfortunately 2 were doa), that thing could beat 680 just by 10-12% oc which was pretty good considering the gap wasn't enough. after that the gap in performance between x70 --- x80 is growing. it's not going be same ever. even if amd beats nvidia. people are now conditioned for this.