PCGHFar CryPrimal benchmarks

[raghu78]

another review

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/657...est-met-22-gpus-testresultaten-wqhd-2560x1440

R9 390 nipping at the heels of 980. the venerable Tahiti aka R9 280X nipping at the heels of 780. :thumbsup:

Tahiti and Hawaii are clearly going to go down in GPU history as some of the best GPUs in terms of longevity behind 9700 Pro, 8800 GTX, GTX 580.

 

[crisium]

It is nice to see a well aging architecture.

But the GTX 580, really? I disagree and do not see anything legendary about it, although I do commend Nvidia for not relegating it to legacy support a la VLIW.

The 7970 only launched 14 months after a 580. 580 performance relative to GCN and Kepler has actually decreased dramatically since then too - the days of a 580 trading blows with a 7950 are ancient and long dead.

In fact, this benchmark compilation was 13 months ago. Pretty much equals to where Tahiti is today.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/...ergleich/2/#abschnitt_leistungsratings_spiele

An overclocked 7870 (270X) destroys it and even an overclocked 7790 (260X) is only 10% slower. That would mean that today, even the 7850 which launched only 16 months after the 580 at half its price would beat it - it does not look well aged. By comparison, the 780 launched 16 months after the 7970 with an 18% higher price. That makes the 7970 look well aged.

 

[swilli89]

It is nice to see a well aging architecture.

But the GTX 580, really? I disagree and do not see anything legendary about it, although I do commend Nvidia for not relegating it to legacy support a la VLIW.

The 7970 only launched 14 months after a 580. 580 performance relative to GCN and Kepler has actually decreased dramatically since then too - the days of a 580 trading blows with a 7950 are ancient and long dead.

In fact, this benchmark compilation was 13 months ago. Pretty much equals to where Tahiti is today.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/...ergleich/2/#abschnitt_leistungsratings_spiele

An overclocked 7870 (270X) destroys it and even an overclocked 7790 (260X) is only 10% slower. That would mean that today, even the 7850 which launched only 16 months after the 580 at half its price would beat it - it does not look well aged. By comparison, the 780 launched 16 months after the 7970 with an 18% higher price. That makes the 7970 look well aged.

Truth be told both companies probably have more bad generations than good. nVidia scrubbed on Geforce 3, Geforce 5800, 480, and now 5xx, 6xx, and 7xx.

AMD scrubbed on x1800, x2900, 3870, and 6970. AMD has been putting out diamonds since 2012 and Nvidia has been since 2014, however with the trend it remains to be seen if Maxwell investors will be happy in a year or two.

 

[raghu78]

It is nice to see a well aging architecture.

But the GTX 580, really? I disagree and do not see anything legendary about it, although I do commend Nvidia for not relegating it to legacy support a la VLIW.

The 7970 only launched 14 months after a 580. 580 performance relative to GCN and Kepler has actually decreased dramatically since then too - the days of a 580 trading blows with a 7950 are ancient and long dead.

In fact, this benchmark compilation was 13 months ago. Pretty much equals to where Tahiti is today.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/...ergleich/2/#abschnitt_leistungsratings_spiele

An overclocked 7870 (270X) destroys it and even an overclocked 7790 (260X) is only 10% slower. That would mean that today, even the 7850 which launched only 16 months after the 580 at half its price would beat it - it does not look well aged. By comparison, the 780 launched 16 months after the 7970 with an 18% higher price. That makes the 7970 look well aged.

the GTX 580 in comparison with other cards which launched in the same timeframe such as HD 6970/HD 6950 aged much better. I do agree that 580 does not have the longevity of Tahiti and Hawaii. As you say 580 cannot be in the same class as 9700 Pro, 8800 GTX, HD 7970 or R9 290X for longevity. But still 580 was a card which performed admirably in DX11 games well after the next generation cards launched.

 

[xorbe]

another review

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/657...est-met-22-gpus-testresultaten-wqhd-2560x1440

Wow, a review site that also tests on medium settings and at 1920 at the same time, 750 Ti 37 fps. 960 clocks in 20% faster than 760. Results I can use, instead of another impossible 4k ultra settings on lower-end hardware. :thumbsup:

 

[raghu78]

tpu review up.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Far_Cry_Primal/5.html

Fury X top dog at 4k. On par with Titan X at 1440p. The R9 390 is a great performer for the money. This game runs

 

[tential]

tpu review up.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Far_Cry_Primal/5.html

Fury X top dog at 4k. On par with Titan X at 1440p. The R9 390 is a great performer for the money. This game runs

What's more surprising is the Fury performance (and I'm more interested in Nano performance which would be about the same as Fury).

Basically performing like a GTX 980Ti in this game.

I think AMD is putting in double effort to ensure they are looking good in gaming leading up to Polaris.

Edit: As always, I'll care more about the benchmark results though after a couple of updates.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The game is a huge bugfest. Another console title ruined on PC.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/371660/
http://steamcommunity.com/app/371660/discussions/

Good thing Steam offers refunds.

 

[sxr7171]

Game runs great for me. I think the lack of gameworks is the reason why.

 

[DeathReborn]

Keeps crashing for me, still stuck on first lot of crafting as it crashes before I can progress it. R9 290 w/ latest drivers btw.

 

[PhonakV30]

AMD Crismon 16.2 beta.but need more test with 16.2.1 for Crossfire.

 

[raghu78]

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...primal_pc_wymagania_z_epoki_kamienia?page=0,6

another benchmark which shows Fury X on par with 980 Ti. the Fury X is only 17% faster than R9 390X despite having 45% more shaders. This has been the problem with Fury X. Poor perf scaling over R9 390X point to some serious bottlenecks in Fury X design.

 

[Ferzerp]

No issues at all here. It did expose some instability in my GPU over clock so I bumped it down to 1520 from 1541 MHz. Sometimes I think people just look for things to complain about.

 

[boozzer]

No issues at all here. It did expose some instability in my GPU over clock so I bumped it down to 1520 from 1541 MHz. Sometimes I think people just look for things to complain about.

it will sell like hot cakes just like fallout 4, despite any and all problems.

I do understand what you meant by some members of this forum though.

 

[omek]

Truth be told both companies probably have more bad generations than good. nVidia scrubbed on Geforce 3, Geforce 5800, 480, and now 5xx, 6xx, and 7xx.

AMD scrubbed on x1800, x2900, 3870, and 6970. AMD has been putting out diamonds since 2012 and Nvidia has been since 2014, however with the trend it remains to be seen if Maxwell investors will be happy in a year or two.

Fermi was a decent architecture even with it's power draw. It stood up quite well over it's relevant years, had a wide memory bus and was quite balanced and was NVIDIA's first DX11 complaint line up which helped - it's only problem was lack of memory which personally prematurely ended my two 470's. After about one year with two 670's I agree with you fully about Kepler and have a feeling that Maxwell will take a digger just as fast as Kepler did (if not faster).
I somewhat view Fermi as AMD's GCN, Fermi didn't have GCN's legs but it definitely had it's solidity. It's funny that the most hated architectures tend to be the ones which were built like brick s. houses.

ATI's x1000 line up was full of gems which I never delved but I'd definitely say that it was better than NVIDIA's 7000 line at the time which I was sucked into.

 

[AdamK47]

It looks pretty demanding at 4K. I hope my PC can handle it.

 

[3DVagabond]

tpu review up.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Far_Cry_Primal/5.html

Fury X top dog at 4k. On par with Titan X at 1440p. The R9 390 is a great performer for the money. This game runs

Interesting that they ran it with 970 SLI but didn't test with the 295x2. We know TPU has one. I hope it wasn't simply to have nVidia at the top of the charts.

 

[Good_fella]

Interesting that they ran it with 970 SLI but didn't test with the 295x2. We know TPU has one. I hope it wasn't simply to have nVidia at the top of the charts.

Or maybe because AMD released CF drivers after review was published. But keep blaming others and create more conspiracy theories. :thumbsup:

 

[3DVagabond]

Or maybe because AMD released CF drivers after review was published. But keep blaming others and create more conspiracy theories. :thumbsup:

Fixed that for you so I can thank you for the info. cheers :thumbsup:

 

[casiofx]

Or maybe because AMD released CF drivers after review was published. But keep blaming others and create more conspiracy theories. :thumbsup:

Just like when radeon massively improved performance on need for speed shift 2 after the developer released the required patch, didn't even need updated amd drivers

 

[PhonakV30]

Or maybe because AMD released CF drivers after review was published. But keep blaming others and create more conspiracy theories. :thumbsup:

or Blame AMD for Just cause 3 that doesn't support Multi GPU.

 

[itsmydamnation]

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...primal_pc_wymagania_z_epoki_kamienia?page=0,6

another benchmark which shows Fury X on par with 980 Ti. the Fury X is only 17% faster than R9 390X despite having 45% more shaders. This has been the problem with Fury X. Poor perf scaling over R9 390X point to some serious bottlenecks in Fury X design.

I think its obvious that when 20nm was cancelled rather then back porting 20nm design's and features they just went f*** it and pushed to the ragged edge of the frontend and interconnects. Everything "new" in fiji exists somewhere else in 28nm ( console or APU). This appears to be the opposite of what Nvidia did as they brought significant architectural changes to Maxwell v1/2.

This could also be why it looks like AMD will have a time to market advantage on 14nm.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Anyone see the 980 SLI vs Fury CFX comparison on Guru3d? Crossfire does some serious scaling at 4K. Pretty impressive.
2160p Comparison

Fury CFX

980SLI

1440p Comparison

 

[Bacon1]

Anyone see the 980 SLI vs Fury CFX comparison on Guru3d? Crossfire does some serious scaling at 4K. Pretty impressive.
2160p Comparison

980SLI

Fury CFX

1440p Comparison

Images don't load, rehost them on imgur.com?

 

[Hitman928]

I can see them fine. . .