Despoiler
Golden Member
- Nov 10, 2007
- 1,967
- 772
- 136
Just because you doubt it was running at 4.5, doesn't mean you can claim it as a comparison.
This. Please set your CPU clock to match theirs to get a more accurate test.
Just because you doubt it was running at 4.5, doesn't mean you can claim it as a comparison.
Maybe the frametimes are improved, but it is still at 720p low settings. Even if you could force it to medium or high on 720p, you would still be better off with a console.
Test case 1: Low-end single-player
CPU/GPU: AMD A10-7850K (Kaveri APU), 4 cores @ 3.7 GHz
Settings: 720p MEDIUM settings.
A 770SLI is NOWHERE NEAR a 290X CF setup, the 290x is ~25% faster. Your screenshots dont even look the same as the ones submitted by AMD, and the test setup, hardware, software, etc. is not even the same. Basically a pointless claim.
PS: 290X is 40% faster in BF4 according to this review Link You really think you can touch a 290X CF with a pair of 770? lol
AMD's drivers have inferior CPU utilization..
Wait, you don't think that taking a screen while someone is actively playing (moving) is better than standing still?
This. Please set your CPU clock to match theirs to get a more accurate test.
And what about "difficulty" settings? We don't know what Dice used, but the number of enemies and the AI work may make a big difference.If you want the results to be as reproducible as possible for the same of comparison, of course not.
How about waiting for a review? Your claims of a SLI 770 setup being faster than a CF 290X setup are just straight wrong. As proven by MANY review sites.
I really wish people would stop misquoting me, or learn to read properly.
I never said that the GTX 770 SLI was outright faster than the 290x CF. That's absurd.
But you believe that your GTX 770 SLI setup already outperforms the Dice demo(pre Mantle), and it's not because of your CPU. So it must be... what?I never said that the GTX 770 SLI was outright faster than the 290x CF. That's absurd.
Turbo wouldn't be at 3.9 using all 6 cores. More likely 3.5-3.7ish depending on cooler.
Interesting to say the least.
You are saying the 770 SLI out performs 290x CF in BF4 on DirectX
I really wish people would stop misquoting me, or learn to read properly.
I never said that the GTX 770 SLI was outright faster than the 290x CF. That's absurd.
I was claiming that because AMD's drivers (Direct3D path) were suboptimal when it comes to feeding the GPUs, causing the GPUs to underperform. Now Mantle has rectified that issue.
That's what I'm claiming.
Right, because if that scene could cause my CPU to go full speed @ 4.5ghz due to how CPU intensive it is, the slower stock 3960x wouldn't be at 3.9ghz..
That really makes a lot of sense.. That scene by the way had my CPU at 50% usage at the highest peak if I recall.
And yes, I do have speedstep enabled, and C1E..
Except the benchmarks that I have looked at (and that were posted above by another poster) shows an SLI 770 is quite a bit slower than a CF 290X in BF4. Which you are claiming is wrong apparently?
And what did Microsoft contribute to DirectX? Only the include header files and docs?I was claiming that because AMD's drivers (Direct3D path) were suboptimal when it comes to feeding the GPUs, causing the GPUs to underperform. Now Mantle has rectified that issue.
Talking stock; non overclocked.
Unless I misunderstand, a stock 3960x wouldn't hit 3.9ghz on all 6 cores due to how the turbo works.
Even then they state it was at 3.5Ghz.
Could that be caused by AFR, so that each frame takes longer, but drawing them in CF doubles fps?Something is broken there. Going by those times in the last testing with the 3960K + 290X CF it's impossible to have 116 fps with a GPU time of 14.02 ms.
I think the perf overlay is adding the times of both GPUs so it would be massively CPU bound in the first screen and slightly CPU bound in the second (14.02/2=7.01 < 8.38).
I'm just going by what I personally have done, and AMD's screenshots.
Anyway, I re-tested that area and sure enough, AMD had taken screenshots during grenade explosions, which explains the red hue and all that.
And yes, there was a frame rate drop, although not drastic depending on how close it was. If it was a direct hit, the frame rate would drop into the 80s.
If it was close but not direct, then frame rate would stay above 100 FPS, but below 110 FPS.
Judging by AMD's screenshots, I can tell the grenade explosions weren't direct hits because there are no injury indications on screen ie blood splatter.