Originally Posted by tank_rider This is why I read Bit-Tech over other places, you guys really care that the info you are providing is correct and holds water :) Good work guys.
+1
also, it's surprising to see GTX480 dropping in frame rates when gone to Dx11. is it because the Polymorph Tessellation Engine taking up the shader resources?
but GTX480 did so well in the Heaven tessellation benchmark.
Originally Posted by tank_rider This is why I read Bit-Tech over other places, you guys really care that the info you are providing is correct and holds water :) Good work guys.
QFT! I have always trusted Bit-Tech's testing methods far more than other sites. Their dedication to accuracy is second to none.
Originally Posted by tank_rider This is why I read Bit-Tech over other places, you guys really care that the info you are providing is correct and holds water :) Good work guys.
+1
also, it's surprising to see GTX480 dropping in frame rates when gone to Dx11. is it because the Polymorph Tessellation Engine taking up the shader resources?
but GTX480 did so well in the Heaven tessellation benchmark.
Originally Posted by Bursar Useful. Now throw the 5870 2GB into the mix and see if a larger frame buffer helps :)
It doesn't, at least not at 1,920 x 1,200 with 4xAA and 16xAF we've used here - identical results when I ran a quick checkup.
The 2GB is designed for super high resolutions (hence the eyefinity edition) and you likley won't see improvements below 2560x1600. We've got a full review coming though, with testing at Eyefinity resolutions, so look out for it.
Here's the reason so many other reviewers are reaching different conclusions: Intel Core i7-965 processor (3.2GHz: 133MHz x 24), some of your benchmarks are CPU limited, sites that use overclocked testing systems tend to show the GTX400s in a better light. Chances are that it is the 133 base clock that's holding things back.
Originally Posted by Cyberpower-UK Here's the reason so many other reviewers are reaching different conclusions: Intel Core i7-965 processor (3.2GHz: 133MHz x 24), some of your benchmarks are CPU limited, sites that use overclocked testing systems tend to show the GTX400s in a better light. Chances are that it is the 133 base clock that's holding things back.
Yea but on the other hand - how many people can afford a Core i7? And not everyone can or will overclock - and to what degree of overclock? It introduces many variables and we should review components for what they actually are. :)
Originally Posted by Cyberpower-UK Here's the reason so many other reviewers are reaching different conclusions: Intel Core i7-965 processor (3.2GHz: 133MHz x 24), some of your benchmarks are CPU limited, sites that use overclocked testing systems tend to show the GTX400s in a better light. Chances are that it is the 133 base clock that's holding things back.
Yea but on the other hand - how many people can afford a Core i7? And not everyone can or will overclock - and to what degree of overclock? It introduces many variables and we should review components for what they actually are. :)
Originally Posted by javaman Was gonna ask, whats causing that hit to performance when the x16 AF is addeded? is it lack on memory, poor design or bad drivers?
That's the million dollar question I want answered. I'm about to jump to an eyefinity setup (3x 1920x1200), so will I see any benefit from the extra memory, or should I save the cash?
The initial reviews I've read indicate that at the res I'm looking at, there is no real difference between the 1GB and 2GB cards. But more reviews to help me make my purchasing decision are always welcome, so I hope the BT review appears soon :)
Originally Posted by Bursar That's the million dollar question I want answered. I'm about to jump to an eyefinity setup (3x 1920x1200), so will I see any benefit from the extra memory, or should I save the cash?
The initial reviews I've read indicate that at the res I'm looking at, there is no real difference between the 1GB and 2GB cards. But more reviews to help me make my purchasing decision are always welcome, so I hope the BT review appears soon :)
Would be nice to throw crossfire into the mix then. Also wonder what processor is needed to drive cards too.
Thanks bit-tech, as others have already said, the fact that you bother to update us with more information is a true credit to the depth of your reporting.
Originally Posted by tank_rider This is why I read Bit-Tech over other places, you guys really care that the info you are providing is correct and holds water :) Good work guys.
+1
also, it's surprising to see GTX480 dropping in frame rates when gone to Dx11. is it because the Polymorph Tessellation Engine taking up the shader resources?
but GTX480 did so well in the Heaven tessellation benchmark.
Therein lies a driver optimisation issue: load balancing and resource optimisation. Its not shunting tesselation to a dedicated unit, but handling it in the shaders. Thats an area ripe for thorough tweaking.
I'm sure the nvidia drivers will mature and the cards will get faster, but Ati have had their card out for 6 months and their probably working on bringing out a new one.
Originally Posted by erratum1 I'm sure the nvidia drivers will mature and the cards will get faster, but Ati have had their card out for 6 months and their probably working on bringing out a new one.
Probably, but if its on 28nm or 32nm they're in for quite the wait. 40nm might be around till the very end of this year :/
Comments 1 to 25 of 50
Replyit would be interesting to see the GPU load of each card as this might be a driver control foring the game to play around the 60fps mark.
just a thought anyway
just so you know :)
(from the first paragraph)
GRRRRRRR
:p
also, it's surprising to see GTX480 dropping in frame rates when gone to Dx11. is it because the Polymorph Tessellation Engine taking up the shader resources?
but GTX480 did so well in the Heaven tessellation benchmark.
QFT! I have always trusted Bit-Tech's testing methods far more than other sites. Their dedication to accuracy is second to none.
+1 ! :D
It doesn't, at least not at 1,920 x 1,200 with 4xAA and 16xAF we've used here - identical results when I ran a quick checkup.
The 2GB is designed for super high resolutions (hence the eyefinity edition) and you likley won't see improvements below 2560x1600. We've got a full review coming though, with testing at Eyefinity resolutions, so look out for it.
Yea but on the other hand - how many people can afford a Core i7? And not everyone can or will overclock - and to what degree of overclock? It introduces many variables and we should review components for what they actually are. :)
Was gonna ask, whats causing that hit to performance when the x16 AF is addeded? is it lack on memory, poor design or bad drivers?
+1
couldn't of said it better myself.
That's the million dollar question I want answered. I'm about to jump to an eyefinity setup (3x 1920x1200), so will I see any benefit from the extra memory, or should I save the cash?
The initial reviews I've read indicate that at the res I'm looking at, there is no real difference between the 1GB and 2GB cards. But more reviews to help me make my purchasing decision are always welcome, so I hope the BT review appears soon :)
Would be nice to throw crossfire into the mix then. Also wonder what processor is needed to drive cards too.
Therein lies a driver optimisation issue: load balancing and resource optimisation. Its not shunting tesselation to a dedicated unit, but handling it in the shaders. Thats an area ripe for thorough tweaking.
+1
i dont want to thrash my cpu at 4.2ghz to get hte best performing card
Probably, but if its on 28nm or 32nm they're in for quite the wait. 40nm might be around till the very end of this year :/
:s second paragraph
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums