Early Access GPU Benches with AMD and NVIDIA

[BiG StroOnZ]

Here are benchmarks for the most popular "Early Access" games, such as; Assetto Corsa, DayZ, Wreckfest, Project Cars, Star Citizen, and The Talos Principle

 

 

 

 

Since Early Access via Steam is possible to appear every month with numerous games on this model. The titles are sometimes more, sometimes less completed, some can unite considerable numbers of users in coming. And, although, on average, only a quarter of the title really is ever finished. But what is it like running games in the early stage of development at all on current systems with graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia?

 

Source: http://www.computerbase.de/2014-12/early-access-spiele-benchmarks-test/

             Translated Source

 

Pretty nice arrangement of benchmarks. I know Early Access games are getting more popular and some people want to know how their systems will handle them. Some people even build systems for these games, hoping that they will be finished. This provides nice groundwork to give you an idea of how GPU's are handling these games. 

[TheSLSAMG]

MFW my card is better in DayZ than a 970

[Victorious Secret]

MFW my card is better in DayZ than a 970

 

 

DayZ is a unoptimized, embarrassing pile of crap. 

[Toddwjp]

this seems to say that Nvidia cards work better with games that aren't particularly optimised yet or have specific drivers et for the different cards.

[patrickjp93]

DayZ is a unoptimized, embarrassing pile of crap. 

Yeah, I sorta figured when all of a sudden 2560x1600 meant total AMD domination... I would have accepted an interwoven result (Nvidia, AMD, Nvidia, AMD, ...), but that was just BS.

[dalekphalm]

So what I'm seeing from these graphs is that most of these games are heavily unoptimized for AMD GPU's... I mean really, 770's and 680's beating out 290x's? That should not happen under any circumstance if the game is made properly.

 

But these games are unfinished, so these graphs are meaningless when considering how the final product may perform.

 

Also, why are the benches using 1600p monitors? That's not a very common aspect ratio. 16:10 has been pretty much dead for a few years. 1440p or 2160p would have been more realistic for a "higher resolution" bench.

[patrickjp93]

So what I'm seeing from these graphs is that most of these games are heavily unoptimized for AMD GPU's... I mean really, 770's and 680's beating out 290x's? That should not happen under any circumstance if the game is made properly.

 

But these games are unfinished, so these graphs are meaningless when considering how the final product may perform.

 

Also, why are the benches using 1600p monitors? That's not a very common aspect ratio. 16:10 has been pretty much dead for a few years. 1440p or 2160p would have been more realistic for a "higher resolution" bench.

16:10 is dead?! No. Anyone who does productivity work prefers them, and then you have people like me who use the monitor for productivity and gaming.

[Diederik_Gr]

Didn't know Wreckfest and Assetto Corsa were such unoptimized for AMD cards. They're still early access, and both developers of these titles seem to listen fairly well to their community.

[dalekphalm]

16:10 is dead?! No. Anyone who does productivity work prefers them, and then you have people like me who use the monitor for productivity and gaming.

Certainly, many people prefer them. But how many 16:10 monitors are still in production? In 2008, the monitor industry shifted to 16:9 production heavily for multiple reasons, including to match the current HD Standards, as well as increased production efficiencies. It's more cost effective for panel manufacturers to make 16:9 panels.

[patrickjp93]

Certainly, many people prefer them. But how many 16:10 monitors are still in production? In 2008, the monitor industry shifted to 16:9 production heavily for multiple reasons, including to match the current HD Standards, as well as increased production efficiencies. It's more cost effective for panel manufacturers to make 16:9 panels.

HD standards are above current monitor standards. 16:9 fails to meet any of the specs. 4K is not true UHD either.

 

Also, no. Asus, Dell, and Acer all still produce 16:10 1200p and 1600p monitors.

[dalekphalm]

HD standards are above current monitor standards. 16:9 fails to meet any of the specs. 4K is not true UHD either.

 

Also, no. Asus, Dell, and Acer all still produce 16:10 1200p and 1600p monitors.

I have no idea what you mean by "HD standards are above current monitor standards". Could you please clarify that statement?

 

I also don't know what you mean by "true UHD". UHD is a very specific standard, that means 3840x2160:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Resolutions

 

There's DCI 4K, which is/was the Cinema 4K standard, but that isn't UHD.

 

EDIT: Certainly, those companies may still make 1200p and 1600p monitors, but how many? Undeniably, 16:9 has taken over the vast majority of monitor purchases.

 

Therefore, your average consumer will be buying a 16:9 monitor. Benchmarking games in 1600p makes no sense, unless also including 16:9 equivalents like 1440p.

[Linusinium]

Certainly, many people prefer them. But how many 16:10 monitors are still in production? In 2008, the monitor industry shifted to 16:9 production heavily for multiple reasons, including to match the current HD Standards, as well as increased production efficiencies. It's more cost effective for panel manufacturers to make 16:9 panels.

 

Yeah, unfortunately, 16:10 seems to be a dying aspect ratio.

[SteveGrabowski]

Wow, look at that CPU bottleneck on Star Citizen. Will need to grab a Cannonlake-E i9 to run it I think.

[patrickjp93]

I have no idea what you mean by "HD standards are above current monitor standards". Could you please clarify that statement?

 

I also don't know what you mean by "true UHD". UHD is a very specific standard, that means 3840x2160:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Resolutions

 

There's DCI 4K, which is/was the Cinema 4K standard, but that isn't UHD.

 

EDIT: Certainly, those companies may still make 1200p and 1600p monitors, but how many? Undeniably, 16:9 has taken over the vast majority of monitor purchases.

 

Therefore, your average consumer will be buying a 16:9 monitor. Benchmarking games in 1600p makes no sense, unless also including 16:9 equivalents like 1440p.

No, ultra HD/UHD is 4096 x 2160 http://www.techradar.com/news/television/ultra-hd-everything-you-need-to-know-about-4k-tv-1048954

 

No computer monitor adheres to real HD standards. HD is not 1920x1080 either. It's 2048x1080.

[The Benjamins]

This can't be right my R9 290x gets over 40 at 3440x1440. I will double check when I'm at my pc

[patrickjp93]

This can't be right my R9 290x gets over 40 at 3440x1440. I will double check when I'm at my pc

Mind you these are reference cards, and the R9 280+ series has thermal throttling problems on reference coolers.

[WelshDdraig]

Yeah, unfortunately, 16:10 seems to be a dying aspect ratio.

Unfortunate, as you put, 16:10 is dying, which is a shame. I love using my TV as a second monitor as its 16:10 (1680x1050). 

[Faa]

So what I'm seeing from these graphs is that most of these games are heavily unoptimized for AMD GPU's... I mean really, 770's and 680's beating out 290x's? That should not happen under any circumstance if the game is made properly.

Not unoptimized.. You even see the same performance degradations in their own titles with Mantle (on DX); http://www.overclock.net/t/1528559/directx-driver-overhead-and-why-mantle-is-a-selling-point-bunch-of-benchmarks/0_100

 

[The Benjamins]

Mind you these are reference cards, and the R9 280+ series has thermal throttling problems on reference coolers.

Also it is a nvidia game and I have not looked for a build number yet. When I'm home I'll test it out.

[patrickjp93]

Also it is a nvidia game and I have not looked for a build number yet. When I'm home I'll test it out.

You really think studios are purposely sabotaging 30% of their clientele?

[brownninja97]

Didn't know Wreckfest and Assetto Corsa were such unoptimized for AMD cards. They're still early access, and both developers of these titles seem to listen fairly well to their community.

Its funny because in Assetto corsa i can max the game with 50+ cars on a track with constant 40+fps

[The Benjamins]

You really think studios are purposely sabotaging 30% of their clientele?

no but its sponsored by nvidia, generally they help them more and/or they optimism the sponsors cards first.

 

well tested it on ultra at 3440x1440 and i get around 50 fps. with OUT other cars on the track. so those numbers look wrong, or old build. I use to get 30-40 fps on ultra at 2560x1440.

[monstercameron]

no wonder amd always loses market share when these devs wont optimize for amd. Oh well gg,

[Kobz360]

Its funny because in Assetto corsa i can max the game with 50+ cars on a track with constant 40+fps

Yeah i dunno about these Assetto Corsa numbers.. I got the game literally a few days ago, cranked everything to max at 1080 on my 7870 (OC) and was getting an average of around 35fps. This game is well optimised for both sides, this has got to be an older build or something

[deathjester]

Cool another benchmark with no driver information given, that is probably running tests on throttling reference AMD R9 290 cards. This is why I stopped caring about any benchmarks. They do not even test the cards people actually can even buy.

 

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryse-PC-259308/Specials/Test-Technik-1138543/

 

^ Real world performance with cards people are actually buying looks like this, and any site benchmarking cards that people aren't even buying or that are even available is a joke. I came from a GTX 770 and I LAUGH every time I see it close to my tri-x in a "benchmark". The cards are not close in performance in anything and the only time they artificially close (for a few weeks, but AMD actually had drivers out before Nvidia on Far Cry 4) is an Nvidia Game Works game which has a closed library. Funny thing about that? My GTX 770 ran Tomb Raider like absolute GARBAGE for WEEKS, because that was an "AMD game", and Nvidia did not have to optimize closed libraries there. Nvidia users were also complaining non stop in the Dragon's Age forums. 

 

Star Citizen is also going to be an AMD Mantle game...

 

As others have said the build of the game is not even listed and this performance does not even match what we are seeing. Reminds me of Far Cry 4 when people were claiming my GPU ran at 30-40 FPS and my FPS looked exactly like people with GTX 980's...