Quantum Break Benchmarks, GTX 970 & Radeon R9 390 - PC TURF WARS (Also the shitbox 1)

[El Diablo]

It has been public knowledge for a long time that the gayme Quantum Break needs a 980 Titanium / Fury x to run the game in ultra 1080p

 

but how does the game fair when u have a midrange high end GPU from the latest architectures currently popping of shots vs one another in the pc gaming master race turf wars

 

Now this video is from Digital Foundry, i highly reccomend this channel as they do indepth frame rate capturing to benchmark a game insted of using normal benchmarks that me and you, and you, and him over there --> would do

 

which usualy are wrong as they calculate the images in the gpu pipeline and stuttering can happen way after the pipeline from numerous variables

 

enjoy

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by El Diablo
added shitbox 1 vs pc

[stealth80]

Nice, good news for AMD, now Nvidia will have real competition we may see price wars

[PlayStation 2]

Fuck it, I'm playing Devil's advocate.

I'm not seeing how Quantum Break is this demanding, especially since the game maxed out doesn't look much different than the Xbox One version. Dunno why it's hammering the 970 ridiculously either, there's no way the lighting system is that hard on the GPU.

[MrG13]

1 minute ago, El Diablo said:

im here to discuss this game

 

its probably the best looking game out right now

 

but runs so bad on pc

 

why?

Batman revisited.....

[El Diablo]

4 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Nice, good news for AMD, now Nvidia will have real competition we may see price wars

They have been loosing in every dx12 title

 

apart from 1 i think

 

i think its 1, or they loosing in everything

[MrG13]

But seriously it is published by Microsoft, so they deem it silly to show that their underselling (compared to PS4) console is shown up so badly against the capabilities of the current PC market,

 

Not that I am trying to start anything as I own all 3 but it is a shame they are not supporting the PC gaming market more efficiently... maybe a graphics upgrade in the future for just £49.99 included in the season pass

[huracan]

This is a bad port from microsoft nothing surprising, anyways its awesome to see 390 taking the lead!

[RagnarokDel]

3 minutes ago, huracan said:

This is a bad port from microsoft nothing surprising, anyways its awesome to see 390 taking the lead!

well they went from worst then Ubisoft to at least even, improvement is good.

[Deletive]

Yeah this game seems like a mess i'll wait for deus ex before I make conclusions about Directx 12 performance.

 

[stealth80]

I think people are concentrating too much on the issue of DX12. The "Ultra Requirements" are 6gb vram ..... 970 has 4 (3.5) and the 390 has 8gb

 

And I can't speak about the game cause I have to wait 10 days to play cause I pre-ordered it

[LucidMew]

So they said that the game is capped at 5/6ths your refresh rate, and they played it (presumably) on a 60Hz monitor. But yet, not on a 120 or a 144Hz display? Surely they have one that they can test?

[El Diablo]

15 minutes ago, huracan said:

This is a bad port from microsoft nothing surprising, anyways its awesome to see 390 taking the lead!

But it runs at 720p on the shitbox 1

 

The game seems to just be very demanding

 

u need to see it in action

 

has allot of graphicky stuff going on

 

like pieww pieew pieew and boom

 

loads of graphficks

[stealth80]

27 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Fuck it, I'm playing Devil's advocate.

I'm not seeing how Quantum Break is this demanding, especially since the game maxed out doesn't look much different than the Xbox One version. Dunno why it's hammering the 970 ridiculously either, there's no way the lighting system is that hard on the GPU.

Ultra requirements are 6gb vram. That will be a major factor, id like to see this comparison done on medium (970 vs 390). I suspect the / know the 390 will still win, but I thin kthe gap will be much closer

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

Ultra requirements are 6gb vram. That will be a major factor, id like to see this comparison done on medium (970 vs 390). I suspect the / know the 390 will still win, but I thin kthe gap will be much closer

I don't even think it's taxing on the VRAM, otherwise the 970 would have a hell of a lot harder time holding its frame pacing. It'd be slipping, sliding, and probably just hanging for multiple seconds in that case.

[El Diablo]

2 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Ultra requirements are 6gb vram. That will be a major factor, id like to see this comparison done on medium (970 vs 390). I suspect the / know the 390 will still win, but I thin kthe gap will be much closer

they did do it on medium,, 

 

wait i think thats in another video,, brb il put it in the main post,, check again here in about 1 minit

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I don't even think it's taxing on the VRAM, otherwise the 970 would have a hell of a lot harder time holding its frame pacing. It'd be slipping, sliding, and probably just hanging for multiple seconds in that case.

But they do mention the frame timing of the 970 in the video, quite possibly caused by the vram. Would be useful if they posted the vram usage with the frame timings

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

But they do mention the frame timing of the 970 in the video, quite possibly caused by the vram. Would be useful if they posted the vram usage with the frame timings

I'll give you that.

But still, I'm not really sure if the frame pacing is being caused by the lack of VRAM. My bet's still on just how shit the v-sync implementation is coupled with the frame rate on the frame pacing, but if DigitalFoundry comes back to it and shows VRAM usage, that'd end this.

[stealth80]

Either way something is very off, I know AMD has upper hand in DX12, but the lead is nowhere near this big in the other DX12 titles, I seen a chart from some German site showing 380X ahead of a 980 ....

 

5 hours ago, El Diablo said:

It has been public knowledge for a long time that the gayme Quantum Break needs a 980 Titanium / Fury x to run the game in ultra 1080p

 

but how does the game fair when u have a midrange high end GPU from the latest architectures currently popping of shots vs one another in the pc gaming master race turf wars

 

Now this video is from Digital Foundry, i highly reccomend this channel as they do indepth frame rate capturing to benchmark a game insted of using normal benchmarks that me and you, and you, and him over there --> would do

 

which usualy are wrong as they calculate the images in the gpu pipeline and stuttering can happen way after the pipeline from numerous variables

 

enjoy

I am actually seriously thinking that the PC version is just emulating an XBO here .... and that's why the performance is so bad. How the fuck does 1080P ultra look almost identical to 720 medium on the XBO? Microsoft fucked up here, I'm getting my refund

[El Diablo]

7 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'll give you that.

But still, I'm not really sure if the frame pacing is being caused by the lack of VRAM. My bet's still on just how shit the v-sync implementation is coupled with the frame rate on the frame pacing, but if DigitalFoundry comes back to it and shows VRAM usage, that'd end this.

I highly doubt the vram is being used up to the 3.5gb limit

 

look at the titan x at the end, that only maxed at 50hz

 

they chalked it down to the volumetric lighting

 

i think its due to the gtx 970 having 1664 cuda cores vs the r9 390 having 2560

even though each of them cores are clocked at 1050mhz vs amd having 1000mhz that results in the BIG fps difference we are seeing here,, about just under 50% different, and yep thats what we are seeing here

 

the thing with amd is in dx11 their cards were being underutilized somuch and most of their cores were not being used

 

thats why with the 980TI VS FURY X,, the 980 ti beat the fury x in just about everything due to each core being like around 1200mhz vs the fury x at 1050mhz

 

but in dx12 the amd cards now can use all of their cores

 

4096 cores vs 1000 something on the gtx 980ti 

 

i can be wrong,, but i dont think i am

 

and async compute isnt even in full effect yet

 

the fps gap will rise and more dx12 titles come out

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, El Diablo said:

I highly doubt the vram is being used up to the 3.5gb limit

 

look at the titan x at the end, that only maxed at 50hz

 

they chalked it down to the volumetric lighting

 

i think its due to the gtx 970 having 1664 cuda cores vs the r9 390 having 2560

even though each of them cores are clocked at 1050mhz vs amd having 1000mhz that results in the BIG fps difference we are seeing here,, about just under 50% different, and yep thats what we are seeing here

 

the thing with amd is in dx11 their cards were being underutilized somuch and most of their cores were not being used

 

thats why with the 980TI VS FURY X,, the 980 ti beat the fury x in just about everything due to each core being like around 1200mhz vs the fury x at 1050mhz

 

but in dx12 the amd cards now can use all of their cores

 

4096 cores vs 1000 something on the gtx 980ti 

 

i can be wrong,, but i dont think i am

I'm pretty sure the 980 Ti has 3584 CUDA cores.

The Fury X does have 4096 stream cores.

[El Diablo]

5 hours ago, stealth80 said:

I am actually seriously thinking that the PC version is just emulating an XBO here .... and that's why the performance is so bad. How the fuck does 1080P ultra look almost identical to 720 medium on the XBO? Microsoft fucked up here, I'm getting my refund

Because the textures are rendered at 720p

 

i cant rember what its called but its some bullshit that can dynamically change the resolution of stuff,, so say u look directly at a car,, the texture of the car scales up to 1080p,, but as u look at something else,, it goes to 720p

 

this game has allot of graphical effects

 

it looks amazing

 

5 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'm pretty sure the 980 Ti has 3584 CUDA cores.

The Fury X does have 4096 stream cores.

i think i got it confused with the titan x that has 1000something

 

i just checked

 

the fury x has 4096 and the 980ti has 2816

 

each of them on the fury x is 1050mhz  and the 980ti has them clocked at 1000mhz, but boosts to 1075mhz,, even though we all know nobody with a 980ti has them at that speed

[stealth80]

14 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I highly doubt the vram is being used up to the 3.5gb limit

 

look at the titan x at the end, that only maxed at 50hz

 

they chalked it down to the volumetric lighting

 

i think its due to the gtx 970 having 1664 cuda cores vs the r9 390 having 2560

even though each of them cores are clocked at 1050mhz vs amd having 1000mhz that results in the BIG fps difference we are seeing here,, about just under 50% different, and yep thats what we are seeing here

 

the thing with amd is in dx11 their cards were being underutilized somuch and most of their cores were not being used

 

thats why with the 980TI VS FURY X,, the 980 ti beat the fury x in just about everything due to each core being like around 1200mhz vs the fury x at 1050mhz

 

but in dx12 the amd cards now can use all of their cores

 

4096 cores vs 1000 something on the gtx 980ti 

 

i can be wrong,, but i dont think i am

 

and async compute isnt even in full effect yet

 

the fps gap will rise and more dx12 titles come out

The Titan capped out at 50fps because V-sync is running at 5/6 meaning 50fps. In its current state no card will run it past 50fps until UWP fixes its vsync.

 

As I said id like to see the test ran in medium on both cards with vram usage. I don't believe that the 390 is over 50-60% better than the 970 in DX12, the gap has never been that big in any other DX12 title

[ivan134]

4 hours ago, stealth80 said:

The Titan capped out at 50fps because V-sync is running at 5/6 meaning 50fps. In its current state no card will run it past 50fps until UWP fixes its vsync.

 

As I said id like to see the test ran in medium on both cards with vram usage. I don't believe that the 390 is over 50-60% better than the 970 in DX12, the gap has never been that big in any other DX12 title

It actually is that big in Ashes. The 390x is considerably faster than a 980 ti at 1440p and crazy quality.

 

5 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Fuck it, I'm playing Devil's advocate.

I'm not seeing how Quantum Break is this demanding, especially since the game maxed out doesn't look much different than the Xbox One version. Dunno why it's hammering the 970 ridiculously either, there's no way the lighting system is that hard on the GPU.

Apparently the lighting system uses async compute on both the pc and xbox versions, so yea.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Apparently the lighting system uses async compute on both the pc and xbox versions, so yea.

If that's the case, then that isn't surprising, but it seems really harsh on the GPU, especially since how low resolution the ultra setting is on it.

[stealth80]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

It actually is that big in Ashes. The 390x is considerably faster than a 980 ti at 1440p and crazy quality.

http://www.legitreviews.com/ashes-singularity-dx12-benchmarks-amd-nvidia_179551/3