Am I seeing that I am supposed to be splitting posts out of here? How about this... I'll add a section to your forum profiles where you can add your benchmark. What I suggest doing, is writing down for me an explicit guide on how people should get a benchmark (same settings, same content, same camera view, same FOV, same number of screens, same place on the track, etc, etc, so they can be properly compared. Then I will make both the benchmark results and the system specs searchable on the members list of the forum. Sound OK? Your benchmark 'score' would also be available the same way system specs are (click the windows logo under my avatar).
Just tossing this out there... as it were, to you fellow Radeon users... and to answer some earlier posts/questions... I run an HD7970 with just the drivers and let rF2 take care of quality settings... HUGE difference! I don't look at or care about actual numbers or FPS... I look at how much eye candy can I turn on and still get a "fluid" display. I run everything, but shadows, at "full tilt boogie" and hardly get anything but a totally smooth driving experience. So, give it a try. Unistalling them does work better than just disabling them in msconfig. You don't need or even want the rest of the junk they give you; not for gaming anyways. Bryan
Tim, may be having also a thread with benchmarks will be better. Because, in a thread we can easily see all the people and GPUs that made a benchmark and posted results. But in a profile without a thread we would never find structured info. Say 20% of forum users fill their benchmark score, I don`t know who they are without a thread for them to post the results, and so I will never see their scores.
I think leaving it in a thread might be best, that way its all in one place and has a date associated with it, so we can easily filter out all the old info when you guys make all those AMD optimizations . Also we can make sweet charts here. Having out of date info here is better than having out of date info in peoples profiles, unless ISI made an in-game benchmark that pushed to the forums profiles automatically.
Great idea, I'd take part too altho I had a bad experience once while changing settings for a benchmark, I had everything running great, it all looked fantastic with great fps, I did a benchmark then tried returning to my previous settings only to loose many frames and visually noticibly worse graphics. I couldn't for the life of me get back what I had, my 3D vision went pink, in the end it was all new gfx drivers a complete wipe of rf2 and install to new location, it was painful especially when I'd rather race than restore. You maybe should consider that results may not correlate well when systems are overclocked so maybe a field for cpu speed / memory and gpu speed / memory should be available, unless you expect people to just benchmark at there chosen clocks.
There's no definitive benchmark until ISI create it in rF 2 and even then, scores can change from build o build. I'd stay with a dedicated section on the forum.
I bought a different branded GTX 770 this time, Palit GTX 770 Jetstream 2gb and here are the results... Factory overclock core: 1150 Mhz (+101 Mhz) mem: 7012 Mhz (+10 Mhz effective) Min: 53, Max: 91, Avg: 68.184 Additional overclock core: 1250 Mhz (+176 Mhz) mem: 7012 Mhz (+1112 Mhz effective) Min: 57, Max: 95, Avg: 73.159 (additional 7.3% boost)
Updated Graph No one with a 780 SLI? As you can see there's nothing wrong with your old card m8 All idea its actually good Tim, but that was even better if ISI devs could create a simple code to do that instead of doing that manually . I only see two problems; - Where we will analyze the scores in a graphic as we are doing now and that is clearly simple... - If we get new hardware and do a new benchmark will the older be deleted?
I use a GT Legends replay of mine for benching (an older sim with 4x or especially 8x true full on supersampling at 1080p & 1080p x3 is still massively demanding) and I noticed the replay frames were higher than the live gameplay frames, makes sense as much less calculations going on in an already recorded non-live replay. I know it's irrelevant to the replay comparison in this thread but just thought I'd throw it out there for the heck of it
Nuno, have you read my new posts in the other thread? Also the fps benchmark from each run is now consistent within a very tight variance of +/-0.1 fps. I did not mention this before but it was +/-1.5 fps on the on zotac (average 64.xx fps one time 67.xx fps another). Add that with the gpu usage and the return of smoother gameplay in rf2 and i reckon the zotac card i received was either a not so great chip (by luck) or the cards are not as well designed as (for example) the palit version i now have. GPU usage on the new palit is pretty much identical to how it was on the 670 now which correlates with the perceived smoothness (i.e. absent of subtle microstutter now). I've made no changes to drivers or any other software between cards so i can't see it being a software related issue.
Actually i saw it now m8, but for me those graphics are normal in my point of view. I'm curious to see a graphic with the new one but with the same exact conditions. I assume that zotac was a standard version right? I yes, you are comparing average framerates from two cards cards with different clocks so cannot be compared. One thing that i saw right after your last bench was the minimum framerate and again the advantage that i saw was 2fps increase by higher clocks. By the way my friend what really matter is that you are now happy with new one
oh sugar....i forgot to add the pic! edit: updated that post Yes the zotac was a standard version but from all the reviews i had read about it, it overclocked as well as the overclocked versions from other brands and achieved comparable results. I did not label the results of my earlier gpu usage graphs but the problems with the zotac were occuring both at the stock (gtx 770 reference) speeds and when overclocked which we between this plati's factory overclock and additional overclock by me. Yes, i'm pleased with the new one, thanks.
Intresting, this GPU ( 290 ) doesn't have issues with the Transparency AA and the trees are looking much better with it, as everything is looking a bit better somehow. For now i have a relative usefull gfx setup and with what i see on triples, i can live for the first. I hope AMD releases an whql driver soon. 20 Camaro's ~ 5 laps - triples 5760 x 1080. Track Details ( low ) - Shadows ( high ) - Shadow Blur ( optimal ) - Reflections ( both off ) - Effects ( off ) - AF ( 16x ) - AA ( Level 8 ) Mores Frames - 15789, Time (ms) - 266902, Min - 33, Max - 110, Avg - 59.157 Silverstone Frames - 26312, Time (ms) - 593116, Min - 25, Max - 78, Avg - 44.362 Still little room left for optimization
I meant in general. I notice even when AMDs beat or tie NVidia fps they more often than not seem to have lower minimums. Not only RF2 but in general.
Thats not happening. Generally in most popular titles used at various sites for benchmarks/reviews its engine dependent for performance comparable cards. In some cases AMD has better lower and/or average FPS, in others Nvidia.
Well I just came from aa 7970 and replaced it with a 780TI. HOLY MOTHER OF BALLS OF GOD DAT FPS. As good as everything maxed out, on triple screens, on Monaco, in the rain, in the Howston and I'm getting 120fps... And it finally looks nice
I was literally laughing out loud because of the awesomness, if someone wouldve walked in on me they wouldve probably thought I was insane I just can't believe how immense the difference is.