Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC graphics benchmark review - PC VGA Graphics card guide

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,489
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC graphics benchmark review - PC VGA Graphics card guide.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...e-warfare-pc-graphics-benchmark-review,1.html

index.php


index.php


index.php



RX 480 whipping Nano and R9 Fury ass @1080p? What kind of Black Magic is this? At least they turn the tables at higher resolutions as usual.

Poor GTX 1060 almost fell a performance tier @1080p in this game despite having Game Ready optimized drivers available. Luckily it kinda redeemed itself at higher resolutions. Still need some driver optimization work I suppose.

Anyone who purchases a GTX 1050ti over a similarly priced RX 470 needs to be beat with an ugly stick. How do you price the GTX 1050ti into the same performance tier as the competition's card that is almost 2x faster? Maybe the GTX 1050ti is Nvidia's niche product like AMD's "Nano". Personally i'd just buy a better power supply and have 2X performance. /shrug

 
IIRC AMD dropped prices because of the 1050/1050 Ti. Whether or not nVidia keeps the price the same now is up for speculation.
 
Everything is about where it should be except the 480 and 470 are up 10-20% over typical.
This is the first time we've seen anything like this. Waiting on PCGH for verification.
 
There's no incentive for nVidia to price it at 100. It's trounced by the 470 but it trounces the 460. We won't see the 1050 / Ti down to 100 as long as the 460 is above 100...

Not that this matters, though. As long as the 470 is running around 170 to 180 you'd be hard pressed to justify any other purchase in the sub-200 bracket unless you see a fantastic deal on the 480 (or if you are so strapped for cash that you absolutely can't afford anything higher than the 460 in which case I'm going to pointedly ask what games are you purchasing that require anything above your iGPU that you couldn't stave off purchasing for a few weeks to save up the cash for the 470?).
 
After seeing spotty results like these, your first thought might be "Looks like dynamic graphics settings", in which case you are correct!

From the PCGH reviewer:
Notice, that details are also dynamically scaled, depending on your graphic card's RAM. Also, there's something fishy going on about the CPU-Performance... I'll update the article with something on that soon. Stay posted.
Click to expand...

I guess that explains why VRAM usage went down in TPU's benchmark and 4GB cards still manage playable FPS @ 4K.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
After seeing spotty results like these, your first thought might be "Looks like dynamic graphics settings", in which case you are correct!

From the PCGH reviewer:


I guess that explains why VRAM usage went down in TPU's benchmark and 4GB cards still manage playable FPS @ 4K.
Click to expand...

AMD released a new driver because of...

Support For:

  • Improved Shader Cache storage limit. This will allow the Shader Cache feature to store more shaders for extremely demanding games that may have previously hit the old storage cap.
Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.11.2 Release Notes
https://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-ar...re-Crimson-Edition-16.11.2-Release-Notes.aspx

They probably need to redo their testing because of that bug.
 
It's decently CPU intensive in my experience. I was using basically a q9590 and it was kicking my r9 290s ass mostly. I was getting like 30 fps way too often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top