Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Tomb Raider Hates NVidia??

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • PC gaming
  • Benchmark
  • AMD
  • GPUs
  • FPS
  • Nvidia
  • Performance
  • Radeon
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 12, 2013 1:42:04 PM

I've been looking into GPUs for a few months now, I'm a first time builder looking at a build of less than $1500. I had my GPU nailed to down to a GTX 660 Ti because it was ranked neck and neck with the Radeon 7950 (please don't complain to me about how the two overclock). Then I go check Tomb Raider benchmarks and the 660 Ti lags almost 10-20 FPS behind. What gives? Is it drivers or what?

http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performa...

Obviously the gap thins at lower detail levels but I still don't understand it.

More about : tomb raider hates nvidia

a b Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 2:38:00 PM

Always both companies release driver updates to boost performance in the newer titles, and sometimes it doesn't work. But this game specifically is AMD optimized game.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 12, 2013 2:43:50 PM

Yeah this is ridiculous the biggest game of the year and it does not work on my 680's still!! Nvidia can take their apology and shove it up their.....
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 3:08:25 PM

martinuv said:
I've been looking into GPUs for a few months now, I'm a first time builder looking at a build of less than $1500. I had my GPU nailed to down to a GTX 660 Ti because it was ranked neck and neck with the Radeon 7950 (please don't complain to me about how the two overclock). Then I go check Tomb Raider benchmarks and the 660 Ti lags almost 10-20 FPS behind. What gives? Is it drivers or what?

http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performa...

Obviously the gap thins at lower detail levels but I still don't understand it.


it ranks neck to neck to the 7870, the HD7950 is above the 660ti by far.
m
0
l
March 12, 2013 3:40:09 PM

My Gigabyte Windforce 3X GTX 670 handles TR good. Maybe its CPU intensive? A OCed 2600K will do
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 3:42:43 PM

The 660ti rank no where near the 7950. Hell my GTX 670 is not as fast as my 7950 based rig. I have a Sapphire HD 6950 and a HD 7950 and both of them are better in games than my GTX 670 which is faster than the 660ti. I do not know where you got your info from but it is wrong by a lot.You want a good card you could not go wrong with a 7950.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 85 Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 6:20:19 PM

bryonhowley said:
The 660ti rank no where near the 7950. Hell my GTX 670 is not as fast as my 7950 based rig. I have a Sapphire HD 6950 and a HD 7950 and both of them are better in games than my GTX 670 which is faster than the 660ti. I do not know where you got your info from but it is wrong by a lot.You want a good card you could not go wrong with a 7950.


That depends on the games you play. I've seen a lot of reviews that show them neck and neck, even after 12.11 drivers. It is possible you play with high AA though, the 660ti doesn't like 8x AA, not that it matters, it is hard to see any improvement after 4x AA.

As far as the game disliking Nvidia, that should improve, as AMD has been helping them with the game for much of the project, while Nvidia was not given any code to work with until a week before launch. There should be fixes, of course that doesn't help you now. That said, the game ran well for me in 3D Vision, without tessellation or tressFX, though I could run with max settings without 3D Vision, but there are 2 spots that drop majorly in FPS, no matter what settings I use. This is the things that Nvidia will likely fix in time.
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 8:15:43 PM

yeah i saw the post where nvidia claim they didnt get up to date code. but the reality is slightly less obvious.
amd gave full access to the entire devs team, nvidia allowed 2 members of its staff to work on the project. so its not just they didnt get the finished product they had no interest in helping development in the first place. they instead are moving there efforts away from gaming to concentrate more on the high end cuda server parts...
reason they didnt win the contract for the gfx on the consoles so pc game development will take a back seat for the for seable future. thats not to say there wont be new pc upgrades but they wont be anything special like 88gt or gtx 480 / 670
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 85 Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 9:03:23 PM

HEXiT said:
yeah i saw the post where nvidia claim they didnt get up to date code. but the reality is slightly less obvious.
amd gave full access to the entire devs team, nvidia allowed 2 members of its staff to work on the project. so its not just they didnt get the finished product they had no interest in helping development in the first place. they instead are moving there efforts away from gaming to concentrate more on the high end cuda server parts...
reason they didnt win the contract for the gfx on the consoles so pc game development will take a back seat for the for seable future. thats not to say there wont be new pc upgrades but they wont be anything special like 88gt or gtx 480 / 670

There are tons of games where that are sponsored by one brand or the other and never both. This is nothing new, and the last couple Lora Croft games have been AMD sponsored games. I don't get where you think this is something new. Just like all the Batman games are Nvidia sponsored, Tomb Raider is AMD sponsored. That is why TressFX is in it, and not PhysX.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 9:24:47 PM

i think your getting the wrong end of the stick mate. i was just pointing out that nvida are making an excuse that isnt entirely the whole truth. all you gotta do is look on the end credits and you will see how much effort nvida put in they have often worked on amd sponsored titles and put much more effort in. it really does look like its just as much there own fault the game doesnt run as well on there hardware.
if physx was the engine of choice it wouldnt work at all on amd hardware so my guess is nvidia took the hump when crystal dynamics wanted the same standard features regardless of badge colour on the gfx card.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 85 Î Nvidia
March 12, 2013 9:53:14 PM

HEXiT said:
i think your getting the wrong end of the stick mate. i was just pointing out that nvida are making an excuse that isnt entirely the whole truth. all you gotta do is look on the end credits and you will see how much effort nvida put in they have often worked on amd sponsored titles and put much more effort in. it really does look like its just as much there own fault the game doesnt run as well on there hardware.
if physx was the engine of choice it wouldnt work at all on amd hardware so my guess is nvidia took the hump when crystal dynamics wanted the same standard features regardless of badge colour on the gfx card.

Sounds like conspiracy theories to me. When a game is sponsored by one company, I don't expect the other one to start with stellar performance. Similar to Crysis, and how Nvidia had far better performance out of the gate, but later AMD ended up with better performance once they got their chance at working with the game, you can expect Nvidia's performance to improve on Tomb Raider, not that it is bad, for much of the game it has better performance on Nvidia by the fact that I've seen several benchmarks that showed better performance from Nvidia, but there are a couple spots which has poor performance that brings the average down.

And I did not call it an AMD sponsored game because of TressFX. Tomb Raider is an AMD sponsored franchise, and has been for at least the last 3 games I've played. TressFX is from AMD, even though it uses and open standard, one that AMD has focused on with their GPU's.
m
0
l
March 13, 2013 2:15:05 PM


if it is a i5 or i7 it is already ocing look into a Intel(R) Turbo Boost Technology Monitor with Turbo Boost and update your video drivers too they do not update on there own. Even on auto update. i know most people do not have intel but if you have intel this is what you need
m
0
l
March 13, 2013 6:25:47 PM

Just to answer some of those "7950 destroys 660 Ti" posts and defend my position a little:

660 Ti is more consistent
http://www.techpowerup.com/177173/HD-7950-May-Give-High...

The 7950 looks better on paper but...
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

This article makes the 660 Ti look terrible at Skyrim
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/...

This article makes the 660 Ti look great at Skyrim
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 85 Î Nvidia
March 13, 2013 6:37:12 PM

The article that made the 660ti look bad was using 8x MSAA. I can only assume that may be a big factor. AMD handles high AA levels better, though 4x MSAA is as high as I'd every go, unless ridiculously easy to max.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 85 Î Nvidia
March 13, 2013 6:57:47 PM

martinuv said:
So here is the proof that an overclocked 7950 dominates:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/23/galaxy_gtx_66...

And now I have to figure out which to buy. NVidia is NVidia, but clearly AMD has the performance edge here.


If you look at the benchmarks, they are using crazy amounts of AA. If that is what you want to do, go for it, but that might not be something you do.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 85 Î Nvidia
March 13, 2013 8:03:47 PM

tereroche4 said:
I really don't know what problems I have presented you here.

Are you martinuv? There are no problems. I just thought I'd point out that the reason you see some reviews show favorable to the 660ti and others to the 7950 is due to whether they use high levels of AA or not. That should help you know what direction to go based on your AA needs.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
March 13, 2013 11:08:09 PM

if your using a 1080p 24inch screen you dont need any more than x4 aa frankly the guys using 8x are just pushing for the max settings and wouldnt genrally use it for gaming, just benching which is pretty pointeless unless your tryng to sqew results.
having 8x aa and running smoothly has more to do with the amount of ram the gfx card has and very little to do with the gpu's overall performance.
all the gfx card is doing is making an image 8 times bigger than the screen then using a compression method to shrink it back down, in doing so it smooths out the jagged edges...
the proof... take a 2 gig 660 or 7970 run the game at the same settings and you will see a huge hit in performance with x8 aa as the card will run out of free mem very quickly.. but take the same gpu with 4 gigs of ram or more and run x8 aa and there is much less of a gpu hit.
8x actually has zero difference in visual quality over x4 this has been proven time and time again. the only rerason gfx cards still have x8 fsaa is because the manufacturers know that some people use there gfx cards as cheap workstation cards. if they didnt they would disable x8aa and free up the resorces for higher polly counts.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
March 13, 2013 11:14:35 PM

All of that has nothing to do with the fact that nVidia cards perform worse than AMDs in TR. The fix may be a driver update or a patch.
m
0
l
March 18, 2013 4:08:18 PM

Get with it All next gen consoles are AMD.
So you'd better get an AMD solution if you want to play future titles at acceptable levels.
m
0
l
!