Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Realistic gpu benchmark

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 10, 2013 8:25:19 AM

Can anyone point me to a realistic benchmark in order to compare gpu's based on realistic settings. Lets be honest when comparing gpu's here and this goes for all of you in the market to buy a new gpu or rig setup. When you read these benchmarks out today with ultra high res and ultra high settings you have to realize that the reason they are using those settings is the get the curve that you see because on a normal res supported by almost all monitors that curve will slowely disappear. Also high gfx and ultra gfx can't be depicted by the human eye.

All in all if your not using a 70" monitor with 100000x100000 res or 15 monitors don't fall victim to the marketing scam.
The Radeon HD 7770 will easily match the GTXTitan on a regular gfx/res basis.

So for everyone reading this I hope someone can point is to a realistic benchmark for gpus. Unless Ofc aside from your $800 rig you want to blow your wad on a $5000 monitor to match some of these benchmarks.

Thanks for reading, no hate, all love!

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
July 10, 2013 8:32:29 AM

Not sure what you're really asking, but Unigine's Heaven 4.0 (Normal Tess) and Valley are a good gauge of performance in the more demanding games of today.

Check out the Valley fps vs. Average fps of all games in this chart:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/graphics/n...
Share
a c 169 U Graphics card
July 10, 2013 8:34:51 AM

No idea what you are talking about. There is no way a HD 7770 will match a GTX Titan.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 10, 2013 8:55:06 AM

GTXTitan runs 40k mpixles/second
Hd 7770 runs 16k mpixles/second

At a rediculous resolution and ultra anti aliasing yes the Titan will break ahead by almost 175% but if you start to bring that resolution down that gap will slowely close.

I run on my 70" hd tv on 1080 I and at the max resolution both of the cards can smoothly run the pixel count/second so on my tv the gap is only about 45%
m
0
l
a c 169 U Graphics card
July 10, 2013 8:57:33 AM

And you are comparing this on what game?
m
0
l
July 10, 2013 9:16:08 AM

Crysis III

I am not saying you are wrong by any means..
All I am saying is that at the max pixel count on a 1080I is not nearly high enough to expand the gap between the two cards and a gpu does not work any faster at lower resolution.
It's not like saying "oh the card runs 40k mpixles/second so if your running half that then it's going to render the pixels at twice the speed for even more outstanding graphics at a staggering 600fps.." The math simply does not work that way. Yes lowering the res does up the fps Ofc but the multiplier is not the same.

Here is where you are correct. If perhaps I spent more on a monitor than I did on my computer and I had cyber eyes that could depict a single change in graphics then yes at 2600x1600 res with ultra high settings and 16+X anti aliasing the Titan would crush the 7770 by 250+% but again for more than half the price I can close that gap yet again by 150+% by spending 300$ and crossfire 2 7770's.

This post is only stating that with the monitors that 75% of gamers already have the gap between the 1000$ card and the 170$ card are not to the extreme that these benchmarks exclaim.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 10, 2013 11:47:38 AM

The thing is with benchmarking you have to try stress whatever testing to know the limits. Your if you take a monitor with a max rez of say 800x600 and test a titian vs a HD 7750 they will probably score almost the same if only neither card is being stressed.

I mean I could set up a quater mile between say a 10k ford focus and a 100k porshe 911 and they could post the same time or even the ford may win. How ? easy have them race in manhattan during 5pm rush hour !.

Then thing about benches you can scale the software but test will 1080p or higher only because it generally accepted if your going to be paying over X amount of money you should expect to be able to play games in 1080p or higher.
m
0
l
July 10, 2013 12:08:52 PM

You just proved my point.
I get the stress reasoning and you proved my reasoning.
This post to help people understand the overall picture of not purchasing a gpu based only on a benchmark. I see too too too many people spending upwards of 5 and 600$ on gpus to run wow or Starcraft because they saw a benchmark where said gpu crushed the competition on crysis with maxed settings.

Build for your needs and not to impress.

It's not impressive to have an i7 on a asus z87 with 32 gigs of top of the line ram on top of a 4 way GTXTitan sli setup water cooled over clocked CPU at 4.5 ghz and 7x Led 120mm fans to keep what you don't need cool just to run wow on a hd tv in 800x600 window mode while your only form of transportation sits on a bike rack with a blown inner tube.

Please build intelligently.

Thank you everyone for the input and I respect all of your opinions.
m
0
l
July 10, 2013 12:32:19 PM

Over clocked said:
You just proved my point.
I get the stress reasoning and you proved my reasoning.
This post to help people understand the overall picture of not purchasing a gpu based only on a benchmark. I see too too too many people spending upwards of 5 and 600$ on gpus to run wow or Starcraft because they saw a benchmark where said gpu crushed the competition on crysis with maxed settings.

Build for your needs and not to impress.

It's not impressive to have an i7 on a asus z87 with 32 gigs of top of the line ram on top of a 4 way GTXTitan sli setup water cooled over clocked CPU at 4.5 ghz and 7x Led 120mm fans to keep what you don't need cool just to run wow on a hd tv in 800x600 window mode while your only form of transportation sits on a bike rack with a blown inner tube.

Please build intelligently.

Thank you everyone for the input and I respect all of your opinions.


You must be trolling. There are enormous differences in GPU performance even on 1920x1080, if you're playing new games on max settings. Indeed, most of the benchmarks on here are carried out at this resolution as well as the higher ones. There is a noticeable difference between max settings and low settings in most games - are you getting confused between graphics settings and FPS?

It's none of your business if someone with 5k to spend on a PC plays games that don't always stress it, and someone with 5k to spend on a PC is hardly going to be struggling for money - if they choose to buy a PC for more than I bought my car for, that's their prerogative.

Not everyone is in the same situation as yourself - some people have the money to spend as they will, and they should enjoy that.
m
0
l
!