Results: High Quality, 1680x1050
Now we shift from Low to High detail at 1680x1050. As mentioned, we're skipping the Medium preset entirely because it didn't give us any perceptible performance advantage compared to High.
Aside from the texture and model detail improvements we get in this transition, the High preset adds deferred anti-aliasing and HBAO ambient occlusion.
All of these cards maintain more than 30 FPS, but AMD's Radeon HD 7770 struggles more than the rest to stay above that boundary.
Frame rate over time charting shows that the Radeon HD 7770 shifts between 35 and 45 FPS over the course of the test. This is acceptable, even for a fast-paced shooter, though we naturally prefer more powerful solutions that don't drop below 40 FPS. The 7770's advantage is that it's the cheapest card on our chart by a significant margin.
Frame time variance hurts the Radeon HD 7770's story. It regularly pops above 15 ms using the High preset, which we've seen as noticeable latency in blind testing. You don't want numbers that high if you're sensitive to stutter. On the other hand, the rest of the solutions fare quite well.
****EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
Sorry, corvetteguy, you're the first so I'm going to hijack your post to answer some common questions:
- Why didn't you mention mantle?I probably *should* have mentioned it, but at this point it seems a little early. We don't know that much about it and we don't even know exactly when it arrives. Rest assured, when Mantle is rolled out we will cover it!
- Why did you use a Titan in the CPU tests instead of the dual-GPU 690 or 7990?Dual-GPU performance can be tricky, and without FCAT working, I didn't want to report potential pie-in-the-sky FRAPS performance that is difficult to verify. Titan is the fastest single GPU card we have.
- Why no FX-6000 CPU?We benched the FX-4170 and FX-8350. The FX-6000 will be in between, there wasn't a colossal spread so it seems pretty straightforward.
- For the love of everything good and pure, why did you use IE?Haha! Lots of comments on this. I used it because it was there - remember, we clean install for our benchmarks, so unless the test involves browsers we don't bother investing time installing anything else. For the record I feel dirty and violated having opened the software, but you should all know that my personal PC has both Firefox and Chrome installed. :)
Hope that clarifies things!
- Don Woligroski
****END OF EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
In 64 man conquest games, doing a FRAPS benchmark of an entire 30 minute round, I got a minimum framerate of 42, average of 74, and max of 118 on my rig (4.8 GHz 2600k || 780 SLI @ 1100/1500 || 16GB DDR3 2133c11) at 1440p with all settings maxed and 120 fov.
Also interesting to see 2GB cards struggling at high res on this game. I really didn't think we'd see that so soon, given that the 780/Titan/7950/7970 are the only cards yet released with >2GB standard memory.
But not matter what, each time that main building is blown up I loss at least 5 fps for the rest of the round and have big time fps/lag spikes.
Imo you want an 7970/280x and a quad core to be able to play smooth.
Also, I hear a lot about vram...what is the feed back on 2 gigs vs 3 ?
I also wish they tested a Radeon and Geforce card that would be considered equal to see how it performs by brand.
Considering that mantle wont be available until December, why would it be mentioned? Especially considering the fact that none of the "new" AMD GPUs were included in the benchmarks...