Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 14, 2015.
Thanks Hilbert, now I have noodles all over my desk...
This made me laugh.
Anyway, i haven´t bought the game yet but from what i see the game is very well optimised and will run great on my rig. I think i´ll wait for my vacations to play this, and readjust to the sun after.
Nice review guys, cant wait for sli results and maybe some cpu usage?. But I too have to say that I am blown away by the great job they have done with this game. Runs like silk maxed out at 1600p (2xAA) and even with my 970s showing 3.9gb vram usage there isn't a single hiccup. Happy on many fronts
Ok, I'm Ricardo Rodrigues.
Causes of bad performace GK110 series:
- GFX driver is badly cleaned or issue;
- in-game settings and/or resolution screen and/or AA is(are) mistaked;
- any result writted is badly changed by you;
If the results (your review) still are corrects then we respect - NV and/or Rockstar will fix issue for GK110 urgently.
Wow, that was a good surprise - a dev delays a game and in the end it is properly ported. AWESOME!!! Thanks for the tests, Hilbert
Gotta love ricardos english, his posts are very coherent. You understand that he's trying to tell you something but you don't exactly get what it is.
Actually pretty darn good for a village idiot.
It is good to see a game that looks good and runs fine, but the sad part is that took them almost 2 years o do it. Is this really the time needed to accomplish the job?
I really hope that CD Projekt Red prove that they can do it simultaneously with consoles.
Just one more month...
Idk, I can understand most of his posts. Its just that his English comes off as being angry/negative connotation when he might not necessarily mean that. I find that most Swedish/Finish people I talk too -- that don't really have a grasp on English yet, always sound so angry when in reality they don't really mean that.
Also there are far worse people. That dude with the predator profile picture for starters.
Regardless, I think its clear that he thinks the 780 should be performing better in this game. I don't really understand what he's basing that on though. I went back to some 780 vs 680 reviews and the results vary. In sleeping dogs for example the advantage of the 780 seems to hover around ~12% in most reviews. Which isn't far off the 11% shown here. So I don't really see the problem.
Yeah. but these %'s aren't right, 20% and 30% seems be right -> See legionhardware - look Sleeping Dogs, difference between GTX 680 and 780.
Why do people post obscure websites to counter act guru3d results? Maybe anandtech, tech power up etc would better support your case. Something at least everybody would deem credible.
Same website -- Look at Farcry 3. 60 vs 53. 12%.
The entire point is that FPS scores are going to vary across game and review site. The processor is going to come into play, the memory, etc. Hell you run the same benchmark 4x and I guarantee that you see a variance of +-5%.
The 11% figure here isn't that far fetched or abnormal. Get over it man.
It didn't take them 2 years, it's 5 months as the PS3/360 versions are irrelevant.
I'm not convinced CD Projekt Red will manage it, it's alot of work for a small developer.
I might even buy this game.
lol way to go to nitpick certain games, like you usually do..
They obviously had slow per core cpu there (edit: yep 3.3ghz SB).. I get much better results in Sleeping Dogs, even @ default base 940mhz..
Also you seem to forget most 780GTX are stock with old drivers, now most use at least 1ghz editions, etc and those are in line with 780TI (stock boost), just saying.
Look at this GTA5 review with 1ghz edition 780gtx
Or here stock 780gtx vs stock 780ti, cpu API/driver bottleneck..
GTA5 is optimized, but it still has some DX11 api overhead (foliage mostly), hopefully they're gonna implement DX12 like its been mentioned around initial release..
Check this guru3d member CryZENx yt video, he has a 780gtx @ 1150mhz boost and there are instances where gpu sits ~ 80-90%, obviously API/driver limiting it.
Playing it maxed out at 1440p, and the only time I get framerate dropping below my V-synced 60fps is when I'm driving, lowest drop i seen is 45fps, but anyway occasional drops not a big deal really, game runs at 60 like 90% of the time..
System is currently not even overclocked, CPU only at 4ghz, no OC on cards.. I guess I could try reverting back to my signature clocks but I doubt it will help, I think most of these types of games have FPS issues when driving, remember
Watch Dogs where driving would first degree murder your frames
Further patches will optimize this further I'm assuming, anyone else seeing this btw ?
and which graphic setting should I drop lower to prevent these FPS drops ??
speaking of, is there anywhere I can see a handy chart that explains some of these various graphic settings they have and what they do exactly? a few I don't understand
Just because a card works better in most or even one game, doesn't mean it'll work the same in this game. Is that something nvidia and/or rockstar can fix? maybe, it depends on the issue at hand, but it doesn't make the review wrong, so i'm not sure what you are freaking out about?
The percent difference is just fine. I owned a GTX 680 before this card. I had it at 1212/7000. A 780 at stock isn't that much faster. You have to remember, when the 780 came out, it was basically a cut down titan with barely higher clocks. The base clock is 863Mhz, with a maximum boost of 980Mhz.
The GHZ edition is easily 20% faster, so yes, clocks make a HUGE difference with 780/Titan.
I'm pretty impressed how it runs on my oc'd 480 considering its 5 years old now.
But i do feel you need a juicy CPU,i'm getting 60% usage overall on a 4.4Ghz 2500K.
Wow thanks for adding the 750Ti
I'll just buy the game and upgrade to 970 if I can't tolerate the low FPS.