Thief Benchmarked, Performance Review
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Alpha Gamer
Posts: 357 +119
VitalyT
Posts: 6,816 +8,100
Seriously, anyone who wants to play a thief but wouldn't even try to steal the very game is a hypocrite and vaguely pathetic.
G
Guest
Crossfire did not work on my eyefinity setup until I enabled exclusive widescreen. Was disappointed till I did that. I get average 65fps on very high at 5760X1080.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Well I have crossfire enabled on mine but it seems like its not doing what it should be doing in eyefinity mode.
On a side note, I definitely will be getting the Haswell-E Chip and board this year since companies really are not taking into the multi-threading aspects on gaming.
On a side note, I definitely will be getting the Haswell-E Chip and board this year since companies really are not taking into the multi-threading aspects on gaming.
Experimentongod
Posts: 356 +200
I expect to play this on max settings at 1080p with 50-60fps on my GTX 760 in the coming months, once the game is patched and new drivers are optimized, by merely disabling SSAA.
Nehalem -> Lynnfield -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell
That's a lot of generations to try to get into benchmarks. I think it's time to retire them from the benches. Anyone who owns one should have an idea of how it fairs against more recent chips.
That's a lot of generations to try to get into benchmarks. I think it's time to retire them from the benches. Anyone who owns one should have an idea of how it fairs against more recent chips.
I have a different take. most people are still rockin Nehalem, and even more are still rockin the good old Q6600 believe it or not. when it comes to modern gaming, most people upgrade GPU more often than their CPU. my last Q6600 lasted me for 5 years, and I only recently upgraded to Ivy Bridge. although my living room rig is still Nahalm, which will still be for few more years. so I think it's good to keep those cpu's as they're a good indication of performance comparison for the consumers. not to mention Intel has accelerated their CPU release schedule into every 9 months. it used to be one generation would take a year or two to come out, now there's a new one soon as you get yours.
I agree with u on nehalem.
As I'm still running a Gen 1 i7 970 @ 4.2 Ghz
however not on the Q6600 part anyone still using one of these even overclocked should have upgraded to something better by now. A Q6600 will bottleneck most modern video cards, while a highly clocked Nehalem chip isn't to far behind haswell when gaming.
And yes the numbers for AMD are embarrassing in this game but why is anyone surprised Intel has held the IPC lead since conroe and has only increased it since then. AMD on the other hand need a new architecture and badly.
Captain828
Posts: 301 +32
For anyone looking for a quick performance increase, disable paralax mapping; it got me from about 25-30fps to 60+ at full hd, max settings, gtx 580
Why they even added paralax mapping when the title is dx11 is beyond me. They should have went for tesselation instead as it more efficient.
Why they even added paralax mapping when the title is dx11 is beyond me. They should have went for tesselation instead as it more efficient.
G
Guest
Not to mention this game is so poorly optimized.. at least on my PC I only saw a 10 FPS difference between "max" setting and "lowest possible" settings. So sad.
G
Guest
Seems like it'll run fine on GTX Titan.
- Sent from my GTX Titan
- Sent from my GTX Titan
G
Guest
Another single-threaded optimized and GPU heavy game... oh god. Get it through your head, multi-threaded is the future.
Or you could buy an intel cpu and not depend on the devs!
TomSEA
Posts: 3,371 +2,237
You mind if we come over to your house and steal stuff? I mean with your casual attitude, we're all cool about that, right?
SirGCal
Posts: 365 +138
With my i7 3770k and GTX 690, the included benchmark with the game showed: 105.3 MAX FPS
77.0 AVG FPS. I had to use 'exclusive fullscreen' to get > 60Hz (my rig runs 144Hz) allowances though. But playing this game with FRAPS on, it never dips but the rarest times < 100. I'd be curious to see other would-be SLI/CF setups.
77.0 AVG FPS. I had to use 'exclusive fullscreen' to get > 60Hz (my rig runs 144Hz) allowances though. But playing this game with FRAPS on, it never dips but the rarest times < 100. I'd be curious to see other would-be SLI/CF setups.
Don't confuse what I said with thinking I said Nehalem was slow. What I'm trying to get across is that they've been around for over 5 years now and they've been out of production for 2. People who own these things (I have a 930 in a spare box) should have a good idea how they rank against the newer generations... and it's not that much slower. I still have my SB 2600k just because IB and Haswell didn't impress enough for me to upgrade.
I'm also not sure about this comment. You may be right, but I don't know (nor do I really want to think about) how to confirm or deny this statement. What I do know is this is an enthusiast computing site and it's a little hard for me to believe that most of us are still running 5 year-old chips. I agree that the GPU is probably changed more often than any other part and that holds true for me also... but again, this is an enthusiast site.
SirGCal
Posts: 365 +138
Ohh, also, I turned Tessellation on which in the game wasn't on after setting all external settings to max.
actually you guys'd be surprised how many people are still rockin the old Q6600. these things are such good overclockers that performance scaled so well with OC. most people who still own those old beasts have it overclocked 30~40%. my 5 year old Q6600 was overclocked from stock 2.4ghz to 4ghz, and at that speed, it was equivalent to a i7 920 at 2.8ghz. and i7 at 2.8ghz isn't too shaby and plays all the games at great FPS, and hardly causes any bottleneck. it was the best investment I've ever made in a CPU. in its life span, I've upgraded three iterations of GPU. and looking around the BF4 forum these days, you see folks are still rockin those old beasts. enthusiast or not, most gamers don't upgrade as often as we do, and when it comes to CPU, a majority of people are still using the old stuff. so it's good to see AMD pushing the envelope once again by coming out with an API that by passes the CPU on a lot of the draw calls.
That's not the case at all. From what I have seen so far the game will fully utilize up to 8 threads. The FX-8350 was completely maxed out at each frequency which makes the horrible AMD performance all the more surprising.
G
Guest
The issue is that Parallax hits harder the GTX 500 series than supposed to, for example, the GTX 580 which has only 64 TMU's which is weak compated to the HD 6970 whivh has 96 TMU's or the GTX 680 whivh has 128. Tessellation hits harder than Parallax but probably in Fermi is a welcome change from a performance perspective but games are more oriented to a happy medium.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
10 Things We Hate About Nvidia- Endymio replied
-
PlayStation 5 Pro will be bigger, faster, and better using the same CPU- poshflamingos replied
-
NASA's "next-gen" solar sail spacecraft is ready to launch for practical testing
- Cal Jeffrey replied
