Destiny 2 Benchmarked: 30 GPUs Tested

[Julio Franco]

Opened just days ago to those who preordered the game, today we have a beta copy of Destiny 2 on hand for a heap of GPU benchmarking. Although the PC retail release won't be until late October, this seemed like a great opportunity to see what kind of hardware the game is likely to require.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/

 

[Jamibi]

Was taken back at how smooth it is running in 4k on my setup.

For a beta, considering they had initially said the SLI setup wasn't 100% yet. Runs perfect.

 

[Puiu]

They still have work to do on the CPU side for AMD, but in general it looks ok.

 

[Steve]

They still have work to do on the CPU side for AMD, but in general it looks ok.

Runs buttery smooth on a Ryzen 3 so I'm not sure what they need to improve.

 

[Burty117]

I played this game a lot on PS4, I've pre-ordered the PC version, Multi-player is soo much better when you can actually turn around to shoot the person who's firing into your backside before he kills you.

I don't know if it's just me but I'm also finding the Multi-player to be a lot more responsive on PC, as in, Far less two people dying at the same time and less laggy players in general. So far, very impressed, they apparently don't have dedicated servers but I'm finding Destiny 2 to be as responsive as BF4 to be honest...

 

[hahahanoobs]

I played this game a lot on PS4, I've pre-ordered the PC version, Multi-player is soo much better when you can actually turn around to shoot the person who's firing into your backside before he kills you.

I don't know if it's just me but I'm also finding the Multi-player to be a lot more responsive on PC, as in, Far less two people dying at the same time and less laggy players in general. So far, very impressed, they apparently don't have dedicated servers but I'm finding Destiny 2 to be as responsive as BF4 to be honest...

Youtuber Levelcap has a video showing shots that miss are still doing damage to enemies on PC. I was disappointed to see that.

 

[David Matthews]

I initially played the PS4 version and felt slow due to the 30fps. I played the PC (i7-6700HQ, GTX 1060) version yesterday and man.....its like the floodgates of frames per second were opened. I played through the single player demo twice just because it played that well. I'm definitely getting the PC version once it finally releases.

 

[CDWhenry]

I am running a AMD FX-8350, nVidia 780 Ti, 16GB of Ram. I do have a 23" non-4K monitor. I have been running the game at full settings @ 60FPS and have no issues. The game is fast and very responsive. I will definitely be getting this for PC.

 

[Burty117]

I played this game a lot on PS4, I've pre-ordered the PC version, Multi-player is soo much better when you can actually turn around to shoot the person who's firing into your backside before he kills you.

I don't know if it's just me but I'm also finding the Multi-player to be a lot more responsive on PC, as in, Far less two people dying at the same time and less laggy players in general. So far, very impressed, they apparently don't have dedicated servers but I'm finding Destiny 2 to be as responsive as BF4 to be honest...

Youtuber Levelcap has a video showing shots that miss are still doing damage to enemies on PC. I was disappointed to see that.

It was a while ago but the Destiny developers addressed this (can't find source but I remember reading it years ago when Destiny first dropped). Basically, weapons that have certain stats (such as better "accuracy") expand the hit box making it feel like to the player that the weapon is indeed more "accurate".

That system worked on console which auto-aims for you, on PC it just means everyone is going to be using high accuracy weapons to make the hit box bigger rather than the gun having less recoil.

I could be wrong though, It was a while back I read that interview with them.

 

[dirtyferret]

They still have work to do on the CPU side for AMD, but in general it looks ok.

Runs buttery smooth on a Ryzen 3 so I'm not sure what they need to improve.

They need to make it faster then intel to justify fanboy ego....

 

[Thannos]

The beta has been running great for me. The only bottleneck in my system is my older Geforce 780Ti, but still running some benchmarks through the SP campaign I was getting 100fps average/80fps minimum @ 1080p. Definitely worth it to go PC.

 

[Avenger001]

4790k + 1080 Ti- Looked amazing and ran wicked smooth at 1080p and 1440p Very High\MSAA. I also realized later I hadn't yet installed the game ready drivers.

 

[Blakey]

I like that really low end cards have been used in these benchmarks too

Cool to see GPU's like the super budget GT1030/RX550 providing console-ish like fps at 1080p high graphics settings for £60 and a step up with the 1050/1050ti can do 60-ish fps for £100-140, I love a well optimised game!

 

[Burty117]

I guess I should add since I think I'm rare here at Techspot, I run a gaming Laptop instead of a gaming Tower as I've been on the move and not had a huge amount of space when I stop moving.

I've got an Alienware 17 R3, Intel Core i7 6820HK, Nvidia Geforce 980m, 16GB DDR4 RAM @ 2133MHz.
I also have the Graphics Amplifier running a 980Ti when I'm at home, I overclock the CPU to 3.8GHz in this setup as the cooling on Laptop and power delivery can then handle it with ease.

So far it hasn't skipped a beat on the 980m when at 1080p in High settings, V-synced to 60fps, it never dropped, once. On Very High settings though, it would drop quite a bit, 30fps at times.

On the 980Ti I can run in Very High Settings @ 1080p without it dropping below 60fps once.

 

[AntiShill]

Looking at:
https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1478/bench/CPU.png

And compared to:
https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1478/bench/1080p.png

This means at 1080p the R5 is gimping the GTX1080ti to GTX1070 levels. Which begs the question why would anyone spend $700 on GTX1080ti just to gimp it with a R5. What can you hope to save? $50-$80?

Sure you can buy into AMD marketing about how 60fps at 4K is ok, but it only a matter of time, very likely in the next generation GPU for this kind of issue to be seen at 4K. But if you are serious about saving money and will be happy with good enough gaming, then you might as well go Ryzen 3 with GTX1060.

 

[MadTwisted]

Just to point this out the i7 CPU is overclocked so it will stomp the ryzen 5. If you over click the ryzen then I bet ryzen then becomes the better value. Also it a big overclock on the i7. I bet intel payed. For this post in some way

 

[MadTwisted]

The CPU test is vary deceiving. The i7 is overclocked heavily and the ryzen is not so it's not vary comparable. Clock the CPU's the same then see what's better. That would be a better comparison, smells like intel bought this post

 

[YSignal]

Destiny 2 doesn't use all threads for Ryzen cores:

Hopefully Bungie and AMD will work with each other to patch this.

There are also some settings in this BETA that are bugged right now and performance killers on any platform, such as DOF, and MSAA.

Beta is over now though hopefully this stuff will be fixed for the official release.

 

[David Matthews]

I guess I should add since I think I'm rare here at Techspot, I run a gaming Laptop instead of a gaming Tower as I've been on the move and not had a huge amount of space when I stop moving.

I've got an Alienware 17 R3, Intel Core i7 6820HK, Nvidia Geforce 980m, 16GB DDR4 RAM @ 2133MHz.
I also have the Graphics Amplifier running a 980Ti when I'm at home, I overclock the CPU to 3.8GHz in this setup as the cooling on Laptop and power delivery can then handle it with ease.

So far it hasn't skipped a beat on the 980m when at 1080p in High settings, V-synced to 60fps, it never dropped, once. On Very High settings though, it would drop quite a bit, 30fps at times.

On the 980Ti I can run in Very High Settings @ 1080p without it dropping below 60fps once.

I too am of the Alienware laptop clan. I have an Alienware 15 R3 laptop. I like gaming on my couch

 

[Burty117]

Jest to point this out the i7 CPU is overclocked so it will stomp the ryzen 5. If you over click the ryzen then I bet ryzen then becomes the better value. Also it a big overclock on the i7. I bet intel payed. For this post in some way

The CPU test is vary deceiving. The i7 is overclocked heavily and the ryzen is not so it's not vary comparable. Clock the CPU's the same then see what's better. That would be a better comparison, smells like intel bought this post

I'm guessing you haven't read many posts on Overclocking Ryzen chips then? I think you should, you'll be surprised how little (if anything) you get, 4.0GHz is pretty much it, you hear the odd one getting to 4.1GHz but still, Intel's get to 4.5+ way easier...

 

[AntiShill]

The CPU test is vary deceiving. The i7 is overclocked heavily and the ryzen is not so it's not vary comparable. Clock the CPU's the same then see what's better. That would be a better comparison, smells like intel bought this post

Really "deceiving"? The charts show way more overclocking for Ryzen at 4.0Ghz (vs stock base clock of 3.2 Ghz) vs the i7 at 4.9 Ghz (vs stock base clock of 4.2 Ghz). In short in percentage terms or absolute Mhz terms the Ryzen has gotten all the benefit of the doubt already.If anything is that is deceiving, it would be your post making false claims.

There is no INTEL buying any posts here. Ryzen 3 at $100 is probably the only significant offering AMD can deliver with any real value among all its offering and that includes, Vega, FX, Bristol Ridge, Summit Ridge, Polaris, etc. etc. and more than good enough to eliminate current i5s, Ryzen 5s from consideration based on value for the dollar. In simple terms. AMD has overpriced their offerings to be competitive.

 

[Puiu]

Really "deceiving"? The charts show way more overclocking for Ryzen at 4.0Ghz (vs stock base clock of 3.2 Ghz) vs the i7 at 4.9 Ghz (vs stock base clock of 4.2 Ghz). In short in percentage terms or absolute Mhz terms the Ryzen has gotten all the benefit of the doubt already.If anything is that is deceiving, it would be your post making false claims.

There is no INTEL buying any posts here. Ryzen 3 at $100 is probably the only significant offering AMD can deliver with any real value among all its offering and that includes, Vega, FX, Bristol Ridge, Summit Ridge, Polaris, etc. etc. and more than good enough to eliminate current i5s, Ryzen 5s from consideration based on value for the dollar. In simple terms. AMD has overpriced their offerings to be competitive.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. You know perfectly well that it's just one game and it's one that has a known bug with AMD CPUs.
Why are you drawing conclusions about the worth a product based on one single test of a beta product? It's as if you don't know the results of the 30 games test here on Techspot which puts the 1600 just 10% behind the 7700k when both are OCed.
I find this way of thinking to be illogical and biased.
TL;DR the AMD CPUs are much better value then the Intel ones if you look at things objectively and this has been proven multiple times and it's only when you look at a few games that Intel looks good.

 

[AntiShill]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. You know perfectly well that it's just one game and it's one that has a known bug with AMD CPUs.
Why are you drawing conclusions about the worth a product based on one single test of a beta product? It's as if you don't know the results of the 30 games test here on Techspot which puts the 1600 just 10% behind the 7700k when both are OCed.

It is not just one game. It is time and time again, that AMD has come up short. And it is always followed by excuses. This is just one more game where AMD has fallen short again. Sure they may fix it, fix it later, but it is still later. Later has price, and it is NOT free. AMD does NOT get to take our time for granted. We should NOT have to pay more for AMD's overpricing to get stuff later, rather AMD should have to pay us, they can do this by reducing their prices.

Additionally do you justify spending $700 on a GTX1080ti and then gimp it by 10% to save $50-80? What rational reason is there for people do this to themselves when they are aiming for max gaming performance? It is like saying you plan a trip to Disney, put in $1000 dollars for airfare and hotel, and then decide to drive to the place and then turn around because you want to save $50 on the admission ticket. Falling short of the goal deliberately is just utterly ridiculous.

Similarily, if you to to maximize value, then you would want this to be your singular objective. Going to with Ryzen 5 totally defeat that purpose, because the Ryzen 3 deliver the necessary gaming chops when paired with GTX1060 or similar GPU and the Ryzen 5 is not even going to get you a consistent 30% performance bump over the Ryzen 3 to justify its 50%-90% ($50-$90) higher price. All the ryzen 5 achieves is to get a system in the mediocre middle, so not top gaming, nor top value.

 

[Puiu]

It is not just one game. It is time and time again, that AMD has come up short. And it is always followed by excuses. This is just one more game where AMD has fallen short again. Sure they may fix it, fix it later, but it is still later. Later has price, and it is NOT free. AMD does NOT get to take our time for granted. We should NOT have to pay more for AMD's overpricing to get stuff later, rather AMD should have to pay us, they can do this by reducing their prices.

Additionally do you justify spending $700 on a GTX1080ti and then gimp it by 10% to save $50-80? What rational reason is there for people do this to themselves when they are aiming for max gaming performance? It is like saying you plan a trip to Disney, put in $1000 dollars for airfare and hotel, and then decide to drive to the place and then turn around because you want to save $50 on the admission ticket. Falling short of the goal deliberately is just utterly ridiculous.

Similarily, if you to to maximize value, then you would want this to be your singular objective. Going to with Ryzen 5 totally defeat that purpose, because the Ryzen 3 deliver the necessary gaming chops when paired with GTX1060 or similar GPU and the Ryzen 5 is not even going to get you a consistent 30% performance bump over the Ryzen 3 to justify its 50%-90% ($50-$90) higher price. All the ryzen 5 achieves is to get a system in the mediocre middle, so not top gaming, nor top value.

I think you are misunderstanding something. People who buy things like the GTX 1080TI in a PC just for gaming don't care about value and just buy the best they can, in this case the 7700k is the better choice. People who game but also do some work should without a doubt go for AMD, especially if they don't have the money for an HEDT.

Even so, you 100% don't bottleneck an 1080ti unless you play at 1080p which is frankly stupid if you have that kind of a monster PC. At 1440p the difference is miniscule in terms of FPS, but you are left without a huge gap in terms of multithreading performance.


And again you have no clue what the hell you are talking about when you mention the R5. At the moment it is without a doubt the best CPU, gaming or not, you can buy at that price point. the current i5 should not even be considered for gaming (might change with coffee lake i5 if they are good).

TL;DR everything I said still stands even in your 1080ti example. actually, your examples make no sense for tech-savvy ppl.

others and me have explained things to you multiple times with benchmarks and facts but you keep ignoring everything.
you seem to think that if the 7700k is better in gaming than all intel CPUs are automatically better which is frankly retarded and even with the 7700k the huge multithreading performance difference should be ignored.

 

[AntiShill]

.... At 1440p the difference is miniscule in terms of FPS, but you are left without a huge gap in terms of multithreading performance.
...

Does this gap look miniscule at 1440p?

https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1478/bench/CPU.png
154 vs 134 and 105 vs 91 is hardly what you call miniscule.

Additionally this indicates that when GPU get faster you will get the same bottleneck at 4K. You need to replace that R5 in a couple years from now when the nextgen faster GPU becomes available. You can not hide behind the limits of the GPU forever. If you want to taste the future today to see it for yourself what that future will be, just SLI 2 GTX1080ti together.

If you wanted to build a non-gaming machine, then why spend $700 on a GTX1080ti. If you were really into building cost effective server farm, why would you go with a limited capacity of a 6 core ryzen? This kind of mediocre middle does NOT solve the any problems particularly well in any away. It is a solution looking for a problem, and it is really only a solution for AMD to take donations.

If you want purely price/performance gaming, the Ryzen 3 with GTX1060 is much smarter use of money. If you want a server build, you probably have to look at threadripper right now if you do not have pre-existing requirements. If you want top gaming performance, you go 7700K with a GTX1080ti. The mediocre middle is going to be mediocre no matter how you slice it, and it will be true for R5 as well as i5. You want to design and implement your solution for the specific purpose you are aiming for.

Even so, you 100% don't bottleneck an 1080ti unless you play at 1080p which is frankly stupid if you have that kind of a monster PC.

And this trope is just one more of AMD's marketing hype asterisks. GTX1080ti at 1080p is NOT academic. I'm sure there are more than a few players, especially in the competitive scene that wants MORE FPS and need less resolution.