DiRT 3 GPU & CPU Performance Test

By Jos · 33 replies
May 31, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. wardogz

    wardogz TS Rookie

    Well after reading this I was somewhat confused, so I ran the ingame benchmark myself a couple of times, it was the 'Aspen' track on both occasions and my avg minimum framerates were 97.7 and 97.5 respectively and that was only with an EVGA GTX460 FTW 1gb, i5 2500k cpu@4.2ghz, and 8gb ram. Somewhat different from the scores you obtained.
  2. wardogz

    wardogz TS Rookie

    Ok, my bad, I'll always admit, when I get it wrong, after discovering the discrepencies in our findings, I went back and re-checked my settings, I didnt realise the 'ULTRA' settings were available (ooops) and everything had been only set to 'high'. I adjusted everything i could to the highest possible (ie ULTRA where available) and re - ran the benchmark, achieving a very different 50.1 avg minimum fps. My apologies for doubting your findings earlier.
  3. What resolution are the CPU-bound tests run at?
  4. KRayner96

    KRayner96 TS Rookie

    Interesting results. I run this benchmark the other day and with VSync on @ 1920x1200 I got an average of 60FPS (due to VSync being on of course it couldn't be any higher). I'll test again tonight with VSync off but I find it strange that my results are so much higher than yours considering I also had the highest level of AA enabled. (whereas you had x4)

    Here are my Specs:
    i5 2500K (not overclocked yet)
    Asus P8P67 Motherboard
    2x4Gb Corsair 1666Mhz RAM
    MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin FROZR II - (stock settings for the card, albeit overclocked vs. a ref 560)

    I used the latest BETA Nvidia drivers (275.27's) as well.

    As mentioned, I will re-run the test tonight without VSync and will provide a screenshot as evidence.
  5. Hello!

    Why is the Radeon 5850 not in the list of tested graphic cards?
    The 5830 and 5870 are there so I don't get the point why we're missing the 5850.
    After Sapphire's unresistable offer (Radeon 5850 Xtreme) I'm dying to see its performance compared to the new gen cards...
    Such a pity... :(

  6. for my gamepad apollo doesn`t see it, and control is fail.
  7. Nice one Steven,

    Good to see the old 58XX is still going strong, seems it gives the newer 69XX a hard time.
    Wondering how the old Penryn Quad would do with its massive 12MB cache.
    The time of Dual Cores is over!

    What I actually would like to see is a comparison between a console and PC maxed out, at least we can see where we spend our hard earned bucks (or Euro's) on.
  8. KRayner96

    KRayner96 TS Rookie

    Seems I made the same mistake WARDOGZ did, never knew the game was running on High (Automatic chose High settings for me).

    I get 56FPS with Ultra settings @ 1920x1200 and x4AA which is very similar to what you guys posted. Game definately looks and runs very well :)
  9. KRayner96

    KRayner96 TS Rookie

    Mmm, with VSync on it runs just as well, 1fps on average less, lowest FPS difference is 2. Definately worth leaving this setting on. (as you get no 'tearing')
  10. can any one explain why this is the only game I've seen where the 2600k isn't the best chip?
  11. Sometimes newer isn't always better?
  12. Great review Steven. Glad to see Eyefinity resolutions included. Techspot is one of the few that keeps upping the ante for multi-monitor testing :)

    Quick question, any idea if Catalyst 11.5b hotfix has any impact on Dirt 3 performance for AMD cards?

  13. Why would these guys do a GPU test with this game over Witcher 2?
  14. blimp01

    blimp01 TS Enthusiast Posts: 144

    Suprising results for the sandy bridge, i didnt even expect that. i know the Core 2 are outdated but i might want to see a Q9550 or somethign in the mix next time, unless you dont have any on hand
  15. Matthew

    Matthew TechSpot Staff Posts: 5,332   +101

    A performance review of The Witcher 2 is incoming ;).
  16. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    Why wouldn't they? no really, I'm curious why you would say that. Is Witcher 2 supposed to be very demanding GPU wise?
  17. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,868   +2,035

    They are not as interesting as they are accurate but I am happy that you did retest and noticed the ultra settings.

    You know how fast the Radeon HD 5870 and 5830 are in relation to the 5850 so do you really need another card clogging up the graphs?

    Its personal preference, some like to go well beyond 60fps such as myself and I don’t seem to get the tearing either.

    Unfortunately no I cannot. I ran the test several times and could not work it out, the 2600K is a much faster processor so I am not sure why the game did not take to that platform.

    It was meant to but I tested well before that driver was released sorry.

    If the question is why, then the answer is we have. If the question is why not yet then the answer is the game was unfinished when released and we waited for the first patch which allowed us to play full screen and boosted performance.

    It’s actually quite incredible really, DX9 only and easily one of the best games I have ever seen (visual quality wise). The game itself puts me to sleep though, not an RPG fan ;)
  18. Reiz3r

    Reiz3r TS Member

    mine is crashing with directx 11...=(
  19. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    @ 1920 x 1200...

    HD 5850 = 50 FPS

    Not an RPG fan either, but if its that good, I think I will give it a go. :)

    *** nevermind...much too Dungeon and Dragony looking.
  20. Can you please post a CPU benchmark of using a Phenom II x4 @ 3.2ghz, so we can see the difference overclocking made?
  21. KRayner96

    KRayner96 TS Rookie

    Awesome, I can't wait for that. Am busy playing the game atm and it runs very well on Ultra settings (with ubersampling turned off of course) @ 1920x1200. When I used Fraps it ran around 30-50FPS depending on the scene etc.
  22. KRayner96

    KRayner96 TS Rookie

    @Steve: The Witcher 2 definately is very impressive. I think it's the first game that properly uses depth of field in the game, as well as the cut scenes. Even the subtle blurring as you move around quickly is nicely done. Seeing the light filter through the trees in Chapter 1 is simply breathtaking. It's hard to explain just how good this game looks. I also love the way the scene changes as the time passes i.e. the light changes colour as the time of day changes, this is amplified by whatever setting you are currently in, the forest, a tavern etc.

    I remember when the only game that looked this good was Crysis, and it needed to use DX10 for the dynamic lighting effects (sun filtering through the trees etc.) although I know that was somewhat disproved by mods that achieved a similar effect using the DX9 codepath.
  23. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,868   +2,035

    Our test using the Ultra settings with UberSampling saw the 560 Ti average 40fps exactly so there you go ;)
  24. KRayner96

    KRayner96 TS Rookie

    Say whaaaaat :p

    "Our test using the Ultra settings with UberSampling saw the 560 Ti..." So you got 40FPS with the 560Ti with it ON on Ultra settings?

    If so, mmm I haven't tried ubersampling since the patch or since I installed the BETA drivers. I just recall wondering why I was getting 12FPS on the opening cinematics (where Gerald is being interrogated). After a quick Googling I found out that Ubersampling was the culprit.

    If I may ask, how are you benchmarking The Witcher 2? I assume you are using FRAPs and running through a specific area multiple times?

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...