Evolve Benchmarked, Performance Review

4047MB @ 25x14 resolution, damn.

"From a driver perspective, the latest GeForce 347.52 WHQL release worked fine but the GeForce Experience software was crashing for much of our testing."

Select Custom during installation and uncheck everything but the driver and PhysX.

That has nothing to do with the crashing issue. The crashing was caused by Nvidia using html table in the release notes for the latest driver, geforce experience couldn't parse it so it would crash. The only fix was wait until Nvidia fixes it on their end because the notes come from server side

Yes I can confirm that this information is correct.

I'm confused. Not installing GFE wouldn't fix GFE related crashes?
 
Hi, thanks for the review.

On the CPU Performance page, the AMD FX9590 is stated as running @ 4.70GHz yet the direct comparison with the Intel slide only shows 'Underclocked' FX speeds, starting @ 4.50GHz and dropping.

The CPU comparison is a little bias in that the Core i7 you have there is obviously much quicker than the top of the range AMD equivalent and a direct 'Clock Comparison' isn't fair in that sense.

I dont know anyone that would run an FX9590 as low as 2.50GHz...

Can you please redo the test on the AMD FX9590 showing:
AMD FX-9590 (5.00GHz): Score
AMD FX-9590 (4.70GHz): Score

There's no run on the standard factory clock speed, and there's no overclock value shown as an example.

The stock clock speed on my FX9590 is 4.7GHz so I would prefer to see the CPU benched at the normal operating clock speed and then also show an Overclock. I can run my 9590 Black Edition at 5Ghz as the max overclock.

The FX9590 tests are all ran at clock speeds lower than the normal operating clock speed of the CPU as stated directly from AMD.

Thanks for checking!!
 
I dont know anyone that would run an FX9590 as low as 2.50GHz...

Can you please redo the test on the AMD FX9590 showing:
AMD FX-9590 (5.00GHz): Score
AMD FX-9590 (4.70GHz): Score
For a minute I thought you may have had a legitimate claim. After looking up the detail, I say no.

Those frequencies are clock for clock range of frequencies comparing AMD and Intel. There is no bias as you say, look at the charts and see the frequency dependency of both sides. Anyone can see AMD has a higher dependency on frequency. But then you asking for a higher (overclock I might add) frequency test for AMD proves that point. Adding 5GHz frequency would only add unnecessary stress on Intel, when the frequencies shown proves all that is need to be known. If you want to compare a higher AMD clock to a lower Intel clock, go right ahead the numbers are there.
 
I dont know anyone that would run an FX9590 as low as 2.50GHz...

Can you please redo the test on the AMD FX9590 showing:
AMD FX-9590 (5.00GHz): Score
AMD FX-9590 (4.70GHz): Score
For a minute I thought you may have had a legitimate claim. After looking up the detail, I say no.

Those frequencies are clock for clock range of frequencies comparing AMD and Intel. There is no bias as you say, look at the charts and see the frequency dependency of both sides. Anyone can see AMD has a higher dependency on frequency. But then you asking for a higher (overclock I might add) frequency test for AMD proves that point. Adding 5GHz frequency would only add unnecessary stress on Intel, when the frequencies shown proves all that is need to be known. If you want to compare a higher AMD clock to a lower Intel clock, go right ahead the numbers are there.

Hi Clifford, thanks for the reply. My query was posted directly for Steven Walton as he was the OP here.

To counter your discussion, the CPU Comparison slides were in no way detailed as 'Frequency Dependent Tests' however looking at them, I can understand your point.

Purely from point of fairness, and fairness is all that it is, it would be better to perform the AMD test again in the same manner that the intel slide on this sheet was carried out, irrespective of the frequenices or you might as well just exclude any AMD hardware when doing performance and benchmarking reviews period.

Showing the FPS at the 'stock' frequency for the FX-9590 and then showing the respective differences when overclocked and underclocked is more in line which what was posted for the Core I7.
In the other hand, it would not be fair to post a similar slide for Intel showing the base FPS @ x frequency where x frequency is lower the the Core i7's stock frequency.

Its a minor thing, but I think its relevant in the interests of both Intel and AMD fans.
 
I question the benchmarks a bit on the AMD CPU side of things. I just performed the same test as listed with an fx 8320 oc to 4.2 with a gtx 970 and I'm getting any where from 86 - 88 fps on avg. after 3 runs using fraps.
 
I question the benchmarks a bit on the AMD CPU side of things. I just performed the same test as listed with an fx 8320 oc to 4.2 with a gtx 970 and I'm getting any where from 86 - 88 fps on avg. after 3 runs using fraps.

This was at 1080p
 
I question the benchmarks a bit on the AMD CPU side of things. I just performed the same test as listed with an fx 8320 oc to 4.2 with a gtx 970 and I'm getting any where from 86 - 88 fps on avg. after 3 runs using fraps.

The benchmarks will obviously vary but the 'Test Rig' here was clearly Intel based. I believe the OP simply introduced some runs from an AMD based system for comparison reasons but we obviously dont know what the system specs were here. Obviously the current AMD lineup is not as recent or as powerful as the current Intel setup used for this review.
 
Hi, thanks for the review.

On the CPU Performance page, the AMD FX9590 is stated as running @ 4.70GHz yet the direct comparison with the Intel slide only shows 'Underclocked' FX speeds, starting @ 4.50GHz and dropping.

The CPU comparison is a little bias in that the Core i7 you have there is obviously much quicker than the top of the range AMD equivalent and a direct 'Clock Comparison' isn't fair in that sense.

I dont know anyone that would run an FX9590 as low as 2.50GHz...

Can you please redo the test on the AMD FX9590 showing:
AMD FX-9590 (5.00GHz): Score
AMD FX-9590 (4.70GHz): Score

There's no run on the standard factory clock speed, and there's no overclock value shown as an example.

The stock clock speed on my FX9590 is 4.7GHz so I would prefer to see the CPU benched at the normal operating clock speed and then also show an Overclock. I can run my 9590 Black Edition at 5Ghz as the max overclock.

The FX9590 tests are all ran at clock speeds lower than the normal operating clock speed of the CPU as stated directly from AMD.

Thanks for checking!!

I don't think you are understanding the results. The first CPU chart that features the AMD and Intel processors has tested them at their default operating frequencies with turbo boost technologies enabled. So while the FX-9590 is labeled as 4.7GHz as this is its base frequency though it could run as high as 5GHz using its turbo frequency. The FX-9590 isn't a 5GHz processor.

The CPU scaling results with the FX-9590 have disabled turbo frequencies and all cores are clocked at the specified frequency. Pretty simple stuff ;)

So what you are asking for is included in the review and the result is 81fps.

I question the benchmarks a bit on the AMD CPU side of things. I just performed the same test as listed with an fx 8320 oc to 4.2 with a gtx 970 and I'm getting any where from 86 - 88 fps on avg. after 3 runs using fraps.

Based on our results we would have seen around 78 - 80fps so the fact that you are getting 86 - 88fps testing what is likly a less demanding section of the game isn't mind blowing.

The benchmarks will obviously vary but the 'Test Rig' here was clearly Intel based. I believe the OP simply introduced some runs from an AMD based system for comparison reasons but we obviously dont know what the system specs were here. Obviously the current AMD lineup is not as recent or as powerful as the current Intel setup used for this review.

I can't even begin to imagine what this means :S
 
Hi, thanks for the review.

On the CPU Performance page, the AMD FX9590 is stated as running @ 4.70GHz yet the direct comparison with the Intel slide only shows 'Underclocked' FX speeds, starting @ 4.50GHz and dropping.

The CPU comparison is a little bias in that the Core i7 you have there is obviously much quicker than the top of the range AMD equivalent and a direct 'Clock Comparison' isn't fair in that sense.

I dont know anyone that would run an FX9590 as low as 2.50GHz...

Can you please redo the test on the AMD FX9590 showing:
AMD FX-9590 (5.00GHz): Score
AMD FX-9590 (4.70GHz): Score

There's no run on the standard factory clock speed, and there's no overclock value shown as an example.

The stock clock speed on my FX9590 is 4.7GHz so I would prefer to see the CPU benched at the normal operating clock speed and then also show an Overclock. I can run my 9590 Black Edition at 5Ghz as the max overclock.

The FX9590 tests are all ran at clock speeds lower than the normal operating clock speed of the CPU as stated directly from AMD.

Thanks for checking!!

I don't think you are understanding the results. The first CPU chart that features the AMD and Intel processors has tested them at their default operating frequencies with turbo boost technologies enabled. So while the FX-9590 is labeled as 4.7GHz as this is its base frequency though it could run as high as 5GHz using its turbo frequency. The FX-9590 isn't a 5GHz processor.

The CPU scaling results with the FX-9590 have disabled turbo frequencies and all cores are clocked at the specified frequency. Pretty simple stuff ;)

So what you are asking for is included in the review and the result is 81fps.

I question the benchmarks a bit on the AMD CPU side of things. I just performed the same test as listed with an fx 8320 oc to 4.2 with a gtx 970 and I'm getting any where from 86 - 88 fps on avg. after 3 runs using fraps.

Based on our results we would have seen around 78 - 80fps so the fact that you are getting 86 - 88fps testing what is likly a less demanding section of the game isn't mind blowing.

The benchmarks will obviously vary but the 'Test Rig' here was clearly Intel based. I believe the OP simply introduced some runs from an AMD based system for comparison reasons but we obviously dont know what the system specs were here. Obviously the current AMD lineup is not as recent or as powerful as the current Intel setup used for this review.

I can't even begin to imagine what this means :S

Hi Steve, thanks for clarifying.

Just out of curiosity, what was the entire setup you guys used when benching the AMD FX-9590, what board and ram? All running factory with exception to the cpu?

I think I understand your benchmarks now, its simply showing that the Intel cpu didnt have much impact on the performance when the frequenices were changed but there was a drastic performance hit for the AMD cpu.

Cheers
 
Hi Steve, thanks for clarifying.

Just out of curiosity, what was the entire setup you guys used when benching the AMD FX-9590, what board and ram? All running factory with exception to the cpu?

I think I understand your benchmarks now, its simply showing that the Intel cpu didnt have much impact on the performance when the frequenices were changed but there was a drastic performance hit for the AMD cpu.

Cheers

We use the Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional motherboard with 8GB of DDR3 clocked at 2133MHz.
 
Is it me or are there no good, full resolution screenshots? I was reading the review for the screenies really.
 
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

Apparently a large bulk of PC gamers. 27.5% of all Steam gamers play at 1366x768 while 33.7% play at 1080p. The rest are scattered across various other far less popular resolutions.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007617 600012666

A large portion of cheap desktop monitors run at 1366x768, as do many laptops so it makes sense.

Well then that answers my question. Thanks!

Totally forgot about laptop users too.
 
It isn't a review of the game, it is a performance article. Probably want to read a game review for the screenshots. Or better yet just Google, HD Evolve Screenshots, here I will do it for you what service :)

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...IeR8QXGuIBI&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1264&bih=1447

Steve - I just saw your post. I always came to TS for good full reviews.. I've been a reader since I was 11, 12 or 13. I'm 26 now. Perhaps that's why I never come here anymore, as you can see now; not that I read tech-news anywhere else.
 
Steve - I just saw your post. I always came to TS for good full reviews.. I've been a reader since I was 11, 12 or 13. I'm 26 now. Perhaps that's why I never come here anymore, as you can see now; not that I read tech-news anywhere else.

That's probably it then.
 
Back