Wow, so you admit to accepting bribes? Can't we get a reviewer with some integrity around here?
Keep up the good work Steve. :grinthumb
Mass Effect 3 Tested, Benchmarked
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Wow, so you admit to accepting bribes? Can't we get a reviewer with some integrity around here?
Keep up the good work Steve. :grinthumb
Some of DX9/10 AMD RadeonHD cards (2xxx-4xxx) have a built in tessellation unit, and it's also possible to have a limited tessellation (up to a factor of 16 compared to 64 with DX11 cards) by using compute-shaders introduced with DX10 cards.Ultraman1966 said:
Yes, I would love to see tessellation in DX9...Guest said:
Now start bashing MW3 for not providing a new graphics engine unlike BF3 which requires DX11 card for features which a DX9 card can handle too
In theory it should be more efficient, but in action current drivers will not allow multithreaded rendering and it's kinda serial. Like other guest pointed, current DX11 cards doesn't have the enough horse power for real DX11 tessellations and it is used with care.
Another annoying thing about DX10/11 is being limited to Windows Vista+, which makes the developers to stick to good old DX9 for the time being, because most of gamers are using DX9 cards or DX10/11 cards on Windows XP ( Check Valve hardware survey store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey ). Ofcourse using OpenGL 3 or 4 this limit will fade away, and developers will be able to use full features of DX10/11 cards on WindowsXP without any issues.
Ultraman1966
Posts: 194 +116
Actually, if you do look on current Steam HW survey now you'll see that DX10+ GPU and Vista+ combos are in the majority now. No, the reason they don't bother with DX11 these days is because most games are made with consoles in mind which makes financial sense but is disappointing for those looking for progression.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
No side should have substantially more products tested than the other. As far as not having a lot of high end AMD parts, that shouldn't matter, because most of your readers aren't using the high end stuff, so that should be more reason to show them. Which is my point. CPU's and GPU's both react differently to each game and/or its engines. The framerate continued upward all the way to 4.5GHz on the FX chip, and those people may want to overclock their FX to 4.5GHz now to get those extra frames. I'm just saying, it would be nice to know and see how an Intel chip would scale. Maybe the Intel chip only needs 4.2GHz to get that same 95fps, and owners of that chip or generation of chip, may be comfortable going that high for this game, whereas if they thought they needed to go to 4.5GHz, they wouldn't bother overclocking at all, because its much harder to get that high of clock, maybe because their cooling isn't up for it. It's information that is valuable to some, myself included, and doesn't have to be there to show who has a better chip, but to show what each CPU and GPU is capable of doing.
And that is why I asked for the parts tested to be EVEN.
Use CPU's from BOTH sides to test clock and core scaling.
And to use an EVEN number of GPU's tested in the graphics tests. (they were even here, but I also mean in general and always)
How could this possibly be a bias or poor method of testing?
I had no problems with the number of physical video cards you tested in this test, only what you wrote about them in the 2560x1600 summary, which I actually miss read. You said anything over a 6870 will give playable framerates, when I took it as you comparing two $300 nVIDIA cards to one $200 AMD card that didn't reach 60fps. My apologies.
As for the CPU side. Not having the hardware because it wasn't given to you is kind of a cop out. How hard would it be, for example, to get a donation, buy, or sell some of those AMD chips, and pick up an i3-2130 and i5 750 with motherboards to conduct a more complete test, using hardware that is more likely to be used by your readers?
Feedback denied... I get it. I still had to try.
I asked for an Intel CPU to be tested next to the FX in the scaling test.
My complaint was what was written on one of the pages about video cards, not the amount of cards tested, but i misread it, and apologized.
Show me where I argued the performance.
"Folks looking to run ME3 maxed on a high-res 2560x1600 display will need at least a GTX 570 or GTX 480 to hit 60fps. That said, anything above the HD 6870 should deliver sufficiently smooth gameplay."
What I did notice the second time reading it, you say a 570 and 480 is needed for getting 60fps, yet you bypass the 7850@59fps, 6950@58, 5870@57 to write about needing a 6870@52, or higher for playable framerates. Are you saying an AMD card at 52fps is equal to 60fps on an nVIDIA card @ the same resolution? LOL I can't help it, it just doesn't make sense why you would summarize it like that.
Once again, I NEVER questioned the results, only the writing.
Because you wrongly assume Steve has an even number of CPUs/GPUs on hand. As he said, some parts go back, others don't. What's more, some generations launch ahead of others.
So instead of determining whether each card is a good fit for the review, you want him to arbitrarily add anything -- as long as AMD and Nvidia have the same number of products listed.
That makes no sense. He tests the parts that are available and are the most relevant to the specific review. If that means AMD or Nvidia has a few more products in the graphs, so be it.
venomblade
Posts: 69 +0
HD 7870 will be my definite next GPU upgrade, if it drops down a bit in price in the next few months. I'll still have a tiny bit of hope for kepler, but Nvidia you gotta start bringing the heat soon.
@ hahahanoobs - I am curious as to what Nvidia cards we should have included to even it out? Or are you just suggesting we delete half a dozen relevant AMD graphics cards? Again you do understand that AMD has released their next generation cards and Nvidia has not, tipping the number of relevant cards in AMD’s favor.
It is silly to suggest that the same amount of cards from each manufacturer should be tested. It’s a little bit like saying if I were to test a range of Smartphones I could only look at one Samsung phone and one HTC phone because Apple only has a single phone.
I’m sorry I did chuckle at that text block for a little while. Either you did not read my previous post or you simply did not understand it. Again what I said was “As for the CPU scaling performance again be realistic, we cannot test multiple processors here and why should we? It’s not required as in the graph below we show a range of AMD and Intel processors”…
So did you look at the graph below? If you did you would know “to get that same 95fps” which was actually 91fps the Intel processors don’t need to be clocked as high as even the 4.2GHz that you suggested. In fact even 4GHz would be too high. For 95fps you would have to heavily under clock either the Core i5-2500K, Core i7-2600K or Core i7-3960X processor as all rendered well over 100fps using their default clock speeds.
You might feel like your feedback is denied and as I said earlier that is because you are unrealistic. We have to pick and choose what we can test to deliver a timely article.
Finally about your last comment regarding the 2560x1600 comments. I am not sure why I need to say it again but we are only briefly discussing the results here, readers do not want to sift through tons of text to hear me blurt out exactly what they just saw above.
The writing makes sense. The GTX 570 and GTX 480 hit 60fps and if you want an average of 60fps they are the cards that can do it. Yes the 7850 was similar with 59fps, as was the 6950 and the 5870 and as I said anything above the 6870 should deliver smooth game play. The 6870 averaged 52fps so I am pretty sure that puts the 7850, 6950 and even the 5870 above it.
So then as I understand it, you are displeased because an Intel Core i3 processor was not tested, an Intel processor was not used for scaling (which would have told us nothing interesting by the way), there were more AMD graphics cards than Nvidia cards (for a good reason as there are more AMD cards on the market) and you didn’t understand comments summarizing the results. From all that I am taking away that next time I will have to source a Core i3 processor.
It is silly to suggest that the same amount of cards from each manufacturer should be tested. It’s a little bit like saying if I were to test a range of Smartphones I could only look at one Samsung phone and one HTC phone because Apple only has a single phone.
I’m sorry I did chuckle at that text block for a little while. Either you did not read my previous post or you simply did not understand it. Again what I said was “As for the CPU scaling performance again be realistic, we cannot test multiple processors here and why should we? It’s not required as in the graph below we show a range of AMD and Intel processors”…
So did you look at the graph below? If you did you would know “to get that same 95fps” which was actually 91fps the Intel processors don’t need to be clocked as high as even the 4.2GHz that you suggested. In fact even 4GHz would be too high. For 95fps you would have to heavily under clock either the Core i5-2500K, Core i7-2600K or Core i7-3960X processor as all rendered well over 100fps using their default clock speeds.
You might feel like your feedback is denied and as I said earlier that is because you are unrealistic. We have to pick and choose what we can test to deliver a timely article.
Finally about your last comment regarding the 2560x1600 comments. I am not sure why I need to say it again but we are only briefly discussing the results here, readers do not want to sift through tons of text to hear me blurt out exactly what they just saw above.
The writing makes sense. The GTX 570 and GTX 480 hit 60fps and if you want an average of 60fps they are the cards that can do it. Yes the 7850 was similar with 59fps, as was the 6950 and the 5870 and as I said anything above the 6870 should deliver smooth game play. The 6870 averaged 52fps so I am pretty sure that puts the 7850, 6950 and even the 5870 above it.
So then as I understand it, you are displeased because an Intel Core i3 processor was not tested, an Intel processor was not used for scaling (which would have told us nothing interesting by the way), there were more AMD graphics cards than Nvidia cards (for a good reason as there are more AMD cards on the market) and you didn’t understand comments summarizing the results. From all that I am taking away that next time I will have to source a Core i3 processor.
TorturedChaos
Posts: 836 +43
I don't care how much people are complaining about the game - I'm loving the hell outa it. I'm normally not one for American RPG's. They usually don't pull me into the game and make be care about the characters on an emotional level, which is what makes me want to come back and play more. But the Mass Effect series has done that very well IMO, especially the 3rd one. I found myself several times stopping to think very hard about a choice in the game, not based on how the game play might change but based on my emotional attachment to the characters it effects, and the morality of my choice. I know to some that may seem rather odd for a video game, but I like to get that involved an RPG.
As far as graphics goes I'm happy with them. They look nice to me, but still can be run on a reasonable computer. (C2D E8400 @ 3.0ghz & 8800GTX 512mb). So I'm happy with the graphics. I know I need to upgrade my computer to keep up, but its nice I can still play some of the newer games on low to med graphics settings.
As far as graphics goes I'm happy with them. They look nice to me, but still can be run on a reasonable computer. (C2D E8400 @ 3.0ghz & 8800GTX 512mb). So I'm happy with the graphics. I know I need to upgrade my computer to keep up, but its nice I can still play some of the newer games on low to med graphics settings.
G
Guest
noob said:
Complete fail. Also... Uh 4.5 GHz isn't hard at all to get to on a 2600k , and that's on AIR.
AIR coolers are cheap as crap and you can easily go to 4.5-4.7 GHz even in a mildy warm room.
And yea , the intel was way above the amd at it's stock clocks.
Anyways, if you meant some other intel chip that wasn't even listed then that's another fail for you cause you didn't specify.
One would only assume you meant the one listed.
One last note -
Anyone who overclocks their own CPUs would be able to infer what would happen on an intel from the above data.
If you couldn't then you honestly shouldn't even be trying to overclock at all.
gingerbill
Posts: 250 +92
agreed . No one is buying this game for cutting edge graphics , the graphics are good enough. And when your chatting to people it still looks very good.
Latest posts
-
Gigabyte confirms "Ryzen 9000" branding for AMD's upcoming Zen 5 CPUs- antiproduct replied
-
Worry your friends with this $9,420 flamethrower robot dog- themastergoose replied
