Kepler Nvidia GeForce GTX 780

[GoldenTiger]

Someone with a 7970 care to bench?
(I assume he used DX11).

Someone asked earlier in that thread for a DX11 batman, so it probably is... .

Thanks, lolitsallwrong, it's way better than original OP numbers! You can run free bench like Alien vs Predator etc.. i wonder how it runs with Batman Arham City + DX11+PHyX HIGH + 1080p smile.gif

Beginning to question if I really even *need* 2x GTX 680 instead of just 1x, for my 2560x1600 gaming... for now... certainly *want* two but... haha.

[boxleitnerb]

A GTX570 gets 40fps there (after the DX11 patch), with 8xMSAA though. Still most impressive.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1798/3/

[bill_d]

Someone with a 7970 care to bench?
(I assume he used DX11).

why at 1600x900 with 4xaa a 7970 will be cpu bound anyway

[SimBy]

Batman AC bench was on very high not extreme? That would make it slower than 7970. So I assume he made a mistake
and it was actually on extreme.

[boxleitnerb]

As for the 1600x900, he wanted to compare it to the bogus benchmark from the OP. Heaven with extreme tess and AA is not CPU bound.

Yes, very high apparently. Maybe he repeats it later. Everyone wants him to bench something different, lol.

[SKYMTL]

Anyone who uses the AC benchmark for a review will be getting very inaccurate results as both NVIDIA and AMD have built optimizations into their driver stacks JUST for benchmark. In-game results in exterior scenes (most of the game) differ wildly from the benchmark.

[Russian]

Anyone who uses the AC benchmark for a review will be getting very inaccurate results as both NVIDIA and AMD have built optimizations into their driver stacks JUST for benchmark. In-game results in exterior scenes (most of the game) differ wildly from the benchmark.

I tried to remedy that in some of my benchmarks, but I figured it was necessary to have the game either way. :/

[st0ned]

From overclock.net again.

For reason the Heaven is showing the card as an intel IGP, although he says it might be because he ran it in Windowed mode.

[Roadhog]

How did you get such high score on a stock 7970?

EDIT: nm, you only ran 1440x900

[boxleitnerb]

Probably cheated with the tessellation slider in the CCC. 92fps is BS. 55-57 is more realistic, maybe 62 at 1440x900 as opposed to 1600x900.

[Roadhog]

Probably cheated with the tessellation slider in the CCC. 92fps is BS. 55-57 is more realistic, maybe 62 at 1440x900 as opposed to 1600x900.

Ah, good call. Forgot about the cheating slider.

[st0ned]

The same way as the guys with 680 passed from 54fps to ~78.

[DilTech]

Batman AC bench was on very high not extreme? That would make it slower than 7970. So I assume he made a mistake
and it was actually on extreme.

If physx was set to high then you can't compare AMD and NVidia numbers anyway. PhysX hurts frame rates WAY more than going from very high to extreme does.

[N19h7m4r3]

The same way as the guys with 680 passed from 54fps to ~78.

54 fps with 300.65 drivers,a i3 2100 and 32-bit windows, and 78fps with i7 2600k, 300.99 drivers and 64-bit windows.

[st0ned]

Ok believe in what you want. I can get wtv Fps that I wat from the ~55 with default tess to ~93 with costum tess, and the same can be done to nvidia cards, just takes a bit more work then slide a bar. Just my 2 cents. Btw as far as it showed the guy run a 7970 too and got 54fps so they were "on par".

[boxleitnerb]

So 55fps then, not 92. As I said - you cheated.

He ran the 3.0 Benchmark again:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/g...#post_16752543

[st0ned]

If I cheated all the top results in Heaven are as you say... Cheats. As for this matter I was only trying to prove a point. It's easy to mess with tess with both brands drivers, if I really wanted to "cheat" I would have made it more realistic

[boxleitnerb]

Then tell me, how can you influence the tessellation level with Nvidia drivers?

[st0ned]

Why would I ? But believe me it can be done

I would just say that is in the same way you can use bitmap cheat/tweak in AMD drivers ( it's stright forward in nvidia and dificult in AMD ).

[boxleitnerb]

So you basically accuse the poster over at OCN of cheating but don't say how that is actually possible. Nice, very believable.

[GoldenTiger]

He has posted a new screenshot of fullscreen mode to show perf wasn't particularly affected:

[st0ned]

So you basically accuse the poster over at OCN of cheating but don't say how that is actually possible. Nice, very believable.

I don't really care about what you think. I'm just watching two different results, and if you don't find the diferences suspectfull there's nothing I can do.

That would just mean that these 680 would be equivalent to a 7970 1250//1650.

[boxleitnerb]

Yes, in this particular synthetic benchmark. And we all know how strong Nvidia is with tessellation. But we'll see in 2-3 days.

[Russian]

Wah wah, wait for the real review/ers

[RSC]

I don't really care about what you think. I'm just watching two different results, and if you don't find the diferences suspectfull there's nothing I can do.

That would just mean that these 680 would be equivalent to a 7970 1250//1650.

You keep comparing your scores @ 1440x900 with scores obtained @ 1600x900... Go figure.