MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Dragon Age: Inquisition VGA graphics performance review
Posted by: on: 11/26/2014 12:33 PM [
75 comment(s) ]
In this article we benchmark Dragon Age: Inquisition - many graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at DX11 performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies. We'll look at frametimes, graphics memory and even more.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36812
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36812
Posted on: 11/26/2014 12:48 PM
Poor Hilbert has to test these crappy games lol
Good job.
For the RPG gamer/aficionado, this is a good title my man.
Poor Hilbert has to test these crappy games lol
Good job.
For the RPG gamer/aficionado, this is a good title my man.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12264
Senior Member
Posts: 12264
Posted on: 11/26/2014 12:51 PM
Nice article HH.
So this is a second game that we see this mix up performance. 280X fast as 780, 290X faster 780ti. And that poor 680/770 left behind. Whats happening with kepler cards and their drivers? Did they do that on purpose, lol?
Nice article HH.
So this is a second game that we see this mix up performance. 280X fast as 780, 290X faster 780ti. And that poor 680/770 left behind. Whats happening with kepler cards and their drivers? Did they do that on purpose, lol?
Keesberenburg
Senior Member
Posts: 851
Senior Member
Posts: 851
Posted on: 11/26/2014 12:55 PM
Nice article HH.
So this is a second game that we see this mix up performance. 280X fast as 780, 290X faster 780ti. And that poor 680/770 left behind. Whats happening with kepler cards and their drivers? Did they do that on purpose, lol?
AMD gaming evolved ore bad drivers, u never know.
Nice article HH.
So this is a second game that we see this mix up performance. 280X fast as 780, 290X faster 780ti. And that poor 680/770 left behind. Whats happening with kepler cards and their drivers? Did they do that on purpose, lol?
AMD gaming evolved ore bad drivers, u never know.
PhazeDelta1
Posts: 15616
Posts: 15616
Posted on: 11/26/2014 12:55 PM
I agree. I haven't had this much fun in quite a while. Thanks for the article.
For the RPG gamer/aficionado, this is a good title my man.
I agree. I haven't had this much fun in quite a while. Thanks for the article.
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 11149
Senior Member
Posts: 11149
Posted on: 11/26/2014 12:56 PM
I'm surprised to see that Mantle actually is slower than dx11, at least at the moment. But also, 980SLI for 60fps at 1440p? Wow
I'm surprised to see that Mantle actually is slower than dx11, at least at the moment. But also, 980SLI for 60fps at 1440p? Wow
Lane
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Posted on: 11/26/2014 01:07 PM
I believe, when you write 14.9, it is the 14.11.2 driver no ?
Huum, maybe due to the cpu used, i remember that some other benchmark was show different result for it...
Funny i download the game at this moment...
I believe, when you write 14.9, it is the 14.11.2 driver no ?
I'm surprised to see that Mantle actually is slower than dx11, at least at the moment. But also, 980SLI for 60fps at 1440p? Wow
Huum, maybe due to the cpu used, i remember that some other benchmark was show different result for it...
Funny i download the game at this moment...
Herem
Member
Posts: 61
Member
Posts: 61
Posted on: 11/26/2014 01:28 PM
Is there any clue as to if Split-Frame Rendering (SFR) was used for multiple GPUs instead of the standard Alternate-Frame Rendering (AFR)?
This was the case with Civilization: Beyond Earth and even though SFR didn't scale FPS as well as AFR, it did provide a noticeably lower latency which translated to smoother and more responsive game play.
I'm surprised to see that Mantle actually is slower than dx11, at least at the moment. But also, 980SLI for 60fps at 1440p? Wow
Is there any clue as to if Split-Frame Rendering (SFR) was used for multiple GPUs instead of the standard Alternate-Frame Rendering (AFR)?
This was the case with Civilization: Beyond Earth and even though SFR didn't scale FPS as well as AFR, it did provide a noticeably lower latency which translated to smoother and more responsive game play.
tsk2k
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Posted on: 11/26/2014 01:47 PM
The mantle graph says MB instead of FPS. Very nice review.
The mantle graph says MB instead of FPS. Very nice review.
mR Yellow
Senior Member
Posts: 1935
Senior Member
Posts: 1935
Posted on: 11/26/2014 02:43 PM
Look again. You need to use your eyeballs
The mantle graph says MB instead of FPS. Very nice review.
Look again. You need to use your eyeballs
The Postman
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Posted on: 11/26/2014 02:51 PM
I have the exact opposite experience with Mantle. Mantle results in more fps and very smooth experience compared to DX11.
I have the exact opposite experience with Mantle. Mantle results in more fps and very smooth experience compared to DX11.
mR Yellow
Senior Member
Posts: 1935
Senior Member
Posts: 1935
Posted on: 11/26/2014 02:56 PM
Strange, i also thought the results weird. I'll test D11 on my rig tonight.
I have the exact opposite experience with Mantle. Mantle results in more fps and very smooth experience compared to DX11.
Strange, i also thought the results weird. I'll test D11 on my rig tonight.
cowie
Senior Member
Posts: 13202
Senior Member
Posts: 13202
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:19 PM
I will take your word for it.
Don't take offence rpg'ers I have equal hate for just about all the new games
For the RPG gamer/aficionado, this is a good title my man.
I will take your word for it.
Don't take offence rpg'ers I have equal hate for just about all the new games
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:19 PM
Wait what? GTX 970 on full HD Ultra quality only 50 fps?
I don't get it. What's going on with the games these days? I just ordered a GTX 970 and I'm already disappointed, this is quite a high-end card. My 560 ran Deus Ex Human Revolution on 60 fps. And that was a 250-dollar card. I bought this rig exactly when DXHR came out. I was expecting at least 70 fps from current games on Full HD from cards around 970 performance. The 970 also barely runs AC:Unity at 40 fps.
Seriously do I have mental issues or games are starting to trash single-card setups?
Wait what? GTX 970 on full HD Ultra quality only 50 fps?
I don't get it. What's going on with the games these days? I just ordered a GTX 970 and I'm already disappointed, this is quite a high-end card. My 560 ran Deus Ex Human Revolution on 60 fps. And that was a 250-dollar card. I bought this rig exactly when DXHR came out. I was expecting at least 70 fps from current games on Full HD from cards around 970 performance. The 970 also barely runs AC:Unity at 40 fps.
Seriously do I have mental issues or games are starting to trash single-card setups?
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:24 PM
Wait what? GTX 970 on full HD Ultra quality only 50 fps?
I don't get it. What's going on with the games these days? I just ordered a GTX 970 and I'm already disappointed, this is quite a high-end card. My 560 ran Deus Ex Human Revolution on 60 fps. And that was a 250-dollar card. I bought this rig exactly when DXHR came out. I was expecting at least 70 fps from current games on Full HD from cards around 970 performance. The 970 also barely runs AC:Unity at 40 fps.
Seriously do I have mental issues or games are starting to trash single-card setups?
Bad coding and bad optimization that all, lower some settings will gain u good fps. most games have settings that take fps and do barely anything.
2005-2006 era is gone, where high end GTX could reach 100fps at all games maxed out even the most demanding, i recon the money we pay for all gpus is overpriced way overpriced.
Wait what? GTX 970 on full HD Ultra quality only 50 fps?
I don't get it. What's going on with the games these days? I just ordered a GTX 970 and I'm already disappointed, this is quite a high-end card. My 560 ran Deus Ex Human Revolution on 60 fps. And that was a 250-dollar card. I bought this rig exactly when DXHR came out. I was expecting at least 70 fps from current games on Full HD from cards around 970 performance. The 970 also barely runs AC:Unity at 40 fps.
Seriously do I have mental issues or games are starting to trash single-card setups?
Bad coding and bad optimization that all, lower some settings will gain u good fps. most games have settings that take fps and do barely anything.
2005-2006 era is gone, where high end GTX could reach 100fps at all games maxed out even the most demanding, i recon the money we pay for all gpus is overpriced way overpriced.
Twiddles
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:27 PM
Very enjoyable game! And the amount of content is staggering, one of the better titles of this year for sure. Did I mention the near bugless state of the game?
Very enjoyable game! And the amount of content is staggering, one of the better titles of this year for sure. Did I mention the near bugless state of the game?
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1024
Senior Member
Posts: 1024
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:28 PM
Good look at the game, too, HH...especially from one whose cup of tea is not RPGs, apparently...
I prefer this kind of game to anything else, actually. But really well-made, involving RPGs unfortunately come along only every few years or so, and when one is released it is usually to a lot of pent-up demand, as you noticed in the game reviews you've seen.
For the RPG gamer/aficionado, this is a good title my man.
Good look at the game, too, HH...especially from one whose cup of tea is not RPGs, apparently...
I prefer this kind of game to anything else, actually. But really well-made, involving RPGs unfortunately come along only every few years or so, and when one is released it is usually to a lot of pent-up demand, as you noticed in the game reviews you've seen.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:30 PM
Bad coding and bad optimization that all, lower some settings will gain u good fps. most games have settings that take fps and do barely anything.
2005-2006 era is gone, where high end GTX could reach 100fps at all games maxed out even the most demanding, i recon the money we pay for all gpus is overpriced way overpriced.
Hell yeah, I agree. I remember when I got my 6600GT, boy did that card absolutely destroy games for the 200-dollar price tag.
Bad coding and bad optimization that all, lower some settings will gain u good fps. most games have settings that take fps and do barely anything.
2005-2006 era is gone, where high end GTX could reach 100fps at all games maxed out even the most demanding, i recon the money we pay for all gpus is overpriced way overpriced.
Hell yeah, I agree. I remember when I got my 6600GT, boy did that card absolutely destroy games for the 200-dollar price tag.
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:37 PM
Yep i remmeber my first good ati card, Radeon 9550 it was the era where nvidia failed hard with FX(3DFX ex employes created the FX series to avenge nvidia), card cost me nothing and played FEAR at medium settings some at high with good fps, even with junk pentium 4 1.7ghz.
7600GT was awesome as well, ate fear like nothing and all other games.
Other than card being overpriced, or more accurate games are not optimized at all, most of them. consoles play big part at that.
Hell yeah, I agree. I remember when I got my 6600GT, boy did that card absolutely destroy games for the 200-dollar price tag.
Yep i remmeber my first good ati card, Radeon 9550 it was the era where nvidia failed hard with FX(3DFX ex employes created the FX series to avenge nvidia
), card cost me nothing and played FEAR at medium settings some at high with good fps, even with junk pentium 4 1.7ghz.
7600GT was awesome as well, ate fear like nothing and all other games.
Other than card being overpriced, or more accurate games are not optimized at all, most of them. consoles play big part at that.
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7204
Senior Member
Posts: 7204
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:41 PM
Great Job Hilbert, the benchmarks are pretty much right. On my rig, the minimum FPS I had was arround 45, but I can keep 60 with adaptive vsync most of the time, maxed, 1440p, 4x msaa.
The game is great fun for me, and I don't regret upgrading my GPUs for it (plus TW3, GTA5 and some others), while it is indeed demanding... it looks accordingly good imo.
Great Job Hilbert, the benchmarks are pretty much right. On my rig, the minimum FPS I had was arround 45, but I can keep 60 with adaptive vsync most of the time, maxed, 1440p, 4x msaa.
The game is great fun for me, and I don't regret upgrading my GPUs for it (plus TW3, GTA5 and some others), while it is indeed demanding... it looks accordingly good imo.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4634
Senior Member
Posts: 4634
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:50 PM
Seeing as Mantle is designed to reduce CPU overhead and isn't necessarily targeted toward improving GPU performance, I can't say the results that that surprising. Run this on a crappy CPU like an A6 and I'm sure you'll see some good results.
Anyway, I likely won't be getting this game. Dragon Age: Origins was very disappointing - I'm glad I got it free on Origin. It basically felt like a severely dumbed-down version of Neverwinter Nights and pretended to have a much more interesting story than it really had. I never even bothered to complete the game because it felt like a chore.
Seeing as Mantle is designed to reduce CPU overhead and isn't necessarily targeted toward improving GPU performance, I can't say the results that that surprising. Run this on a crappy CPU like an A6 and I'm sure you'll see some good results.
Anyway, I likely won't be getting this game. Dragon Age: Origins was very disappointing - I'm glad I got it free on Origin. It basically felt like a severely dumbed-down version of Neverwinter Nights and pretended to have a much more interesting story than it really had. I never even bothered to complete the game because it felt like a chore.
mitzi76
Senior Member
Posts: 8640
Senior Member
Posts: 8640
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:54 PM
Yep those results look spot on. Been actually wondering myself about perf as been noticing the odd dip to 45fps or so...
Might trying lowering from ultra...
(needs another 970).
Yep those results look spot on. Been actually wondering myself about perf as been noticing the odd dip to 45fps or so...
Might trying lowering from ultra...
(needs another 970).
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1024
Senior Member
Posts: 1024
Posted on: 11/26/2014 03:57 PM
Wait what? GTX 970 on full HD Ultra quality only 50 fps?
I don't get it. What's going on with the games these days? I just ordered a GTX 970 and I'm already disappointed, this is quite a high-end card. My 560 ran Deus Ex Human Revolution on 60 fps. And that was a 250-dollar card. I bought this rig exactly when DXHR came out. I was expecting at least 70 fps from current games on Full HD from cards around 970 performance. The 970 also barely runs AC:Unity at 40 fps.
Seriously do I have mental issues or games are starting to trash single-card setups?
Mini-rant follows... Your hardware is fine, but...
What you're seeing is what I call "console-rationalization" on the part of software developers these days...or, better yet, "consolitis".... Some developers & publishers have really come down with a bad case of it.
Everywhere we're seeing artificial 30 fps/60 fps limits set in the game software so that even if you want to see what sort of frame rates your spiffy new card is capable of you *can't.* At least, you can't without a bit of investigation and some configuration work (and then maybe you can.)
Blame it on the consoles--whether it's the lousy xBone's gpu-that-struggles-for-1080P-in-2014--or the PS4, which is still slower than my 1GHz 2GB HD7850 + & hobbled by a shared system/vram memory bus--that's the problem. Years ago, only Carmack at id liked to throw-in artificial frame-rate-limiters to cover over some poor engine design or other--including but not limited to vsync issues--but with these newer consoles things are really getting out of hand.
What you are seeing is, imo, a deliberate attempt on the part of developers and publishers to blur the lines as much as possible between wide-open, free and unfettered PC gaming software that can make use of the hardware you throw at it, and these bottom-feeding consoles. The publishers and developers (mainly Microsoft & Sony) are *paying money* (just my guess) to get new releases *dumbed down* or hobbled or whatever you want to call it--just so the public won't immediately see how much more gaming power they can buy in a computer over either console for just a wee bit more cash up front. Now that both consoles are literally low-end x86 gaming PCs--only closed off and proprietary, too, it's become especially important to publishers & developers like Microsoft & Sony to keep the general markets as ignorant of these things for as long as possible.
Scream loud & long enough at your favorite developers and I think they will listen...eventually... Meantime, fire up some games developed from a time when frame-rate was king and watch those fps meters spin...!
Edit: One of the first things anyone should do with a new 3d card that is purportedly much more powerful than his old one is (a) crank up the resolution, if possible, and (b) lay on the FSAA & eye candy. That's where the power of a new gpu will really shine through...if you happen to be running a cpu-limited game and you leave the eye-candy where it used to be on the old card and you run at the same resolution, but you expect to see a dramatic frame-rate improvement, you are most likely going to be really disappointed. The new card should allow you to run smoothly at resolutions and with layers of eye candy that the your old card *choked* on...that's really how you will see a big difference, imo.
Wait what? GTX 970 on full HD Ultra quality only 50 fps?
I don't get it. What's going on with the games these days? I just ordered a GTX 970 and I'm already disappointed, this is quite a high-end card. My 560 ran Deus Ex Human Revolution on 60 fps. And that was a 250-dollar card. I bought this rig exactly when DXHR came out. I was expecting at least 70 fps from current games on Full HD from cards around 970 performance. The 970 also barely runs AC:Unity at 40 fps.
Seriously do I have mental issues or games are starting to trash single-card setups?
Mini-rant follows...
Your hardware is fine, but...
What you're seeing is what I call "console-rationalization" on the part of software developers these days...or, better yet, "consolitis"....
Some developers & publishers have really come down with a bad case of it.
Everywhere we're seeing artificial 30 fps/60 fps limits set in the game software so that even if you want to see what sort of frame rates your spiffy new card is capable of you *can't.* At least, you can't without a bit of investigation and some configuration work (and then maybe you can.)
Blame it on the consoles--whether it's the lousy xBone's gpu-that-struggles-for-1080P-in-2014--or the PS4, which is still slower than my 1GHz 2GB HD7850 + & hobbled by a shared system/vram memory bus--that's the problem. Years ago, only Carmack at id liked to throw-in artificial frame-rate-limiters to cover over some poor engine design or other--including but not limited to vsync issues--but with these newer consoles things are really getting out of hand.
What you are seeing is, imo, a deliberate attempt on the part of developers and publishers to blur the lines as much as possible between wide-open, free and unfettered PC gaming software that can make use of the hardware you throw at it, and these bottom-feeding consoles. The publishers and developers (mainly Microsoft & Sony) are *paying money* (just my guess) to get new releases *dumbed down* or hobbled or whatever you want to call it--just so the public won't immediately see how much more gaming power they can buy in a computer over either console for just a wee bit more cash up front. Now that both consoles are literally low-end x86 gaming PCs--only closed off and proprietary, too, it's become especially important to publishers & developers like Microsoft & Sony to keep the general markets as ignorant of these things for as long as possible.
Scream loud & long enough at your favorite developers and I think they will listen...eventually...
Meantime, fire up some games developed from a time when frame-rate was king and watch those fps meters spin...!
Edit: One of the first things anyone should do with a new 3d card that is purportedly much more powerful than his old one is (a) crank up the resolution, if possible, and (b) lay on the FSAA & eye candy. That's where the power of a new gpu will really shine through...if you happen to be running a cpu-limited game and you leave the eye-candy where it used to be on the old card and you run at the same resolution, but you expect to see a dramatic frame-rate improvement, you are most likely going to be really disappointed. The new card should allow you to run smoothly at resolutions and with layers of eye candy that the your old card *choked* on...that's really how you will see a big difference, imo.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6782
Senior Member
Posts: 6782
Posted on: 11/26/2014 04:08 PM
Seeing as Mantle is designed to reduce CPU overhead and isn't necessarily targeted toward improving GPU performance, I can't say the results that that surprising. Run this on a crappy CPU like an A6 and I'm sure you'll see some good results.
Anyway, I likely won't be getting this game. Dragon Age: Origins was very disappointing - I'm glad I got it free on Origin. It basically felt like a severely dumbed-down version of Neverwinter Nights and pretended to have a much more interesting story than it really had. I never even bothered to complete the game because it felt like a chore.
And it has the best story and atmosphere out of DA games so yeah
Seeing as Mantle is designed to reduce CPU overhead and isn't necessarily targeted toward improving GPU performance, I can't say the results that that surprising. Run this on a crappy CPU like an A6 and I'm sure you'll see some good results.
Anyway, I likely won't be getting this game. Dragon Age: Origins was very disappointing - I'm glad I got it free on Origin. It basically felt like a severely dumbed-down version of Neverwinter Nights and pretended to have a much more interesting story than it really had. I never even bothered to complete the game because it felt like a chore.
And it has the best story and atmosphere out of DA games so yeah
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6782
Senior Member
Posts: 6782
Posted on: 11/26/2014 04:15 PM
Bad coding and bad optimization that all, lower some settings will gain u good fps. most games have settings that take fps and do barely anything.
2005-2006 era is gone, where high end GTX could reach 100fps at all games maxed out even the most demanding, i recon the money we pay for all gpus is overpriced way overpriced.
Yeah they sure did at resolution of 800x600. Nope they weren't that fast when gaming at 1600x1200+ it was around the same as of now really we are just gaming at way higher resolution and image quality...
While 7900 gtx and ati x1950xtx were good cards they did not play nearly everything even at 60fps... 7800 gtx barely managed 60fps on doom 3 with AA and AF and Doom3 had been out for a year.
They were nowhere near close to 60 fps when it came to 1920x1200 resolution on the games that came out on 2006 the demanding ones in some you barely broke 30.
So nope never heard of such era Nostalgia is an interesting thing.
Bad coding and bad optimization that all, lower some settings will gain u good fps. most games have settings that take fps and do barely anything.
2005-2006 era is gone, where high end GTX could reach 100fps at all games maxed out even the most demanding, i recon the money we pay for all gpus is overpriced way overpriced.
Yeah they sure did at resolution of 800x600. Nope they weren't that fast when gaming at 1600x1200+ it was around the same as of now really we are just gaming at way higher resolution and image quality...
While 7900 gtx and ati x1950xtx were good cards they did not play nearly everything even at 60fps... 7800 gtx barely managed 60fps on doom 3 with AA and AF and Doom3 had been out for a year.
They were nowhere near close to 60 fps when it came to 1920x1200 resolution on the games that came out on 2006 the demanding ones in some you barely broke 30.
So nope never heard of such era
Nostalgia is an interesting thing.pages 1 2 3
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 13202
Poor Hilbert has to test these crappy games lol
Good job.