Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
FSP Hydro G Pro 1000W (ATX 3.0, 1000W PSU) review
The Division 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Posted by: on: 03/15/2019 01:03 PM [
86 comment(s) ]
We take a look at The Division 2 (2019) in our usual in-depth ways. That would be tested on the PC gaming wise relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 4 5 6 7 > »
JonasBeckman
Senior Member
Posts: 17563
Senior Member
Posts: 17563
Posted on: 03/15/2019 05:25 PM
Yeah that too, stuttering and dips for a online game especially competitive can be quite a problem. Hitching during critical moments can be quite a hassle so no wonder it's so common to dial down settings to near or below min-spec among other advantages this can provide.
Things changed pretty quickly after hovering around 3 - 4 GB too, 5 or near 6 and then up to 8 GB or even higher and it's not just cache either but actual data being stored and newer games pushing even above 8 GB particularly if combined with high-res textures or texture pack add-ons and then higher display resolutions such as ultra wide 3440x1440 becoming more supported and popular but also 3840x2160 itself or higher though now we're pretty much requiring a high-end GPU to drive that.
(Not helped by the lower number of SLI and Crossfire titles and support here.)
So that means less texture popin and stutter. That translates in better experience even if you have slower gpu like rx580 compared to 1660.
Yeah that too, stuttering and dips for a online game especially competitive can be quite a problem. Hitching during critical moments can be quite a hassle so no wonder it's so common to dial down settings to near or below min-spec among other advantages this can provide.
Things changed pretty quickly after hovering around 3 - 4 GB too, 5 or near 6 and then up to 8 GB or even higher and it's not just cache either but actual data being stored and newer games pushing even above 8 GB particularly if combined with high-res textures or texture pack add-ons and then higher display resolutions such as ultra wide 3440x1440 becoming more supported and popular but also 3840x2160 itself or higher though now we're pretty much requiring a high-end GPU to drive that.
(Not helped by the lower number of SLI and Crossfire titles and support here.)
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 21171
Senior Member
Posts: 21171
Posted on: 03/15/2019 06:00 PM
Bloody hell, 970 has really fallen bellow... That card was equivalent to 290/390/480/580 in performance and now it's looking very weak...
I'm wondering how the 4GB versions of the 470/480/570/580 compare, if it's a VRAM issue (Fury, is typically also falling behind in this regard, but it's not too bad in this game at least) but 970, performance is just woeful in comparison.
Is the 970 suffering from the kepler effect? Maybe the 980 too?
980ti is also slower than rx590 in this game. Kepler is getting old.
Bloody hell, 970 has really fallen bellow... That card was equivalent to 290/390/480/580 in performance and now it's looking very weak...
I'm wondering how the 4GB versions of the 470/480/570/580 compare, if it's a VRAM issue (Fury, is typically also falling behind in this regard, but it's not too bad in this game at least) but 970, performance is just woeful in comparison.
Is the 970 suffering from the kepler effect? Maybe the 980 too?
980ti is also slower than rx590 in this game. Kepler is getting old.
tyr8338
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Posted on: 03/15/2019 06:13 PM
If 970 vram runs out easy fix is to lower shadow or texture resolution most probably.
On i7-4770k @ 4.2GHz with 16gigs of 2400MHz cl10 DDR3 and gf 1080 ti OC I noticed huge fps gain after upgrading my driver to latest and changing to dx12 render, 84 fps in ultra settings 1440p, before that in dx11 I`ve got 72 fps.
I`ve noticed dx11 ofter utilzes 100% of my cpu while my gpu is at 85-95% and fps goes down while dx12 keeps cpu at max 80% while gpu is 100% non stop and my fps is much higher and stable especially in busy parts of the benchmark when alot happens on screen.
ps. after setting ultra details you still can put shadows and reflrections one notch higher, especially shadows on max look noticably better compared to default ultra preset.
If 970 vram runs out easy fix is to lower shadow or texture resolution most probably.
On i7-4770k @ 4.2GHz with 16gigs of 2400MHz cl10 DDR3 and gf 1080 ti OC I noticed huge fps gain after upgrading my driver to latest and changing to dx12 render, 84 fps in ultra settings 1440p, before that in dx11 I`ve got 72 fps.
I`ve noticed dx11 ofter utilzes 100% of my cpu while my gpu is at 85-95% and fps goes down while dx12 keeps cpu at max 80% while gpu is 100% non stop and my fps is much higher and stable especially in busy parts of the benchmark when alot happens on screen.
ps. after setting ultra details you still can put shadows and reflrections one notch higher, especially shadows on max look noticably better compared to default ultra preset.
xrodney
Senior Member
Posts: 362
Senior Member
Posts: 362
Posted on: 03/15/2019 06:15 PM
Well same problem you describe are as well in DX11 and as for random crashes being fixed, I had three and my mate in mission two in last hour during single mission.
The dx 12 issues i encountered in the beta are still present: occasional micro freezes here and there, and the lighting going crazy. They fixed at least the random crashes
Well same problem you describe are as well in DX11 and as for random crashes being fixed, I had three and my mate in mission two in last hour during single mission.
pages « < 4 5 6 7 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2159
Bloody hell, 970 has really fallen bellow... That card was equivalent to 290/390/480/580 in performance and now it's looking very weak...
I'm wondering how the 4GB versions of the 470/480/570/580 compare, if it's a VRAM issue (Fury, is typically also falling behind in this regard, but it's not too bad in this game at least) but 970, performance is just woeful in comparison.
Is the 970 suffering from the kepler effect? Maybe the 980 too?