# Anthem VIP Demo Benchmarked on all GeForce RTX & Vega Cards



## W1zzard (Jan 26, 2019)

Yesterday, EA launched the VIP demo for their highly anticipated title "Anthem". The VIP demo is only accessible to Origin Access subscribers or people who preordered. For the first hours after the demo launch, many players were plagued by servers crashes or "servers are full" messages. Looks like EA didn't anticipate the server load correctly, or the inrush of login attempts revealed a software bug that wasn't apparent with light load.

Things are running much better now, and we had time to run some Anthem benchmarks on a selection of graphics cards, from AMD and NVIDIA. We realized too late that even the Anthem Demo comes with a five activation limit, which gets triggered on every graphics card change. That's why we could only test eight cards so far.. we'll add more when the activations reset.



 

 




We benchmarked Anthem at Ultra settings in 1920x1080 (Full HD), 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 (4K). The drivers used were NVIDIA 417.71 WHQL and yesterday's AMD Radeon Adrenalin 19.1.2, which includes performance improvements for Anthem.



 

 



At 1080p, it looks like the game is running into a CPU bottleneck with our Core i7-8700K (note how the scores for RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti are very close together). It's also interesting how cards from AMD start out slower at lower resolution, but make up the gap to their NVIDIA counterparts as resolution is increased. It's only at 4K that Vega 64 matches RTX 2060 (something that would be expected for 1080p, when looking at results from recent GPU reviews).

We will add test results for more cards, such as the Radeon RX 570 and GeForce GTX 1060, after our activation limit is reset over the weekend.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

looks like cpu overhead on amd cards,may be resolved in drivers unless they drag their ass with solving it like they did in some many other dx11 games. matching a 2060 is where V64 is at so no surprises there. 1440p performance numbers look good,I'd be very glad to see my 1080Ti run at 100 fps.

I guess the amd driver was not game-ready for anthem after all.


----------



## M2B (Jan 26, 2019)

Anthem is a very demanding game and if you want to always maintain 60FPS at 1080p/Ultra you may need an RTX 2060.
For 1440p RTX 2080 and 1080Ti are sufficient and the only option for 4K is RTX 2080Ti @2GHz+/16Gbps~.

I'm a bit disappointed by the performance though, I couldn't get a consistent 60FPS on my GTX 1080 at 1440p. the overall look of the game is fine but it looks dated in some aspects.


----------



## vMax65 (Jan 26, 2019)

Have to say, impressive from the RTX 2060 at both 1080p and 1440p...


----------



## Nkd (Jan 26, 2019)

AMD will probably have to do more optimizations. 

Why no 1080 in the benchmarks?


----------



## siluro818 (Jan 26, 2019)

Nkd said:


> AMD will probably have to do more optimizations.
> 
> Why no 1080 in the benchmarks?


"We realized too late that even the Anthem Demo comes with a five activation limit, which gets triggered on every graphics card change."


----------



## Lightning (Jan 26, 2019)

Gotta love drm.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> looks like cpu overhead on amd cards,may be resolved in drivers unless they drag their ass with solving it like they did in some many other dx11 games. matching a 2060 is where V64 is at so no surprises there. 1440p performance numbers look good,I'd be very glad to see my 1080Ti run at 100 fps.
> 
> I guess the amd driver was not game-ready for anthem after all.



You have this the wrong way around. Game devs need to fix their shit. Nvidia/AMD have been fixing their junk for far too long. If it were coded correctly, then there wouldn't be any issues and you wouldn't need a new driver to play a game. I guess everyone just forgets the 90s/early 00s. To make it worse, it's using Frostbite. Nothing should even have to be done for good performance all around.

Release is in a month and this is the state it's in? LOL. Another joke ruined by EA is what I see.


----------



## Readlight (Jan 26, 2019)

Dontexpect updates from ea for old games.you can buy but there will be only black screen.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> You have this the wrong way around. Game devs need to fix their shit. Nvidia/AMD have been fixing their junk for far too long. If it were coded correctly, then there wouldn't be any issues and you wouldn't need a new driver to play a game. I guess everyone just forgets the 90s/early 00s. To make it worse, it's using Frostbite. Nothing should even have to be done for good performance all around.
> 
> Release is in a month and this is the state it's in? LOL. Another joke ruined by EA is what I see.


I guess you forgot its not the 1990s anymore.
It runs very well on nvidia cards,amd just have to follow with another driver.If they followed your logic their cards would be a broken mess in most of current gen games.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I guess you forgot its not the 1990s anymore.
> It runs very well on nvidia cards,amd just have to follow with another driver.If they followed your logic their cards would be a broken mess in most of current gen games.



Yeah, I wonder who does that gimping to games with fat stacks of cash....

In case you're wondering, b/c you don't pay attention to anything, AMD has no trouble with frostbite. But bioware cocked it up, anyway.


----------



## M2B (Jan 26, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> Yeah, I wonder who does that gimping to games with fat stacks of cash....
> 
> In case you're wondering, b/c you don't pay attention to anything, AMD has no trouble with frostbite. But bioware cocked it up, anyway.



The problem is that even in AMD sponsored titles such AC odyssey and RE2 Remake they kinda suck unfortunately.




Vega 64 is only half as fast as a 2080Ti at 4K.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 26, 2019)

Nkd said:


> AMD will probably have to do more optimizations.


Well, that's always the thing with AMD's GPUs isn't it? We're always waiting for that big optimization to arrive and finally unleash the performance. I remember it was claimed at the launch of both Polaris and Vega; don't judge it yet - it will become much better over time!

Don't get me wrong, AMD should certainly prioritize making the best drivers possible, and there might be some marginal gains to be had here. But their focus on "optimizing" is by manipulating the games (which Nvidia also does), and I'm sure that if they reallocated these resources on actual driver optimizations, they could get some gains.

But still, any driver optimization to unlock a massive gain is highly unlikely.


----------



## y0y0 (Jan 26, 2019)

M2B said:


> The problem is that even in AMD sponsored titles such AC odyssey and RE2 Remake they kinda suck unfortunately.
> View attachment 115152
> Vega 64 is only half as fast as a 2080Ti at 4K.



it also costs 2.5x less...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> Yeah, I wonder who does that gimping to games with fat stacks of cash....
> 
> In case you're wondering, b/c you don't pay attention to anything, AMD has no trouble with frostbite. But bioware cocked it up, anyway.


I don't pay attention to AMD fanboys always having an excuse for every time the red team gets severly burnt.
They've had problems with dx11 overhead since I can remember myself running a 7870 and then r9 290 on an i5 2500k.In BF1 they only used their cards to the fullest in DX12. It shows here and they have to fix it.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 26, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> We realized too late that even the Anthem Demo comes with a five activation limit, which gets triggered on every graphics card change. That's why we could only test eight cards so far.. we'll add more when the activations reset.


Yet another example of lameduck, poorly implemented DRM making everyone's life more difficult than it needs to be. Not whining at you W1z, of course..



M2B said:


> The problem is that even in AMD sponsored titles such AC odyssey and RE2 Remake they kinda suck unfortunately.


Radeon 7 is about to change that and Navi is inbound. AMD is going to spice things up this year!


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I guess the amd driver was not game-ready for anthem after all.



Yes, because 68+ fps is totally broken and unplayable.

I'm not interested in this game but if the 590 gets 68fps at 1080p, overclocked my 570 could get 60fps at least I think. Not terrible.


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 26, 2019)

Only EA could be incompetent enough to put an activation limit on a demo.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Yes, because 68+ fps is totally broken and unplayable.
> 
> I'm not interested in this game but if the 590 gets 68fps at 1080p, overclocked my 570 could get 60fps at least I think. Not terrible.


oh that igonorance.....
I shouldn't even respond to this sort of baiting but look at 1070 and Vega 64 at 1080p. See,they're not usually equal.


Lol,I can't help myself laughing at how offended amd apologists got upon seeing these results and me saying that it needs a driver. sure,why not,let the driver team off the hook,why have them work on improving it when you can have even more fun complaining about it here.


----------



## B-Real (Jan 26, 2019)

M2B said:


> The problem is that even in AMD sponsored titles such AC odyssey and RE2 Remake they kinda suck unfortunately.
> View attachment 115152
> Vega 64 is only half as fast as a 2080Ti at 4K.


I wouldn't say anything about RE2 results until Tpowerup-Guru3D-Techspot-Computerbase-PCGameshardware does a benchmark. And remember the results of Resident Evil 7, where AMD crushed its NV counterparts.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> oh that igonorance.....
> I shouldn't even respond to this sort of baiting but look at 1070 and Vega 64. See,they're not usually equal.


Excuse me? There are games where Nvidia's architecture also does better than GCN. Also some where AMD does better. That's just the way it is, I am not baiting at all, please don't mis understand me as some low quality troll.

The AMD cards are providing playable experiences in the game at max settings, at least according to the Average FPS numbers.  So the dig at AMD's driver is in itself low-quality bait. Jeeze there's some AMD hate on the internet. (fanboys).


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Excuse me? There are games where Nvidia's architecture also does better than GCN. Also some where AMD does better. That's just the way it is, I am not baiting at all, please don't mis understand me as some low quality troll.
> 
> The AMD cards are providing playable experiences in the game at max settings, at least according to the Average FPS numbers.  So the dig at AMD's driver is in itself low-quality bait. Jeeze there's some AMD hate on the internet. (fanboys).


I hope your position changes when amd releses a driver to see 1080p/1440p performance improve.


----------



## y0y0 (Jan 26, 2019)

this benchmark is obvious bullshit, this guy cant even get 100fps ONCE at 1080p with 2060 and 9900k, while TPU managed to get 108 AVERAGE, yea sure


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> this benchmark is obvious bullshit, this guy cant even get 100fps ONCE at 1080p with 2060 and 9900k, while TPU managed to get 108 AVERAGE, yea sure


have you thought of asking for driver versions before writing this bs ?


----------



## y0y0 (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> have you thought of asking for driver versions before writing this bs ?


30 fps more with driver updates, are you insane? he even has 9900K against 8700k in CPU-bound game, LMAO


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> 30 fps more with driver updates, are you insane? he even has 9900K against 8700k in CPU-bound game, LMAO


Are you implying @W1zzard doesn't know what he's doing when benchmarking? Then I suggest you might want to depart this site rather quickly and rather quietly.


----------



## y0y0 (Jan 26, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Are you implying @W1zzard doesn't know what he's doing when benchmarking? Then I suggest you might want to depart this site rather quickly and rather quietly.


 i would rather trust VIDEO evidence than some numbers. Maybe you want to explain how he got 108 while its ~80 in the video with superior CPU?


----------



## M2B (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> i would rather trust VIDEO evidence than some numbers. Maybe you want to explain how he got 108 while its ~80 in the video with superior CPU?



W1zzard is probably using a light and static scene to measure relative performance.
I agree, during heavy scenes this game does require a ton of GPU power to maintain the targeted framerate.


----------



## rvalencia (Jan 26, 2019)

RTX 2060's 1900Mhz stealth overclock ROPS / Vega 64's 1536 Mhz ROPS = 1.236979166666667

At 1080p, Vega 64's 88 fps x 1.236979166666667 = 108.8 fps

Conclusion: Vega 64 is ROPS bound. TFLOPS means little since it doesn't include ROPS read-write factors.

AMD should improve raster engines and ROPS.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 26, 2019)

rvalencia said:


> RTX 2060's 1900Mhz stealth overclock ROPS / Vega 64's 1536 Mhz ROPS = 1.236979166666667
> 
> At 1080p, Vega 64's 88 fps x 1.236979166666667 = 108.8 fps
> 
> Conclusion: Vega 64 is ROPS bound. TFLOPS means little since it doesn't include ROPS read-write factors.


That's BS.
RTX 2060 have only 48 ROPs vs Vega64's 64. Even with RTX 2060's max boost, Vega 64 still have higher fillrate.


----------



## _Flare (Jan 26, 2019)

May the Main-Thread Limitation be with you, young Game-Engine-Constructor.


----------



## y0y0 (Jan 26, 2019)

M2B said:


> W1zzard is probably using a light and static scene to measure relative performance.
> I agree, during heavy scenes this game does require a ton of GPU power to maintain the targeted framerate.


ok, maybe, guy in a video got 105 while staring at a wall, still not 108, tho. Looking at walls is how you benchmark games in 2019? I expect actual gameplay fps to be shown in such benchmarks, not some random best case scenario wall staring, or at least provide info on what scene you were benchmarking


----------



## rvalencia (Jan 26, 2019)

efikkan said:


> That's BS.
> RTX 2060 have only 48 ROPs vs Vega64's 64. Even with RTX 2060's max boost, Vega 64 still have higher fillrate.


Replace RTX 2060 (TU106, 48 ROPS, 3MB L2 cache before DCC applied)  into it's highest version which is RTX 2070 (TU106) which has 64 ROPS with 4MB L2 cache.

Even with 48 ROPS at 1900Mhz, the fill rates are already similar to Vega 64's at 1536Mhz and that's not even factoring delta color compression (DCC) differences.


----------



## unikin (Jan 26, 2019)

I'm sick and tired of lazy devs and greedy publishers, pushing unfinished products down our throats.  Most of today's game releases would be called beta 20 years back. Just look at Assassins Creed Odyssey joke, 30 fps (0.1 % - 16 fps ) at 4K with GTX 1080 TI and that is $60 game! Lousy code optimization is performance killer, no matter what kind of monster hardware you own. Most publishers don't give a f... about PC gaming anymore. 90 % of the games are criminally badly optimized console ports.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

efikkan said:


> I remember it was claimed at the launch of both Polaris and Vega; don't judge it yet - it will become much better over time!



Gee, sounds just like DXR.  But hey, buy it now because future!


----------



## efikkan (Jan 26, 2019)

rvalencia said:


> Replace RTX 2060 (TU106, 48 ROPS, 3MB L2 cache before DCC applied)  into it's highest version which is RTX 2070 (TU106) which has 64 ROPS with 4MB L2 cache.


What is your point? RTX 2070 is far beyond Vega 64, with nearly comparable fillrate.
Your claim is still incorrect, Vega 64 is not ROP limited, nor is it bandwidth or Gflop limited.

GCN's problem is saturation of resources, which is why it struggles more on lower resolutions than higher.



rvalencia said:


> Even with 48 ROPS at 1900Mhz, the fill rates are already similar to Vega 64's at 1536Mhz and that's not even factoring delta color compression (DCC) differences.


Don't mix in compression, that's not relevant for this.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 26, 2019)

game is a meh warframe/destiny rip anyway

map is tiny (even with the assumption that the full retail map will be 50% bigger((which may or may not be true) its still tiny)

loading screens are frequent which completely trashes immersion

Controls are between meh and horrible

gunplay is uninspiring

and the UI is the worst I have experienced in several years



efikkan said:


> What is your point? RTX 2070 is far beyond Vega 64, with nearly comparable fillrate.
> Your claim is still incorrect, Vega 64 is not ROP limited, nor is it bandwidth or Gflop limited.
> 
> GCN's problem is saturation of resources, which is why it struggles more on lower resolutions than higher.
> ...



it accually is very relevant vega's fill rate is garbage

to the people that don't get it ill make it as clear as I can

AMD Does not make gaming cards, they make workstation cards that happen to play games
and no I don't care how they are marketed they are workstation cards because thats the only thing GCN is good at which is compute

huge difference there is absolutely no point in comparing amd to nvidia anymore when it comes to gaming they can't and do not compete so just STOP just STOP IT


----------



## bug (Jan 26, 2019)

So now even demos/benchmarks require an online connection, feature limited activations and we still flock to them? This world is going down the drain.

And congrats on the article. Besides not mentioning whether this is running in DX11 or DX12 more, whether it users any Turing specific technologies (and at which level), it's all there.


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 26, 2019)

rvalencia said:


> RTX 2060's 1900Mhz stealth overclock ROPS / Vega 64's 1536 Mhz ROPS = 1.236979166666667
> 
> At 1080p, Vega 64's 88 fps x 1.236979166666667 = 108.8 fps
> 
> ...


GCN so far are Geometry bound, GCN has been stuck on 4 Geometry Engines since Hawaii / 290X.
Vega was suppose to have new features to by-pass that limit, but RTG never managed to get it to work, so it ended up just being a higher clocked Fiji.
One of the reasons why Polaris performs as well as Hawaii with half the ROP etc, it is still limited to 4 Geometry Engines (other optimizations aside), which is much less of an issue on a mid-range GPU vs a high-end.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Jan 26, 2019)

The loading screens kill it for me. If they were quick I wouldn't care but they are lengthy I even had it hang twice on loading screens. Curious what improvements a driver can make in this, then on top of that what improvements DLSS will bring.


----------



## champsilva (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> this benchmark is obvious bullshit, this guy cant even get 100fps ONCE at 1080p with 2060 and 9900k, while TPU managed to get 108 AVERAGE, yea sure



Well, you forgot about something.

The guy is using max settings and TPU is using ultra preset. The difference is HBAO on ultra and HBAO full on Maxed.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 26, 2019)

Very impressed with how the RTX2060 perform at 1440p Ultra. Beating the 1070, Vega 56 & 64 at the same time is just... beautiful. $350 card is even more worthy right now than a "brand new" Pascal GPU or the hard to get Vega cards now.


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 26, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Very impressed with how the RTX2060 perform at 1440p Ultra. Beating the 1070, Vega 56 & 64 at the same time is just... beautiful. $350 card is even more worthy right now than a "brand new" Pascal GPU or the hard to get Vega cards now.


It really is nothing special, in the pass generations there are plenty of X60 class GPUs that match or beat the former high-end GPU at like half the price.
Turing offers one of the least performance increase for a new gen card in a long time.
I mean the 1060 was equal or faster than the 980 and sold for $250, which is already an increased price over the previous gen 60-class cards.


----------



## bug (Jan 26, 2019)

Zubasa said:


> It really is nothing special, in the pass generations there are plenty of X60 class GPUs that match or beat the former high-end GPU at like half the price.
> Turing offers one of the least performance increase for a new gen card in a long time.
> I mean the 1060 was equal or faster than the 980 and sold for $250, which is already an increase over the previous gen.


Is that so? Name such a card that isn't the GTX 1060.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 26, 2019)

at least the 2060 keeps up with the 1070Ti but beats it with some OCing. not gonna hear from a person who claims of owning a 2080Ti but never even post some benchmarks from a variety of games & benching suites to show that Turing is "nothing special" & "offers one of the least perf gain for a new gen".


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 26, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> at least the 2060 keeps up with the 1070Ti but beats it with some OCing. not gonna hear from a person who claims of owning a 2080Ti but never even post some benchmarks from a variety of games & benching suites to show that Turing is "nothing special" & "offers one of the least perf gain for a new gen".


You don't need me to do benchmarks for you when this site offers them.


bug said:


> Is that so? Name such a card that isn't the GTX 1060.


The 960 was similar to the 680 / 770 and sold at $200.
The 660ti was a bit faster than the GTX 580.


----------



## y0y0 (Jan 26, 2019)

champsilva said:


> Well, you forgot about something.
> 
> The guy is using max settings and TPU is using ultra preset. The difference is HBAO on ultra and HBAO full on Maxed.



and its a 30fps difference?


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 26, 2019)

back to topic: At least I know that the 2060 beat 2 of AMD's top of the line GPUs in 1440p Ultra.


----------



## champsilva (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> and its a 30fps difference?



You never know, on BFV with RTX 2060 if you change Texture from Ultra to High and keep RT on Ultra, you gain 20-25FPS.











@W1zzard would be awesome if everygame you benchmarked you could release a video showing your benchmark path so community could do their own testing.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

champsilva said:


> @W1zzard would be awesome if everygame you benchmarked you could release a video showing your benchmark path so community could do their own testing.



I bet donations would go a long way to help him burn his entire life on benching games.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I bet donations would go a long way to help him burn his entire life on benching games.


Pclab has been doing it for years

https://pclab.pl/art79629-9.html


----------



## siluro818 (Jan 26, 2019)

Why is it that everyone over here seems to forget that the Vega counterpoints are GTX1070 for 56 & GTX1080 for 64 respectively?

Vega 56 beats 1070 at 1440p & 4K and we would probably have the very same situation with 1080 & 64 (had the former been tested), which is more or less exactly what you would expect with a Frostbite engine.

The issue ain't that Vega is underperforming, but rather that the RTX cards perform surprisingly well with Anthem. Kinda like what we had with the id Tech 6 engine games.

And that ain't really an issue - it's a great news for RTX owners, so let's just be happy for them as there are not so many titles that show a big performance leap over the GTX10xx generation.

Cheers!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> 30 fps more with driver updates, are you insane? he even has 9900K against 8700k in CPU-bound game, LMAO



This is a very easy thing to pull answers for.

Was W1z streaming the game while he played? 

Does W1z have other applications running at the same time as the game is played?

When was the last clean install this guy did?

What driver is being used?

Does W1z run a fairly well known review site or does he have a grand total of 60 followers on YouTube?







Gee I know whose reviews I will be looking at.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 26, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Are you implying @W1zzard doesn't know what he's doing when benchmarking? Then I suggest you might want to depart this site rather quickly and rather quietly.


While W1z surely knows what he's doing, it wouldn't be the first time TPU results have been messed up


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 26, 2019)

because a 9900k is that much faster than a 8700k ... (less than 1.5fps)

god I hate kids so much So so much


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jan 26, 2019)

Kaotik said:


> While W1z surely knows what he's doing, it wouldn't be the first time TPU results have been messed up


Because it's the only site that has ever messed up benchmarks, right..? That's a very sweeping statement imho and unless you can prove something is wrong here, you can keep it to yourself.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> i would rather trust VIDEO evidence than some numbers. Maybe you want to explain how he got 108 while its ~80 in the video with superior CPU?



Oh sure why are you here then? Just kindly F off.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 26, 2019)

we should all leave tpu and start a forum where all reviews are some guy talking about tech he doesn't fully understand while randomly dropping stuff and making cringe worthy memes to attract the attention of the 12 to 15yro market

this post *was* sponsored by Tunnelbear but then the bear got hungry and ate it


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 26, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> we should all leave tpu and start a forum where all reviews are some guy talking about tech he doesn't fully understand while randomly dropping stuff and making cringe worthy memes to attract the attention of the 12 to 15yro market
> 
> this post *was* sponsored by Tunnelbear but then the bear got hungry and ate it



I fking hate “tech-tubers”, at least the majority of them wannabes.


----------



## VSG (Jan 26, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Oh sure why are you here then? Just kindly F off.



Let's not do this. We should always aim to improve and correct ourselves if we are at fault, and share knowledge to teach others in the other scenario.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 26, 2019)

VSG said:


> Let's not do this. We should always aim to improve and correct ourselves if we are at fault, and share knowledge to teach others in the other scenario.



You are implying people wanna have a clear logical argument. Truth is some just wanna stir shit


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Pclab has been doing it for years
> 
> https://pclab.pl/art79629-9.html



Fabulous, then Wizzard doesn't need to do it because someone else already is.



xkm1948 said:


> I fking hate “tech-tubers”, at least the majority of them wannabes.



Hey, you have to start somewhere.  Wizzard probably wasn't spit out with a multimeter and probes at birth.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 26, 2019)

Any benchmark these days put AMD in a bad spot light will always end in a shit show like this one. Toxic AMD fanboys at their best.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Any benchmark these days put AMD in a bad spot light will always end in a shit show like this one. Toxic AMD fanboys at their best.



It goes both ways.  God forbid someone looks at DXR without eyes of lust.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 26, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> It goes both ways.  God forbid someone looks at DXR without eyes of lust.


sb wants to look at a $700 dxr gpu critically it's fine. I can't justify the price of the rtx lineup it myself,though it's almost exclusively related to the fact that I think they really should've put 8gb on 2060 and 11gb on 2080. but if at the same time they praise amd's $700 radeon vii it's ridiculous.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> sb wants to look at a $700 dxr gpu critically it's fine. but if at the same time they praise amd's radeon vii it's ridiculous.



Not really.  What if someone thinks DXR is totally useless (like me)?  What if someone has a usecase for the (expected) compute of VII?  The problem is most people can't get over themselves when someone has a different view point.

I used to think that people that bought Titans were stupid and ruining the industry.  However, everyone has their reasons for buying them.  When I figured that out, it became easy to see why people bought things and then accept that others are different.

It makes life much easier when you accept that others have different needs and view points.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 26, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> It goes both ways.  God forbid someone looks at DXR without eyes of lust.



I dont see rabid nvidia fans in RaY Tracing threads. Care to point one for me here?


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I dont see rabid nvidia fans in RaY Tracing threads. Care to point one for me here?



Not really.  You'll find one on your own.


----------



## Bansaku (Jan 26, 2019)

So where are the GTX 1080 and 1080Ti benchmarks?! Fail...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> 30 fps more with driver updates, are you insane? he even has 9900K against 8700k in CPU-bound game, LMAO



Core i9 and Threadripper relative performance in games is about the same as the 8700K, and 2700X, no sense in spending 800+ on HEDT when you gain no gaming performance advantage to offset the cost.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 26, 2019)

if you gain +30fps with a driver update then your driver team is doing something horribly wrong to begin with 

can we finally let this fanboi roast die now kid obviously has no clue how shit accually works and is just regurgitating garbage he saw on youtube


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Any benchmark these days put AMD in a bad spot light will always end in a shit show like this one. Toxic AMD fanboys at their best.



Only toxicity is from greenies always trolling AMD threads


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 26, 2019)

Bansaku said:


> So where are the GTX 1080 and 1080Ti benchmarks?! Fail...



If you read the article you would see that there was a restriction on installs so they have to wait until that restriction resets.

Your reading: Fail...


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 26, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Very impressed with how the RTX2060 perform at 1440p Ultra. Beating the 1070, Vega 56 & 64 at the same time is just... beautiful. $350 card is even more worthy right now than a "brand new" Pascal GPU or the hard to get Vega cards now.



If you'll ever want to apply to a marketing position at Nvidia, just show them your comment. They'll love you.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 26, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> Only EA could be incompetent enough to put an activation limit on a demo.


And yet somehow, it simply is not surprising. 

Back on topic, this game seems like it's going to be a beast and will require beefy hardware to run.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jan 26, 2019)

The performance results make me wonder if EA cocked up optimization for AMD cards, or if AMD did. Given the history of both companies and their relative incompetence, both are likely.

Frostbite isn't a new engine, this shouldnt still be happening.



OneMoar said:


> it accually is very relevant vega's fill rate is garbage
> 
> to the people that don't get it ill make it as clear as I can
> 
> ...


So was Kepler a "workstation" GPU as well? Should we have not called the geforce 680 a "gaming GPU"? Because GCN was a near 1:1 foe for Kepler.

GCN's problem is that its old. It's not that "AMD makes workstation cards ONLY, STOP COMPARING THEM!!1!!", AMD didnt have much in the way of funding, and all of it went into ryzen, so GCN was left with table scraps. That has gotten them into their current position. GCN was given more compute power because, at the time, compute was seemingly the wave of the future for gaming, and GCN's first technical competitor was Fermi, a very compute focused design. And when the 580 and 590 came out, nobody was typing "THESE ARE NOT GAMING CARDS OMGZZZZ!!!1!!"

AMD has made, and continues to make, gaming cards. Nobody is claiming the RX 580 is a compute card, anybody who does is a fool. Vega was a bit of a mistake, we all know that, just like the tesla titan was a mistake. Navi is their first large adjustment to their main GCN arch, while I dont think it will be anything near the VILV5/4 > GCN switch, NAVI will undoubtedly make large efficiency gains, and I wouldnt be surprised if compute on consumer models was cut down to make the cards more competitive in the gaming segment.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 27, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I dont see rabid nvidia fans in RaY Tracing threads. Care to point one for me here?



There is no hardware requirement for raytracing to work so I am personally upset with amd for not pushing a driver that makes it work and nvidia for showing it can work with out rt cores (titan V) and not offering a driver that makes it at least work on pascal.


----------



## SystemMechanic (Jan 27, 2019)

Okay, most people probably havent even played this demo. I finally had to make an account after following TPU since 2008. because the website quality seems to be degrading since last year.

1. So many click bait articles.
2. Lots of spelling mistakes and other mistakes where RTX 2080Ti is suddenly a RTX 1080Ti in the following paragraph.


I am not sure how Wizzard benched the game but I I have played this and the 4k Numbers are wrong for the 2080Ti. Would be helpful if he posted all the the other numbers like his clock speeds, tempsand system specs.

With my 5Ghz 8700k, 2666 RAM OC'd to 2800Mhz, 2080Ti running at 2040-2055Mhz and 16gbps on VRAM  I dont even get avg 60fps. 

*AT 4k:*

So these benchmark numbers dont really represent actual gameplay numbers. In fact they are not even close. I get FPS dps to as low as 40fps during group play in strongholds. card struggles to hold 60fps on ultra so let alone 72fps.

The game seems to be CPU heavy even at 4k, usage goes upto 50% with 60fps cap and shoots to 80-90% if the cap is removed.

So you can all stop defending. Play the game for and test for yourself.

Wizzard needs to add 1% lows as well.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 27, 2019)

SystemMechanic said:


> Snip...



Couple points in no specific order

I'm willing to bet that for every person who benches the game, there will be a different set of results.
Live action games are really hard to produce consistent results.
1% is within margin of error.
EA sucks and should be avoided.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 27, 2019)

or you guys could just don't bother trying out the demo build of the game entirely & keep it to yourselves. No one is pushing you into playing the game or even have such a luxury in spending one's time benching a game that's still in beta phase with different GPUs using the latest driver build, changing to the next GPU & redo the entire bench all over again etc. Benchmarking is not an easy task, no matter how you look at it. If you're not happy with how w1zz do, how about go start your own testing methodology & show some proofs other than crapping here all day saying that the results are "not feasible".


----------



## Divide Overflow (Jan 27, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> Only EA could be incompetent enough to put an activation limit on a demo.


I'm surprised they didn't monetize it and make a micro-transaction to reset activation counters.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 27, 2019)

with all the negative backlash they've been getting lately, I doubt they're stupid enough to pull a fast one on the already angry consumers.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 27, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Core i9 and Threadripper relative performance in games is about the same as the 8700K, and 2700X, no sense in spending 800+ on HEDT when you gain no gaming performance advantage to offset the cost.


except for high refresh gaming where threadripper straight up sucks,ryzen is very mediocre and x299 cpus are still lagging behind the mainstream i7s and i9.
even when comparin clock for clock and with faster memory, ryzen just can't keep up with 8700k when it comes to high refresh gaming














cdawall said:


> There is no hardware requirement for raytracing to work so I am personally upset with amd for not pushing a driver that makes it work and nvidia for showing it can work with out rt cores (titan V) and not offering a driver that makes it at least work on pascal.


RTX works on Titan V,but it's slower than flagship RTX cards. Down to 2060-2070 level.


----------



## Nkd (Jan 27, 2019)

y0y0 said:


> it also costs 2.5x less...



na more like 3-3.5x. Vega 64 is around 400-450 now and most 2080ti's are around  1200-1600.



SystemMechanic said:


> Okay, most people probably havent even played this demo. I finally had to make an account after following TPU since 2008. because the website quality seems to be degrading since last year.
> 
> 1. So many click bait articles.
> 2. Lots of spelling mistakes and other mistakes where RTX 2080Ti is suddenly a RTX 1080Ti in the following paragraph.
> ...



I have been reading the same on reddit. Almost everyone unanimously is agreeing that these numbers are way off. And wondering how it was tested because I read almost the same thing in game play there numbers are no were close to numbers in this review.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 27, 2019)

he probably just benched the prlogue not actual gameplay.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 27, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Because it's the only site that has ever messed up benchmarks, right..? That's a very sweeping statement imho and unless you can prove something is wrong here, you can keep it to yourself.


Didn't say it's the only site which sometimes messes up their results.
But since you asked, here's a recent one: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/30.html 
High and Medium are not supposed to be close together in performance, Low and Medium and High and Ultra are, this is shown by every single other BFV DXR benchmark, including TPUs benchmarks on the other RTX cards.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 27, 2019)

Kaotik said:


> Didn't say it's the only site which sometimes messes up their results.
> But since you asked, here's a recent one: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/30.html
> *High and Medium are not supposed to be close together in performance,* Low and Medium and High and Ultra are, this is shown by every single other BFV DXR benchmark, including TPUs benchmarks on the other RTX cards.


well that all depends on the choice of the scene.
what is it with all those friggin know it all experts on tpu recently ?
are you the same person ?

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/why-are-reviewers-so-lazy-not-talking-about-tpu.251199/

no one asks you to take tpus results as the only ones,get some perspective.
if that's a recurring pattern then it's not a one-off result.

I for example tend to think their choice of locations for cpu-bound gaming tests is not representative of what you may experience in the most cpu-intensive parts of games,and their ram tests are likewise. But that provides me with another perspective of how things will run in scenarios other than cpu-bound.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> well that all depends on the choice of the scene.


In case of BFV DXR, no it doesn't, there's clear cut difference in the settings, high and ultra are similar, low and medium are similar, it's seen in both the actual effects themselves as well as in performance.
It's not that hard, even TPU's own earlier results contradict the RTX 2060 ones.


> what is it with all those friggin know it all experts on tpu recently ?


I've mainly activated here after noticing worrysome trends in news reporting on the site going down hill.


> are you the same person ?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/why-are-reviewers-so-lazy-not-talking-about-tpu.251199/


Nope


> no one asks you to take tpus results as the only ones,get some perspective.
> if that's a recurring pattern then it's not a one-off result.


No-one said anything like that. I was asked to back up my claim that "even though W1z surely knows what he's doing, he still gets his results messed up sometimes", so I did.


----------



## nguyen (Jan 27, 2019)

SystemMechanic said:


> Okay, most people probably havent even played this demo. I finally had to make an account after following TPU since 2008. because the website quality seems to be degrading since last year.
> 
> 1. So many click bait articles.
> 2. Lots of spelling mistakes and other mistakes where RTX 2080Ti is suddenly a RTX 1080Ti in the following paragraph.
> ...




Lol, if you know a game is CPU intensive yet don't even realize your system RAM might be holding you back, next time may be research harder before you start your bashing. I mean W1 benchmark with 16Gb @ 3867 MHz 18-19-19-39  (as every other video card review he did) compare to your 16 GB @ 2666mhz OCd to 2800mhz at who know what timings could result in massive fps differences. BTW I would think twice about putting highest end GPU together with bargain bin RAM lol.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 27, 2019)

I just love how the AMD fanboys needs to come up with excuses as soon as they see their company fail. The article clearly says they are using adrenaline 19.1.2 which is anthem optimized driver,fanboys are still giving driver excuses for red team's failure. Also this game wasn't gimped/sponsored. It uses frostbyte engine which is AMD biased and yet AMD fails on a neutral frostbyte engine game.



Nkd said:


> na more like 3-3.5x. Vega 64 is around 400-450 now and most 2080ti's are around  1200-1600.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been reading the same on reddit. Almost everyone unanimously is agreeing that these numbers are way off. And wondering how it was tested because I read almost the same thing in game play there numbers are no were close to numbers in this review.



Vega 64 is 500$+. And good RTX 2080Ti is easily found in 1300$ region. So yeah, it's 2.5x. Stop exaggerating things.
Also these numbers are 100% accurate. Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 27, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.



No correction.  Only delusional people get this worked up.  On either side.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 27, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> I just love how the AMD fanboys needs to come up with excuses as soon as they see their company fail. The article clearly says they are using adrenaline 19.1.2 which is anthem optimized driver,fanboys are still giving driver excuses for red team's failure. Also this game wasn't gimped/sponsored. It uses frostbyte engine which is AMD biased and yet AMD fails on a neutral frostbyte engine game.
> 
> Vega 64 is 500$+. And good RTX 2080Ti is easily found in 1300$ region. So yeah, it's 2.5x. Stop exaggerating things.
> Also these numbers are 100% accurate. Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.


I'm not sure who you're referring to with the "AMD fanboys", but I find it hilarious how you first call Frostbite (not byte) AMD biased engine and then you call it neutral, try to make up your mind.


----------



## msimax (Jan 27, 2019)

just finished  playing and vega is memory starved in this game  oc hbm to 1155 and 1440p is 60 to 72 \ 4k is 45 to 52fps


----------



## Upgrayedd (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> Vega 64 is 500$+



No


----------



## Nkd (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> I just love how the AMD fanboys needs to come up with excuses as soon as they see their company fail. The article clearly says they are using adrenaline 19.1.2 which is anthem optimized driver,fanboys are still giving driver excuses for red team's failure. Also this game wasn't gimped/sponsored. It uses frostbyte engine which is AMD biased and yet AMD fails on a neutral frostbyte engine game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not sure where you are seeing that. Seriously you are just going to outright lie what Vega 64s are going for? Jeez! 399 at Newegg for reference with 3 free games. $369.99 on Newegg eBay brand new. What did I say about 2080ti I have the range. I didn’t say they were all 1500+. So go back and check again on Vega 64 prices before you say I am making things up and exaggerating. You must have been living under a rock where you haven’t seen the Vega 64 prices for a few months.

And lol at frostbite being AMD biased. And you call everyone else amd fanboy but yet managed to sound like nvidia fanboy. Haha.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

Kaotik said:


> I'm not sure who you're referring to with the "AMD fanboys", but I find it hilarious how you first call Frostbite (not byte) AMD biased engine and then you call it neutral, try to make up your mind.



Actually what i meant is the frostbite (it was auto correcting) engine itself is AMD favouring. But the game itself is neutral as it wasn't sponsored by neither of the company nor it has any gimping such as nvidia gameworks.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Not sure where you are seeing that. Seriously you are just going to outright lie what Vega 64s are going for? Jeez! 399 at Newegg for reference with 3 free games. $369.99 on Newegg eBay brand new. What did I say about 2080ti I have the range. I didn’t say they were all 1500+. So go back and check again on Vega 64 prices before you say I am making things up and exaggerating. You must have been living under a rock where you haven’t seen the Vega 64 prices for a few months.
> 
> And lol at frostbite being AMD biased. And you call everyone else amd fanboy but yet managed to sound like nvidia fanboy. Haha.



I don't really care about what i sound like cz i have owned several gpus from both brands and currently using vega 56. Also i said brand new prices of Vega 64, those prices you said are of used/refurbished vega 64.


----------



## shadad (Jan 28, 2019)

will GTX 1060 able to run this game on Ultra settings?


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

shadad said:


> will GTX 1060 able to run this game on Ultra settings?



Yes,with 55-58fps.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 28, 2019)

Should be able to at 1080p. Though you may need to turn off anti-aliasing if you want to reach near 60fps. Some OCing is needed.


----------



## SystemMechanic (Jan 28, 2019)

nguyen said:


> Lol, if you know a game is CPU intensive yet don't even realize your system RAM might be holding you back, next time may be research harder before you start your bashing. I mean W1 benchmark with 16Gb @ 3867 MHz 18-19-19-39  (as every other video card review he did) compare to your 16 GB @ 2666mhz OCd to 2800mhz at who know what timings could result in massive fps differences. BTW I would think twice about putting highest end GPU together with bargain bin RAM lol.




Then He needs to Bench it with other lower speed RAM, like 3000 or 3200Mhz, Not everyone uses 4000Mhz ram and Ram shoudnt make 12fps + difference at 4k resolution.

BFV uses the same engine and my FPS matches with TPU's benchmarks, both use same engine.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I guess you forgot its not the 1990s anymore.
> It runs very well on nvidia cards,amd just have to follow with another driver.If they followed your logic their cards would be a broken mess in most of current gen games.



Ahem. Also, take note of the _actual FPS. _






@TheGuruStud is correct. Devs need to fix their shit. BFV is a very unique Frostbite example because _both AMD and Nvidia_ have extensively been in-house to optimize it help the blundering DICE devs out. But they really shouldn't have to; the GPU hardware isn't magically changing or anything.



SystemMechanic said:


> Wizzard needs to add 1% lows as well.



Yes, yes he really does. 100% agreed. But I do not doubt his accuracy, regardless.



cucker tarlson said:


> looks like cpu overhead on amd cards,may be resolved in drivers unless they drag their ass with solving it like they did in some many other dx11 games. matching a 2060 is where V64 is at so no surprises there. 1440p performance numbers look good,I'd be very glad to see my 1080Ti run at 100 fps.
> 
> I guess the amd driver was not game-ready for anthem after all.



I'm not seeing the CPU overhead here, Vega is right about where it should be, across all resolutions. 56 under a 1070, and 64 just over it. Can it improve a few %, sure it probably can. The REAL outlier here is *in fact the GTX 1070 at 1440p. *To me this looks a lot like lacking optimizations on the developer side, not so much Nv/AMD. Pascal's performance is abysmal compared to Turing's, for example. No blanket statement about either camp would be accurate.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> Actually what i meant is the frostbite (it was auto correcting) engine itself is AMD favouring. But the game itself is neutral as it wasn't sponsored by neither of the company nor it has any gimping such as nvidia gameworks.


What exactly makes you think it's "AMD favouring"? Yes, they did include Mantle support at a time, but considering that DICE was spearheading the need for new API, that's only logical and tells nothing about "favouring" one manufacturer over the other.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2019)

siluro818 said:


> Why is it that everyone over here seems to forget that the Vega counterpoints are GTX1070 for 56 & GTX1080 for 64 respectively?
> 
> Vega 56 beats 1070 at 1440p & 4K and we would probably have the very same situation with 1080 & 64 (had the former been tested), which is more or less exactly what you would expect with a Frostbite engine.
> 
> ...



Anthem+EA and RTX seem like a great match. I'll see myself out now 



moproblems99 said:


> It goes both ways.  God forbid someone looks at DXR without eyes of lust.



I think RTX hate is getting more clicks to be fair with you  I think what's most important is to pick some extreme and go hard on it.


----------



## erixx (Jan 28, 2019)

hangs always after the intro walking first mission loading, uninstalled.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

Kaotik said:


> What exactly makes you think it's "AMD favouring"? Yes, they did include Mantle support at a time, but considering that DICE was spearheading the need for new API, that's only logical and tells nothing about "favouring" one manufacturer over the other.



Frostbite engine was basically made for BF games and they were tightly engineered for AMD in their minds. I'm surprised that you don't know that a game engine can be specifically tailored towards an specific branded gpu. For example,unreal engine is tailored towards Nvidia. Just ask any game engine developer. It's also quite common knowledge among pc gaming enthusiasts that frostbite engine is AMD biased,Radeon biased to be precised.


----------



## Gasaraki (Jan 28, 2019)

That is so stupid, activations on graphics card changes? Something that gamers might do a lot?



TheGuruStud said:


> You have this the wrong way around. Game devs need to fix their shit. Nvidia/AMD have been fixing their junk for far too long. If it were coded correctly, then there wouldn't be any issues and you wouldn't need a new driver to play a game. I guess everyone just forgets the 90s/early 00s. To make it worse, it's using Frostbite. Nothing should even have to be done for good performance all around.
> 
> Release is in a month and this is the state it's in? LOL. Another joke ruined by EA is what I see.



I agree. The developers have the current cards and drivers. They can't optimize their own game with drivers that are out right now? They waiting for some magically ability that only future drivers can provide?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> Frostbite engine was basically made for BF games and they were tightly engineered for AMD in their minds. I'm surprised that you don't know that a game engine can be specifically tailored towards an specific branded gpu. For example,unreal engine is tailored towards Nvidia. Just ask any game engine developer. It's also quite common knowledge among pc gaming enthusiasts that frostbite engine is AMD biased,Radeon biased to be precised.



Sorry, but most gamers are wrong. Including you.

Even the quote you linked to: AMD has worked with DICE for _*Battlefield. *_Not for Frostbite as an engine. Engines are not biased. They are objective, neutral, its code. What _does_ happen is that _specific architectures are better suited_ to work with certain engines. That is precisely the other way around. Engines are not built for GPU architectures (at least, not in our generic gaming space anymore) - engines are iterative, and last many generations of GPUs. And in between Engine and GPU, there is one vital part you've forgotten about: an abstraction layer, or, an API like DX11/DX12/Vulkan. That is part of the reason why engines can be iterative. The API does the translation work, to put it simply.

Look at NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation Engine, nearly two decades worth of games built on it. Ubisoft's Anvil is another example, used in games for the past ten years, multiple consoles and platforms.

Look at the Vega performance for Anthem compared to Battlefield. Literally nothing aligns so far with the idea that Frostbite is 'biased towards AMD'. If anything, that just applies to Battlefield, which makes sense, but that is mostly attributable not even to the _engine_, but to the API. AMD worked with DICE to implement _Mantle, _and many bits are similar between it and DX12/Vulkan.

Oh, one final note; Frostbite games have released on the PS3 (Nvidia GPU) long before AMD came to visit DICE.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(engine)


----------



## Gasaraki (Jan 28, 2019)

unikin said:


> I'm sick and tired of lazy devs and greedy publishers, pushing unfinished products down our throats.  Most of today's game releases would be called beta 20 years back. Just look at Assassins Creed Odyssey joke, 30 fps (0.1 % - 16 fps ) at 4K with GTX 1080 TI and that is $60 game! Lousy code optimization is performance killer, no matter what kind of monster hardware you own. Most publishers don't give a f... about PC gaming anymore. 90 % of the games are criminally badly optimized console ports.



Do you know how many pixels 4K is pushing? Most of you asshats are still using 1080p monitors. I've never even used 1080p monitors ever, went from 1280x1024 to 1920x1200 and now 3440x1440. People, stop buying 1080p monitors and maybe they'll care about optimizing for 4K resolutions.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> Frostbite engine was basically made for BF games and they were tightly engineered for AMD in their minds. I'm surprised that you don't know that a game engine can be specifically tailored towards an specific branded gpu. For example,unreal engine is tailored towards Nvidia. Just ask any game engine developer. It's also quite common knowledge among pc gaming enthusiasts that frostbite engine is AMD biased,Radeon biased to be precised.


@Vayra86 said it better than I could have already for the most parts, though you are right about Unreal Engine these days, only for wrong reasons. Only way Unreal Engine is "tailored towards NVIDIA" is the inclusion of NVIDIA specific features in the base engine, but that doesn't mean that game developer using Unreal Engine would have to use those features. On that base, one could argue that including Mantle was "tailoring towards AMD" but since DICE was actually spearheading the need and development of the API, I wouldn't count it as such - and even then not all games using Frostbite at the time included the support - it was built-in as an option, just like the NVIDIA stuff in Unreal Engine.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2019)

Gasaraki said:


> Do you know how many pixels 4K is pushing? Most of you asshats are still using 1080p monitors. I've never even used 1080p monitors ever, went from 1280x1024 to 1920x1200 and now 3440x1440. People, stop buying 1080p monitors and maybe they'll care about optimizing for 4K resolutions.



Or... maybe don't adopt 4K for a gaming monitor and keep it sane instead, so you don't have to multiply your horsepower by the same ratio as your pixel count.

Why did anyone expect GPUs to suddenly be able to push 4x as many pixels comfortably as they've done for the last ten years? If you want to early adopt, don't whine about all the bad things that come with it. You're in a niche, deal with it. Not so sure why 'asshats are _still' _using 1080p monitors in your view, its a pretty solid sweetspot resolution for a normal viewing distance and gaming. It is without any shadow of a doubt _the most optimal_ use of your GPU horsepower given the PPI of typical monitors. In that sense 4K is horribly wasteful, you render shitloads of pixels you'll never notice.



Kaotik said:


> @Vayra86 said it better than I could have already for the most parts, though you are right about Unreal Engine these days, only for wrong reasons. Only way Unreal Engine is "tailored towards NVIDIA" is the inclusion of NVIDIA specific features in the base engine, but that doesn't mean that game developer using Unreal Engine would have to use those features. On that base, one could argue that including Mantle was "tailoring towards AMD" but since DICE was actually spearheading the need and development of the API, I wouldn't count it as such - and even then not all games using Frostbite at the time included the support - it was built-in as an option, just like the NVIDIA stuff in Unreal Engine.



Correct, I wasn't going to go into that but its true, and on top of that, there IS an issue with AMD's DX11 drivers that are higher on overhead like @cucker tarlson pointed out. Just not so sure that Anthem suffers from that issue specifically. On UE4 you're already seeing a somewhat different picture right about now.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Sorry, but most gamers are wrong. Including you.
> 
> Even the quote you linked to: AMD has worked with DICE for _*Battlefield. *_Not for Frostbite as an engine. Engines are not biased. They are objective, neutral, its code. What _does_ happen is that _specific architectures are better suited_ to work with certain engines. That is precisely the other way around. Engines are not built for GPU architectures (at least, not in our generic gaming space anymore) - engines are iterative, and last many generations of GPUs. And in between Engine and GPU, there is one vital part you've forgotten about: an abstraction layer, or, an API like DX11/DX12/Vulkan. That is part of the reason why engines can be iterative. The API does the translation work, to put it simply.
> 
> ...



well you might be right actually. Thanks for the info bro. Also i agree why BF games always favours AMD,i thought it was game engine's fault. I thought the frostbite engine was designed in a manner to favour AMD's architecture as you said in - "_specific architectures are better suited_ to work with certain engines". But yeah the anthem score also made me think about that frostbite and AMD collab. Also AnvilNext looks like nvidia favouring without having any nvidia related tech included. Care to explain that?



Kaotik said:


> @Vayra86 said it better than I could have already for the most parts, though you are right about Unreal Engine these days, only for wrong reasons. Only way Unreal Engine is "tailored towards NVIDIA" is the inclusion of NVIDIA specific features in the base engine, but that doesn't mean that game developer using Unreal Engine would have to use those features. On that base, one could argue that including Mantle was "tailoring towards AMD" but since DICE was actually spearheading the need and development of the API, I wouldn't count it as such - and even then not all games using Frostbite at the time included the support - it was built-in as an option, just like the NVIDIA stuff in Unreal Engine.



It may be the case in only BF games cz BF games always seem to favour AMD a lot regardless of API implementation. Also many UE4 games don't use nvidia tech but still runs better on nvidia. But i do agree with him,may b it's not the game engine but rather the game's development regardless of sponsorship.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> well you might be right actually. Thanks for the info bro. Also i agree why BF games always favours AMD,i thought it was game engine's fault. I thought the frostbite engine was designed in a manner to favour AMD's architecture as you said in - "_specific architectures are better suited_ to work with certain engines". But yeah the anthem score also made me think about that frostbite and AMD collab. Also AnvilNext looks like nvidia favouring without having any nvidia related tech included. Care to explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> It may be the case in only BF games cz BF games always seem to favour AMD a lot regardless of API implementation. Also many UE4 games don't use nvidia tech but still runs better on nvidia. But i do agree with him,may b it's not the game engine but rather the game's development regardless of sponsorship.



Many Ubisoft games are sponsored or supported by Nvidia GameWorks. TurfEffects, HBAO+, enhanced God Rays... the list is endless. Some of these GameWorks effects are more efficient than their non-GameWorks counterparts on Nvidia cards. Another one is TXAA, it was introduced with Assassins Creed 3, for example... that's just off the top of my head.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 28, 2019)

all big ubi titles I played recently were nvidia sponsored. been that was since ac black flag. watch dogs 2 has more nvidia options than I can list. odyssey is not but nvidia's driver team are always game-ready with a driver for such a big title so you wouln't feel that,


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Many Ubisoft games are sponsored or supported by Nvidia GameWorks. TurfEffects, HBAO+, enhanced God Rays... the list is endless. Some of these GameWorks effects are more efficient than their non-GameWorks counterparts on Nvidia cards. Another one is TXAA, it was introduced with Assassins Creed 3, for example... that's just off the top of my head.



AC Odyssey(AnvilNext) is AMD sponsored and optimized, also it doesn't have any nvidia tech/features. Still it runs much better on nvidia than AMD. Origin wasn't sponsored/optimized for any particular brand and it neither had any nvidia tech/features included,still it performs better on nvidia.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> AC Odyssey(AnvilNext) is AMD sponsored and optimized, also it doesn't have any nvidia tech/features. Still it runs much better on nvidia than AMD.


so you'd call that nvidia biased instead of giving creadit to their driver support.whether it's amd sponsored is not debatable.whether amd optimized it is very questionable.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

Whatever, the main thing was, AMD already have Anthem optimized adrenaline 19.1.2 as mentioned in TPU article. So don't come with the driver excuse and RTX 2060 is much cheaper than Vega 56/64 and gives much better performance. AMD have always had DX11 driver issue so don't expect any better than this from them. Also only some AMD fanboys are denying this article's credibility bcz they can't cope with the failure of red team even if that's just one game. It's very common among AMD community to diss any article/review where AMD is under performing and needs to come up with excuses to win the day. Even though i use AMD hardware,i just stay away from these brainless AMD communities.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 28, 2019)

I wouldn't take any of these results seriously. By the time Anthem releases I bet both AMD and Nvidia will have a driver release that will improve performance. The VIP demo is not even using the gold build of the game (apparently it is using a 6+ week old build). I'd love a proper performance review of Anthem after it releases. Also, the amount of fanboyism around here is surprising and its sad to see. Come on dudes....


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> so you'd call that nvidia biased instead of giving creadit to their driver support.whether it's amd sponsored is not debatable.whether amd optimized it is very questionable.



It's not about blaming or denying. The thing is, i think it's actually the game engine's fault regardless of sponsorship. That's why frostbite engine games such as battlefield,battlefront,fifa 17-19, ME Andromeda all favoured AMD and also for same reason,almost every UE4 engine game,AnvilNext engine game favours nvidia regardless of who have sponsored it. I might be wrong so i was just asking,as that other guy seems to know this stuff.



johnnyfiive said:


> I wouldn't take any of these results seriously. By the time Anthem releases I bet both AMD and Nvidia will have a driver release that will improve performance. Also.... the VIP demo is not even using the gold build of the game (apparently it is using some 6+ week old build). I'd love a proper performance review of Anthem after it releases.



That seems reasonable and i was going to say the same thing next  the final product and the final drivers would have very different end result compared to this chart. And yeah BioWare producer Mike Darrah said this demo is actually almost 6 weeks older build.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> so you'd call that nvidia biased instead of giving creadit to their driver support.whether it's amd sponsored is not debatable.whether amd optimized it is very questionable.


Yeah I get “AMD Features” in Odyssey and FC5 for HDR  there’s a Freesync 2 setting as opposed to generic HDR. Also FC5 gets Rapid Packed Math, not sure about AC. But neither of those things would have any effect on NV performance.


----------



## M2B (Jan 28, 2019)

R4WN4K said:


> It's not about blaming or denying. The thing is, i think it's actually the game engine's fault regardless of sponsorship. That's why frostbite engine games such as battlefield,battlefront,fifa 17-19, ME Andromeda all favoured AMD and also for same reason,almost every UE4 engine game,AnvilNext engine game favours nvidia regardless of who have sponsored it. I might be wrong so i was just asking,as that other guy seems to know this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> That seems reasonable and i was going to say the same thing next  the final product and the final drivers would have very different end result compared to this chart. And yeah BioWare producer Mike Darrah said this demo is actually almost 6 weeks older build.



Andromeda didn't favour AMD.
All bioware titles this gen were better on nvidia.

Turing is a very impressive architecture technically, turing cards perform really well on both pascal and GCN favored titles.
I don't think there will be any specific engine or game that will perform signficantly better on GCN versus turing [relatively] which was the case for GCN vs. Pascal.


----------



## Kaotik (Jan 28, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Yeah I get “AMD Features” in Odyssey and FC5 for HDR  there’s a Freesync 2 setting as opposed to generic HDR. Also FC5 gets Rapid Packed Math, not sure about AC. But neither of those things would have any effect on NV performance.


Rapid Packed Math (aka half precision / FP16) helps Volta & Turing too


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 28, 2019)

Kaotik said:


> Rapid Packed Math (aka half precision / FP16) helps Volta & Turing too


Yeah we all benefit from our compute units that’ are  generally underutilized.


----------



## PCB (Jan 29, 2019)

Was your 2080ti using liquid nitrogen for the 4k results? My titan RTX water cooled and shunted was struggling to push low 60’s at 2100MHz. You guys must be staring at a wall to get 72fps in 4k. At 9:55 card gets overclocked


----------



## Shobit (Jan 29, 2019)

M2B said:


> The problem is that even in AMD sponsored titles such AC odyssey and RE2 Remake they kinda suck unfortunately.
> View attachment 115152
> Vega 64 is only half as fast as a 2080Ti at 4K.


Minimun fps is not the whole story...


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 29, 2019)

johnnyfiive said:


> I wouldn't take any of these results seriously. By the time Anthem releases I bet both AMD and Nvidia will have a driver release that will improve performance. The VIP demo is not even using the gold build of the game (apparently it is using a 6+ week old build). I'd love a proper performance review of Anthem after it releases. Also, the amount of fanboyism around here is surprising and its sad to see. Come on dudes....


O.H........


Hai neighbor (Cbus)!!


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 30, 2019)

> At 1080p, it looks like the game is running into a CPU bottleneck with our Core i7-8700K (note how the scores for RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti are very close together).



is 144+fps really needed for playing rpg?
and those who have gtx 1080Ti and RTX 2080 or better should really play games at higher resolutions than 1080p anyway
unless they are making a living off CS

As I keep telling people in Toms forums we still don't need super expensive cpus like i9 9900K or even i7 8700K/9700K to play the latest triple A games
just save your money for a good high res monitor and a good GPU, unless of course you want to play games "professionally"


----------



## rvalencia (Jan 31, 2019)

efikkan said:


> What is your point? RTX 2070 is far beyond Vega 64, with nearly comparable fillrate.
> Your claim is still incorrect, Vega 64 is not ROP limited, nor is it bandwidth or Gflop limited.
> 
> GCN's problem is saturation of resources, which is why it struggles more on lower resolutions than higher.
> ...


Wrong, If AMD is promoting async compute which uses TMU as read/write units, then there is ROPS bound issues.



efikkan said:


> GCN's problem is saturation of resources, which is why it struggles more on lower resolutions than higher.


This is not correct,  lower resolution with high frame rates requires lowest latency and highest narrow parallelism performance . 

NVIDIA's higher clock speed leads to lower latency with the workload loop





At higher resolution, there's a higher chance for very wide parallelism workloads which has higher benefits for AMD's lower clock speed GCNs.




Zubasa said:


> GCN so far are Geometry bound, GCN has been stuck on 4 Geometry Engines since Hawaii / 290X.
> Vega was suppose to have new features to by-pass that limit, but RTG never managed to get it to work, so it ended up just being a higher clocked Fiji.
> One of the reasons why Polaris performs as well as Hawaii with half the ROP etc, it is still limited to 4 Geometry Engines (other optimizations aside), which is much less of an issue on a mid-range GPU vs a high-end.


Raja Koduri joined AMD in 2013 and under Koduri administration, RTG has focused on TFLOPS increase without increasing quad raster engine unit count.

Hawaii doesn't have Polaris delta color compression improvements.
Hawaii doesn't have Polaris 2MB L2 cache improvements. Hawaii has 1MB L2 cache for it's TMUs.

It's most likely VII is stuck in quad raster engine unit count.


----------



## psyph3r (Jan 31, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Well, that's always the thing with AMD's GPUs isn't it? We're always waiting for that big optimization to arrive and finally unleash the performance. I remember it was claimed at the launch of both Polaris and Vega; don't judge it yet - it will become much better over time!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, AMD should certainly prioritize making the best drivers possible, and there might be some marginal gains to be had here. But their focus on "optimizing" is by manipulating the games (which Nvidia also does), and I'm sure that if they reallocated these resources on actual driver optimizations, they could get some gains.
> 
> But still, any driver optimization to unlock a massive gain is highly unlikely.


Massive gains over time are a regular occurrence for amd cards. Just look at where all the amd cards sat a year ago vs now.


----------



## Frutika007 (Jan 31, 2019)

psyph3r said:


> Massive gains over time are a regular occurrence for amd cards. Just look at where all the amd cards sat a year ago vs now.



They are still sitting there as they were a year ago. No performance gain over time.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 31, 2019)

rvalencia said:


> Wrong, If AMD is promoting async compute which uses TMU as read/write units, then there is ROPS bound issues.


Not at all. The reason why GCN get larger gains with some async compute workloads is underutilized resources. Nvidia is much better at saturating their GPU cores, and therefore the gain is much smaller.


----------



## royal_flashman (Feb 1, 2019)

Just FYI, AMD have a driver update to improve performance:

https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-19-1-2


----------



## efikkan (Feb 1, 2019)

Wake me up when AMD releases a driver which gives 15% across the board. "Up to 7%" in one game is not going to cut it.


----------



## Frutika007 (Feb 1, 2019)

royal_flashman said:


> Just FYI, AMD have a driver update to improve performance:
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-19-1-2



just FYI, read the article first carefully then come to comment. It's writter clearly that they used 19.1.2 version, the one that you gave the link.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Feb 1, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> O.H........
> 
> 
> Hai neighbor (Cbus)!!



I.O!!!


----------

