- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,785 (0.58/day)
- Location
- New Zealand
System Name | MoneySink |
---|---|
Processor | 2600K @ 4.8 |
Motherboard | P8Z77-V |
Cooling | AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower |
Memory | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8 |
Video Card(s) | GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.) |
Storage | Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB) |
Display(s) | Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS |
Case | NZXT Switch 810 |
Audio Device(s) | onboard Realtek yawn edition |
Power Supply | Seasonic X-1050 |
Software | Win8.1 Pro |
Benchmark Scores | 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes. |
Quite true.The game, and resolution. It's true it isn't a huge penalty but to make a blanket statement like that makes it false as there are plenty of games/resolutions that show WAY more loss than 1 fps.
AMD disabled AF for a reason, not on a whim. Benchmarking AF isn't usually done in reviews because it's generally an automatic check-boxed image quality setting. The only one I managed to find that is relatively recent (i.e. comparing the impact on GCN) is HardOCP's Watch Dogs performance review
Nvidia GTX 780 Ti - virtually no penalty......................................................................................................................................AMD R9 290X ~ 6% performance hit
I'm pretty sure that AMD worked out the optimal settings to best showcase their product - and leaving AF disabled seems to one of them. If it were inconsequential, I'm sure they would have left enabled as most reviewers and users would.