| JEMC said: And now, to add even more gasoline into this fire, I've read a preview for this game's performance without using AA at [H]ardocp, and guess what? If your card has less than 3GB of RAM, forget about enabling Ultra textures... and even the 3GB 780 and 780Ti struggle with it while the 290X handles Ultra with just a minor performance drop http://hardocp.com/article/2014/05/27/watch_dogs_amd_nvidia_gpu_performance_preview/1 |
Ya...if only that Forbes article included proper GPU testing of this game. The little detail they forgot to mention is how a $330 770 2GB flops hard against a $270-300 R9 280X (and that would mean against a 7950/7970/7970Ghz) at 1080p since it can't run Ultra textures.
While looking at the average frames per second, 780Ti SLI beats R9 290X, the frame latency graphs reveal stuttering on the much more expensive NV setup from Guru3D review:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dogs_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
"The AMD Radeon R9 295 was doing better, very likely due to its larges graphics memory partitions. Mind you that these tests have been performed at Ultra quality."
The problem with GameWorks is that it prevents a developer to accept feedback/recommendations from the competitor. In the end, that hurts 40% of the consumers. If GameWorks worked in conjuction with AMD's Gaming Evolved developer relationships, then gamers would have a maximum amount of features to use as things like TressFX or Forward+ is brand agnostic unlike TXAA and PhysX.
