OP
r4gs
In the zone
Not bottlenecked at 3x1080p? Good point but it really isn't practical. Especially since most nVidia cards come with only 2xDVI outputs and we don't normally benchmark SLI set-ups. As I pointed out earlier, the benchmarks are for all cards, from the humble 520 to the 7970 and beyond.
Also, if you're going to get a 100fps at 1080p you can rest assured the card is quite capable.
Regarding the X79 and RAM, I never meant it that way. Sorry. What I wanted to say was that we got our brand new X79 and ASUS HD7970, excitedly set up the whole rig, and then realised that all our 2133MHz, triple channel kits had 1 dead module.
We are getting replacements and will inform you guys what we get when we get it. I actually do want to check out for myself if single channel, dual channel and so on makes any appreciable difference in performance. A story for another time.
Unigene is a synthetic benchmark, it is meant to stress all aspects of the system. The fact that AMD cannot handle extreme levels of tessellation is a short-coming on their part. Its not like physx or something which is nVidia specific. That said, we do run 2 tests with Unigene, one maxxed out and one at 720p and no tessellation, with more weightage being given to the 720p score as it is run across all cards.
Anyway, that is what we normally do and this is a new year, so, new tests.
To get this sorted, what would you guys suggest, we ignore the fact that AMD hasn't handled tessellation as well as nVidia, in an extreme situation no doubt, but one that matters for high-end gaming, and completely leave anything more than moderate tesselation out of all our tests? In fact, do you think it is alright to leave Crysis 2 as long as there is no tesselation?
What we do normally is run a standard set of tests across all graphics cards, at medium settings, for reference. Then, we run some tests at low settings for the low to lower-mid range cards and then some higher-resolution tests for higher-mid range cards onwards. Should we include extreme tessellation in these tests or not and why?
Also, if you're going to get a 100fps at 1080p you can rest assured the card is quite capable.
Regarding the X79 and RAM, I never meant it that way. Sorry. What I wanted to say was that we got our brand new X79 and ASUS HD7970, excitedly set up the whole rig, and then realised that all our 2133MHz, triple channel kits had 1 dead module.
We are getting replacements and will inform you guys what we get when we get it. I actually do want to check out for myself if single channel, dual channel and so on makes any appreciable difference in performance. A story for another time.
Unigene is a synthetic benchmark, it is meant to stress all aspects of the system. The fact that AMD cannot handle extreme levels of tessellation is a short-coming on their part. Its not like physx or something which is nVidia specific. That said, we do run 2 tests with Unigene, one maxxed out and one at 720p and no tessellation, with more weightage being given to the 720p score as it is run across all cards.
Anyway, that is what we normally do and this is a new year, so, new tests.
To get this sorted, what would you guys suggest, we ignore the fact that AMD hasn't handled tessellation as well as nVidia, in an extreme situation no doubt, but one that matters for high-end gaming, and completely leave anything more than moderate tesselation out of all our tests? In fact, do you think it is alright to leave Crysis 2 as long as there is no tesselation?
What we do normally is run a standard set of tests across all graphics cards, at medium settings, for reference. Then, we run some tests at low settings for the low to lower-mid range cards and then some higher-resolution tests for higher-mid range cards onwards. Should we include extreme tessellation in these tests or not and why?
