Ye well I bought ps4 for Bloodborne first but I was going to buy it down the road anyway, this year actually has some great ps4 exclusives on the way(finally)
For curiosity, does anyone know exactly how resolution works with this game? If it's 1080p, it's the 720p+ temporal reconstruction, so what's 1440p? 900p+ temporal reconstruction? What about 4K?
something like that and 4k being 1440p
Makes sense. Never heard of anything like this, i'd imagine you'd have to run it at 4K before it started to look halfway crisp on a monitor.
Game needs a few patches for sure
Ye I did try running it on 4k with DSR, the image quality certainly gets better but it's literally unplayable, it gets so unresponsive it's just not worth it
@ronvalencia: that seems very odd, how the hell are they getting lower results on 1080p than others on 1440p? I have higher avg fps than that on 1440p
that being said literally every benchmark QB has shown different results so far
A few differences
OC's setup has 4 module 4GB memory setup.
PCGH setup has 2 module 8GB memory setup.
OC's setup is less efficient for dual channel 64bit 6700K
Four sticks would cause more strain on the memory controller and motherboard chipset. It would take slightly longer for the CPU to add and retrieve data from four sticks as opposed to two.
And yet they are getting lower results than everyone else, while also using non reference cards? I'm not sure where you are getting at on this
And OC's setup runs cpu at higher clock and the ram is also on higher clock
OC's memory channel is sharing two ram sticks.
yes you pointed that out already, but still dont get the point you are trying to make
@ronvalencia: that seems very odd, how the hell are they getting lower results on 1080p than others on 1440p? I have higher avg fps than that on 1440p
that being said literally every benchmark QB has shown different results so far
A few differences
OC's setup has 4 module 4GB memory setup.
PCGH setup has 2 module 8GB memory setup.
OC's setup is less efficient for dual channel 64bit 6700K
Four sticks would cause more strain on the memory controller and motherboard chipset. It would take slightly longer for the CPU to add and retrieve data from four sticks as opposed to two.
And yet they are getting lower results than everyone else, while also using non reference cards? I'm not sure where you are getting at on this
And OC's setup runs cpu at higher clock and the ram is also on higher clock
For curiosity, does anyone know exactly how resolution works with this game? If it's 1080p, it's the 720p+ temporal reconstruction, so what's 1440p? 900p+ temporal reconstruction? What about 4K?
hum? do you think frame time variance that is roughly twice as big has no part in this?
It certainly has a part, I just think that once you start talking about frame times, most people's minds drift elsewhere.
That may be but in this case I used those to back up my claim that having higher than 60hz monitor in this particular game does in fact provide smoother experience, which @PredatorRules said to no a nonfactor
@ronvalencia: again that's one benchmark others show different results, but obviously 980ti doesn't strugle vs amd as bad as the 970 does which was my point to begin with? and those are reference cards, everyone knows 980ti has more oc headroom than fury x does
My first benchmark graph was mostly non-reference cards e.g. R9 Fury Nitro vs 980 Ti Jet Stream.
My second set of benchmark graphs are reference cards.
My MSI 980 Ti has 1279 Mhz boost with 1178 Mhz base.
I'm not saying that 980ti is ahead on QB, just pointing out that 970 does much worse in comparison vs amd cards and as you can see from the benchmarks you linked, they are literally all over the place in this game, the first one shows worse results on all cards on 1080p than what is shown on the 2nd bench you linked on 1440p
I usually show source links with my posts, hence you will know the other parameters. The first graph doesn't have the supplied source link.
I assume you mean the one I linked? I posted the source few posts after it: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/quantum_break_pc_performance_review/1
@ronvalencia: again that's one benchmark others show different results, but obviously 980ti doesn't strugle vs amd as bad as the 970 does which was my point to begin with? and those are reference cards, everyone knows 980ti has more oc headroom than fury x does
My first benchmark graph was mostly non-reference cards e.g. R9 Fury Nitro vs 980 Ti Jet Stream.
My second set of benchmark graphs are reference cards.
My MSI 980 Ti has 1279 Mhz boost with 1178 Mhz base.
I'm not saying that 980ti is ahead on QB, just pointing out that 970 does much worse in comparison vs amd cards and as you can see from the benchmarks you linked, they are literally all over the place in this game, the first one shows worse results on all cards on 1080p than what is shown on the 2nd bench you linked on 1440p
I have a msi 980ti too but the lightning edition and I'm currently running it on 1220 base
Log in to comment