It"s been nearly two decades, but I can still remember wreaking havoc in the original Grand Theft Auto and GTA 2 like it was yesterday . Both games were a blast but Rockstar really blew our minds when it shifted from bird"s-eye visuals to a fully 3D game engine and environment with GTA III in 2001, allowing players to experience open world mayhem across Liberty City from a third-person perspective.
Having found a winning formula, Rockstar followed up with two more crime simulators: Vice City arrived a year later and then San Andreas two years after that, both of which were powered by Criterion's RenderWare engine (like GTA III) while 2008's GTA IV is more of a true successor with larger gameplay changes and graphics based on Rockstar's own engine (RAGE).
Rockstar has made many improvements to the PC version, including increased resolution and graphical detail, denser traffic, greater draw distances, upgraded AI, new wildlife, and advanced weather and damage effects.
Advanced Graphics Enabled
Test System Specs
- Intel Core i7-5960X (3.00GHz)
- x4 4GB Kingston Predator DDR4-2400 (CAS 12-13-13-24)
- Asrock X99 Extreme6 (Intel X99)
- Silverstone Strider Series (700w)
- Crucial MX200 1TB (SATA 6Gb/s)
- Gigabyte Radeon R9 290X (4096MB)
- Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 (4096MB)
- Gigabyte Radeon R9 285 (2048MB)
- Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X (3072MB)
- HIS Radeon R9 270X (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon R9 270 (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon R7 265 (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7970 GHz (3072MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7970 (3072MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7950 (3072MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7870 (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7850 (2048MB)
- Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan X (12288MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 (4096MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 (3584+512MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 (2048MB)
- Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan (6144MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 780 Ti (3072MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 780 (3072MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 (2048MB)
- Palit GeForce GTX 760 (2048MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti (2048MB)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 680 (2048MB)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 660 Ti (2048MB)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 660 (2048MB)
- Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
- Nvidia GeForce 350.12 WHQL
- AMD Catalyst 15.4 Beta
The guys at Forbes ran a performance test of GTA 5 on 14 different graphics cards from Nvidia and AMD, and like everyone else, they admit that Rockstar Games has done a great job optimizing this graphical and spatial colossus called Grand Theft Auto V.
But let's get straight to the benchmarks. The following cards were tested:
Nvidia GTX 650Ti
Nvidia GTX 750Ti
Nvidia GTX 770
Nvidia GTX 780Ti
Nvidia GTX 960
Nvidia GTX 970
Nvidia GTX 980
Nvidia GTX Titan XAMD Radeon 260x
AMD Radeon 270x
AMD Radeon 280x
AMD Radeon 285
AMD Radeon 290x
AMD Radeon 2952
All these test heroes were installed on the system with Intel processor Core i7-5960x and 16 gigabytes RAM G.Skill DDR4.
The benchmark was carried out standard means, built into the game, which give you 5 scenes with varying degrees of workload. All results are saved in My Documents/Rockstar Games/GTA V/benchmarks.
All tests were carried out in conditional 1080p and 1440p modes with “high” and “very high” settings to ensure that GTA 5 produced at least 40fps. That is, for example, for the GTX 750Ti and Radeon 260x cards the settings were set to “high”, while for the more powerful and expensive GTX 970/980 and Radeon 290x/2952 the settings were set to “very high”.
1080p & 1440p - high quality
In this mode, all settings are high, FXAA is enabled, anisotropic filtering x8, soft shadows, population diversity at 50%, tessellation, AO, reflections and MSAA are disabled.
It's personal preference to find the optimal middle ground quality vs productivity.
As you can see from the graph, even old video cards in an affordable price range can run GTA 5 quite well high settings quality.
1080p & 1440p - very high quality
All parameters are now set to "very high" or high if they could not be raised higher due to game limitations.
What's really interesting here is the Nvidia GTX 970 graphics card. Just look at its results! And, of course, it’s a shame for AMD, which showed the worst results in dual (CrossFire) Radeon 290x mode.
But maybe AMD will improve in the final test?
4K - ultra quality
IN this test All parameters were set to maximum, except for enabling the notorious MSAA. Nvidia GTX 2x 980 SLI is the Rockstar graphics card they used in the demo. GTA versions 5 on PC. The more affordable AMD 290x CrossFire gives approximately the same results, but with these cards the game sometimes slows down (freeze).
What's also interesting is the Titan X card, which, of course, lags behind in frame rates, however, works in single mode, and not in conjunction with its twin, which is impressive.
The fifth serialized part of Grand Theft Auto, having successfully emptied the wallets of console players, came back after a long delay. personal computers. Big open world and a trio of crazy bandit heroes are waiting for those who are ready to share their adventures. But today we will not talk about how GTA 5 can entertain the player, and not about the gameplay features. It's about performance and fine tuning graphic parameters.
GTA V offers a diverse game world with completely different locations - business districts of the metropolis, slums, industrial complexes, mountain ranges, forests and deserts. Huge scale, great variety and detailed elaboration of the environment. You can enjoy some of the views in the lower screenshots in a resolution of 2560x1440.
The game pleases with good clear textures and relief surfaces, for which parallax mapping is actively used. Even ordinary lawns have a relief structure, rather than using the usual hand-drawn texture.
As a clear illustration of the work of parallax mapping, we present a screenshot, which at the same time clearly shows the operation of the effect of changing the depth of field, which is actively used in the game.
This lens effect blurs backgrounds, allowing for a more natural-looking overall panorama.
The time of day and weather in the game change. All objects cast regular soft shadows away from the sun. Cute sunrises and sunsets are complemented by rainbow effects.
The range of drawing objects is very high. By default, there is a clear change in detail clarity as you move away from the camera. When using additional settings the effect is neutralized. This will be discussed in more detail below.
General physics of object interaction at a level traditional for such games. The environment is mostly static, but pillars and storefronts break. In story missions that involve big explosions, GTA 5 puts on a pretty good show with a lot of scraps. Control and physical model of car behavior are at the usual GTA level, without any complications. In particular, only very serious damage affects the behavior of the machine. Externally, the cars look great - they shine in the sun, reflecting all the surrounding buildings and lights on a smooth glossy surface.
The water surfaces look nice, but nothing more. In Watch Dogs, the water was more beautiful and more alive.
If we make a general comparison of graphics with Watch Dogs, we can feel the technological advantage of the Ubisoft game. But GTA V has a more meticulous attention to detail and more external variety.
The computer version of GTA 5 has many graphic settings. Not all of them are understandable to the average player. The name of some does not always directly indicate the effect they have on the overall quality of the picture. Sometimes the very meaning of the settings is lost due to the loose translation of specific names. We will help you understand all their diversity. Let's see how individual parameters affect the image and how this affects performance. Based on the results, it will be possible to draw conclusions about which settings are most critical for performance, which ones have a big impact on visual beauty, and which ones don’t. Such information will be relevant for owners of mid-level and lower video cards. Based on our guide, it will be possible to select the optimal ratio of parameters that will allow you to increase productivity with minimal loss of picture quality.
Those who want to get the most out of the game will not be forgotten either. There will be a comparison of different anti-aliasing modes. Let's find out which of them are the most successful and which are the most resource-intensive. Let's study the impact of "additional image settings", which allow you to raise the graphics bar above the level that the game offers by default.
Test configurations
Basic test bench:
- processor: Intel Core i7-3930K ([email protected] GHz, 12 MB);
- cooler: Thermalright Venomous X;
- motherboard: ASUS Rampage IV Formula/Battlefield 3 (Intel X79 Express);
- memory: Kingston KHX2133C11D3K4/16GX (4x4 GB, DDR3-2133@1866 MHz, 10-11-10-28-1T);
- system disk: WD3200AAKS (320 GB, SATA II)
- power supply: Seasonic SS-750KM (750 W);
- monitor: ASUS PB278Q (2560x1440, 27″);
- GeForce driver: NVIDIA GeForce 350.12;
- driver for other Radeons: ATI Catalyst 15.4 beta.
For processor tests, an additional test bench with the following configuration was used:
- processor No. 1: Intel Pentium G3258 (3.2 GHz nominal, 3 MB);
- processor No. 2: Intel Core i7-4770K (3.5 GHz nominal, 8 MB);
- motherboard: ASRock Z97 Anniversary (Intel Z97);
- memory: GoodRAM GY1600D364L10/16GDC (2x8 GB, 1600 MHz, 10-10-10-28-2T);
- system disk: ADATA SX900 256 GB (256 GB, SATA 6 Gbit/s);
- power supply: Chieftec CTG-750C (750 W);
- monitor: LG 23MP75HM-P (1920x1080, 23″);
- operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64;
- GeForce driver: NVIDIA GeForce 350.12.
Testing was carried out using the built-in benchmark, which includes five test scenes. The average fps for each scene was taken into account and the final average was calculated. To reduce the error, four benchmark runs were performed. Please note that test results are not displayed in the game; all data is saved at c:\Users\Username\Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\Benchmarks as a text file.
The logs also record the minimum fps for each test scene. But these values are too unstable and differ with each new run. Moreover, even in the case of real “lags”, noticeable to the naked eye, these values differed little from the minimum fps on cards that produced a smooth picture. We ended up using Fraps for additional monitoring. And the minimum fps on the graphs is the average minimum value based on the results of each of the four runs of the benchmark, recorded by the program.
When considering the impact of settings on performance, one video card will be used - a non-reference GeForce GTX 760 2GB with frequencies at the level of standard versions. The testing procedure is as follows: take the configuration of maximum graphics settings without anti-aliasing at a resolution of 1920x1080, change one of the parameters, test performance at different levels quality of this parameter, comparative visual materials are provided demonstrating the difference in picture quality. Then all parameters are reset to initial maximum value, and the change of another parameter with the corresponding tests begins.
Actively ignores restrictions, which allows you to use the most difficult parameters. All tests were carried out in DirectX 11 rendering mode, since this API has long been the main one even for budget graphics solutions. But the game also supports DirectX 10.1 and DirectX 10.
The order of studying individual parameters corresponds to their order in the game menu. An exception is made for shadow settings, of which there are several, and they are interconnected to a certain extent. After considering the main graphics parameters, we will move on to the additional ones, where we will step-by-step include all the points together.
The next stage of the article is comparative tests of different AMD and NVIDIA video cards at high quality graphics. At the end there will be testing of processor dependence using Intel CPUs of different price categories.
Antialiasing Modes
The game supports FXAA and MSAA anti-aliasing. Users of GeForce video cards also have access to TXAA anti-aliasing. The latter is activated after enabling MSAA in the settings as an additional option. Urban surroundings and industrial landscapes are always replete with straight lines, so that the stepped edges of objects are clearly visible here. The stepped outlines of the car against the background of the light road surface are no less visible. So you can’t do without antialiasing. You can evaluate the effect of activating different anti-aliasing methods in comparison with the mode without anti-aliasing in the lower screenshots.
The color saturation of the car in the foreground changes slightly due to the subtle fog effect. We don’t pay attention to this, we carefully study the surrounding objects and elements. For greater clarity, let’s compare identical fragments of each screenshot.
I would like to immediately note good quality FXAA works, which does not happen in all games. The worst effect of smoothing “steps” at the boundaries of objects is obtained by MSAA in 2x mode, which is quite expected. Switching multisampling to 4x mode improves the picture. Moving to TXAA provides even smoother edges. And from this point of view, this mode is the most effective. But with it, the overall picture becomes a little blurry, and the clarity of details is lost. Compare the road surface, grass and tiles in large screenshots - the difference is most clearly visible in these elements. The relief texture of grass with TXAA is completely lost. FXAA gives a clearer picture.
MSAA 4x provides the best balance between edge smoothing and clarity. Note the crane and neighboring house in the background. With MSAA they are clearer, even the inscription on the poster shows through, which is not at all visible with FXAA.
Let us also note that the game has an interesting “MSAA for reflections” parameter. It is logical to assume that it affects the smoothing of the edges of reflections, which are most often visible on the surface of cars. In practice, we did not detect any difference in reflections with and without MSAA 4x. Maybe, we're talking about about reflections on other surfaces. It is possible that the effect of this smoothing itself is weakly expressed.
It's time to take a look at how all these modes affect performance. Experienced video card - GeForce GTX 760.
Activating FXAA relative to the mode without anti-aliasing gives a drop in fps of only 4%. Enabling MSAA 2x relative to the mode without anti-aliasing on the test card gives a performance drop of 21% at the minimum setting and up to 30% at the average game frame rate. Switching to MSAA 4x gives a 16% reduction compared to the simpler multisampling mode. TXAA 4x is heavier by another 3-4%. If we additionally enable an anti-aliasing mode for reflections of similar quality to MSAA 4x, then we get a frame rate on the same level as the TXAA mode, which is 46-57% lower than the initial level without AA.
FXAA gives good visual effect and has minimal impact on performance. MSAA is slightly better in terms of clarity, but the performance penalty is significant. Such a serious decrease in fps may also be due to insufficient memory. Even without anti-aliasing, the game shows that around 2.5 GB will be used at 1920x1080 resolution.
Population
Three points are related to the density of people on the city streets. These are Population Density, Population Variety and Distance Scaling. Each has its own scale with 10 gradations. The first two points are quite obvious - they regulate the number of people on the streets and the use of various models for them. Distance Scaling probably sets the distance at which they appear. We gradually reduced all parameters from maximum to half (we will count this as 100% and 50%). Based on the results of several minutes of playing in different modes, we can state a minimal difference in the number of people on the streets. Presumably this also affects the density of traffic on the roads. You don’t notice any of this unless you deliberately concentrate on a given task.
Below left is a screenshot of the mode when all parameters are at maximum. On the right is an image of a similar location with all three parameters reduced to 50%.
We did not lower these parameters to zero, since even changing from 100% to 50% did not give any significant difference in the frame rate, which is clearly visible in the bottom graph.
Reducing “population” and “diversity” has no effect. Changing the distance leads to a slight increase in fps. The result is expected, because a weak adjustment of population density will not affect workload GPU. This is more relevant for central processor. Reducing these parameters can have a positive effect on weak CPUs. On more or less modern systems You can immediately set them to maximum.
Texture quality
It's time to experiment with Texture Quality. As noted above, at Ultra quality in Full HD without anti-aliasing, the game already consumes up to 2.5 GB of video memory. It's logical to assume that 2GB graphics cards might experience problems because of this. And reducing the quality of textures for ordinary users will seem like the most obvious solution to improve performance. But is this true? Let's figure it out now.
First, let's compare the image quality at the highest, high and standard texture levels.
Texture Quality Very High
Texture Quality High
Texture Quality Normal
There are not differences in everything. The first screenshots show a gradual decrease in the clarity of environmental elements - patterns on the carpet and sofa, paintings on the wall, a slight change in the texture of jeans. In the second scene, the difference in the quality of the textures of the sidewalks and the road surface is striking.
The impact of texture quality on overall performance is minimal. When switching from maximum to high it is almost not noticeable. Switching to standard mode gives a ridiculous gain of a couple of percent, and this despite the fact that in this mode, video memory consumption finally drops below the 2 GB level. So texture quality can be set to the highest level even on average video cards.
Shader quality
Next up is the Shader Quality parameter. Three levels - from standard to very high. In theory, using simpler shaders should have a dramatic effect on the quality of all surfaces
Texture Shader Very High
Texture Shader High
Texture Shader Normal
In fact, changing this parameter only affects the surface of the earth. When reduced from maximum to high, the effect of embossed surfaces becomes weaker. In normal mode, the ground and grass completely lose volume - everything is flat. And even the clarity of surfaces decreases sharply, as if the quality of textures is reduced.
The difference between Very High and High is less than 3%. Switching to the simplest mode gives a noticeable increase in performance, at a level of 12-14% relative to High. Moreover, for the first time we see an increase in the minimum fps when a specific graphics parameter is reduced. Therefore, it is quite critical to overall performance. But the image quality suffers greatly from the minimum level of shaders. It only makes sense to use a standard shader level on very weak video cards.
Reflection quality
This parameter (Reflection Quality) affects all reflective surfaces - cars, shop windows, windows, etc. Four quality levels. You can evaluate their influence on the overall picture in the lower screenshots. We remind you that the remaining graphics parameters are at the maximum level without anti-aliasing. Half of the screenshots are in 1920x1080 resolution, half in 2560x1440.
It should be noted that highly detailed reflections fully correspond to real objects in the environment. This is not Watch Dodgs, when the windows of buildings reflected not the opposite side of the street, but some kind of image that was standard for everyone.
Reflections also have a significant impact on performance. The most dramatic effect is the decrease in quality from the highest level to very high - an increase in fps at the level of 8-11%. Moreover, again there is an increase in the minimum fps, which is the most critical. There is a small difference in frame rate between the standard level and the high level, but the image is completely different. So we do not recommend lowering this parameter to a minimum.
Water quality
Everything is quite obvious. Changing Water Quality affects the display of water. Three quality levels, which can be assessed in the lower screenshots.
Higher water quality regimes do not affect the overall performance in any way. Enabling the simplest mode for displaying it allows you to win up to 3%.
Particle quality
Parameter that regulates the number of particles. The original is called Particles Quality. Its influence is quite obvious, but there are not enough particles in the game, except for sparks and fragments during collisions or explosions. There are no wind-driven leaves or newspapers in GTA 5. So it is not easy to notice the difference between the maximum particle level and the minimum.
Here we will do without comparative screenshots. And even in testing we will limit ourselves to extreme values - very high level and standard.
Minimal difference. So it makes sense to reduce this parameter only on very weak systems.
Grass quality
The Grass Quality parameter affects the display of grass. Four discrete values - from standard level to ultra. For comparison, we combined fragments of the same frame from the built-in gaming benchmark into one image.
Lowering the grass quality by one value slightly affects its density. A further decrease is accompanied by the disappearance of shadows from ferns. In the easiest mode, large grass disappears. The parameter does not affect the density and quality of the bush in any way, nor does it affect moss and small grass, which is implemented using relief texturing technologies.
Significant impact on minimum fps. Therefore, the quality of the grass is very important for overall productivity. Switching from maximum quality to very high allows you to increase the minimum fps by 12%, the next decrease gives an increase of another 8%. Between the extreme quality settings (Ultra and Normal) there is a difference of 29% in the minimum parameter and 9% in the average game frame rate.
One of the first reviews of testing GTA 5 on different computer configurations.
Let me remind you OFFICIAL system requirements GTA 5:
Minimum requirements:
- OS: Windows 8.1, 8, 7, Vista 64 bit (NVIDIA video cards are recommended for Vista)
- CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 cores) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 cores) @ 2.5GHz
- RAM: 4 GB
- Video card: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1 GB / AMD HD 4870 1 GB (version no lower than DX 10, 10.1, 11)
- OS: Windows 8.1, 8, 7 64 bit
- CPU: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHZ (4 cores) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHZ (8 cores)
- RAM: 8 GB
- Video card: NVIDIA GTX 660 2 GB / AMD HD7870 2 GB
GTA 5 graphics settings:
Graphics quality at different settings (low, medium, high)
Video card testing
Testing was carried out only at maximum settings. Tests for medium/low and weak computers - NOT YET.
Testing video cards at maximum settings for GTA 5 (1920x1080, standard textures)
Testing video cards at maximum quality settings for GTA 5 (1920x1080)
GPU testing at maximum quality settings (1920x1080, MSAA 8X)
Testing at maximum memory GPU quality settings
Testing for video memory consumption. The test was done in MSI program Afterburner. The configuration and settings are shown in the graph.
CPU testing
Testing at maximum quality settings GTA5 (1920x1080)
Loading Intel processor cores at maximum settings GTA5 (1920x1080)
advertising
IN this review Summary testing of video cards and processors will be carried out in the game Grand Theft Auto 5. You can read the review on it by following this link.
System Requirements
Minimum system requirements:
- Operating system: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1, Windows Vista 64 Bit Service Pack 2* (*Nvidia series video card is recommended to run);
- Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40 GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5 GHz;
- Video card: Nvidia 9800 GT 1 GB / AMD HD 4870 1 GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11);
- RAM: 4 GB.
- Operating system: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1;
- Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2 GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4 GHz (8 CPUs);
- Video card: Nvidia GTX 660 2 GB / AMD HD 7870 2 GB;
- RAM: 8 GB.
advertising
Summary testing of video cards
Test configuration
Tests were carried out on the following stand:
- CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K ( Ivy Bridge, D2, L3 8 MB), 1.0 V, Turbo Boost / Hyper Threading - off - 3500 @ 4600 MHz (1.25 V);
- Motherboard: GigaByte GA-Z77X-UD5H, LGA 1155, BIOS F14;
- CPU cooling system: Corsair Hydro Series H105 (~1300 rpm);
- RAM: 2 x 4096 MB DDR3 Geil Black Dragon GB38GB2133C10ADC (Spec: 2133 MHz / 10-11-11-30-1t / 1.5 V), X.M.P. - off;
- Disk subsystem: 64 GB, SSD ADATA SX900;
- Power unit: Corsair HX850 850 Watt (standard fan: 140 mm inlet);
- Frame: open test bench;
- Monitor: 27" ASUS PB278Q BK (Wide LCD, 2560x1440 / 60 Hz).
Video cards:
- Radeon R9 290X 4096 MB - 1000/5000 @ 1130/5800 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R9 290 4096 MB - 947/5000 @ 1120/5800 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R9 285 2048 MB - 920/5500 @ 1100/6500 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R9 280X 3072 MB - 1000/6000 @ 1150/7000 MHz (Gigabyte);
- Radeon R9 280 3072 MB - 933/5000 @ 1100/7000 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R9 270X 2048 MB - 1050/5600 @ 1170/6800 MHz (MSI);
- Radeon R9 270 2048 MB - 925/5600 @ 1130/6800 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R7 265 2048 MB - 925/5600 @ 1150/6800 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R7 260X 2048 MB - 1100/6500 @ 1200/7200 MHz (Sapphire);
- Radeon R7 260 1024 MB - 1000/6000 @ 1200/6800 MHz (MSI);
- Radeon R7 250X 1024 MB - 1000/4500 @ 1150/6000 MHz (Gigabyte);
- GeForce GTX 980 4096 MB - 1126/7012 @ 1320/8000 MHz (Palit);
- GeForce GTX 970 4096 MB - 1050/7012 @ 1330/8000 MHz (Zotac);
- GeForce GTX 960 2098 MB - 1126/7012 @ 1350/8000 MHz (Gigabyte);
- GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3072 MB - 876/7000 @ 1110/7700 MHz (MSI);
- GeForce GTX Titan 6144 MB - 837/6008 @ 970/7200 MHz (Gigabyte);
- GeForce GTX 780 3072 MB - 863/6008 @ 1000/7200 MHz (Palit);
- GeForce GTX 770 2048 MB - 1046/7000 @ 1260/7800 MHz (Zotac);
- GeForce GTX 760 2048 MB - 980/6008 @ 1200/7000 MHz (ASUS);
- GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2048 MB - 1020/5400 @ 1160/6600 MHz (GigaByte);
- GeForce GTX 750 2048 MB - 1020/5000 @ 1150/6200 MHz (Palit).
Software:
- Operating system: Windows 7 x64 SP1;
- Video card drivers: Nvidia GeForce 347.88 WHQL and AMD Catalyst 15.3 Beta.
- Utilities: Fraps 3.5.9 Build 15586, AutoHotkey v1.0.48.05, MSI Afterburner 4.1.0.
Testing tools and methodology
For a more clear comparison of video cards and processors, the game used as a test application was launched in resolutions of 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440.
The utilities Fraps 3.5.9 Build 15586 and AutoHotkey v1.0.48.05 were used as performance measurement tools. The minimum and average FPS values were measured in the game. VSync was disabled during tests.
Test segment video:
Monitoring RAM and video memory usage
The components were tested with the following graphics settings:
- Version 1.0.
- DirectX 11.
- Anti-aliasing – FXAA 3HQ.
- Motion blur is enabled.
- The quality of the shadows is high.
- The quality of the textures is very high.
- Texture filtering quality – anisotropic x16;
- Viewing distance – 100;
- Detail depth – 100;
- Traffic flow – 100;
- Physics mod 2.0 – disabled.
Before we begin testing video cards and processors, we will monitor the use of RAM and video memory in this game.
advertising
Video memory and RAM usage
Video memory (standard settings)
RAM
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
MB
Test results: performance comparison
Now let's move on directly to testing graphics accelerators.
Summary diagrams of test results for single video cards
advertising
1920x1080
DenominationPlease enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
2560x1440
DenominationPlease enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
