Computer & Tech Guides, Tips and How To's from TweakTown's Tweakipedia - Page 1
Now that Battlefield 1 is here, we've been testing the game on various hardware and will be writing various articles on the performance of the game between graphics cards, resolutions, and in-game graphics settings. One of those is DirectX 12, where AMD has claimed it has better performance than NVIDIA - and they really do.
We did all of our testing on the drivers available at the time, but now new Battlefield 1 ready drivers have landed (or are about to land) from both AMD and NVIDIA. We will re-run the tests to see how much performance improves on the new drivers, but for now, we used the RSCE 16.10.1 drivers, and NVIDIA's current GeForce 372.20 WHQL drivers.
For the purposes of this benchmark, we ran Battlefield 1 at 1920x1080 and used the 'Medium' and 'Ultra' presets with AA disabled. We then ran Battlefield 1 in DX11, and again in DX12, recording the minimum and average FPS results. We used the AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB reference alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Founders Edition, both reference/FE cards with stock clocks and no additional overclocking used.
I've been spending the last week or so benchmarking my life away, cranking away with The Coalition's recently released Gears of War 4 on the PC - with my last article taking a look at running the game at 8K (7680x4320), on various graphics cards, including the Radeon RX 480 from AMD.
After I was finished benchmarking Gears of War 4 at 8K, I moved down to the normal resolutions like 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 and benchmarked more cards. The game is absolutely gorgeous, so I kept everything on the highest preset and ran the game again at 1080p, 1440p and 4K on the following graphics cards:
- AMD Radeon RX 480
- AMD Radeon R9 Fury X
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
- NVIDIA Titan X (Pascal)
Gears of War 4 is one of the many new game releases of October, riding on the gravitational marketing waves of Battlefield 1, Mafia III (which is a massive mess on the PC - no surprise there), Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (which requires up to 130GB of HDD space), and countless other games - heck, even Star Citizen is shaping up incredibly well, and could be the best PC game ever made.
Well, what better way to celebrate the release of Gears of War 4 from developers The Coalition, then by running the DX12-powered game at the glorious 8K resolution. To refresh your memory, 8K is a mammoth resolution that renders at 7680x2160 - 4x the pixels of 4K, and 16x the pixels rendered than 1080p. It's strenuous, and I love it - I'm addicted to higher resolutions and refresh rates, which is why we're here today running Gears of War 4 in DX12 on Windows 10, at an insane 8K.
I've also tested Gears of War 4 with Asynchronous Compute both on and off, so we can see if it's adding to the performance, or not. As for the in-game graphics settings, I used a custom set of visual settings, with everything on either Ultra or High.
Just how crazy is 8K? Let's check:
Ubisoft has had its biggest launch ever with The Division, with it selling more copies in its first 24 hours than any other Ubisoft game, ever. Well, thankfully The Division has a built-in benchmark that I've spent the last 4-5 hours inside of, testing it out on my two fastest GPUs - AMD's Radeon R9 Fury X and NVIDIA's GeForce GTX Titan X.
I'm testing out The Division on our VGA testbed for now, but I will be doing some deeper comparisons in the coming weeks between the Intel Core i7-6700K, Core i7-5960X and AMD's FX-8350 processor. We'll do some more testing very soon (hopefully over the weekend) at 11,520 x 2160 (triple 4K) which should stress out all of our video cards, and bring them to their knees.
It was sometime in 2009 that I plunged into the NAS world when I purchased my QNAP TS-639 PRO. At the time, it was a beast. I remember spending around $5000 buying the NAS and 4 x 1TB (in RAID5) and 2 x 1.5TB drives at the time. The QNAP TS-639 PRO was a 6-bay, 1GbE NAS that took 6 x SATA 3Gbps drives, and had various functions and features you could use for years to come.
It was expensive, but it was oh-so-worth it. Before that, I was using a small Netbook for my NAS-like storage, with external USB drives and their respective cables flying out of it like an octopus on drugs. It was messy, but it worked. After securing the QNAP TS-639 PRO and taking weeks to get it set up how I wanted, it was worth the investment.
The trusty QNAP TS-639 PRO worked without a hitch, turned on 24/7 and used extensively right up into 2015, then one of my 1.5TB drives died. After that, the NAS started slowing down, and towards the end of 2015, I was getting around 100-500KB/sec on network transfers, when it should've been more like the 80-100MB/sec that I was used to.
Futuremark has been around for what feels like forever, with the Finnish company being one of the first on the market with a mainstream benchmark that stressed your PC. Everyone remembers 3DMark and the iconic Matrix-like tests from 3DMark 2001... well, they have come a fair way since then!
Fast forward to today, and we have Futuremark on the precipice of releasing a DX12-based 3DMark in the New Year, as well as VRMark. Futuremark recently released the VRMark Preview with a new UI into 3DMark as part of a holiday beta. The 2016 version of 3DMark will include a benchmark for VR headsets like the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive
This is something we've been needing to do for a while, but we've finally moved out video card benchmarking machine over to Windows 10. I used Windows 7 throughout the release of Windows 8 and even Windows 8.1, as it seemed that most people weren't moving over to it, and I knew Windows 10 would be the OS to shift to.
So here we are, with our VGA benchmarking rig upgraded to Windows 10. I'm running the 64-bit version of Windows 10 Home, with the same hardware we were using before - except for a major upgrade on the storage side of things.
Our storage editor Jon sent me a 2TB SSD from Samsung because the game installs are getting out of control. I've got a handful of games that are over 50GB, and my 480GB SSD is feeling this pain. An upgrade to 2TB is absolutely awesome, something that I've needed for a while now.
EA and DICE have finally unleashed the open beta of Star Wars Battlefront, with the new first-person shooter floating out to gamers around the world. There's a few things you should know about it, like updating your PC to get it into better order for the game, as well as updating your GPU drivers for additional performance.
First off, we're going to presume that you have the Star Wars Battlefront beta installed on your PC. If not, open up Origin and download it now. The Star Wars Battlefront beta is just over 10GB in size.
After it's downloaded, make sure your PC has all of the latest Windows updates. If you're up to date, the next step is video drivers. Both AMD and NVIDIA have new Star Wars Battlefront beta ready drivers, with NVIDIA out in front with the latest drivers. We have links for them below.
We've been spending the last week or so benchmarking a crap load of NVIDIA video cards on our 34-inch LG 34UC97 monitor, testing out its native 3440x1440 resolution. UltraWide gaming is really taking off these days, but without performance numbers across a bunch of hardware, it's hard to know where you'll find yourself when you come to picking a video card.
Gaming at 2560x1440 isn't so hard these days, with most $250-$400 cards handling most games on the market without a problem at 60FPS, while 4K requires more grunt. 3440x1440 falls in between both of these resolutions and gives - in my opinion - a better alternative to 4K gaming.
Now that we've tested the GeForce GTX Titan X, GTX 980 Ti, GTX 980 and GTX 780 - and then again with the same cards in SLI, it's time to test out some AMD hardware at 3440x1440. We've got a few high-end cards at our disposal, including the Radeon R9 Fury X, Radeon R9 295X2 and the Radeon R9 390X.
We kicked off our new 3440x1440 benchmarks a few days ago, testing out how the GeForce GTX 780, GTX 980, GTX 980 Ti and Titan X all performed on a 34-inch UltraWide monitor from LG. We're back again, this time toting two each of the GTX 780, GTX 980, GTX 980 and Titan X for some delicious SLI results.
In our first article, we found that running our suite of benchmarks at 3440x1440 was actually quite good on performance. Most games ran at 60FPS or above, with some of them dipping below 60FPS - this is easy to fix with a few tweaks to in-game settings. But what type of performance do you think we'll see at 3440x1440 when we're running two cards in SLI, especially the GTX 980 Ti and Titan X?
Gaming at 3440x1440 is just utterly beautiful, with the 21:9 aspect ratio really adding to the experience in some games. I'm mostly a Battlefield 4 player and the additional horizontal pixels are glorious, especially when you mix it with a 95-degree FOV with the in-game settings.