Review Index:
Feedback

Frame Rating Dissected: Full Details on Capture-based Graphics Performance Testing

Far Cry 3 – HD 7970 versus GTX 680

View Full Size

Far Cry 3 is an interesting beast of a game in that it has its own inherent problems with stuttering and frame rates to deal with.  At first glance at 1080p neither platform is scaling well with multiple GPUs even in the FRAPS results.

View Full Size

Eeep, that doesn’t look good.  Only the green bar of the GTX 680 single card is anywhere close to “tight” with even the single card Radeon HD 7970 looking poor.  Multi-GPU systems show variance across the board including the GTX 680s in SLI. 

View Full Size

None of those frames are considered runts though based on percentages so the observed FPS is actually the same as FRAPS.

View Full Size

There isn’t much of a gap between the top cards and bottom cards at the 50th percentile of our Min FPS chart and in fact the single GTX 680 is the best of the bunch.  The single HD 7970 is definitely less consistent but while CrossFire starts out good, it falls quickly behind the single GTX 680.

View Full Size

In almost direct correlation to the concluding portion of the Min FPS graph, our frame variance shows the GTX 680 to be by far the most consistent GPU in the field.  This is a perfect example of how higher overall frame rates do NOT equate to producing the best user experience.

 

View Full Size

Both SLI and CrossFire appear to scale a little better at 2560x1440 but nowhere near as much as we would expect with this heavily GPU-bottlenecked game. 

View Full Size

Looking at the plot of frame times we can see that both SLI and CrossFire are showing huge variances in consecutive frame times but CrossFire definitely has higher spikes of higher frame times / lower frame rates. The single GTX 680 is the most consistent result even though the general trend of the HD 7970 is that it is faster overall. 

View Full Size

Again, there are no runts in our testing of ANY configuration so the observed FPS is the same.

View Full Size

The GTX 680s and HD 7970s in multi-GPU mode track each other pretty consistently here though they offer minimal frame rate improvements as the time progresses.  Interestingly, while the GTX 680 single card is slower than the HD 7970, the NVIDIA card is much more consistent and at the 90th percentile or so of frame times is actually faster as well.

View Full Size

This complementary graph to the percentiles above demonstrates the benefits of “smoothness” of frame rates as opposed to just higher average frame rates.  NVIDIA’s single GTX 680 produces the least variance throughout while the HD 7970, even in single card form, nearly tracks with the inconsistent multi-GPU options.

 

View Full Size

So… this is interesting.  Even though we saw NO runts or dropped frames in the 19x10 or 25x14 results, we are seeing an obvious issue with the Eyefinity results.  Let’s continue on…

View Full Size

Ah ha, there we go.  This graph is showing us TONS of dropped frames in frame times and also a lot of variance in the SLI results as well. 

View Full Size

All of that red you see is a dropped frame, often times more than one in a row. 

View Full Size

The observed FPS brings the CrossFire HD 7970s back down to Earth but also shows a clear lack of scaling with two GPUs for both camps.

View Full Size

The Min FPS percentiles graph lists both the GTX 680 and the HD 7970 as pretty consistent though both CrossFire and SLI have problems. 

View Full Size

Our ISU (International Stutter Units) graph paints an interesting picture of the multi-GPU configurations.  While both are bad, the GTX 680 SLI setup is bad from the outset, whereas AMD’s CrossFire HD 7970s has the widest variances as seen after the 90th percentile mark.

March 27, 2013 | 06:16 AM - Posted by grommet

Hey Ryan, is the variable "t_ready" that the text refers to "t_present" in the diagram two paragraphs above?

March 27, 2013 | 06:22 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Yes, fixed, thanks.

March 27, 2013 | 07:20 AM - Posted by Prodeous (not verified)

I was just wondering.. since the capture and analysis system relies on the left bar only, why doesn't it trunckate the rendered frame it self and keep only 1-3 pixels from the left side of the frame?

For some tests if you want to show off the specific "runts" "stutters" then you can keep it the entire frame captured.

But for most tests, you can record only the left colour bar and do analysis on that bar only, therefore you will not have to save the 600GB per second of uncompressed frames.

Just a thought.

March 27, 2013 | 07:40 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We have that option (notice the crop capture option in our software) but we often like to reference recorded video down the road.

March 28, 2013 | 05:53 AM - Posted by Luciano (not verified)

If you write a piece of software with that "colored" portion only in mind you dont need any of the additional hardware and any user could use it just like Fraps.

March 28, 2013 | 04:02 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

LOL - AMD you are soooo freaking BUSTED !

Runt frames and zero time ghost frames is an AMD specialty.

AMD is 33% slower than nVidia, so amd pumped in ghosts and runts !!

Their crossfire BF3 is a HUGE CHEAT.

ROFL - man there are going to be some really pissed off amd owners whose $1,000 dual gpu frame rate purchases have here been exposed as LIES.

Shame on you amd, runts and ghosts, and all those fanboys screaming bang for the buck ... little did they know it was all a big fat lie.

March 28, 2013 | 11:42 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

true words of a fan boy.

May 26, 2013 | 05:23 PM - Posted by Johan (not verified)

Even i have Nvidia, but his comment, was really a fan-boy comment.

March 27, 2013 | 06:43 AM - Posted by Anon (not verified)

Run the benchmarks like any sane gamer would do so!

Running v-sync disabled benches with 60+ fps is dumb!

Running v-sync enabled benches with 60- fps is way more dumb!

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

March 27, 2013 | 07:00 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

Don't forget that V-sync also sometimes fucks shit up.

The best solution is to limit the frames on the game end, or using a 3rd party frame limiter.

March 27, 2013 | 07:51 AM - Posted by Anon (not verified)

And sometimes disabling it fucks physics like in Skyrim.

Your point?

March 27, 2013 | 07:18 AM - Posted by grommet

Read the whole article before commenting- there is an entire page that focuses on your argument (surprise- you're not the first to suggest this!!)

March 27, 2013 | 07:32 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

And if you have actually watched one of his streams, you'd have seen that he INDEED IS doing it "wrong".

When he was testing Tomb Raider, the card was artifacting and flickering and shimmering. It was complete and totally obvious that he didn't know what he's doing.

March 27, 2013 | 07:31 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

To the guy who says "you're doing it wrong".

Not true. He's doing it right. Many hardcore gamers run v-sync disabled over 60 fps, and only a few of the scenarios tested are consistently over 60fps.

And read the story to see the OBSERVED FPS is much less in many cases, not just the FRAPs FPS (which does not give proper info at the end of the pipeline (at the display) what users actually see).

March 27, 2013 | 07:38 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

There's absolutely nothing "hardcore" about running an old ass game at 1000 FPS with a modern card.

All it does is to waste resources and make the card work at it's hardest for no reason. It's no different than swapping a gear at a say, maximum, 6500 RPM on a car that revs 7000 per gear. You should keep it lower so that the hardware doesn't get excessively get stressed.

If the card is obviously way beyond the generation of the game you're playing, then you're best off, if possible, LIMITING frames/putting a frame lock on your end.

March 27, 2013 | 07:42 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Vsync does cause a ton of other issues including input latency.

March 27, 2013 | 07:44 AM - Posted by Anon (not verified)

You've said this already in both the article and comments but you only talked about input latency.

What are those other issues?

March 27, 2013 | 07:52 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

It makes the entire game laggy an unplayable depending on condition.

You can read up over that TweakGuides guy's site on Vsync.

March 27, 2013 | 08:09 AM - Posted by Josh Walrath

Some pretty fascinating implications about the entire game/rendering pipeline.  There are so many problems throughout, and the tradeoffs tend to impact each other in varyingly negative ways.  Seems like frames are essentially our biggest issue, but how do you get around that?  I had previously theorized that per pixel change in an asynchronous manner would solve a lot of these issues, but the performance needed for such a procedure is insane.  Essentially it becomes a massive particle model with a robust physics engine being the base of changes (movement, creation, destruction, etc.).

March 27, 2013 | 11:18 AM - Posted by Jason (not verified)

research voxels... the technology exists but is pretty far off.

March 27, 2013 | 02:44 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Regarding per-pixel-updates: Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pXZ33YoKu9w

It's obvious the result must be delivered in frames (no way around it with current monitor technology), but the engine in the vid clearly works differently from the usual by just putting the newly calculated pixels into the framebuffer that are ready by the time.

March 27, 2013 | 11:07 AM - Posted by bystander (not verified)

Due to many frames being forced to wait for the next vertical retrace mode, while others do not, it will result in some time metering issues. This can result in a form of stuttering.

March 28, 2013 | 11:49 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

hardcore gamer here play BF3 v-sync ON!

because:

1. My monitor (as 90% of us) is 60hz!
don't need the extra stress/heat/electric juice on card/system.

2. Fed up with frame tearing every time i turn around.

March 27, 2013 | 07:27 AM - Posted by Prodeous (not verified)

With regards to the Nvidia settings of v-sync, it seems that Addaptive (half refresh rate) was selected capping it at 30fps vs Addaptive which would cap at 60fps.

Was that on purpose?

March 27, 2013 | 07:31 AM - Posted by Noah Taylor (not verified)

I'm still interested to see what type of results you come up with when using amd crossfire with a program like afterburner's riva tuner to limit the fps to 60, which would seems to be everyone's preference for this situation.

March 27, 2013 | 07:42 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I think you'll find the same problems that crop up with Vsync enabled.

March 27, 2013 | 08:14 AM - Posted by Noah Taylor (not verified)

I have to admit observed FPS graphs are DAMNING to AMD, and I own 2 7970s and 7950s so I'm not remotely biased against them in any way. One thing i did notice is that dropped frames don't effect every game so hopefully this is something AMD may be able to potentially mitigate through driver tweaks.

I have to admit, crysis 3 can be a sloppy affair in AMD crossfire and now I can see exactly what I'm experiencing without trying to make guesswork out of it.

Regardless, the bottom line EVERYONE should take away from this, is that crossfire DOES NOT function as intended whatsoever, and we can now actually say AMD is deceptive in their marketing as well, this is taken directly from AMD's website advertising crossfire:

"Tired of dropping frames instead of opponents? Find a CrossFire™-certified graphics configuration that’s right for you."

They have built their business on a faulty product and every crossfire owner should speak up so that AMD makes the changes they have control over to FIX a BROKEN system.

March 27, 2013 | 08:17 AM - Posted by Josh Walrath

Just think how bad a X1900 CrossFire Edition setup would do here...  I think Ryan should dig up those cards and test them!

March 27, 2013 | 08:49 AM - Posted by SB48 (not verified)

I wonder if that one of the reasons why AMD never really released the 7990,
also if this was already a obvious problem with the 3870 X2...
or the previous gens card, like HD5000, 6000.

anyway, is there any input lag difference from NV to AMD (SLI-CF) without vsync?

also I would be curious to see some CPU comparison.

March 27, 2013 | 10:31 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

I had both a dual 3870 and a dual 2900 setup, both were more or less the same thing.

Both has driven a CRT at 160HZ for Cube and both were silk smooth.

This is a recent issue. It has nothing to do with cards of that age. The major problem with those old cards was the lack of CrossFire application profiles. Before the beginning of 2010, you had absolutely no application profiles like you have with nVidia. So CF either worked or you had to change the game ".exe" names, which either worked or, made the game mess up or just kick you out of Steam servers due to VAC.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.