Forza Motorsport 7 Performance
The first full Forza Motorsport title available for the PC, Forza Motorsport 7 on Windows 10 launched simultaneously with the Xbox version earlier this month. With native 4K assets, HDR support, and new visual features like fully dynamic weather, this title is an excellent showcase of what modern PC hardware can do.
Now that both AMD and NVIDIA have released drivers optimized for Forza 7, we've taken an opportunity to measure performance across an array of different GPUs. After some significant performance mishaps with last year's Forza Horizon 3 at launch on PC, we are excited to see if Forza Motorsport 7 brings any much-needed improvements.
For this testing, we used our standard GPU testbed, including an 8-core Haswell-E processor and plenty of memory and storage.
|PC Perspective GPU Testbed|
|Processor||Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E|
|Motherboard||ASUS Rampage V Extreme X99|
|Memory||G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB DDR4-3200|
|Storage||OCZ Agility 4 256GB (OS)
Adata SP610 500GB (games)
|Power Supply||Corsair AX1500i 1500 watt|
|OS||Windows 10 x64|
|Drivers||AMD: 17.10.1 (Beta)
As with a lot of modern console-first titles, Forza 7 defaults to "Dynamic" image quality settings. This means that the game engine is supposed to find the best image settings for your hardware automatically, and dynamically adjust them so that you hit a target frame rate (adjustable between 30 and 60fps) no matter what is going on in the current scene that is being rendered.
While this is a good strategy for consoles, and even for casual PC gamers, it poses a problem for us trying to measure equivalent performance across GPUs. Luckily the developers of Forza Motorsport 7, Turn 10 Studios, still let you disable the dynamic control and configure the image quality settings as you desire.
One quirk however though is that in order for V-Sync to be disabled, the rendering resolution within the game must match the native resolution of your monitor. This means that if you are running 2560x1440 on your 4K monitor, you must first set the resolution within windows to 2560x1440 in order to run the game in V-Sync off mode.
We did our testing with an array of three different resolutions (1080p, 1440p, and 4K) at maximum image quality settings. We tested both AMD and NVIDIA graphics cards in similar price and performance segments. The built-in benchmark mode for this game was used, which does feature some variance due to dynamic weather patterns. However, our testing within the full game matched the results of the benchmark mode closely, so we used it for our final results.
Right off the bat, I have been impressed at how well optimized Forza Motorsport 7 seems to be on the PC. Compared to the unoptimized disaster that was Forza Horizon 3 when it launched on PC last year, it's clear that Turn 10 Studios and Microsoft have come a long way.
Even gamers looking to play on a 4K display at 60Hz can seemingly get away with the cheaper, and more mainstream GPUs such as the RX 580 or the GTX 1060 with acceptable performance in most scenarios.
Games on high-refresh-rate displays don't appear to have the same luxury. If you want to game at a resolution such as 2560x1440 at a full 144Hz, neither the RX Vega 64 or GTX 1080 will do this with maximum image quality settings. Although these GPUs appear to be in the margin where you could turn down a few settings to achieve your full refresh rate.
For some reason, the RX Vega cards didn't seem to show any scaling in performance when moving from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080, unlike the Polaris-based RX 580 and the NVIDIA options. We aren't quite sure of the cause of this and have reached out to AMD for clarification.
As far as frame times are concerned, we also gathered some data with our Frame Rating capture analysis system.
Taking a look at the first chart, we can see while the GTX 1080 frame times are extremely consistent, the RX Vega 64 shows some additional variance.
However, the frame time variance chart shows that over 95% of the frame times of the RX Vega 64 come in at under 2ms of variance, which will still provide a smooth gameplay experience in most scenarios. This matches with our experience while playing on both AMD and NVIDIA hardware where we saw no major issues with gameplay smoothness.
Forza Motorsport 7 seems to be a great addition to the PC gaming world (if you don't mind using the Microsoft store exclusively) and will run great on a wide array of hardware. Whether or not you have a NVIDIA or AMD GPU, you should be able to enjoy this fantastic racing simulator.
Subject: General Tech | August 24, 2017 - 11:24 AM | Alex Lustenberg
Tagged: vulkan, vlan, video, samsung galaxy note 8, rx vega, podcast, Linksys WRT32x, kaby lake, Intel, ice lake, htc vive, ECS, Core, asus zenphone 4, acer predator z271t
PC Perspective Podcast #464 - 08/17/17
Join us for continued discussion on RX Vega, Intel 8th Gen Core, and more!
The URL for the podcast is: http://pcper.com/podcast - Share with your friends!
- iTunes - Subscribe to the podcast directly through the iTunes Store (audio only)
- Google Play - Subscribe to our audio podcast directly through Google Play!
- RSS - Subscribe through your regular RSS reader (audio only)
- MP3 - Direct download link to the MP3 file
Hosts: Ryan Shrout, Jeremy Hellstrom, Josh Walrath, Allyn Malventano
Peanut Gallery: Ken Addison, Alex Lustenberg
Program length: 1:34:56
Week in Review:
0:07:54 Let’s talk about RX Vega!
Different die packages
News items of interest:
Hardware/Software Picks of the Week
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 14, 2017 - 03:49 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: vega 64 liquid, vega 64, vega 56, rx vega, radoen, amd
The reviews of AMD's two and a half new cards are in and they have a lot to say about AMD's current focus for GPU development. They have not gone green with this new architecture; but be honest with yourself about how much think about the environment when absorbed in a gaming session on a 4k monitor. The Vega 64 and 56 do require far more energy than Pascal cards and do produce more noise, however keep in mind that third party air cooling or a better radiator may help mitigate the issue.
The real question is the price, while there will be some challenges with the two Vega 64 cards the Vega 56 is certainly a competitor to the GTX 1070. If the mining craze dies down to the point where the prices of these two cards approach MSRP AMD offers a compelling choice for those who also want a new monitor. Freesync displays sell at a significantly lower price than comparable G-Sync displays, even before you start to look at the new bundle program AMD has introduced.
Since we know you have already been through Ryan's review, perhaps you would be interested in what our framerating friends over at The Tech Report thought. If not, there are plenty of other reviews below.
"AMD's long-awaited Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 graphics cards are finally ready to make their way into gamers' hands. We go hands-on to see how they perform."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 @ [H]ard|OCP
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB @ Guru of 3D
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB @ Guru of 3D
- A Look At AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 64 Workstation & Compute Performance @ Techgage
- AMD Radeon RX Vega64 8GB (Air) @ Kitguru
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 @ Techspot
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8 GB @ techPowerUp
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GB @ techPowerUp
- Radeon RX Vega On Linux: High-Performance GPUs & Open-Source No Longer An Oxymoron @ Phoronix
- GTX 1080 Ti Overclocking Guide @ OCCE
- A Look At NVIDIA’s Workstation Performance Boosting 385.12 TITAN Xp Driver @ Techgage
- PNY GTX 1080 Ti XLR8 OC Gaming 11GB @ Kitguru
- Bykski FOUR Founders GTX 1080 GPU Waterblock @ techPowerUp
A confusing market
I feel like I have been writing about AMD non-stop in 2017. Starting with the release of Ryzen 7 and following through last week’s review of the HEDT Threadripper processor, AMD has gone from a nearly-dormant state in 2015-2016 to a wildly active and successful organization with more than a dozen new product launches under its belt. Today we will reveal the company's first consumer products based on the new Vega GPU architecture, thrusting the Radeon brand back into the fight at the $400+ price segments.
At this point, with architecture teases, product unboxings, professional card reviews, and pricing and availability reveals, we almost know everything we need to know about the new Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 products. Almost. Today we can show you the performance.
I want to be honest with our readers: AMD gave me so little time with these cards that I am going to gloss over some of the more interesting technological and architectural changes that Vega brings to market. I will come back to them at a later time, but I feel it is most important for us to talk about the performance and power characteristics of these cards as consumers finally get the chance to spend their hard-earned money on them.
If you already know about the specifications and pricing peculiarities of Vega 64 and Vega 56 and instead want direct access to performance results, I encourage you to skip ahead. If you want a refresher those details, check out the summary below.
Interesting statistics from the creation of this review in a VERY short window:
- 175 graphs
- 8 cards, 8 games, 2 resolutions, 3 runs = 384 test runs
- >9.6 TB of raw captured video (average ~25 GB/min)
Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 Specifications
Much of the below is sourced from our Vega 64/56 announcement story last month.
Though the leaks have been frequent and getting closer to reality, as it turns out AMD was in fact holding back quite a bit of information about the positioning of RX Vega for today. Radeon will launch the Vega 64 and Vega 56 today, with three different versions of the Vega 64 on the docket. Vega 64 uses the full Vega 10 chip with 64 CUs and 4096 stream processors. Vega 56 will come with 56 CUs enabled (get it?) and 3584 stream processors.
Pictures of the various product designs have already made it out to the field including the Limited Edition with the brushed anodized aluminum shroud, the liquid cooled card with a similar industrial design, and the more standard black shroud version that looks very similar to the previous reference cards from AMD.
|RX Vega 64 Liquid||RX Vega 64 Air||RX Vega 56||Vega Frontier Edition||GTX 1080 Ti||GTX 1080||TITAN X||GTX 980||R9 Fury X|
|GPU||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10||GP102||GP104||GM200||GM204||Fiji XT|
|Base Clock||1406 MHz||1247 MHz||1156 MHz||1382 MHz||1480 MHz||1607 MHz||1000 MHz||1126 MHz||1050 MHz|
|Boost Clock||1677 MHz||1546 MHz||1471 MHz||1600 MHz||1582 MHz||1733 MHz||1089 MHz||1216 MHz||-|
|Memory Clock||1890 MHz||1890 MHz||1600 MHz||1890 MHz||11000 MHz||10000 MHz||7000 MHz||7000 MHz||1000 MHz|
|Memory Interface||2048-bit HBM2||2048-bit HBM2||2048-bit HBM2||2048-bit HBM2||352-bit G5X||256-bit G5X||384-bit||256-bit||4096-bit (HBM)|
|Memory Bandwidth||484 GB/s||484 GB/s||410 GB/s||484 GB/s||484 GB/s||320 GB/s||336 GB/s||224 GB/s||512 GB/s|
|TDP||345 watts||295 watts||210 watts||300 watts||250 watts||180 watts||250 watts||165 watts||275 watts|
|Peak Compute||13.7 TFLOPS||12.6 TFLOPS||10.5 TFLOPS||13.1 TFLOPS||10.6 TFLOPS||8.2 TFLOPS||6.14 TFLOPS||4.61 TFLOPS||8.60 TFLOPS|
If you are a frequent reader of PC Perspective, you have already seen our reviews of the Vega Frontier Edition air cooled and liquid cards, so some of this is going to look very familiar. Looking at the Vega 64 first, we need to define the biggest change to the performance ratings of RX and FE versions of the Vega architecture. When we listed the “boost clock” of the Vega FE cards, and really any Radeon cards previous to RX Vega, we were referring the maximum clock speed of the card in its out of box state. This was counter to the method that NVIDIA used for its “boost clock” rating that pointed towards a “typical” clock speed that the card would run at in a gaming workload. Essentially, the NVIDIA method was giving consumers a more realistic look at how fast the card would be running while AMD was marketing the theoretical peak with perfect thermals, perfect workloads. This, to be clear, never happened.