Search for new games to share.
Syntax for writing comments.
Frequently asked questions.
Community rules and guidelines.
I think this is the best benchmark I have ever seen in a game. Look at the amount of useful information there. It even tells you how many of the rendered frames in dynamic resolution mode were rendered at full resolution. This is just beautiful.
In addition to that the options menu is also exceptional and performance seems to be really good. I am impressed.
Comment has been collapsed.
just had a BSOD, man. and i've only clicked that pic!
Not sure if you're serious or joking. xD
Interesting stuff. I wonder what's the difference between Average GPU Framerate and Average Framerate?
They convert frame times to frame rate. So for example, if your GPU is able to deliver a frame in exactly 16.6ms, that would be a frame rate of 60. But if your CPU cannot prepare the frames fast enough or there are some other hiccups due to memory bottlenecks or whatever, your actual framerate will be lower than that.
In my case you can see that the CPU would be able to deliver a much higher frame rate and is idle a lot of the time, but the GPU uses up almost all available time to match the desired frame rate. So, as the benchmark rightfully states, I am heavily GPU bound with these settings.
That's quite intriguing! So is the 1080 essentially bottlenecking the i7? Never thought that could happen.
Oh, absolutely. At that resolution and ultra details I wouldn't expect anything else. :)
I want to test later if I can get it to 90fps without too much resolution scaling.
Looks like an fps-lock? That or the 1080's potential for playing games is under-developed.
But don't look at me, I run a potato in comparison.
If you look at the settings, maximum framerate isn't capped, but minimum framerate is 60. One can see from the stats that about 10% of the frames weren't rendered at full res, so I'd say that 60 FPS is about where performance is for a 1080 rendering 3440x1440 at Ultra.
Not an fps-lock, but a dynamic resolution scaling with a defined minimum frame rate, which is 60 in this case. So the GPU either creates frames in time (16.6ms) or the render resolution is reduced. Which happened here 10.3% of the time, as the benchmark also shows. So, in 89.7% of the time the GPU was fast enough to deliver the targeted frame rate. The rest of the frames were rendered with reduced resolution.
I want to see this evening which of the settings I have to reduce in order to hit 90fps without having too many reduced frames. I think I could easily use this benchmark and tweak the settings for hours without even playing the real game. xD
Nice for some :)
I have enough old games to keep me from shelling out for anything to compete with that ;)
(I can't run Gears)
Sure, on Steam alone there are enough old games to last for a lifetime. :)
To be fair, the 1080 is trying to play a brand new, visually taxing game at 1440p on Ultra settings, and is able to maintain 60 fps 90% of the time.
But this gets into why average fps isn't actually a very useful metric. A game that runs at 30 fps half the time and 90 fps half the time will have the same 60 fps as a game that runs at 55 fps half the and 65 fps half the time, but the latter will feel really smooth where the former will frequently stutter. A game that runs at 90 fps 3/4 of the time and 15 fps 1/4 of the time will present a seemingly great 71 fps average, but that's hiding the fact that 1/4 of the time it will grind to an unplayable mess.
Minimum fps and frame times is a much better metric, and here we see a minimum 5% fps of 58.4 and a frame time of 17.1ms, which is really good and should make for a pretty smooth experience.
I'm not having a go at the 1080.
Very cool. Definitely looking to buying and playing this sometime soon.
I didn't buy it, actually. They charge 70€ on Steam. I think that's too much for any game. Instead I bought the XBox Gaming Pass Ultimate for 2€ (promotion should still be running right now). Just have to remember to cancel the subscription in 2 months, then this game was really cheap for me. ;)
Ouch. That is definitely pricey...and yeah, the game pass is definitely the way to go. I always buy those promos for my step daughter and always forget to grab one for myself lol.
Yes, I was pleasantly surprised by the PC version of Gears 5, one of the best PC game I've seen in awhile technically wise. It also has impressive Steam integration, something I didn't expect to see at all.
The game has absolutely everything. Not only is it one of the best graphics options menu I've ever seen. With an impressive amount of option, a preview scene that shows you how the settings affects the game and even an indication of how taxing the option is on GPU and/or CPU. It also has perfect 21:9 support. It even has an option to crop cutscenes to fit 21:9 displays, which I don't think I've ever seen. It even supports my Razer Chroma keyboard (which very few games do).
The only criticism I have is that (just like in GoW 4) it automatically chooses the language based on the Windows region settings. So I have to change my Windows to English in order to play in English. That's just silly. But yeah, aside from that the game seems almost perfect from a technical standpoint.
Yes, all this stuff is great. They also added Steam trading cards and achievements, and Steam achievements even have properly implemented counters, which I haven't seen in a while. I made a preview video about a Steam version where it has shown - https://youtu.be/Vrnta-REJZc?t=119 Not sure about language because my Windows in English already, and shame about EU prices, MS significantly reduced prices in some regions and it was hard to resist and not to get it after that.
isn't that good.
multiplayer and online it's garbage, crashing, not working etc....
as graphics... well i tried in ultra 2K all and they aren't that good looking how people say (they are good yes, but not as good how people say)
tu animations are..... well...slow.... to run you need to press space key and wait like 0.5 seconds to start running.
it's a diferent game with covers etc..... and isn't a bad game obviously but it's really overrrated game by the hype of the people.
This is weird, I played few matches in every online mode and had no issues. For my tastes graphics looks great for such performance, and I have enjoyed the game so far, though I barely have time to play it.
Ofcourse it is, it is cutting so much corners instead of taking advantages like the old games did, 5 is a awfull game... when compared to the old ones atleast. Those certainly dont have the many issues 5 has, both quality and technical wise...
Which technical issues are you referring to?
That does look like a really good benchmark - much better than the one that came with AC Odyssey, and I thought that one was surprisingly good.
Is the benchmark available for download, or does it only come with the game?
the benchmark tool is integrated with the game, and it seems to represent the worst case scenario to stress test your pc since the actual in-game results are better than what the benchmarking tool gives
i did not expect to run any game on ultra preset with over 60 fps with my potato but gears 5 proved me wrong lol it's absoloutely fantastic and the best pc port i've seen in a decade, here is my benchmark:
sorry i had to post the link i don't know how to attack images here Xd
it's normal that an xbox game owned by microsoft (windows it's from microsoft) will have a good port, it's not fair to say that they did the best port when in fact they shouldn't have any problem doing it with any xbox game. when from the start they are really compatible.
Did you get the game ready driver for it? It improves performance a lot, so you might be able to squeeze out some extra frames. In ran abysmally for me before it, wouldn't maintain 60 at 1080p nevermind 4k. Post update it's fine. 1660Ti/i7 4790.
Yeah, I did install it before I first started it. Now that you mention it, it would have been interesting to do a before/after comparison. :)
Damn that is a benchmark that i have been waiting for my whole life. Thats a reason to buy the game for me no matter how good or bad the game is just to support those kind of actions but i have to admit that the 70 euros price is leaving a bad taste on my mouth.
good for me that i don't live in europe lol, for me i got it at the standard 60$ price tag :p
Yeah its so stupid that they raised the price at 70 while 60 euros in the first place were way too much for a lot of balcan and east countries. By the way doesnt Algeria have lower prices than normal? Is gears an axception?
unfortunatly our country does not have a regional pricing support yet so we follow the USA's pricing while having 30 times less average income/person so Gears 5's price is the same standard 60$ as any other AAA game
Thats a real shitty situation.
Yes, from a technical standpoint, Gears ofnotwar 5 is a very thorough game with tons of settings in the entire spectrum.
I like this benchmark too. Here's mine;
A 2080 at 1080p - you need a new monitor. ;)
Yeah but then I'd need a new CPU as well. I'd much rather play on 144hz than 60 so yeah, gaming is quite expensive for me ^^
Pretty detailed, looks cool.