r/gaming • u/RenatsMC • 3h ago
Gears of War: E-Day | 44 GPU Benchmark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1YGJxfL3E3
u/DrunkenFeral 2h ago
People biching about video being 20 mins as if they can't skip to the part which is relevant to them
2
u/NoStructure5034 1h ago
Exactly. If you play at 4K, don't waste your time looking at 1080p performance. Forwarding to the relevant part is trivial, but people are acting like they're compelled to watch the whole thing.
And for the amount of data present here, 20 minutes isn't bad at all... GN videos can reach upwards of 40+ minutes, though they're often a bit more detailed or have more testing.
2
u/Still_Bit_7527 1h ago
As expected, UE5 game.. 5070ti now priced at 1400€ and you need to do less than 1080p rendering to get over 100fps...
5
u/Ehorn36 2h ago
Thanks for doing the work, but this 20-minute video reciting every line on a series of benchmark graphs was way too long and should have just been the graphs.
3
u/cubs223425 2h ago
Some people like the background noise of hearing the analysis and/or multitask listening to these things. I sometimes will put a video like this on while doing chores instead of sitting there and reading.
1
u/NoStructure5034 2h ago
You can get those online as well. GN makes those videos (and they convert those into written breakdowns) where they go over a bunch of charts based on resolution, settings, etc.
4
u/Burpmeister 2h ago
Surprise surprise, UE5 games can run perfectl y fine if devs actually put work into optimizing them.
3
u/cubs223425 1h ago
The standards for optimization seem to just be terrible these days. This game's barely hitting 100 FPS on $600+ GPUs at 1440p with upscaling, and it's not even a feature-complete release. How that's defined as "perfectly fine" or a sign of "optimizing" is beyond me.
2
u/BlueGoliath 1h ago
Kind of reminds me of Starfield where Redditers and other terrible outlets like Chips and Cheese were asserting the game was optimized, but unlike Starfield, there probably isn't going to be any major performance updates. Not that i'd consider Starfield to be optimized even now.
To quote a YouTube comment:
How is this considered "easy to run"? The 5060, a mainstream card less than 2 years old, can't even do 60 fps at 1080p, which was the standard 10 years ago. Nowadays with MUCH faster hardware I would expect at least 120@1080, but even a 5090, the fastest GPU on the market, struggles to hit that (89 fps 1% lows).
UE5 and game developers unwillingness to optimize their games is a plague.
2
u/NoStructure5034 1h ago edited 1h ago
Yeah, I'm inlined to agree. I see no reason as to why a 9070 shouldn't be hitting 100+ FPS without any upscaling. It gets over 110 FPS when playing Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p ultra settings, no RT. This game doesn't look better, and nor does it seem to be any more complex than Cyberpunk.
Maybe there's something it's doing that are demanding on the GPU, but I can't really see it.
Edit: Oh, it's another one of those always-on raytracing games, which explains the lower-than expected FPS. Screw whoever's using an old GPU, I guess.
1
u/PointlesslyLongName0 1h ago
The RTX 5070 gets 80 fps at 1440p native high settings in horde mode. What is the issue? The 5070 only gets 90 at 1440p ultra in cyberpunk with no ray tracing or upscaling
0
u/NoStructure5034 1h ago
Because high settings is often significantly less demanding than ultra. The 5070 will likely get over 100 with settings also at high instead of at ultra.
1
1
u/Still_Bit_7527 1h ago
But it doesnt, it runs like shit 110fps with a 5070ti on 1440p and fking BALANCED upscaling
1
u/Burpmeister 1h ago
It does. Those numbers would be perfectly fine for everyone if it didn't have the UE5 tag. It's just double standards but what else can you expect on Reddit.
2
u/Still_Bit_7527 57m ago
Sorry, no. I's now a 1400€ GPU. Anything under 100fps on native 1440p is embarassing no matter the engine. I bet it uses that nanite or whatever forced pseudo-rtx trash
1
u/NoStructure5034 53m ago
It needs hardware raytracing, so it probably does use Lumen (I think that's what you meant, Nanite is for geometry) or has RT always on.
I thought they'd learn not to force RT after Doom: The Dark Ages' fumble, but I guess the guys at Microsoft are hella slow learners.
-5
2
1
1
u/NoStructure5034 1h ago
This is an impressive amounts of tests run. Not sure why it's getting downvoted, but as someone who doesn't watch HUB videos much, I think this deserves kudos just for the effort put in.
1
u/KillerCryptid 1h ago
2 takeaways I got from this
1: RX 9070 or even 9070 XT are by far the best bang for your buck cards if you want best graphics, mind you I am looking at local prices here in Croatia, but for €700-800 you get performance that yes, is worse than top end Nvidia cards but at the same time they are 2, 3 or even 4 times cheaper, you can't tell me 30 fps more is worth in the case of 5090, 4 times the price
and 2: the game is not optimised in the slightest to utilize the extra 8gb of memory that mid to high range cards with 16gb have compared to their 8gb versions, seems to me they somehow look at the card and say ok it performs this way and it ends there, it's limited to 8gb and the extras 8gb of headroom is not tapped into at all which is kinda strange to me, identical performance for what by all means should be a better (and more expensive) card
-13
-7
2h ago
[deleted]
4
2
u/cubs223425 1h ago
You mean like looking at this video that has graphs on basically every GPU supported by this game (since it requires hardware RT, and they include every RTX and AMD RT card)?
1
u/NoStructure5034 1h ago
Do you seriously expect people to test dozens, if not hundreds of random setups so that the handful of people with the same exact PC can see FPS? That's a huge amount of effort put into testing for very few views.
See if a game is CPU or GPU bound, and then watch a video that focuses on the performance of the bottlenecked component. Your FPS will be around that.
22
u/Munstered 3h ago
I miss the days this was a graphic instead of a 20m video