This benchmark isn’t the game – they aren’t the same thing, and the benchmark is not representative of the game. We hope it isn't, anyway.
But that’s the problem. This isn’t representative of the game, and yet, as a high-profile title, people are basing GPU purchases off of the benchmark results.
This goes beyond “AMD vs. NVIDIA” – even if we assume a vacuum where a user only buys from one vendor, that user is still being misled into purchasing overly powerful hardware. Say someone only buys nVidia, the company clearly advantaged here – that someone might jump to a 1080 Ti or a 1080, rather than a perfectly capable 1070, and that’s entirely because the
benchmark (emphasis: not the game) makes things look more demanding than reality. The
benchmark, what with its unimpressive implementation of otherwise promising graphics technologies, shows upwards of 40% performance dips from settings that realize no visual improvement. Again, this is with fixed high graphics settings outside of GameWorks. Our video embedded in this article demonstrates on vs. off GameWorks implementations, clearly showing that grass is the only realized, global effect. We’re not complaining that GameWorks is more taxing on AMD than nVidia – that’s to be expected, as it is nVidia software, and is a separate discussion – but that there is no visual improvement conveyed in the benchmark utility, yet there most certainly
is numerical impact to benchmark numbers.
The fact of the matter is that these results are poisoned by buggy or incompetent execution, largely attributable to Square Enix and their needlessly rendered objects, scenes, and needless rendering of highly intensive settings that unevenly impact the GPU vendors. The
aggregate numbers are further poisoned by a lack of control, poisoned twice more by the ability to break the benchmark scoring by going off-rails, and one more time by the locked-down graphics settings.
Eikös 1080Ti ole nvidian oma tuote?
