#BEST VIDEO CARD BENCHMARK TEST PATCH#
We hope that the Elite: Dangerous team can patch this up shortly. The display will also occasionally exhibit a noticeable “vertical scan” upward as frames are drawn, resulting in a somewhat displeasing gaming experience. We imagine this will only be resolved with game patches going forward. Unlike our experience in Far Cry 4, frame tearing was GPU-agnostic and prevalent throughout Elite: Dangerous and on all devices. Both are questionable in performance, though a few settings tweaks would make the GTX 980 playable at 4K (“high” settings with SMAA should do it). We tested with SMAA and 4xMLAA, both of which yielded similar results (read: performance difference within 10 frames) despite the significantly increased pixel count.Īll devices tested were deemed “playable” at 1440p resolutions, including AMD's new R9 285 GPU ($240) and nVidia's last-gen GTX 780.īecause VSR is not available on the R9 290X, we could only test the R9 285 at 4K resolution against the GTX 980. VSR & DSR also improve overall graphics fidelity, largely by eliminating jagged edges on skinnier objects (railing, grass, things like that).Īt 1440p, all devices suffer from a large and immediate performance drop. This allows for accurate simulation of a true 1440 or 4K experience, which is what we've got to use until a point when we have higher resolution displays available for testing. NVidia's DSR exhibits about a 1% FPS drop during the filtration process AMD exhibits no additional filtration FPS drop due to the location of the scaler in the render pipeline. The scaler and filtration process is removed from the graphics pipeline, so the FPS impact is representative only of what would be experienced on a true 1440 or 4K display. Using the new super resolution technology from both major GPU vendors, we're able to force render the output at higher resolutions and then filter it back down to the native display resolution. Elite: Dangerous Max Settings FPS 1440 & 4K VSR / DSR The 270X exhibits stellar performance at the price-point. Assuming your target framerate is 60FPS, target resolution is 1080p, and preferred settings are “max,” our minimum purchasing suggestions would be AMD's R9 270X 2GB ($165) or nVidia's GTX 750 Ti 2GB ($140) / GTX 760 2GB ($190). The 250X lands in “unplayable” territory on max settings, but dropping to medium settings resolves this and puts us closer to a consistent 50FPS.Īs expected, the GTX 980 runs largely unfettered by the game, limited only by the CPU. Even last generation's 1GB 7850 played at 53 average FPS, an impressive feat for what was once a $130 video card. 250X, 270X, 285Īt 1080p, we found Elite: Dangerous to be playable on effectively every budget or better video card.
#BEST VIDEO CARD BENCHMARK TEST DRIVERS#
AMD Catalyst Omega drivers were used for the AMD cards. NVidia 347.09 stable drivers were used for all tests conducted on nVidia's GPUs. We used FRAPS' benchmark utility for real-time measurement of the framerate, then used FRAFS to analyze the 1% high, 1% low, min, max, and average FPS. We tested each video card for 120 seconds in an identical circuit on the Launch training mission, using max settings and 4xAA. Test Methodologyįor this test, we varied the Elite: Dangerous settings between 1080p, 1440p, and 4K using super resolution tech. Tests were also conducted at 4K and 1080p. The above video shows Elite: Dangerous at maxed-out settings with 1440p super resolution (filtered down to 1080) on a GTX 980.
Elite: Dangerous Max Graphics Settings Benchmark at 1440p The game isn't nearly as GPU-intensive as Star Citizen's current alpha build ( which we also benchmarked), but still warranted testing.
0 kommentar(er)
