Test of the Real Nvidia Gtx Titan, single-sli-tri Sli, 4 WAY SLI
-
Let's see, I've already had my first contact with the game's performance with its different options, and what you show us is very anomalous, to begin with:
I suppose you activate SSAA within the game itself, for some strange reason it doesn't work for me with the 314.14 drivers when activating it from the game launcher's configuration menu.
Once SSAA 4x is activated, I observe a very strong anomaly "similar" to yours in that it affects the hair, but in a different way. As I have a "small" Kepler, the differences can be explained by the differences between models, starting with having 2 GB of VRAM. In my case with 2x SSAA and everything in ultimate the test behaves normally consuming about 1.8GB of VRAM, but when activating 4x SSAA, besides the performance dropping much more than expected, it goes to consume about 1.5GB of VRAM, clearly impossible with these conditions. That is, it's not just that it exhausts the VRAM, it's also that it does something very strange to suddenly leave a gap of more than 512 MB of VRAM unused, harming the performance even more.
In your case VRAM is not a problem, but you still have that problem of blurring, I with the 4xSSAA issue have also seen a graphic artifact with the hair, and it's that Lara's hair flickers in yellowish tones every little while (about to enter super-soldier mode?).
These are very strange bugs, so I'll only say what the graphics are supposed to be doing at that moment regarding the hair:
Enter GPGPU mode, load the relevant data and run the computing shaders for hair simulation (linked lists), calculate its position at the given moment of game simulation and save that data either in the form of a 3D mesh, or even go beyond this and calculate the projection of the hair in the 2D image (and shading information) already in this mode, and pass through a buffer the hair information to the 3D mode of the graphics (back into this mode) to compose the final image.
Anyway, there is a moment when the hair is rendered, and it is saved in the form of a texture/buffer for later use. The flicker is a very important anomaly, but more so is the "blurring", which perhaps supports more a possible use of a hair image buffer. Perhaps the hair is calculated and "rendered" without texturing, and in my case due to the lack of VRAM it happens that it is sometimes shown without being fully rendered, with a "flat" color of the buffer passed from the GPGPU mode (it is possible that there are other buffers for additional information such as shine info, etc), and in your case with plenty of VRAM the problem turns into a pretty serious issue of how the final rendered hair image is implemented in the rest of the image (it seems that they have applied some kind of rescaling of that low-quality pre-rendered image for the calculation of the image at the SSAA internal resolution, and then it suffers a downsampling that just messes up the whole thing).
I have no idea if this happens on AMD graphics, but it seems to be a problem of how the hair rendering steps are managed when using SSAA 4x.
And by the way, do you see the force field covering Lara?, yes, the same one that prevents the hair from resting in any way on her shoulders or her back, leaving about 3-4 fingers of distance always between hair and body.
She's made a whole Jedi. Very professional TressFX (Manquiña dixit).
–-----
PD: How curious, upon looking better at the ELP3 screenshots I see that the "stain" is quite symmetrical but does NOT cover all the hair (the tips, etc., are seen outside the stain). It has a curious coloring with lighter and darker areas, will it be a hair shading/lighting map? But it should be used to calculate the final color/brightness value of each hair, not to appear like this on top of it. :ugly:
No idea what exactly is happening, but it's definitely a big bug.
That ELP3 bug and that other users with very large resolutions have is very likely posterior to the hair position calculation. When all calculations are done, there are post-processing passes to smooth the hair by applying anti-aliasing to each one. That post-processing is what I think is not well-sized for high resolutions and that's why it becomes blurry.
-
That ELP3 bug and that other users have with very high resolutions I think is much later than the calculation of the hair position. When all the calculations are done, there are some post-processing passes to smooth the hair by applying antialiasing to each one. That post-processing is what I think is not well-sized for high resolutions and that's why it becomes blurry.
Well, what can I say, it seems too blurry to me because of a bad application of a post-processing that probably just applies FXAA or little more. What surprises me is the symmetry of the final blur, and that it doesn't affect the hair tips at all, which makes me doubt about the post-processing or hair scaling issue (after all, supersampling consists of an upsampling and subsequent downsampling of the image). If that were the case, all the hair would have to be blurry, not almost all but not the tips.
Besides, the blurs would fit quite well in their tones with what would be the lighting to apply to the hair.
But whatever it is, it's a matter of how the issue has been done. Fine and good, "hoyga".
PD: By the way, it's curious that the scene of the integrated benchmark of the game, which occurs at the beginning just after leaving the cave, in benchmark it gives me with ultimate about 41-42 fps, but in the real game scene it runs around 60-70 fps with ease.
It will be post-processing issues, for sure… ¬¬
-
As it is related to the resolution, I repeat that I do not think it is anything related to physical calculations. ManuelG from nvidia says that they have already seen the error and are looking into it.
-
Sorry, but you reserve the customizations in the comment and the "your favorite company" for yourself, the tone is fair, bla, bla, bla, bla, ….
Nvidia and AMD have cheated whenever they could, you're not going to sell me the story at this point that AMD is doing something unprecedented. By the way, I haven't used any special tone, so you'd better save the superior attitude you're putting on.
Optimizations and deoptimizations are a mess whoever does them, but when they started with the "meant to be played" many of us warned that things would end up like this and many people denied it and even said that this was good for the user because their cards would work better and that the fault was with ATI for not doing the same… well here we have the briefcase war and the "superbenefited" users.
-
As it is related to the resolution, I repeat that I do not think it is anything related to physical calculations. ManuelG from nvidia says that they have already seen the bug and are looking into it.
It's just that I don't think it's resolution.
As I say, at 1200p with SSAA X4 it also does it... and 1200p, I don't think it's a super special resolution...
Best regards.
-
It's just that I don't think it's resolution.
Like I said, at 1200p with SSAA X4 it also does it... and 1200p, I don't think it's a super special resolution...
Best regards.
1200p SSAAx4 is a lot of resolution. Supersampling multiplies the resolution, it's not MSAA.
1920x1200 SSAAx2 would be like 2880x1600
1920x1200 SSAAx4 would be like 3840x24002560x1600 SSAAx2 would be like 3620x2260
2560x1600 SSAAx4 would be like 5120x3200But I'm not saying it's special because it consumes a lot of performance, that you would have more than enough, it's just that there's a bug that from a certain resolution the hair doesn't look good. As soon as they fix it you'll be fine.
-
@PGS:
Nvidia and AMD have cheated whenever they could, you're not going to sell me the story at this point that AMD is doing something unprecedented. By the way, I haven't used any special tone, so you'd better save the superior attitude you're using.
Optimizations and de-optimizations are a mess whoever does them, but when they started with the "meant to be played" many of us warned that this would end up like this and many people denied it and even said that this was good for the user because their cards would work better and that the blame was on ATI for not doing the same... well here we have the briefcase war and the users "super benefited".
What was left to read. Sorry, but the "superiority tone" is the one you started using when saying "your favorite company" making what is a thinly veiled accusation that is not relevant (as far as I know, you are the first to mention others and with that accusation), so first respect, don't come with those "tones" and then if you demand that from others, don't come with tones either.
And by the way, with the TWIMTBP plan, AMD has never been seen to have a game perform 50% less on AMD than on Nvidia with similar cards. And if you want an example of the mess AMD has done, look at the performance with Dirt Showdown, with "optimizations" activated and what happens to the performance.
AMD has never needed special help to have performance problems, in fact they have had them with Gaming Evolved programs like Dragon Age 2, and some more cases, which are the games that have gone worst for GCN graphics vs Kepler.
Now you'll tell me that this was an "Nvidia boycott". I insist that Nvidia, their "specialty" in these matters more than sinking rival performance has been to implement proprietary features, like PhysX, "exclusive" AA or the use of techniques that suit them.
Of course there have been cases of "boycott", but they are the minority compared to exclusive optimizations. And I don't know what a simple "you too" comes to when we are talking about the current situation caused by AMD in current games, not what panchito and benito did 2 days ago.
-
1200p SSAAx4 is a lot of resolution. Supersampling multiplies the resolution, it's not MSAA.
1920x1200 SSAAx2 would be like 2880x1600
1920x1200 SSAAx4 would be like 3840x24002560x1600 SSAAx2 would be like 3620x2260
2560x1600 SSAAx4 would be like 5120x3200But I'm not saying it's special because it consumes a lot of performance, that you would have more than enough, it's that there's a bug that from a certain resolution the hair doesn't look good. As soon as they fix it you'll be fine.
I also have the same issue with 1080p and 1200p X2 SSAA... a bug... but from Nvidia, the game or both?
By the way, the strings from Crysis 3, until there's a patch, nothing, right?
A slaudo.
-
@PGS:
Nvidia and AMD have cheated whenever they could, you're not going to sell me the story at this point that AMD is doing something unprecedented. By the way, I haven't used any special tone, so you'd better save the superior attitude you're putting on.
Optimizations and deoptimizations are a mess whoever does them, but when they started with the "meant to be played" many of us already warned that things would end up like this and many people denied it and even said that this was good for the user because their cards would work better and that the fault was with ATI for not doing the same... well here we have the briefcase war and the "superbenefited" users.
I can guarantee you that those of us following that thread are not very maniacal and we don't care about Ati or Nvidia and especially for a long time I've been reading Elp3 and he doesn't care either, he's always said what he thought.
Best regards
-
Well... it's official:
http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame/3dmark-11-top-extreme-preset/
After the untouchable Kingpin, it's my turn...
I had to do it for the balls with the 2011... I don't like this platform at all, it has less performance than ivy, and besides, the micro can no longer go above 5.0GHZ... but the 12 threads do a lot in physics tests and I had no choice but to use it.
Of course the graphics are stock, air-cooled and without using voltage... why? if it's not useful for the moment...
I hope you like it... ;)
Best regards.
-
wOw Congratulations friend it looks super good ;D, I join the group of the F5f5f5f5f5f5.
-
Bueno…ya es oficial:
http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame/3dmark-11-top-extreme-preset/
Después del intocable Kingpin,voy yo..
Lo he tenido que hacer por huevos con el 2011..no me gusta nada esta plataforma,tiene menos rendimiento que el ivy,y además,el micro ya no es capaz de subir de 5,0GHZ..pero los 12 hilos hacen mucho en las pruebas de física y no me ha quedado mas remedio que utilizarla.
Por supuesto las gráficas están de stock,por aire y sin utilizar voltaje..para qué? si no sirve de momento..
Espero que os guste..;)
Un saludo.
Enhorabuena.
La que me parece muy buena puntuacion es la de Hazzan,pues son 680,aunque esos van con LN2 y es muy distinto a hacerlo por aire,el LN2 te asegura mas frecuencia tanto en CPU como a las GPU y en esos benchmark se nota.
saludos
-
I won't have the Titan until next week :wall:
While I wait, see if you can resolve some doubts for me:
- Drivers, beta or WHQL?
- For overclocking, I see that EVGA Precision is used, I was used to MSI Afterburner, is it for some reason?
- The monitor's overdrive, the function to give more than 60Hz, has anyone tried it?
- As for overclocking, from what I read, it's best to leave the fan on auto, and link Power and Temperature to the top, without needing to touch the voltage, right? Also, I come from some GTX 580s, they didn't have Boost, so I'm not very clear if I need to touch the offset or if it's not necessary to touch it and just raising the base speed is enough.
Thanks in advance.
P.D. What a wild score, and what a pleasure it is to see it there, I remember when I put a score among the top ten years ago the joy it gave me....
-
Bueno…ya es oficial:
http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame/3dmark-11-top-extreme-preset/
Después del intocable Kingpin,voy yo..
Lo he tenido que hacer por huevos con el 2011..no me gusta nada esta plataforma,tiene menos rendimiento que el ivy,y además,el micro ya no es capaz de subir de 5,0GHZ..pero los 12 hilos hacen mucho en las pruebas de física y no me ha quedado mas remedio que utilizarla.
Por supuesto las gráficas están de stock,por aire y sin utilizar voltaje..para qué? si no sirve de momento..
Espero que os guste..;)
Un saludo.
Enhorabuena ;D
-
Until next week I won't have the Titan :wall:
While I wait, see if you can solve my doubts:
- Drivers, the beta or the WHQL?
- For overclocking, I see that EVGA Precision is used, I was used to MSI Afterburner, is it for some reason?
- The monitor's overdrive, the function to give more than 60Hz, has anyone tried it?
- Regarding overclocking, from what I read, it's advisable to leave the fan in auto, and increase Power and Temperature to the top, without needing to touch the voltage, right? Besides, I come from some GTX 580s, they didn't have Boost, so I'm not very clear if you have to touch the offset or if it's not necessary to touch it and just increasing the base speed is enough.
Thanks in advance.
P.D. What a wild score, and what a pleasure it is to see it there, I remember when years ago I put a score among the top ten the joy it made me …....
Hello Pepillo.
Basically they are the same. The beta have some improvements in games like Sniper Elite. I advise you the beta, they are stable and don't give problems. Although there isn't any specific improvement for TITAN.
To do strong OCs with a lot of energy consumption, that is, to benchmark, it's better in auto. To play with OC 24/7 it's better to make a profile.La The graphics card is not hot at all, the thing is that silence is prioritized over temperature, the only thing you have to do is a slightly more aggressive profile so that for example, it doesn't exceed 70º.
You can continue doing OC with the MSI, the last beta 3.0.6 I think, is different, and you will never see reflected what you have put in the OC. That's because of the boost.Es That is, if you increase +150MHZ, it won't add the stock speed of the graphics card to those +150MHZ as in the GTX 580. Instead, it will be variable, always less, depending on how good your chip is and the boost it carries. There are several... the good ones come with 1006MHZ stock with Boost.. others, the few, 996MHZ.. and the smalas, I have one, 980MHZ..
Regarding the monitor's OC I haven't tried it.. mine is a 30" DELL and that one, doesn't swallow anything.. besides that it's very expensive to mess around with stories, and as long as it always stays, that is, ALWAYS, at 60 fps I have enough.
A balance and thanks.La truth is that I have been always in the HOF for several years, I even got to be the first... but one always entertains himself and it's worth something with the partners.. little, because I'm not even a overclocker.. but they respect you, they know you and they already talk to you about your.. hehe
-
Tremendous envy, but nothing healthy. Of the bad, bad ;DCongratulations
-
Thanks for the info. I still don't understand this:
You can still do OC with the MSI, the latest beta 3.0.6 I think, it's different, and you'll never see reflected what you've put into the OC. That's because of the boost.Es, that is, if you go up +150MHZ, the stock speed of the card won't add up to those +150MHZ like in the GTX 580. Instead, it will be variable, always less, depending on how good your chip is and the boost it has. There are several... the good ones come with 1006MHZ stock with Boost... others, the few, 996MHZ... and the smalas, I have one, 980MHZ...
Where do you put those extra 150, for example? In the offset? Or is that the difference between the normal and the boost and you shouldn't touch it? I'm really green on this, although I suppose when it arrives it won't be as difficult as it seems to me now.
Regards
-
Congratulations Elp3,…congratulations
regards
-
Thanks for the info. I still don't understand this:
Where do those extra 150 go, for example? Do you put them in the offset? Or is that the difference between the normal and the boost and you shouldn't touch it? I'm really green on this, although I suppose when it arrives it won't be as difficult as it seems to me now.
Regards
Yes, where you should raise the core is called GPU clock offset, the memory I think is called Mem clock offset, I don't think it's complicated because in the end it seems that the card does what it wants, that is, if you put +100 the same thing doesn't apply to you, that's why if you monitor the GPU clock you can see how much it's actually putting in. That's how you calculate how much you should put in the GPU clock offset.
In this screenshot from ELP3 you can see that it's monitoring the frequencies, two are seen at the same frequency and the others at less, it will influence a little how good the card turns out to be.
Regards
-
congratulations Elp3
