Grand Theft Auto V Single GPU Performance Review Part 1

It's not really a single GPU performance review without the TITAN X, is it? Why weren't those results included in part 1 where they belong? You didn't explain why you excluded them anywhere in the article.

Thanks for the great work!
 
Titan X is a halo card, that would be pointless.

Obviously its faster than a 980.
 
The Mac said:
Titan X is a halo card, that would be pointless.

Obviously its faster than a 980.
Click to expand...

Pointless to whom? People that can't afford them? There are people considering purchasing these cards who would benefit from that information, even if you don't.
 
The Mac said:
its faster than a 980, what else do you need to know?
Click to expand...

What its upper limit is? Good lord, why do you bother with a site like this? The whole premise of [H] is reaching for that high end and seeing how far something will go before failure. Build a new gaming rig, and you don't go into it looking for the cheapest thing to get the minimum, you get the highest level hardware your budget can sustain. Knowing what the top end hardware can do lets you make an educated purchasing decision.

;)
 
AMN3S1AC said:
"At 1080p the GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290 are your best deals in that resolution. Of course, if you can afford it, an R9 290X would be even better at 1080p and allow higher settings."

The charts suggest that the GTX 970 is better at 1080p....with the 290X lagging behind with the same settings.
Click to expand...

Can someone address this? I saw the same thing... Seems like the results conflict with the recommendation.

For me the 290x $15 bucks cheaper then the 970 but the 970 getting better fps.
 
The 12gb on a card that's passable in 4k, makes me think of cables being sold to audiophiles.

I'll wait for my 980ti coat hanger.
 
Was interesting to see that in 1440P apples to apples all maxed out a GTX 970 was only getting 5-7 FPS more on AVG and MIN over a R9 290. Pretty good considering the 290 can be had for at least $50 less.
 
I'm still holding out for a video card, because I wanted to see what AMD's new stuff will be like. I'm curious to see if my 6970 will be able to play this game. lol I'm most likely going to go back to nvidia after so many years and get the 970 gtx.
 
The AMD Radeon R9 280X was the worst offender, not only having problems rendering higher levels of grass, but just in overall performance. On paper, the specifications of the R9 280X are better than the R9 285, especially in memory bandwidth and capacity. However, these things did not help the AMD Radeon R9 280X at all.
Click to expand...

The AMD Radeon R9 280X is based on the oldest generation of GCN, in fact it is the first, and oldest. This video card you will remember is a re-brand of the Radeon HD 7970. Given the older architecture it suffers quite a bit in GTA V, despite its hefty specifications in memory bandwidth and capacity.
Click to expand...

That is all the highest in-game settings except that Grass is on "Normal" because the R9 280X cannot do anything higher than that without crashing.
Click to expand...

And people said I was crazy. Right.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1859111
 
Smashed Ixnay said:
I'm curious to see if my 6970 will be able to play this game. lol
Click to expand...

I'm playing on a 6950, with reduced settings of course. Grass, shadows, and postfx turned down to normal, everything else on high/very high. SweetFX running through RP. Frame capped at 60 to make the menus play nice. I also disabled A/O because it supposedly isn't working atm, I can't tell a difference either way if it is.

Get 45-70 fps (without the cap on) outdoors depending on location. Not the best, but playable enough and looks good enough that I'm still holding off on an upgrade for now. GTA is the only demanding game I'm messing with lately.

The game can be quite demanding at max, but R* gave us enough settings to play with that it scales down to older cards pretty well.
 
Hmmm, looks like my 280X will be disappointing which will be a first as it's handled most games (Shadow of Mordor, ALIEN) that I played last year with ease.
 
TangledThorns said:
Hmmm, looks like my 280X will be disappointing which will be a first as it's handled most games (Shadow of Mordor, ALIEN) that I played last year with ease.
Click to expand...

Yep, I had to stop a friend buying a 280x for GTA V today by selling him my 290x.
It made me upgrade a bit early as well, but I likes the funsies of new hardware :)
 
Well this explains a little bit why my son cannot get GTA V to work, he has a 280x and he has tried just about everything under the sun. It just crashes windows when he starts the game.
 
Can u also include GTX 970 SLI as well in the next part,
i want to know how it perform on 1080p max settings+ max adv settings + FXAA (or MSAA 2x)

I think i'm gonna do 970 SLI, if it gonna perform well because of the price-performances.

I look some of youtube videos, one of them use TitanX (youtube.com/watch?v=JmW84FCKPck)
even T-X at 1080P+Max settings+Max Adv.Graphics+MSAA 8x, he's still struggle to 20FPS-ish especially on the country side with a lot of grass, and about 4,5GB vram is used.
 
Last edited:
Would love to see 280x CFX (as I'm rolling with a pair of 1st gen 7970's) if you can eek them in there in part 2.

Love the game, but yeah, it seems I have to really lower the settings to get it close to playable on Eyefinity. :(
 
It's not really a single GPU performance review without the TITAN X, is it? Why weren't those results included in part 1 where they belong? You didn't explain why you excluded them anywhere in the article.

Thanks for the great work!
Click to expand...

I too, wonder this.




The Mac said:
its faster than a 980, what else do you need to know?
Click to expand...

Ok then, logic.

They included the 960, why not just have 960 only? 970 and 980 are faster, so what else do you need to know?
 
yeah the lack of titan x results is disappointing. Some of us have titan x's that don't have 4k displays....
 
cptnjarhead said:
Well this explains a little bit why my son cannot get GTA V to work, he has a 280x and he has tried just about everything under the sun. It just crashes windows when he starts the game.
Click to expand...

Err, no. This doesn't not explain why your son cannot get GTA to work at all.
It works perfectly well on a 280x, you just have to turn the grass down to get better frame rates.

If windows is crashing then you need to look elsewhere, drivers? overclock? game patched? etc etc
 
ColonelBlimp said:
Err, no. This doesn't not explain why your son cannot get GTA to work at all.
It works perfectly well on a 280x, you just have to turn the grass down to get better frame rates.

If windows is crashing then you need to look elsewhere, drivers? overclock? game patched? etc etc
Click to expand...

ER yes... Have looked elsewhere.... no overclock (he doesnt know how to do that) have tried multiple drivers, patched, un patched, everything under the sun. And he cannot get into the game to adjust anything. The game BSOD when he starts it. Every other game on his machine runs without issue.
As others have said, some people with the 280x are having trouble with this game. Dont just assume that people havent tried other avenues to address and issue. ;)
 
defaultluser said:
Techspot already did it:

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

It looks like the game tops-out at 4-5 principle cores used, which is why the FX 4 to 6 to 8 cores spans less than 20% performance increase.

That also explains why the Phenom II 980 4-core is competitive with lower-clocked 6 and 8 core processors.

The conclusions page also supports this observation, when the reviewer reported 60% CPU usage on a n 8350E, and 90% utilization for the Core i3. That SCREAMS 4-5 principle threads.

Also, good to see the i3 staying competitive. Looks like we can still highly recommend it for value gaming PC builds :D

Also, on-topic: thanks [H] guys for pushing these cards to the limit. Site like Techspot don't even bother trying that hard, and I really only read their reviews because they have regular CPU benchmarks.

Can you believe Techspot recommended 1080p NORMAL TEXTURES for the GTX 960?



And then if you look THEY NEVER TESTED THE 960, they just made assumptions based on the results of other cards. So yeah, they obviously didn't put any effort into this :(
Click to expand...

They also state "Still, the higher-end FX models such as the FX-8350 and FX-9590 delivered reasonable performance despite being slower than the Core i3."
Their own graphs show that this isn't the case, with the only i3 benching bellow both. Makes me suspicious of the entire article.
 
funkydmunky said:
They also state "Still, the higher-end FX models such as the FX-8350 and FX-9590 delivered reasonable performance despite being slower than the Core i3."
Their own graphs show that this isn't the case, with the only i3 benching bellow both. Makes me suspicious of the entire article.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't normally trust them with anything, but they are really the only place that does regular CPU testing of mainstream games. I only read the conclusions to their "review" to laugh at it.

They suck at ANALYZING the data they provide, but it's usually reasonable. It's rare to find an outlier in their CPU performance tests graphs, so I figure they are capable of copying and pasting a number from their test software :D But they're lazy and will never test CPU usage for multilayer modes for heavy games like Battlefield.

I don't care if they don't have the slightest idea how a microprocessor works.
 
Last edited:
TechSpot's benchmarks are incredibly inaccurate, I've said this before and got criticized for it.

Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't going away.
- Elvis Presley
 
aop said:
The conclusions of this article seem to be really strange since your own performance figures don't support what you are saying in the conclusion section.

1. Why do you recommend R9 290X over GTX 970 for 1440p when your own results show GTX 970 is faster?

2. Why do you say GTX 780 is performing poorly when your own 1080p Apples-to-Apples benchmarks show it's performing almost identically to R9 290 (29fps vs 30.8fps, both have 20fps minimum)?
Click to expand...

The first part has been pointed out in this thread twice already, still not corrected. Meanwhile at least two less important errors have been corrected based on feedback in this thread. So it seems pretty obvious that the conclusion text is not considered to be an error although based on the data it is false.

The second part is also a good point, but I suppose the highest playable settings (where the 290 can run high resolution shadows and the 780 can't) puts the 290 ahead. Besides, it is faster in those apples-to-apples numbers too (1.8 fps = 6.2%). I don't consider that to be a terrible result for the 780, but not great either.
 
Yup, this is maybe the strangest part:
At 1080p the GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290 are your best deals in that resolution. Of course, if you can afford it, an R9 290X would be even better at 1080p and allow higher settings.
Click to expand...
While their own results show GTX970 is 16% faster at 1080p with maxed settings. :confused:
 
I have been playing GTA V since the release. It is excellent on my geforce GTF970.
Anyone since last weekend I have a bug which seems to be video card related. The game crashes. ERR GFX D3D...
To fix it I did underclocking and I lowered the settings globaly. I was using "optimum" settings with nvidia geforce experience. I went up to 120HZ too as now it is uber fluid! I seem not to be alone...: https://support.rockstargames.com/h...estions/203458477-ERR-GFX-D3D-INIT-Crash-BSOD
Anyone knows exactly what settings to lower not to crash keeping the others to the max?
 
I had troubles with my gtx 760 running gta 5, kept crashing every 2 mins into the game, put my oc'd frequency back to stock an it runs fine. then touch the memory a bit to see the problem an it started crashing again, even a little 100mhz oc on the memory, an it crashes. then i touched on my core clock for my gpu. the max oc i can get on my asus directCU II gtx760 is 1280mhz core. so i pushed it right up to the max and everything runs fine. played for 4 hours straight no crash. hopefully this helps people to get gta 5 up an running.

get about 60-68fps average at 1080p, 2x msaa, fxaa, an txaa. some adv settings enabled, normal shadow, no reflection. depth field off, an water normal. everything else is maxed out. using a 2500k oc'd to 4.4ghz 8GB ddr3 1600mhz, installed on my 3TB WD red drive. while ingame i seen my vram usage go up to 1.8GB(system ram is 5.5GB) so i think i got some more room to increase some settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top