People were interested in seeing some AMD benchmarks for the just released Dirt Showdown and I'm happy to oblige. Here are some comparative results for both of my main GPUs.
Remember, based on theoretical numbers these two GPUs are about as powerful. The R7 of course has more VRAM than the 760 (2GB vs 4GB) but that rarely gets utilized. So, without further ado, let's benchmark this!
So here are the Nvidia numbers. As you can see, the game performs very well and only goes below the magical 60 FPS mark on Ultra and even there it's at a reasonable 52 FPS. Note that these are average framerates and the game can occasionally drop about 20 FPS for a moment. The performance drop-off is fairly small up until Ultra, where the performance drops quite radically.
And now we come to the newbie of my hardware, the R7 370 which I have been using for the past two weeks. While Dirt Showdown is apparently playable on the RadeonSI driver, provided that you compile it yourself, I stuck to the Catalyst 15.7 driver for this benchmark. Mainly because I'm extremely lazy and won't compile my own GPU drivers. It's worth noting that the R7 runs a lot slower on Ultra Low, it's only about half the performance of the 760. However, the performance also seems to drop a lot slower. And when reaching Ultra the R7 actually catches up to the 760.
Here you can see both results on the same chart for easier reading:
So generally the R7 performs quite a bit worse than the 760 initially. I haven't quite figured out what caused the sudden drop in performance for the 760 on Ultra. It could be the VRAM but somehow I don't think that's the case. Regardless, the game was completely playable on both cards and I congratulate Virtual Programming for a fine performing port. I haven't actually played the game yet, I simply ran these benchmarks but if the benchmarks give any idea about how well the game is going to run, then this will probably be a pleasant game to play framerate-wise.
If you want to see additional Nvidia numbers and a little bit of gameplay, you can head on over to Liam's preview article where he tested the game with a GTX 560 Ti and a GTX 970.
I'll reserve a spot for Dirt Showdown for the Friday Livestream so you can see my first impressions of the game there. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Remember, based on theoretical numbers these two GPUs are about as powerful. The R7 of course has more VRAM than the 760 (2GB vs 4GB) but that rarely gets utilized. So, without further ado, let's benchmark this!
So here are the Nvidia numbers. As you can see, the game performs very well and only goes below the magical 60 FPS mark on Ultra and even there it's at a reasonable 52 FPS. Note that these are average framerates and the game can occasionally drop about 20 FPS for a moment. The performance drop-off is fairly small up until Ultra, where the performance drops quite radically.
And now we come to the newbie of my hardware, the R7 370 which I have been using for the past two weeks. While Dirt Showdown is apparently playable on the RadeonSI driver, provided that you compile it yourself, I stuck to the Catalyst 15.7 driver for this benchmark. Mainly because I'm extremely lazy and won't compile my own GPU drivers. It's worth noting that the R7 runs a lot slower on Ultra Low, it's only about half the performance of the 760. However, the performance also seems to drop a lot slower. And when reaching Ultra the R7 actually catches up to the 760.
Here you can see both results on the same chart for easier reading:
So generally the R7 performs quite a bit worse than the 760 initially. I haven't quite figured out what caused the sudden drop in performance for the 760 on Ultra. It could be the VRAM but somehow I don't think that's the case. Regardless, the game was completely playable on both cards and I congratulate Virtual Programming for a fine performing port. I haven't actually played the game yet, I simply ran these benchmarks but if the benchmarks give any idea about how well the game is going to run, then this will probably be a pleasant game to play framerate-wise.
If you want to see additional Nvidia numbers and a little bit of gameplay, you can head on over to Liam's preview article where he tested the game with a GTX 560 Ti and a GTX 970.
I'll reserve a spot for Dirt Showdown for the Friday Livestream so you can see my first impressions of the game there. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
What settings does the game allow you to change manually? If possible, you could try reducing the texture quality while leaving the rest on ultra. That should reduce the required VRAM, so might improve the performance on GTX 760 if VRAM is the issue.
0 Likes
ElectricPrism Aug 18, 2015
Phoenix put out a article on this too
nVidia vs AMD Linux Gaming DIRT
Thanks for sharing the data :)
nVidia vs AMD Linux Gaming DIRT
Thanks for sharing the data :)
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: cdnr1why aren't you using the latest nvidia driver352.30 is the latest stable driver. 355 is a beta driver.
0 Likes
Awesome job Samsai, definitely looking forward to more of these articles in the future where possible :)
0 Likes
there must be some sort of obvious driver bottleneck here on AMD. The fact that it catches up at ultra and that overall the performance is holding quite well.
fAilMD again. Keep hearing about the opensource drivers catching up to catalyst, then we remember catalyst is a lot slower than it should be. How are AMD going to manage to get all existing openGL games ( 1400 ) upto scratch and ready for SteamOS ? Vulcan may help new titles but Vulcan is only going to be supported on the latest cards and that leaves all 1400 ( maybe near 2000 ) by the time they get the performance right, games in a weak or broken position.
honestly, Valve should of made SteamOS exactly as they have done now, but with a fixed performance baseline using a 780Ti/980Ti and allowed for AMD as a option just because its possible. Then each year support better and faster Nvidia cards.
Which is sort of happening but they should just come out and state it as a target. It might at the very least get AMD to wake up.
fAilMD again. Keep hearing about the opensource drivers catching up to catalyst, then we remember catalyst is a lot slower than it should be. How are AMD going to manage to get all existing openGL games ( 1400 ) upto scratch and ready for SteamOS ? Vulcan may help new titles but Vulcan is only going to be supported on the latest cards and that leaves all 1400 ( maybe near 2000 ) by the time they get the performance right, games in a weak or broken position.
honestly, Valve should of made SteamOS exactly as they have done now, but with a fixed performance baseline using a 780Ti/980Ti and allowed for AMD as a option just because its possible. Then each year support better and faster Nvidia cards.
Which is sort of happening but they should just come out and state it as a target. It might at the very least get AMD to wake up.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: mr-eggthere must be some sort of obvious driver bottleneck here on AMD. The fact that it catches up at ultra and that overall the performance is holding quite well.
fAilMD again. Keep hearing about the opensource drivers catching up to catalyst, then we remember catalyst is a lot slower than it should be. How are AMD going to manage to get all existing openGL games ( 1400 ) upto scratch and ready for SteamOS ? Vulcan may help new titles but Vulcan is only going to be supported on the latest cards and that leaves all 1400 ( maybe near 2000 ) by the time they get the performance right, games in a weak or broken position.
honestly, Valve should of made SteamOS exactly as they have done now, but with a fixed performance baseline using a 780Ti/980Ti and allowed for AMD as a option just because its possible. Then each year support better and faster Nvidia cards.
Which is sort of happening but they should just come out and state it as a target. It might at the very least get AMD to wake up.
being equal on Ultra would probably mean something completely different. from my experience this would be limit at which rest of the computer can feed to gpu, but that would only be possible to be sure about if benchmark included cpu utilization.
when you hit cpu bottleneck it doesn't matter if you have Titan X or Iris 4000. computer simply cannot feed frames which could be rendered on gpu and you end up with under utilized gpu where both will render same amount of frames as long as they can since limitation is elsewhere
also, there is one shiny spot in future. Vulkan and its simpler drivers should be able to create equal standings for all vendors. AMD is probably betting on the fact that next gen could finally enable them to catch up with times and get rid of ATi past with terrible drivers
Last edited by vulture on 19 August 2015 at 2:15 pm UTC
0 Likes
DamonLinuxPL Aug 19, 2015
Hmm. If I good understand new eON games have still disabled some OPenGL extension like ARB_texture_storage on Catalyst driver and this causes worst performance. So we can run this like the witcher2 with command line with command "--eon_disable_catalyst_workarounds"
And now check performamance. Anyone can test it on Catalyst 15.7?
And now check performamance. Anyone can test it on Catalyst 15.7?
1 Likes, Who?
The sad part is that in Linux that 760 would probably outperform my 290x crossfire...
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me