DiRT 4 Performance Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

d_kuhn

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2002
704
0
18,990
2
Can we get a link to full res images? How are we supposed to compare ultra/high quality images when they're squeezed down into tiny frames. These sort of reviews lose a lot when the accompanying visuals are unusable.
 

Sakkura

Illustrious
The VRAM usage comparison doesn't take into account that the R9 390 lacks the more efficient compression algorithms that newer cards feature. The RX 480 would likely have compared better against the GTX 1060.

Another thing: Why are the shadows so much sharper at High than at Ultra?
 

darth_adversor

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2012
74
1
18,635
0
I wonder if the 4GB variant of the GTX 1050 would have posted higher framerates on the high preset. That's the model my laptop came equipped with. I paid a little extra, as I was concerned that it would be held back with only 2GB.

Edit: seeing as how the Asus 6GB 1060 bests the 3GB Gigabyte version, in spite of having less aggressive clocks, I guess I have my answer. Glad I sprung for the 4GB model.
 
"The game’s graphics engine isn't extraordinary, and its visuals are merely acceptable. We would have liked to see higher-quality textures, more particles, and a greater effort put toward shadows/lighting."
Yeah this is a disappointment compared to DiRT Rally which I was an early access adopter of. It is extremely easy on the GPU and at 1440p maxed out everything and 4xMSAA, the built-in bench with my SLI 970s overclocked to 980 reference performance showed ~120fps average. VRAM allocation according to Afterburner was around 2.2GB max. About the same for Grid Autosport as well. Single 970 results in the tests were in the 70s on average and never dipping below 60FPS in minimum.

Compare ^that^ to the 970 results at only 1080p of this game. Codemasters got sloppy with DiRT 4 it appears. Great gameplay, but from my viewpoint, the increased consumption of GPU resources is disappointing for the results. And what's up with CM ditching the built-in game benchmark they've had in Autosport, Rally, and earlier F1 versions? I'll relinquish this one to PS4 duty. Slack console port attempt. Disappointing, CM.
 

Openupitsdave

Honorable
May 20, 2014
157
0
10,710
9
Game looks and runs like garbage on my GTX1080 @ 1440p... Dirt 3 has similar picture quality but way more fps.... Very disappointed with Dirt 4...
 

Sakkura

Illustrious


The shadows are also softer at lower settings though. And they seem to be lower res, such that features are lost (beyond what a bit of softness would warrant).
 

MCMunroe

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2006
283
1
18,865
38
Ultra Preset GTX 1080, i7-6700k @ 2160p.
It runs average about ~45FPS.

I agree with the other posters for how the visuals look, I'd expect more FPS, or better images.
 

Yep_____

Prominent
Jul 8, 2017
2
0
510
0
The environment and particle effects look like absolute garbage. I would've thought that in recent years the environment and particles wouldn't look so flat and egregious. At this point it seems like we're years away from something that looks comparable to real life. It just looks like shit.
 

Yep_____

Prominent
Jul 8, 2017
2
0
510
0
The environment and particle effects look like absolute garbage. I would've thought that in recent years the environment and particles wouldn't look so flat and egregious. At this point it seems like we're decades away from something that looks comparable to real life. It just looks like shit.
 

Nintendork

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2008
464
0
18,780
0
And this why you shouldn't lose your head over paying for a high end card to play everything Ultra, after Crysis and the console port era, Ultra setting differences are so minimal (sometimes you need to stare at the images for 20sec to notice something) it simply doesn't justifies losing half the fps.

High in all the games and a RX580/1060 will last a long time with the 1070 being future proof.
 

Sakkura

Illustrious


The compression helps both reduce the amount of memory capacity used, and the amount of memory bandwidth used. A given amount of data has to be in VRAM for it to be transferred. If you cut down one you're also cutting down the other.

Anandtech was just focusing on the bandwidth impact because that's much more relevant to performance than the impact on capacity. The impact on bandwidth is also greater than the impact on capacity because this data gets sampled repeatedly. But it does also take up less actual VRAM capacity, otherwise there would be no effect on bandwidth either.
 


Depends on the game. In a shooter like BF1 or RPG like Fallout 4 that may be the case. But in driving games like Project Cars and DiRT Rally and Assetto Corsa, there are differences in quality of track detail, draw distance, exterior and interior car texture quality, scenery, etc.

Also, you do realize people game with resolutions like 1440p and 4K as well as ultra wide monitors that push many times more pixels than 1080p right? Even a GTX 1080Ti can't hit 60FPS in games like Dues Ex and Watchdogs 2 in 4K at high settings. Same with a 1070 at 1440p and high setting in those games.
 

chaosmassive

Honorable
Nov 2, 2012
152
0
10,690
1
"Everything is simplified to the max: the gardener mowed the lawn, trees lose some of their branches, and the spectators are apparently at home."

you just make me choke on water
 

spdragoo

Splendid
Ambassador
Interesting...

Kind of new coming into the DiRT franchise, so I can't really say how it compares to the others. And I'm only really getting in because of the free DiRT 4 code I received (thank you, Tom's Hardware!!).

That being said, seeing how my system's R9 380 compared against the 390 on Ultra/4x MSAA settings (https://www.techspot.com/review/1425-dirt-4-performance/) at 1080p, & that my monitor limits me to 900p resolution anyway, even with my system using an FX-8320 it looks like I can reasonably expect to get at least 50FPS average/40-45FPS minimum in the game on High settings...& to me, that's not too shabby at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS