Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/571


One thing people almost always ask about when gaming computers come up in discussion is “AMD or NVIDIA?”. These are the two companies that have been making graphics processors for decades now (AMD having bought ATI) and there are fans on both sides of the fence, as well as users who just prefer whatever works best or is the most cost effective at the time.
Here are results from some of the top-end cards that each company has to offer currently. We’ve got the GeForce GTX Titan 6GB from NVIDIA, which is technically not quite as fast as the newer GTX 780 Ti and Titan Black models… but is still very, very fast. Facing off with that we have the AMD Radeon R9 295X, which has two GPUs on a single card. Each has 4GB of memory and is about equal to the R9 290X single-GPU cards. Since it is up against a single GPU card from NVIDIA, we turned off the second GPU in this initial test. Here are the results:
At 1920x1080 the NVIDIA GTX Titan clearly wins on average frame rate, by a pretty wide margin. Minimum frame rates are pretty close between the two cards, though, so at least the AMD graphics chip isn't dropping too low at any point. I should note that AMD's loss here does not appear to be related to video memory. I checked GPUz, and it was showing about 3GB of the Radeon's memory in use during this test.

At 4K both cards struggle, and while the game was still surprisingly more fluid than I would have expected for such low results I could definitely feel the difference, and it made combat difficult compared to the 30fps+ average at the lower resolution. I will say, though, that this game looks *amazing* at 4K. Hopefully as it is optimized during development and as newer video cards come out we will see single-GPU solutions capable of playing it at higher frame rates.

< Previous Next >
Tags: star, citizen, benchmark, performance, hardware, specs, space, simulator, arena, commander
Avatar Anonymous

On what setting was this tested on? Also, what graphics card was used? This is important info that I felt was left out.

Posted on 2014-06-12 22:32:19
Avatar Anonymous

For the CPU cores test, that is.

Posted on 2014-06-12 22:36:40

The info is there, but it is a little hidden on the second page:

"Unless otherwise noted, tests were done at Very High quality and 1920x1080."

I guess I didn't do a good job of spelling out the video card, though - on the CPU core testing it was a single GTX Titan 6GB.

Posted on 2014-06-12 23:39:24
Avatar Mihael Keehl

Using area commander v1.0 I'm getting an average of 55 FPS in broken moon against bots, they must have optimized the game a lot! Considering I've got a R9 280X 3GB and it runs faster than both R9 295X 4GB and GTX Titan 6GB running area commander v0.8, I guess doing benchmarks on an unfinished game is pretty much pointless.

Posted on 2015-01-09 21:48:33

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of dips and gains in FPS in my own playtime. However, I'd not quite say it is 'pointless'. It gives a good idea of where the game is starting out in terms of performance requirements, and if you needed to get a computer before the full release but wanted to be in good what when it launches then it could be helpful.

I plan to test again in the future, probably when multi-crew ships come out. Those will be bigger and even more complex models, so it may put some additional strain on the video cards... we'll see :)

Posted on 2015-01-09 21:54:09
Avatar Mihael Keehl

Thanks for getting back so quickly. It definitely was not pointless at the time, but it can be very confusing for someone who does not know the game at all. I can definitely see someone reading this and deciding not to get the game. We need as many people as we possibly can to join us in SC, more tests (and perhaps a comparison to the old tests) will be awesome! :-)

PS: I was surprised to see that Crytek dropped their normal release cycle in favour of a rolling release system.

Posted on 2015-01-09 22:17:57