nanaxerotic.blogg.se

1. #Fraps vs replay capture suite drivers
2. #Fraps vs replay capture suite driver
3. #Fraps vs replay capture suite full
4. #Fraps vs replay capture suite software

V-Sync was completely disabled for this test. The native resolution of the display is 1920x1080. All case fans were set to 100% speed and automated fan control settings were disabled for purposes of test consistency and thermal stability.Ī 120Hz display was connected for purposes of ensuring frame throttles were a non-issue. 4x4GB memory modules were kept overclocked at 2133MHz. The system was kept in a constant thermal environment (21C - 22C at all times) while under test.

#Fraps vs replay capture suite drivers

AMD 14.7 drivers were used for the AMD cards, which contain no notes of GRID-specific improvements.ġ6GB Kingston HyperX Genesis 10th Anniv. The 340.43 beta introduced performance improvements specifically for GRID. NVidia 340.43 beta drivers were used for all tests conducted on nVidia's GPUs. These numbers were matched against internally-captured XML results. We used FRAPS' benchmark utility for real-time measurement of the framerate, then used FRAFS to analyze the 1% high, 1% low, min, max, and average FPS FRAFS was further used to dissect the frametime performance of the GPUs, though that will not be covered here (as it is more related to drivers and GPUs than to GRID). The tools can be accessed through the graphics options and looped until cancelation, at which point an XML file is compiled with results. Metro: Last Light used Very High settings with High tessellation and no SSAO.Īll tests were conducted three times for parity, each using the built-in GRID: Autosport graphics benchmark tool and Metro: Last Light benchmark tool. Our tuned "max" setting started from the baseline "ultra" preset, but then added Global Illumination, SSAO, and advanced lighting.

#Fraps vs replay capture suite full

The GRID: Autosport FPS benchmark ( full game bench here) was conducted a custom "max" setting. FRAPS has an unalterable bit-rate that is discussed below. All tests were run for two minutes at 50Mbps (GVR, ShadowPlay). Storage and capture quality differences were also tested. We did both types of tests - comparative and single-GPU.

#Fraps vs replay capture suite software

In order to show which software suite performs best on each GPU, we had to normalize the comparative results and present them as "Percent FPS Degradation" rather than strictly "FPS."įor single-GPU tests, raw FPS can be shown to bring things down to earth. There's a problem, though - AMD and nVidia GPUs can't be compared linearly with raw FPS output due to architectural and performance differences. We benchmarked unfiltered gameplay against recorded gameplay with each tool. The tests were conducted in a fashion that shows performance degradation against uncaptured gameplay (baseline). We used two cards, two games, and three software utilities for this benchmark. The standard GN 2013 test bench was used for all tests. GVR benchmark, we'll look at framerate hits from capture, percent (delta) advantage between AMD & NVidia devices, and space requirements. This will also explore whether or not it makes sense to use GVR with nVidia devices, considering it is compatible and could theoretically replace ShadowPlay if performance were solid enough. I decided to benchmark the three utilities to show the true performance hit from using capture software. This also produces significantly smaller file sizes than the raw, lossless AVI captured by FRAPS. Similar to ShadowPlay, GVR uses on-GPU encoders ( VCE compliant with AMD) to load the GPU instead of the CPU. The GVR - or "Game Video Recorder" - can be deployed on AMD, NVidia, and some integrated mobile CPU solutions.

#Fraps vs replay capture suite driver

Raptr's Gaming Evolved - GVR is being provided alongside AMD driver packages now, supplying AMD users with their own live-encoding software.