Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

1440p Performance

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

1440p Performance

At 1440p we can see that at our high graphical settings that Resident Evil 7 can easily be run at 1440p 60+FPS when even when using Nvidia's GTX 1060 and AMD's RX 480, which are around the bottom end of what we would recommend for gaming at this resolution (at least for graphically impressive AAA titles). 

Moving up to GPUs like the GTX 1070 or R9 Fury X we can see average framerates rise to around 100FPS, which is great for any high framerate display users out there, especially those with FreeSync or G-Sync compatible monitors. We can also see that AMD's GPUs offer more performance than their Nvidia counterparts in this game, with the R9 Fury X easily besting Nvidia's GTX 1070 and GTX 980Ti. 

At the top of the graph remains the Nvidia GTX 1080, achieving a minimum framerate of an impressive 100FPS, easily outperforming the AMD R9 Fury X, which is unsurprising given how old AMD's current flagship is. 

 

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

  

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next»

Most Recent Comments

25-01-2017, 15:05:35

Dicehunter
Really impressive seeing the Fury X performs so well.Quote

25-01-2017, 15:39:57

AngryGoldfish
What polar opposite results you found compared to Guru3D's performance review. Something must have been out of whack with their system or drivers as the Fury X performed really poorly and erratically.

It's fantastic to see the Fury line still hold strong in these big titles. After a couple of poor performance numbers over the last four months, I'm glad to see the Fury line pick things up again and remain competitive.Quote

25-01-2017, 16:22:28

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryGoldfish View Post
What polar opposite results you found compared to Guru3D's performance review. Something must have been out of whack with their system or drivers as the Fury X performed really poorly and erratically.

It's fantastic to see the Fury line still hold strong in these big titles. After a couple of poor performance numbers over the last four months, I'm glad to see the Fury line pick things up again and remain competitive.
The big difference is that they used Max settings, which is insanely VRAM intensive and I found to cause a lot of framerate instability on even the GTX 1080.

In my testing, I opted for what I called "high" settings in the review, which provided these results. I wouldn't recommend higher as it caused a lot of issues, especially on the old NV driver.Quote

25-01-2017, 16:27:01

AngryGoldfish
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYP View Post
The big difference is that they used Max settings, which is insanely VRAM intensive and I found to cause a lot of framerate instability on even the GTX 1080.

In my testing, I opted for what I called "high" settings in the review, which provided these results. I wouldn't recommend higher as it caused a lot of issues, especially on the old NV driver.
That makes sense. Sometimes I think developers include 'insane' settings just because they can, not because they need to or should.Quote

01-02-2017, 10:12:39

BigDaddyKong
Most developers will tell you games are designed to be played on high. Very high, it extreme settings are there to be used for screen shots, and showing things off. Not for game play.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.