Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

4K Performance

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

4K Performance

Moving up to 4K framerates plummet in Resident Evil 7, with every GPU on this graph offering less than half of the performance of 1440p. To say the least, gamers will need to lower their graphical settings to run this game at 4K 60FPS, or take advantage of this game's Interlaced rendering mode, though both of these options have visual downsides.  

With a GTX 1080 gaming performance is acceptable, especially when using a G-Sync display, though gamers that want a steady 4K 60FPS experience will either need to buy a Titan X or accept that they will need to lower some graphical settings.  

With Resident Evil 7 performance takes a nosedive when gamers increase their display resolution, scaling almost linearly with pixel count. Moving from 1080p to 4K will see a 4x reduction in minimum and average framerates, though we have seen clever developers in the past decrease this performance drop significantly, which is pretty disappointing for early adopters of 4K.   

 

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.