Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

Interlaced Rendering VS Normal Rendering

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

Interlaced Rendering VS Normal Rendering

Resident Evil 7 comes with a new Interlaced Rendering option, which is something that is pretty much unique to this title. This new rendering option will allow players to play with higher framerates but with lower levels of in-game graphical detail. 

Below you can see two screenshots showcasing the game's Interlaced and Normal rendering options, with the Interlaced version presenting a much blurrier image than the normally rendered version.  

This graphical option will allow players to sacrifice some visual detail for higher framerates, which is great for those who use lower-end GPUs. 

 

(See the full slider here)

 
We ran our Resident Evil 7: Biohazard Benchmarking run using both the Interlaced and Normal rendering modes at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. You can see that the game's interlaced mode offers a huge performance increase, though as you can see above it also comes at the cost of graphical detail. 

 

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.