Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

RX 480 VS GTX 1060 - Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High Settings

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard PC Performance Review

RX 480 VS GTX 1060 - Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High Settings

When playing at 1440p you can see below that our AMD RX 480 and GTX 1060 offer very similar performance in-game. Both GPU tested are factory-overclocked ASUS Strix models, both of which are easily able to play this game at over 60FPS at 1440p when playing at our high graphical settings. 

To say the least, this game can be very easy to run on PC, though I will warn players that Very High Shadow options and HBAO+ have a huge impact on GPU performance, with shadow quality having a colossal impact on VRAM usage. 

Despite being a Nvidia branded title this game seems to prefer AMD GPUs, performing better on AMD's RX 480 at most graphical settings. The differences seen here are minimal, so players should not use this game's performance as a major selling point for either side.  

 

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.