GTA V GPU Performance Review

by - 7 years ago




Grand Theft Auto V was released on Tuesday, along with that, NVIDIA has released yet another Game Ready Driver. However this time, AMD has decided to release one too, both offering optimised graphical drivers for most of their graphics card range.

Normally, we would only test a single driver and graphics card manufacturer, but because this is oriented towards GTA V performance, things are going to get a little more condensed.

Today we are going to be looking at seven of the top graphics cards from NVIDIA and AMD, pitting them against each other to see which performs the best in GTA V, under our own choice of settings of course.

NVIDIA has released the GTA V optimised driver, GeForce Game Ready 350.12 and AMD has released a Beta driver, Catalyst 15.4. either can be downloaded by clicking the associated link.

Let’s begin shall we?

Article Index

  1. Introduction
  2. Test Systems and Procedures
  3. Grand Theft Auto V 1080p, 1440p and 4k Benchmark
  4. Final Thoughts
  5. View All

Author Bio

21 Comments on GTA V GPU Performance Review

  • Avatar Winminhein Tin says:

    I got this crash very often… and it’s totally random when it will happen

    • Avatar Ryan Airth says:

      I got that when my GPU drivers crashed. Perhaps pulling back the graphics in some way? Like lower resolution or something.

    • Avatar ekdikeo says:

      That happens when my video card driver resets because the card freaked out due to a too high overclock. I had to knock my overclock down almost 50% to get GTA to play consistently without doing this.

  • Avatar Golam Annoor Mahboob says:

    bravo 290x, beating latest nvidia gpus with 2 year old hardware

    • Avatar Steve Smith says:

      since graph’s like that mean dick since the min was much lower, well below playable rates. I bet if you took the avg the 980 is much better overall. These kinda graph’s that show min and max mean dick.

  • Avatar Andrew Lane says:

    Something isn’t right with these benchmark numbers. The only difference between the 290 and the 290x are the number of shaders and, depending on the model, the core clock – the 290x has 10% more SPUs so it should be getting a slightly better frame rate. The 290 should not be getting higher scores (minimum and average fps) then the 290x. Also, the minimum frame rate should be going down as the resolution increases, not staying around the same or higher. For example, the 290 gets a higher minimum framerate at 1440p then at 1080p (roughly a 50% increase).
    Either something other then the GPU is limiting the game, the settings are being (automatically) changed or the benchmarks need to be run multiple times to get a better representation of how the game is running.

    • Avatar MAXLD says:

      Have to agree. R9 290 getting a bunch more Min FPS at 1440p compared to 1080p with the same settings, doesn’t make any sense. Experimental common sense dictates that at least 3 loops must be made to check for consistency and reach the final average (to use on these type of graphics), and it’s really not logical that at least 3 correctly made runs would provide an Min average higher on 1440p compared to 1080p (and the 290X at the same time). It’s either a typo, or the run(s) wasn’t using the correct settings for some reason. Or the benchmarking proccess used isn’t consistent enough to provide stable and reliable values anyway.

  • Avatar Scott Smith says:

    In the second graph, shouldn’t the bars be the same length if they’re the same score?

    Just saying. That’s how bar graphs tend to work.

    You don’t want to look biased or anything 😉

  • Avatar Ian McConvey says:

    I like you Eteknix but I’m calling BS on your results after doing my own testing with a Titan X on the same settings and using the benchmark tool and nowhere does the Titan X ever get to 90fps at 1440p and no the 290x is nowhere near as quick as the Titan X running this game.

    I’ll just leave this here as proof. Cheers guys.

    • Avatar Kleever says:

      Yeah, the 290x is behind a 970 in this game, who in their right mind would believe a 290x beats a Titan X.

      • Avatar Steve Smith says:

        Yea i look at some other sites that did benchmarks are iffy. Problem with using graph’s that show min and max only. They are very deceptive as you can stand in 1 spot look at a wall and get great numbers for 1 card, The 290 cards doing sub 25-27fps at min vs 980 that isn’t even under 45 is def an issue to look at

      • Avatar Ian McConvey says:

        Thanks for this link. Even though the game benchmark is horrible it still doesn’t show the 290x or the Titax X average 90fps like Eteknix stated.

  • Avatar ekdikeo says:

    GTX 750 same settings, 1920×1200 = 30fps-ish average. I’m good with that for now.

  • Avatar Haunted Abyss says:

    wtf why is 4k so shitty

    • Avatar Stando says:

      Um because it’s twice the pixel density of full HD? Can’t you understand why that would torture most graphics cards?

  • Avatar Lirik Lagu Terbaru says:

    shit all this if used would be very enjoyable, and certainly powerfull , Computer Tips , West Song Lyrics

Related Posts