Sleeping Dogs
Sleeping Dogs (DirectX 11)
Welcome to Hong Kong, a vibrant neon city teeming with life, whose exotic locations and busy streets hide one of the most powerful and dangerous criminal organizations in the world: the Triads. In this open world game, you play the role of Wei Shen, an undercover cop trying to take down the Triads from the inside out. You'll have to prove yourself worthy as you fight your way up the organization, taking part in brutal criminal activities without blowing your cover. Torn between your loyalty to the badge and a criminal code of honor, you will risk everything as the lines between truth, loyalty and justice become permanently blurred
Our settings for Sleeping Dogs
Sleeping Dogs sees a big shift in the performance of the HD 7970s in CrossFire and the observed frame rates seen in our Frame Rating capture-based system. Without our new performance detection system the average frame rate of this game at 19×10 on the HD 7990 would report at over 100 FPS, but instead we see real-world rates closer to 60 FPS!
The frame time data shows the real story here with both NVIDIA platforms providing a clearly consistent and reliable frame rate, while the orange mass that represents the HD 7970s in CrossFire has alterating fast and slow frames. Runts are blowing the FRAPS reported frame rates way out of bounds.
Taking out the runts and any drops we find that the average frame rate of the GTX 690 is clearly higher than the other two options here with the HD 7990 running around the same speed as the Titan the entire length.
The frame variance curve shows the HD 7970s in CrossFire will enter a lot of frame stutter into the equation at about the 85th percentile mark while both NVIDIA GeForce cards barely breach the 2 ms mark at any point.
Not a surprise again – the observed frame rate just plummets here when we take away the runts that the HD 7970s in CrossFire have been producing in many games.
If anything, the runts are MORE pronounced here with frame times jumping between the 0 ms mark and over 30 ms – a huge gap. Both the GTX 690 and the GTX Titan present very even frame times that produce a smooth and expected frame rate.
The HD 7970s track lower than the GTX Titan once again, but the GTX 690 is still running must faster on average than both other configurations.
While the GTX 690 is showing more variance in our data here than the GTX Titan, it's not by much. The HD 7970s though show frame time variances of more than 10 ms!
No AMD results to report once again, but the average frame rates per second are showing the GTX 690 to be the better card so far for Sleeping Dogs at 5760×1080.
The frame time plot looks quite a bit different with more of the same spikes from the GTX 690 that we witnessed on previous titles. This is likely a combination of both processing power per GPU as well as frame buffer limits (2GB per GPU on the GTX 690) but the end result is that the GTX Titan 6GB card produces frames that are "slower" but smooth.
The minimum FPS percentile graph puts our average overall frame rate for the GTX 690 at about 55 FPS while the GTX Titan sits at a flat 40 FPS. However, as the graph continues you can see that while the GTX Titan line is flatter, the GTX 690 has a downward pointing tail that indicates lower frame rates.
Seen another way, the frame variance information shows that the dual GPU GTX 690 has more stutter basically throughout the benchmark run compared to the GTX Titan.
Ryan,
Don’t worry about the
Ryan,
Don’t worry about the negative and bias comments.
Thank you for this great review, it has opened my eyes to the cause of these problems. And hopefully a new way to review all Graphics cards in future, instead of just looking at the highest FPS numbers.
I have always thought smooth experience is better than a fast (high FPS) and choppy visual gameplay.
Hopefully AMD and Nvidia will consider these issues in there next GPU and or driver releases now it has been exposed, rather than targeting figures. This means a better gameplay experience for the consumer.
Thank you and Keep up the good work.
Ryan,
Don’t worry about the
Ryan,
Don’t worry about the negative and bias comments.
Thank you for this great review, it has opened my eyes to the cause of these problems. And hopefully a new way to review all Graphics cards in future, instead of just looking at the highest FPS numbers.
I have always thought smooth experience is better than a fast (high FPS) and choppy visual gameplay.
Hopefully AMD and Nvidia will consider these issues in there next GPU and or driver releases now it has been exposed, rather than targeting figures. This means a better gameplay experience for the consumer.
Thank you and Keep up the good work.
I think that instead of the
I think that instead of the percentile curve you could reach a more meaningful result using a derived curve(of the frametime curve).
Let’s say that the average is 60 fps.
Now let’s say that 20 percent of the frames are 25 ms(40fps).
The difference is how these 25 ms values are spread in the curve. If they are all together or if they are alternated to 17 ms ones, forming saw-like shape in the curve.
You will not have the same feeling stutter-wise
What i want to say is that the percentile graph is not appropriate for the kind of analysis that you are doing. You should use a derived curve since deriving a function measures how quickly a curve grows (negatively or positively) and this is not measured by the percentile grows. After this you could measure the area of this curve and you could also arrive to use one only number to measure the amount of stutter.Infact in this way you would bring out of the equation the part of the frametime curve that is below the average but that runs steadily.
Calculating the area of a very saw-like derived frametime curve you would obtain a high number whereas calculating the area of a smooth (even if variating) derived frametime curve you would get a very low number. This would tell you how smooth are transitions, not if the gpu is powerful enough to make the game playable. For this you should check the average fps.
So in the end if you got decent fps and very low value for the area of this function you got a great experience,
if oyu got decent fps but high derived func area value then you got stutterish experience.
If you got low fps and low value you got a underdimensioned gpu but good smoothness.
I think that instead of the
I think that instead of the percentile curve you could reach a more meaningful result using a derived curve(of the frametime curve).
Let’s say that the average is 60 fps.
Now let’s say that 20 percent of the frames are 25 ms(40fps).
The difference is how these 25 ms values are spread in the curve. If they are all together or if they are alternated to 17 ms ones, forming saw-like shape in the curve.
You will not have the same feeling stutter-wise (and here i am not saying anything new)
What i want to say is that the percentile graph is not appropriate for the kind of analysis that you are doing. You should use a derived curve since deriving a function measures how quickly a curve grows (negatively or positively) and this is not measured by the percentile curve. After this you could measure the area of this curve and you could also arrive to use one only number to measure the amount of stutter.Infact in this way you would bring out of the equation the part of the frametime curve that is below the average but that runs steadily(something that with percentile curve you cant do).
Calculating the area of the derivation of a very saw-like frametime curve you would obtain a high number whereas calculating the area of the derivation ofa smooth (even if variating) frametime curve you would get a very low number. This would tell you how smooth are transitions, not if the gpu is powerful enough to make the game playable. For this you should check the average fps.
So in the end if you got decent fps and very low value for the area of this function you got a great experience,
if oyu got decent fps but high derived func area value then you got stutterish experience.
If you got low fps and low value you got a underdimensioned gpu but good smoothness.
EDITED :I made some corrections to the post i previously wrote since it is not possible to edit it
Quick Google “geforce frame
Quick Google “geforce frame metering” and you will find out why the nVi cards rarely have runt frames. In fact, nVi cards DO have them. They just delays those frames a bit to match with other good frames’ speed, therefore the frame time chart looks good miraculously.
That’s nVidia, it’s meant to SELL, at crazy pricetags of course.