Hitman III: PC graphics perf benchmark review
Click here to post a comment for Hitman III: PC graphics perf benchmark review on our message forum
XenthorX
To get any kind of interest back into this franchise i need a fresh original start, with way more storytelling.
Back in 90s/early 2000s the Tomb Raider games were just that, they gave you just a minimalist story telling to give you a purpose for the current actions you're expected to perform, and Hitman to this day seems to stick to this.
Modern Tomb Raider games you have partners (Jonah Maiava + NPCs you meet along the way), you have a deep Background story often revisited in flash-back, you have freedom of movement for a good part of the game...
I want them to dive deep into the creation of the lore and world of the Assassins, with meaningful interactions.
Put me in a John Wick assassin universe, with a lore, with charismatic characters i'll build a relationship with over time, engage with.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Charts have been updated based on Adrenalin 21.1.1 drivers.
Goiur
Nice boost on the new driver.
edit: @Hilbert Hagedoorn where is the CPU thread thingy? Maybe im just blind but cant find it lol
edit2: Oh ok im dumb, its in the frame time graph. I was looking for the core scaling...
Undying
Amdomination with 21.1.1 😛
kapu
6800 = 3080 . Nice . That raster perf is what i like . Glad i went with AMD this season 🙂
ChisChas
Hilbert
I recently upgraded my 10 year old Dell U2711 1440 monitor to an ASUS PG35VQ Ultrawide, please can you also test at 3440 x 1440? The PG35VQ is an incredible screen btw, played my first HDR game yesterday, Far Cry 5 looked amazing
ChisChas
Can't say I enjoyed Hitman 2 but luckily bought at deep discount in a Steam sale. I found the gameplay very dull. This new un might look pretty but silly price, I'm usually 1-2 years behind with games as I choose not to participate in price gouging
AlmondMan
Man, for some titles AMD can rock. The 590 performs almost like a 1070 here.
EspHack
its just like 20-30% slower than normal 1440p, I've applied a -25% offset as I check the 1440 benches and it lines up almost perfectly with my own
btw adding a whole resolution to test with this number of GPUs is a colossal amount of work, few reviewers do what HH does, even including RX470
ChisChas
LOL, I think I saw Hilbert include a NVidia 580 in one review, stopped using one (I should say 3) of those in 2013! Those great days of SLI & TRI. Some might say, others not of course, that 1080 is less relevant nowadays when compared to 3440? If your gaming benefits from the highest FPS possible then 1080 still valid but Hilbert regularly tells us not to bother with newest top cards with 1080. Here are 3440 FPS results for the FE 3080:
https://wccftech.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-10-gb-ampere-graphics-card-review/12/
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Depends massively on demographics. User data of Guru3D visitors, out of the past three months show in resolution:
Ranking resolutions:
1: 1920x1080
2: 2560x1440
3: 1280x1024
18: 3440x1440 (1.39% of the visitors)
43: 3840x2160 (0.38% of the visitors)
Ehm, I think you grossly overestimate the significance of 3440x1440, and 1080p is not less relevant at all. The reason I don't test 3440x1440 is that I need to draw a line somewhere in reviews due to time. Every and any user will have a request that personally suits him or her circumstances the best. That's understandable, but for 3440x1440 would mean switching monitors all the time, rebooting, launching game .. etc it eats away so much more time.
JRMBelgium
Always nice to see when a techsite updates outdated charts after a new driver release. Something that simply isn't possible in Youtube videos.
DannyD
More often than not Guru3d reviews are spot on with the experience you will get with said component /game /software.
His 2080 ti is right on the money 😀
ChisChas
Ha ha, I've been on this site for nearly 10 years M8 so I don't misunderstand the continued popularity of 1080. Other tech sites only reinforce what you are saying. It is also clear (from this website & others) that comparatively few game at 2560 x 1440 some 10 years after I bought my Dell U2711. I paid nearly £900 for it 10 years ago but of course I needed it for my work LOL and therefore was able to reclaim the VAT & capital business allowance but it was still a very expensive purchase.
And as you often remind us, the more demanding your monitor the more expensive a graphics card is if you want better FPS. And the continued popularity of 1080 is also presumably tied into use with very high refresh 1080 monitor use?
And yes, I'm aware that you put a lot of hard work into testing graphics cards for us, thank you. And probably it's the new generation of graphics cards that most of us await with the most interest, certainly is for me and they create the largest number of comments.
Netherwind
Wow, AMD really kicks ass. TBH this is what I hoped to see in every game when the 6000 series were released, unfortunately that was not the case.
It feels special to be among the 1.39% of all visitors :>
Reddoguk
lol -> 43: 3840x2160 (0.38% of the visitors) i didn't even know there was 43 res's. Plus 5k and 8k makes 45.
ChisChas
I kinda understood from various of Hilbert's GPU reviews that 1440 was still a bit of a rarity but to be, as a new 3440 x 1440 user, one of only 1.39% of visitors, not sure what to say. Was my Dell U2711 1440 27" such an exotic screen 11 years ago? Expensive, yes, but that scarce a purchase for gaming? I guess these stats say it was?
I don't normally read reviews of 1080 screens but I thought I should remind myself of why a different kind of gamer to myself would far prefer a 25" 1080 360Hz screen and read reviews of the Dell & Gigabyte Aorus screens. For competitive/online gaming screen speed rules over resolution & size.
ChisChas
and wouldn't dare to suggest that 3840 x 2160 isn't relevant but Hilbert you're producing 4K results for 0.38% of your visitors! There are 3.65 times as many 3440 x 1440 visitors LOL
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Aah bro, you know you are; come on now 🙂
mikeysg
Been an Acer XR341CK user since around 2016 IIRC. 3440x1440 is where it's at for me, WS 2.39:1 movies look awesome filling the entire screen at 21:9 (no black bars on top and bottom). But if 3440x1440 is pretty rare, what about my other monitor at 3840x1080 (32:6)?
