DiRT: Showdown

As always, starting off our benchmark collection is our racing benchmark, DiRT: Showdown. DiRT: Showdown is based on the latest iteration of Codemasters’ EGO engine, which has continually evolved over the years to add more advanced rendering features. It was one of the first games to implement tessellation, and also one of the first games to implement a DirectCompute based forward-rendering compatible lighting system. At the same time as Codemasters is by far the most prevalent PC racing developers, it’s also a good proxy for some of the other racing games on the market like F1 and GRID.

Though NVIDIA’s goal is to surpass the 7950 – something they generally accomplish – in some titles AMD’s parts still hold such an innate advantage as to hold off the GTX 760, and this is one such case. Performance of the GTX 760 trails the 7950 by 18% here, with the GTX 760 falling just short of averaging 60fps at 1920 with advanced lighting. But as we’ve seen with other reviews, this is the only game where AMD holds an advantage quite this great.

It’s interesting to note though that this is also one of the only games the GTX 760 struggles to beat the GTX 660 Ti, owing to the heavy shader load placed on these cards by the advanced lighting system. The two are essentially tied with that lighting turned off, while the GTX 760 takes a small lead with it off.

The Last of the 700 Series & The Test Total War 2: Shogun
Comments Locked

110 Comments

View All Comments

  • JlHADJOE - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    The GTX670 still looks like a better configuration. Having two disabled SMs and trying to make up the performance difference with clock speed means the 760 is slightly slower than the 670, all the while using more power. There's likely less performance to be gained from overclocking too.

    I can only guess that they are heavily binning GK104s and every good chip is going into the 770, and with the product line being cut down the 760 has to accept all the rejects so its spec calls for up to two non-functional SMs.
  • intercede007 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    EVGA lists a 4GB part (04G-P4-2766-KR) and an overclocked 4GB part (04G-P4-2768-KR ). The review only covers the reference 2GB design.

    Is there any reason to think the additional 2GB of memory at the same clock rate as a 2GB part will be worth the additional cost? The price difference appears to be $40.
  • monkeydude66 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    Thank you so much for including GTX 460, 560 Ti in the review! Anandtech delivers once again. I find it absolutely ridiculous when major GPU Review sites only compare new GPUs to the last generation or completely unrelated GPUs unworthy of comparing to to a mainstream card. Good work.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link


    I'll probably get a 700 series card next month, in which case I'll start adding data to my
    site, which already has a lot of 460 info. Do you have a 460? (or two?) If so, which models?

    Ian.
  • monkeydude66 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    Yeah, I have the Gigabyte GV-N460OC-1GI with 1GB. Planing to upgrade to GTX760 after seeing the +100% performance change.
  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 1, 2013 - link


    So is your 460 the version that has a 715MHz core clock? In that case yes indeed, the 760
    should give you a major performance bump. Btw, what CPU/mbd do you have? CPU needs
    to be reasonably decent to feed something like a 760.

    Ian.
  • SilverBack - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    Ryan the GTX 760 4 gb is out can we get a comparison?
  • slickr - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    Too expensive for me, $250 is still quite a lot, especially since the GTX 460 1GB was $200, then the GTX 560 was $200.

    I'm going to wait for competition from AMD and see if they offer better value for money.
  • rs2 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    How did the 660Ti score so highly on the Crysis 3 benchmark @ 2560x1440? Seems like an invalid result?
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, June 27, 2013 - link

    Good catch. That was a data entry error; that was supposed to be 34, not 44. It has been corrected. Thanks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now