Deus EX: Mankind Dividied system specs revealed

[raghu78]

That said, I think AMD's Gaming Evolved program leaves much to be desired. The graphics effects like CHS are second rate compared to what you find with NVidia's Gameworks..

Deus Ex Mankind Divided would have been a better looking game, and probably even a better performing game had it been a GW title rather than a GE title.

AMD Gaming Evolved titles are much better than Nvidia Gameworks titles in terms of stability and performance at launch. They are also very well reviewed.The majority of Nvidia Gameworks title we have seen are basically terribly broken and unoptimized at launch. It takes months for the developer to get a Gameworks title to even run properly on GPUs from both vendors. Few games like Witcher 3 Wild Hunt had pathetic performance due to Hairworks and then the developer introduced a tesselation preset - "High" and "Low" and another option which implemented Hairworks only on Geralt or all characters. This patch was introduced 3 months from launch after there was a lot of criticism on the performance hit due to Hairworks on not just AMD GPUs but older Nvidia GPUs like Kepler.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...unt_gameplay_performance_review/#.V77CGPkrLIU

The GameWorks HairWorks Controversy

There was however one particular controversy that sprouted up specifically around the game's usage of NVIDIA's GameWorks featured called HairWorks. First let's just list all the webpages you can visit yourself to read about the issues and draw your own conclusions from that. Then we will briefly talk about it on this page, and go into more depth in the conclusion based on the testing we found.

You can read about these issues: [Here], [Here], [Here], [Here], [Here] and [Here].

When the game was originally released there were reports of very slow performance, especially when HairWorks was enabled. What's more, there seemed to be odd performance behavior between last generation GPUs, current generation GPUs, and AMD GPUs that didn't make a lot of sense to many people.

The Start

The controversy started when Marcin Momot at CD Projekt RED posted that performance optimizations of HairWorks for AMD GPUs could not be made. Here is a link to the post, and the full quote below:

Many of you have asked us if AMD Radeon GPUs would be able to run NVIDIA’s HairWorks technology – the answer is yes! However, unsatisfactory performance may be experienced as the code of this feature cannot be optimized for AMD products. Radeon users are encouraged to disable NVIDIA HairWorks if the performance is below expectations. Hope this information helps.

Tessellation Factors

From there, allegations were made that HairWorks was rendering way more Tessellation factors than what is actually needed to allow the visual differences experienced in this game. The controversy alleged that this was done so that past generation GPUs would not perform well with HairWorks, thus creating a need to upgrade to new generation GPUs that handled Tessellation better. This also translated into worse performance on AMD GPUs that struggle with high tessellation factors versus current generation NVIDIA Maxwell series GPUs.

GameWorks

This sparked a wide array of debate across the Internet about the validity of GameWorks features in games and how GameWorks could be used to alter performance in a manipulative way. There are certainly proponents of GameWorks features, and there are those that oppose the graphical effects based on the potential for performance manipulation from poor business practices.

Patch Improvements

To address concerns about NVIDIA HairWorks performance, CD Projekt RED released a new patch version 1.03 and 1.04 that specifically improved HairWorks performance.

It wasn't however until patch 1.07 that finally improved NVIDIA HairWorks options in the game in a big way. With patch 1.07 gamer's were given more control over HairWorks performance features. With the new patch 1.7.0 gamers could now select the AA level, from no AA to 2X, 4X and 8X AA applied to HairWorks. In addition, the patch added the ability to select a lower quality HairWorks setting that alleviated many of the performance concerns the high quality mode demanded. The gamer also has the ability to select HairWorks "On" for HairWorks on all things, or just "Geralt" for HairWorks just running on the main character.

With all three of these options HairWorks can now be tweaked, and less demanding options can be used while still running HairWorks. This so far has seemed to satisfy most. Since then, newer patches have come out as well, such as patch 1.08 and then a hotfix 1.08.1 and 1.08.2.

Now that the game has been out a few months, and there have been many patches released, we can finally bring you our full evaluation of gameplay performance and IQ. We can finally see, after all of these patches, how AMD and NVIDIA GPUs really compare in this game with and without HairWorks.

We are using the latest patch 1.08.2 for all testing and the latest video card drivers.

And here you are claiming Deus Ex MD would have been a better title if it had been a Gameworks title. What a joke.

 

[Sweepr]

So GTX 1080 is 37% faster in NVIDIAs Gameworks titles and that is OK but when it is on par with Fury X on AMDs Gaming we have a problem ???

Nice spin but everyone knows it is >30% faster overall. Here's a few more websites before the goalpost changes to criticizing TPU:

36% faster @ ComputerBase
38.7% faster @ Hardware.fr
34% faster @ HardwareCanucks DX11

*1440p

 

[AtenRa]

Nice spin but everyone knows it is >30% faster overall. Here's a few more websites before the goalpost changes to criticizing TPU:

36% faster @ ComputerBase
38.7% faster @ Hardware.fr
34% faster @ HardwareCanucks DX11

*1440p

Excellent, lets take ComputerBase and take out NVIDIAs GameWorks titles.

1440p

Ashes Of The Singularity = GTX 1080 = 8% faster than Fury X
Dirt Rally = GTX 1080 = 26% faster than Fury X
F1 2015 = GTX 1080 = 20% faster than Fury X
Far Cry Primal = GTX 1080 = 23% faster than Fury X
HITMAN = GTX 1080 = 3% faster than Fury X
Star War Battlefront = GTX 1080 = 22% faster than Fury X
XCOM 2 = GTX 1080 = 23% faster than Fury X

Average = 18%

As i have said,
Include GameWorks titles and GTX 1080 increase its performance, take off GW titles and Fury is a lot closer. And when AMD GamingEvolved titles are included, Fury X reaching GTX 1080 level of performance.

 

[Sweepr]

Excellent, lets take ComputerBase and take out NVIDIAs GameWorks titles.

1440p

Ashes Of The Singularity = GTX 1080 = 8% faster than Fury X
Dirt Rally = GTX 1080 = 26% faster than Fury X
F1 2015 = GTX 1080 = 20% faster than Fury X
Far Cry Primal = GTX 1080 = 23% faster than Fury X
HITMAN = GTX 1080 = 3% faster than Fury X
Star War Battlefront = GTX 1080 = 22% faster than Fury X
XCOM 2 = GTX 1080 = 23% faster than Fury X

Average = 18%

As i have said,
Include GameWorks titles and GTX 1080 increase its performance, take off GW titles and Fury is a lot closer. And when AMD GamingEvolved titles are included, Fury X reaching GTX 1080 level of performance.

Thank you very much for proving my point. Ignoring the obvious GE outliers AotS (which ran at DX12 on AMD cards, unlike Deus EX here) and Hitman (most biased title ever) - GTX 1080 is easily above >20% faster in neutral titles. So yes, the slower and more power hungry Fury X coming close is the exception and not the rule.

 

[Carfax83]

AMD Gaming Evolved titles are much better than Nvidia Gameworks titles in terms of stability and performance at launch. They are also very well reviewed.The majority of Nvidia Gameworks title we have seen are basically terribly broken and unoptimized at launch. It takes months for the developer to get a Gameworks title to even run properly on GPUs from both vendors. Few games like Witcher 3 Wild Hunt had pathetic performance due to Hairworks and then the developer introduced a tesselation preset - "High" and "Low" and another option which implemented Hairworks only on Geralt or all characters. This patch was introduced 3 months from launch after there was a lot of criticism on the performance hit due to Hairworks on not just AMD GPUs but older Nvidia GPUs like Kepler.

You claimed the "majority" of NVidia Gameworks titles are terribly broken and unoptimized at launch, and yet you focus on only one? And not only do you focus on only one, you focus on only one feature; Hairworks. How is Hairworks any different than AMD's TressFX in Tomb Raider which had terrible performance on NVidia at launch?

I'll tell you how it's different. Hairworks can at least justify some of the performance hit, since it's applied to MULTIPLE entities on screen at the same time and it improves IQ tremendously for the fur or hair of animals and monsters. TressFX on the other hand was restricted to Lara Croft, and even then it bombed performance. And even worse, it actually looked terrible. Lara's hair looked like she was underwater or in space most of the time..

That's what I'm getting at you see. At least NVidia's Gameworks stuff improves IQ over the baseline, even if it has a huge performance hit. AMD's Gaming Evolved actually degrades IQ and lowers performance, which is a double whammy. Their CHS in particular is a joke, and so is HDAO:

And here you are claiming Deus Ex MD would have been a better title if it had been a Gameworks title. What a joke.

The joke is that CHS is broken in Deus Ex MD, and so is their temporal ambient occlusion. Both of these settings on max quality actually degrades IQ, whilst still suffering a massive performance hit.

If Deus Ex MD had used PCSS and HBAO+ instead, it would not only look better but run better

 

[Carfax83]

Excellent, lets take ComputerBase and take out NVIDIAs GameWorks titles.

1440p

Ashes Of The Singularity = GTX 1080 = 8% faster than Fury X
Dirt Rally = GTX 1080 = 26% faster than Fury X
F1 2015 = GTX 1080 = 20% faster than Fury X
Far Cry Primal = GTX 1080 = 23% faster than Fury X
HITMAN = GTX 1080 = 3% faster than Fury X
Star War Battlefront = GTX 1080 = 22% faster than Fury X
XCOM 2 = GTX 1080 = 23% faster than Fury X

Average = 18%

As i have said,
Include GameWorks titles and GTX 1080 increase its performance, take off GW titles and Fury is a lot closer. And when AMD GamingEvolved titles are included, Fury X reaching GTX 1080 level of performance.

Launch reviews should not be considered valid for determining current performance. For instance, AotS for instance now runs much faster on NVidia due to driver updates and patches and the DX12 path no longer degrades performance:

 

[kondziowy]

How is Hairworks any different than AMD's TressFX in Tomb Raider which had terrible performance on NVidia at launch?

The difference is, it was fixed very quick, as source code was open for Nvidia to optimise. They did a good job and made it run at the same cost per frame as on AMD.

It carries over to new Tomb Raider and PureHair performance is excellent now on day 1 in Rise of the Tomb Raider.

So yeah, the difference between Gameworks and Gaming Evolved features is this - Gaming Evolved isn't used to gimp competitors performance.

 

[Carfax83]

The difference is, it was fixed very quick, as source code was open for Nvidia to optimise. They did a good job and made it run at the same cost per frame as on AMD.

So it's not a question of whether it's broken on launch day, it's a question of how quick they can fix it? Talk about goal post shifting. Also, NVidia has uploaded a lot of their source code on Github for their Gameworks effects, including Hairworks.

It carries over to new Tomb Raider and PureHair performance is excellent now on day 1 in Rise of the Tomb Raider.

PureHair is a Crystal Dynamics and Square Enix technology. TressFX may have formed the basis for it, but as far as I know, AMD has had no input in it's development.

That said, PureHair is in no way comparable to Hairworks. The former is only for one character, whilst the latter works on multiple entities. So of course Hairworks is going to have a bigger performance hit. I agree that NVidia should have made it more scalable though, but other than that, it's totally superior to TressFX and PureHair by leaps and bounds.

So yeah, the difference between Gameworks and Gaming Evolved features is this - Gaming Evolved isn't used to gimp competitors performance.

Gaming Evolved gimps not only performance, but it looks even worse than the standard settings! Watch the video of CHS vs PCSS that I posted, and if you have Deus Ex MD, you can test CHS and see that it degrades shadow distance compared to the standard shadows.

Also, the temporal AO in Deus Ex MD has a shimmering effect. AMD's Gaming Evolved program should be called Gaming DEvolved

 

[96Firebird]

So far, it's a good game and I don't regret buying it. The only thing is, there are quite a bit of graphics related bugs. Just saw on NeoGaf that there's now another bug with shadows. On very high, the shadow rendering seems to be messed up. The ambient occlusion setting on very high also introduces a shimmering effect that isn't there when it's just turned to on.

So it's disappointing that the higher graphical settings actually degrade IQ rather than enhance it.

High setting:

Am I free to blame the Gaming Devolved program? That's how its done, right? If there are graphical issues with a GameWorks game, people blame GameWorks, don't want to hold a double standard here...

 

[tg2708]

Even though I'm not interested in this game I hope its performance increase for both comapnies. Nothing is more annoying than seeing a game with graphics quality that does not match its performance degradation bring powerful cards down due to not being properly optimized.
A lot of these games have tacked on features for the sake of having it which kills performance for no reason. Both company plays dirty with their propriety software so none is more holy than the other. Physx is one of the better features from nvidia that I wish worked on AMD even though its a performance hog.

Edit: Not CPU physx but the one that runs on the GPU for clarification.

 

[Phynaz]

Lets do a review with 10 AMD Gaming Evolved and any DX-12/Vulkan titles and see what happens.

You already have, in about every one of your posts in this thread.

You constantly scream bias in reviews, but do nothing but cherry pick results for AMD cards, over and over ad nauseum. And you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see how transparent your cherry picking is.

 

[Erenhardt]

That's what I'm getting at you see. At least NVidia's Gameworks stuff improves IQ over the baseline, even if it has a huge performance hit. AMD's Gaming Evolved actually degrades IQ and lowers performance, which is a double whammy. Their CHS in particular is a joke, and so is HDAO:


The joke is that CHS is broken in Deus Ex MD, and so is their temporal ambient occlusion. Both of these settings on max quality actually degrades IQ, whilst still suffering a massive performance hit.

So, someone somwhere luchned DEMD, probably on nvidia card which has trouble rendering latests effects and we make a board conclusion about 3rd party gamed dev program?

If Deus Ex MD had used PCSS and HBAO+ instead, it would not only look better but run better

Sure it would

 

[raghu78]

You claimed the "majority" of NVidia Gameworks titles are terribly broken and unoptimized at launch, and yet you focus on only one? And not only do you focus on only one, you focus on only one feature; Hairworks. How is Hairworks any different than AMD's TressFX in Tomb Raider which had terrible performance on NVidia at launch?

I'll tell you how it's different. Hairworks can at least justify some of the performance hit, since it's applied to MULTIPLE entities on screen at the same time and it improves IQ tremendously for the fur or hair of animals and monsters. TressFX on the other hand was restricted to Lara Croft, and even then it bombed performance. And even worse, it actually looked terrible. Lara's hair looked like she was underwater or in space most of the time..

what a joke. Tress FX is easily the best hair implementation in terms of performance vs IQ tradeoff. Hairworks in Witcher 3 was terrible and crippled performance on all cards. It did hurt AMD cards more than Nvidia Maxwell. Surprisingly even Kepler was massacred.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page6.html

"Nvidia's HairWorks plays an important role in making The Witcher 3 stand out visually, but it's that same feature that spoils performance to a halt. When enabled, hair quality is impressive, but expect a 20% drop in average frame rates and a shocking 60% reduction in minimum fps. The game's minimum frame rate was 156% higher on the GTX 780 with HairWorks disabled. In comparison, the GTX 780's minimum frame rate was just 64% greater with TressFX disabled in Tomb Raider.

We'd love to see The Witcher 3 using AMD's TressFX and chances are Nvidia's own hardware would run faster, especially Kepler-based cards. Moreover, had CD Projekt Red left HairWorks out of the game, there's a good chance we would have ended up with a game that looks more like the one we saw in 2013's trailer, minus the lifelike hair of course."

Its now clear that you lie to make up your own narrative. I think you need to look at reviews at launch of Gameworks vs AMD Gaming Evolved titles. Let me sample you a few

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014..._video_card_performance_review/8#.V77scPkrJaQ

"We think that Alien: Isolation is a template that other game designers should take notice of. We love the use of open technologies based on DirectCompute and the absence of proprietary technologies that make Alien: Isolation truly a great title. Team Green and game devs please take notice of this, as this is what pushes the gaming industry forward as a whole. And that is simply good for all of us."

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016...divided_performance_iq_preview/9#.V77rqfkrJaQ

"From what we’ve seen so far Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is a major upgrade from Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The world feels more "alive" than before. Banners and flags are waving in the wind. There’s a lot of life and movement outside of the area you are in. In the world around you there’s a whole lot more world clutter and detail in this game that certainly makes it more realistic and immersive.

New graphics features are being used in DE:MD that were not in the previous game. DE:MD is using current modern 3D features found in the latest games. It is up-to-date visually speaking. It is also a forward looking game since it will support DX12 and that will certainly be exciting to explore. DE:MD is demanding on GPUs, it looks great, it plays well, all while part of its thoughtful and deep storyline. DE:MD is a killer of a game you need to play."



On the contrary let me provide a few Gameworks titles which were thrashed for their issues

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...formance_image_quality_review/15#.V77udvkrJaQ

"Gamers everywhere wanted to like this game. Watch Dogs had the potential to be a great "Next Gen" game that could have taken the gaming industry by storm. Instead, it created a storm; a storm of angry gamers. These are the same gamers that are either going to spend the money on your DLC, and future sequels, or not. Right now, this game has more negative going on about it than positive in the PC gaming community.

In our evaluation today we have found it still does have stuttering problems on some cards at "Ultra" textures. Out of all the video cards, AMD GPU based video cards had less stutter and a smoother experience, whether in CrossFire or single-GPU. We also found AMD GPUs were more efficient at enabling graphics effects like Ambient Occlusion, and AA. If you are planning on 4K gaming AMD Radeon R9 290X CrossFire is the only way to go with Watch Dogs."


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014..._performance_video_card_review/7#.V77s7fkrJaQ

"Congratulations Ubisoft, you win an award, an award for releasing the most games in a year with the most issues. From Watch Dogs, to Assassin's Creed, to Far Cry 4 and several other Ubisoft game's this fall, Ubisoft leads the industry in botched PC games publisig. Ubisoft currently has a very low reputation among gamers. Assassin's Creed Unity is the first game we'd recommend for a recall. Refund gamers’ money and delay this game a year to release this time next year, when it is complete."

 

[Pantalaimon]

And you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see how transparent your cherry picking is.

Oh please. Go ahead and argue all you want for the green team, but don't act like you're not blinded by partisanship the other way as well.

 

[Unreal123]

Well none of the people

You already have, in about every one of your posts in this thread.

You constantly scream bias in reviews, but do nothing but cherry pick results for AMD cards, over and over ad nauseum. And you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see how transparent your cherry picking is.

Double standard is the reason why today AMD has no high end market share and if does not stop then AMD will lose even mid range market as well.

 

[2is]

Are they? Or is it just what you assume.

I see a lot complaining about crashes and performance.

If you visit the steam discussions at all, you'll see why people complain about performance. People try to run the most demanding games on non-gaming laptops because someone at best buy told them it's a gaming laptop.

 

[AtenRa]

You already have, in about every one of your posts in this thread.

You constantly scream bias in reviews, but do nothing but cherry pick results for AMD cards, over and over ad nauseum. And you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see how transparent your cherry picking is.

You do realize that was directed against a review (TPU) that has 10 GameWorks titles and a single AMD Gaming Evolved titles that was not even run with DX-12. It was made exactly to point out how percentages can change if you include GameWorks titles or Gaming Evolved titles.

And strangely enough you just completely missed my conclusion,

As i have said,
Include GameWorks titles and GTX 1080 increase its performance, take off GW titles and Fury is a lot closer. And when AMD GamingEvolved titles are included, Fury X reaching GTX 1080 level of performance.

Next time try and follow the thread

 

[Phynaz]

Oh please. Go ahead and argue all you want for the green team, but don't act like you're not blinded by partisanship the other way as well.

Oh please. I own more AMD video cards than Nvidia. My purchases are 2:1 AMD over Nvidia. Do a search, I've been called an AMD fanboy in this very forum.

That's the problem with extremists, you're either are 100% with them or you are against them. The rest of us buy the product that meets the needs of our circumstances at that time.

 

[dogen1]

So, someone somwhere luchned DEMD, probably on nvidia card which has trouble rendering latests effects and we make a board conclusion about 3rd party gamed dev program?



Sure it would

You know, it might. Not sure about PCSS, but HBAO+ looks great and is very well optimized.

 

[Azix]

Gaming Evolved gimps not only performance, but it looks even worse than the standard settings! Watch the video of CHS vs PCSS that I posted, and if you have Deus Ex MD, you can test CHS and see that it degrades shadow distance compared to the standard shadows.

Also, the temporal AO in Deus Ex MD has a shimmering effect. AMD's Gaming Evolved program should be called Gaming DEvolved

Comments on that video suggest the problem happens with PCSS for some people as well. Some dont have the problem with CHS.

 

[Pantalaimon]

That's the problem with extremists, you're either are 100% with them or you are against them. The rest of us buy the product that meets the needs of our circumstances at that time.

Based on this thread, I'd say you're behaving also like the extremist here.

 

[crisium]

We've replaced GPU "fanboys" with "extremists" now? Oh boy, this thread.

 

[Maverick177]

We've replaced GPU "fanboys" with "extremists" now? Oh boy, this thread.

Take it to the person who started the whole thing.

 

[redzo]

Are there any DX dx12 benchmarks?

If I remember correctly, Unreal Engine is an nVidia thingy just like DX used to be.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10594/nvidia-releases-paragon-game-ready-pack
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10593/amd-bundles-together-deus-ex-mankind-divided-and-amd-fx-cpus

I can't wait for DX dx12 results.

Unfortunately, even if AMD gains a lot out of DX dx12, this two titles are too subjective to be taken seriously. DX maybe looking and performing great overall, but it is still looking as a nVidia subjective game just as UE4 games on AMD.

It is not the same ID's DOOM scenario where AMD used to have a deep opengl handicap.

 

[Maverick177]

Are there any DX dx12 benchmarks?

If I remember correctly, Unreal Engine is an nVidia thingy just like DX used to be.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10594/nvidia-releases-paragon-game-ready-pack
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10593/amd-bundles-together-deus-ex-mankind-divided-and-amd-fx-cpus

I can't wait for DX dx12 results.

Unfortunately, even if AMD gains a lot out of DX dx12, this two titles are too subjective to be taken seriously. DX maybe looking and performing great overall, but it is still looking as a nVidia subjective game just as UE4 games on AMD.

It is not the same ID's DOOM scenario where AMD used to have a deep opengl handicap.

Unreal CEO specifically said Unreal Engine was developed on nVidia hardware, and therefore ran best on GeForce. If any titles were too be taken seriously, it'd certainly not be Unreal titles.