AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
I agree, just bought Deus Ex MD a few days ago for almost 1/3 of the original price back in August. Now the game is patched with a good DX-12 API performance as it should have been on release date.
Lately PC games not only are released in a broken/Beta state but they also increased their release price to 60 $/Euros. That is unacceptably for PC Games and especially in that state, PC gamers should boycott all those Broken/Unoptimized games on release.
Dont pre-order, dont buy games that are broken/unoptimized etc, show the Gaming industry what they should do.
Yeah so pcgameshardware benchmarks are out.Aftermarket 980TI>1070
.Pretty good performance by kepler BTW.ANd also both pascal GTX1060 and 1070 cards are slower than maxwell counterparts GTX980 and 980TI.Only GTX1080 is killer and have very good performance.GTX1070 vs GTX1080 gap is 21% at 1080P 25% at 1440P and 30% at 4k.
From AMD side:RX480 GTR looks pretty good for gameworks game..In 1080P at FURYX level.AT 1440p still much faster than 390x.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Disho...s/Benchmark-Test-Systemanforderungen-1212965/
1080P
1440p
Last edited:
This is nothing but an excuse to distract from AMD's poor performance. Gameworks effects can always be disabled, so no one is forcing you to run them. Don't like it, turn it off.
Coincidentally, according to the PCgameshardware.de article, TXAA is actually selectable by Radeon owners because it lacks the hardware multisampling feature used in previous titles, which required NVidia hardware. So TXAA in D2 is just a temporal filter.
Also, HBAO+ cannot be selected if you have a Radeon card. Might be a bug, as HBAO+ runs well on AMD by all accounts. Or perhaps they did it on purpose to prevent all the bellyaching and whining from Radeon owners?
Wow! Great showing from Kepler! Waiting for you know who to come in here and proclaim that Kepler's taken a dirt nap
This is nothing but an excuse to distract from AMD's poor performance. Gameworks effects can always be disabled, so no one is forcing you to run them. Don't like it, turn it off.
Coincidentally, according to the PCgameshardware.de article, TXAA is actually selectable by Radeon owners because it lacks the hardware multisampling feature used in previous titles, which required NVidia hardware. So TXAA in D2 is just a temporal filter.
Also, HBAO+ cannot be selected if you have a Radeon card. Might be a bug, as HBAO+ runs well on AMD by all accounts. Or perhaps they did it on purpose to prevent all the bellyaching and whining from Radeon owners?
I'm going to give you one last warning to stop the trolling, or you're going to be gone from here even longer than you were last time.
-- stahlhart
100% agreed. I am refusing to buy games that have terrible performance on Day 1 or other broken PC features. At the same time though, if a game releases with good PC options and good performance, I will go out of my way to buy it at full price early on. After I saw how good the Doom vulkan path was (and that it got good reviews too of course) went and bought it at full price. I did the same with with Titanfall 2 which runs well and is very fun. In the same breath I was planning on day 1 buying Deus Ex but I held off because of the lack of DX12, then the bad performance. I will buy it now on sale. I will likely do the same with Dishonored 2 until they improve performance.
IMO you have to punish the bad ones by holding off buying but you also have to reward the good developers so they can see that good PC implementation = more week 1 sales at full price. I can afford to do so, so I do.
It's most likely because the game doesn't use Gameworks. Prior to Gameworks, AMD did not get HBAO+ in any game I know of. Gameworks added that possibility. Since the game doesn't use Gameworks, they didn't get to add that for AMD.
Actually I think you might be right. People often forget that HBAO+ has now been open sourced on GitHub, so likely the implementation that Arkane studios used for D2 was their own custom version, and not NVidia's.
Krteq
Golden Member
- May 22, 2015
- 1,005
- 713
- 136
Well, GameWorks are on GitHub, but they are NOT open-sourced at all. Read a licence terms/EULA document.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
I will agree and as you say, in order for me to spend 60 $/Euros for a Game on release it should be the next best thing ever created. Best visuals, Best game Play, no major bugs, Very optimized for all hardware etc etc
If Games dont have all those on release, i find it extremely difficult to spend 60 $/Euros when 3-5-6 months later the same Game will cost less than half, have better game play, be optimized for my hardware and most of the important bugs will be fixed.
EXCellR8
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 4,029
- 868
- 136
Really wanted to pre-order this game since over the summer, but I kind of figured this would happen on PC. I was told that I would not receive an additional copy of the first game either.
I'll play it at some point. The original took me a little bit to warm up to, but after a few sessions I enjoyed it. Strange game, but in a good way.
I'll play it at some point. The original took me a little bit to warm up to, but after a few sessions I enjoyed it. Strange game, but in a good way.
Totally agreed. I understand a lot of folks can't afford to buy games day 1. It's rare these days that I do either, but I can afford it so I vote with my wallet. The last games I rewarded with a full price buy due to high quality PC implementation were: Titanfall 2, Doom 2016, GTA V, Overwatch, The Division. The Division was a little iffy because crossfire didnt work, but generally it ran really well, supported triple monitor out of the box, looked great, had tons of PC options so I went for it.
I like PC gaming a lot so I'm willing to spend a little more on behalf of all PC gamers to reward the good developers
SteveGrabowski
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2014
- 8,584
- 7,209
- 136
Since I have only been PC gaming since late 2014, I have to ask: is this the new normal or has it always been like this? Seeing how badly my GTX 970 is falling off in recent games like this, Mafia 3, Deus Ex MD, and so on makes me never want to even think about upgrading to 1440p and be stuck buying a new gpu every year or two.
Cards are actually lasting longer than they ever had. An original 7970 OC can still put up 60 FPS at High-ish settings in a lot of games today, 4 years after its release. Which is unheard of.
Back in the day process shrinks happened so fast that your card would be obsoleted very quickly
Back in the day process shrinks happened so fast that your card would be obsoleted very quickly
SteveGrabowski
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2014
- 8,584
- 7,209
- 136
This game though... I was watching Joker's performance review and he just barely kept above a 60 fps minimum at 1080p with a GTX 1080. That's unreal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVRvM8k7Emw
Yeah I think that just goes to highlight what a poor state this game is in right now, performance wise. Hurts even more because this game is on the heels of the remarkably well optimized Battlefield 1, Doom 2016 releases and the very solid Titanfall 2 release
EXCellR8
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 4,029
- 868
- 136
Purchased and downloaded the game anyway, as I needed something to do...
Totally worth it. I figured my machine would be alright but I only encountered one or two areas where it was really struggling. Setting the game's executable priority to normal definitely helped, as did using the latest drivers. Visual settings are almost maxed out but I did disable the AA since I am using a 1440p display. I can understand why people are upset since the game is full price and all but it will be fixed. I am really enjoying it though; I've already racked up 12 hours worth of nonlethal ghosting and I am looking forward to a high chaos run as Corvo once I am done.
It's definitely a great game that's worth playing, despite the current technical issues most people are reporting, but even in its current state it's 10x better than all of that half-assed indie garbage that Steam has become a front for.
Totally worth it. I figured my machine would be alright but I only encountered one or two areas where it was really struggling. Setting the game's executable priority to normal definitely helped, as did using the latest drivers. Visual settings are almost maxed out but I did disable the AA since I am using a 1440p display. I can understand why people are upset since the game is full price and all but it will be fixed. I am really enjoying it though; I've already racked up 12 hours worth of nonlethal ghosting and I am looking forward to a high chaos run as Corvo once I am done.
It's definitely a great game that's worth playing, despite the current technical issues most people are reporting, but even in its current state it's 10x better than all of that half-assed indie garbage that Steam has become a front for.
Of course it uses GameWorks. HBAO+ and TXAA are part of VisualFX, which is itself part of GameWorks.
GameWorks isn't some specific piece of software, it's just the name Nvidia uses to describe their suite of proprietary tools and software libraries.
https://developer.nvidia.com/what-is-gameworks
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
I've been doing that for a long time. The developers/publishers continue to launch games that are unoptimized, broken, glitchy, often come with DLC. Why spend $70-120 CDN (granted on CD Keys the game is $39 USD or $53 CDN) on that when by the time the game is fixed, it's either 50% off or is GOTY material? Not only that, but it's a double win as over time performance improves, CF/SLI profiles may be added, and as a bonus GPUs either get cheaper and/or faster. This also goes hand-in-hand with flagship GPUs --> Why buy launch $600-800 flagship GPUs when in ~12 months these AAA games are finally fixed with all the DLC added, we'll have $650-700 780Ti/980Ti's level of performance in a $330-375 GTX970/GTX1070? I am all for buying online multi-player games or well optimized games around launch but broken and unoptimized games? Nah. We also know since it's Bethesda, there will be $30-40 worth of DLC down the line...
I am actually having a hard time coming up with any 2016 AAA FPS game that looks and runs as bad as Dishonored 2? Even the PC-hated Infinite Warfare looks and performs much better. id Tech 5 showed awful performance vs. visuals in the Evil Within and Rage. This game could have been made in parallel with Doom.
Joker Productions tested the game with FXAA and HBAO+ off and performance still dipped close to 40 fps on RX 480 and GTX1060 6GB at 1080p. Looks like the developer needs to better optimize the game engine. Also odd to see that Adaptive Resolution is by default set to 75% on the PC version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVRvM8k7Emw&t=1s
Other than that, this is probably a good game as the 1st one was enjoyable. Hopefully the developer addresses the performance issues soon or many gamers will just wait to pick the game up during the upcoming Steam Winter Sale.
It was much worse before. You could not achieve 60 fps minimums at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 in modern AAA games in any of previous GPU eras. No modern GPU of the era could max out Unreal 1-2, Doom, Far Cry 1, Metro 2033 at 2560x1600, etc. Think about it, $600 8800GTX could not even max out Crysis 1 at 1280x1024 4xMSAA. I guess you were never around when Crysis 1 came out? It wiped the floor with 8800GTX SLI and then GTX 280 SLI and then GTX 480 SLI.
The difference is now, the difference between Ultra and HQ quality settings is very small in games. At least now, with some lowered settings and AA, it's possible to achieve 60 fps average in nearly every game at 1080p on a $200 RX 480/GTX1060. This was 100% out of the question during GeForce 2->GTX200 eras. The very fact that GPUs such as HD7970Ghz or R9 290/GTX970 are still viable for 1080p gaming in 2016 with some settings turned down already highlights that overall PC gaming has never been more accessible. Back in the days after 2-2.5 years the GPU was completely outdated for next gen games.
If you are going to want 60 fps minimums in every single AAA game, it'll take 10+ years before you upgrade from 1080p. There will always be unoptimized games or next gen demanding games or CPU demanding games that will bring FPS < 60. That's why GSync/FreeSync and 1440p/4K 100-165Hz is the next logical upgrade from 1080p gaming for those who are still on 1080p.
-----
AA implementation leaves much to be desired in this title -- you either get blurry textures/loss of details or aliasing.
Max with no AA
Max + HBAO + FXAA High
Max + HBAO + TXAA
Max with no AA
Max + HBAO + FXAA High
Max + HBAO + TXAA
The game looks more vibrant and better than part 1 but not the performance inconsistency compared to other modern AAA FPS is unfortunate.
Unfortunately even when both HBAO+ and TXAA are turned off per Joker Productions, the performance is still bad on both NV and AMD.
Guru3D tested with TXAAx1 and HBAO+ off. RX 480 and GTX1060 were unable to even get to 60 fps in their test scene.
Awful showing for the GTX1050Ti, not even beating GTX960, and far behind the RX 470, which can now be readily found for $159 on Newegg.
Last edited:
There is a room for improvement. Also no SLI neither CF. So it is still a nearly full game, needs optimizations. At least not Beta.
Let's give one month for the drivers that improves it.
Let's give one month for the drivers that improves it.
GameWorks is a library of tools. They are part of an API which is sort of a blackbox that doesn't allow the dev's to tweak. However, PhysX existed long before it. TXAA existed a couple years prior, and so did HBAO+. It wasn't until they added it to the Gameworks libraries that they added code to work with AMD. It seems very possible/likely, in part because its not advertised as such, and because AMD doesn't support HBAO+ like a GameWorks title would, that they did not get the API's from the GameWorks library, but instead used stand alone libraries for each of those items.
HBAO+ is just a shader that'll run on anything that supports DX11. It ran on AMD cards from the beginning.
Its easy cry when game like this shows, but its really AMD and NV fault for not releasing new better GPUs.
What NV released from new generation?
Mainstream GP104 GTX1080(which they milk for 700USD) and heavy cutdown so called GTX1070 which is 25-30% slower than GTX1080 and not much faster than 2.5year old GTX980(only 30%).GTX1080 runs it pretty good at 1440p with 80avg fps.
From HIGH-end GP102 NV released only cutdown TITANXP for 1200USD.
AMD released only low-end polaris(its only GP106 competitor) which was low-end in pre kepler era.They still didnt release mainstream competitor(GP104) and HIGH-end competitor(GP102)
If GTX1070 was only slighly cutdown(like GTX670) it would manage this game just fine just like gtx1080.And if we have here GP102 GPUs it will run even better with +40-50% performance above GTX1080.
In old days if you have 2-3 years old GPU you was done.Today people cry for bad optimalized game with 2-3years old GPU for not running at 60fps.
Yeah it is worse optimalized game, but both NV and AMD didnt release new high-end cards.GTX1070 didnt bring anything new what we didnt already have for 2 years and GP102 is not out.Polaris is low-end and mainstream vega(GP104 competitor) and high-end vega(gp102 competitor) are not out.
I dont excuse this game, but we need see this from another angle.
What NV released from new generation?
Mainstream GP104 GTX1080(which they milk for 700USD) and heavy cutdown so called GTX1070 which is 25-30% slower than GTX1080 and not much faster than 2.5year old GTX980(only 30%).GTX1080 runs it pretty good at 1440p with 80avg fps.
From HIGH-end GP102 NV released only cutdown TITANXP for 1200USD.
AMD released only low-end polaris(its only GP106 competitor) which was low-end in pre kepler era.They still didnt release mainstream competitor(GP104) and HIGH-end competitor(GP102)
If GTX1070 was only slighly cutdown(like GTX670) it would manage this game just fine just like gtx1080.And if we have here GP102 GPUs it will run even better with +40-50% performance above GTX1080.
In old days if you have 2-3 years old GPU you was done.Today people cry for bad optimalized game with 2-3years old GPU for not running at 60fps.
Yeah it is worse optimalized game, but both NV and AMD didnt release new high-end cards.GTX1070 didnt bring anything new what we didnt already have for 2 years and GP102 is not out.Polaris is low-end and mainstream vega(GP104 competitor) and high-end vega(gp102 competitor) are not out.
I dont excuse this game, but we need see this from another angle.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter