Dishonored 2 GPU Benchmarks (GameGPU)

[Sweepr]

All of the graphics cards included in this test were run with the latest drivers installed. In Nvidia’s case that would be Driver Version 375.70 and on the AMD side, we are using Radeon Software 16.11.3. Both of these drivers were released with optimisations for Dishonored 2. Our results were obtained using FRAPS to record average and minimum frame rates. Our benchmark takes place during the first proper level of Dishonored 2 while running through the city streets of Dunwall and taking out all of the guards before the docks.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/matthew-wilson/dishonored-2-pc-game-analysis

 

[Erenhardt]

snip

OMG. This game not only runs like crap, but it also looks like one. Geometry, texture detail, lighting... looks like ps3 port.

 

[tential]

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.

So we all should upgrade to new better gpus that amd and Nvidia didn't release just to play a poorly optimized game that looks like a ps3 port?.

No thanks. I think this game should simply have been better made for PC.
As always, I will exercise my right to not buy the game until performance improves.

We shouldn't have to stay on the latest gpu architecture, then wish it was still faster, to play last generation looking games.

 

[Keysplayr]

OMG. This game not only runs like crap, but it also looks like one. Geometry, texture detail, lighting... looks like ps3 port.

Anyone agree with Erenhardt?
Also, it's my impression that there aren't that many games that ARENT console ports these days.

 

[kraatus77]

At least other ports look and run better than this turd.

 

[dogen1]

Anyone agree with Erenhardt?
Also, it's my impression that there aren't that many games that ARENT console ports these days.

Yep. Ports are pretty rare, especially if it's a multiplatform game that releases simultaneously on all platforms.

 

[Yakk]

Anyone agree with Erenhardt?
Also, it's my impression that there aren't that many games that ARENT console ports these days.

Yup. Game looks quite dated already, wastes tons of system resources, and just runs like garbage. Port or not has little to do with it. The Frostbyte engine for example, is optimized for all consoles + PC.

 

[tviceman]

Deus EX MD ran like crap at release, but I guess it got a huge pass because it wasn't a gameworks title. Weird how that always seems to be skipped over at ATF.

 

[bystander36]

HBAO+ is just a shader that'll run on anything that supports DX11. It ran on AMD cards from the beginning.

All the pre GameWorks games, did not run HBAO+ on AMD, but AMD had their own version, HDAO. Then GameWorks added a version that works on both. I personally didn't even like HBAO+ in the games I saw it in, prior to that change.

 

[dogen1]

All the pre GameWorks games, did not run HBAO+ on AMD, but AMD had their own version, HDAO. Then GameWorks added a version that works on both. I personally didn't even like HBAO+ in the games I saw it in, prior to that change.

This was the first game with HBAO+. Came out in 2013.

 

[Keysplayr]

Yep. Ports are pretty rare, especially if it's a multiplatform game that releases simultaneously on all platforms.

Wait, ports are rare? First I've heard this.

 

[dogen1]

Wait, ports are rare? First I've heard this.

Well, I mean modern console games that end up on pc. Maybe not if something was intended to be console only and then, years later came out on pc.

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=223929645&postcount=447

 

[PhonakV30]

anyone Checked?

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=223933107&postcount=470

The issue actually seems to be due to task manager setting Dishonored2.exe to "Low priority", if I manually set it to High Priority, I get a big boost in FPS.

Unfortunately, it periodically resets back to low every couple of mins/load screens.

 

[SlickR12345]

Game looks terrible, in fact dare I say it but Dishonored 1 looks significantly better than Dishonored 2. I wish I could post screenshots, but I already uninstalled Dishonored 2 and I also can't be bothered to install the first one either right now!

 

[Head1985]

GTX980/980TI/1060/1070/1080 in test.GTX1080 is 27-33% faster than GTX1070 at same clock(huge gap again).GTX980 is faster than GTX1060.Reference throttling 980TI=reference 1070 at 1850-1900mhz.Again pretty poor performance from pascal cards.Only GTX1080 is very good.

I really want to know why in initial reviews there was around 20% gap in GTX1080 vs 1070.While in latest games the gap is actually 25-33%.I am following this dude videos long time and in latest games the gap is really huge around 25-30% in every game(only titalfall2 there is only 20% gap)
Deus ex
Gears of war
BF1
Mafia3
dishonored2
Call of duty infinite warfare
All those games have 25-30% gap.pretty much all latest AAA games.

 

[Bacon1]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/matthew-wilson/dishonored-2-pc-game-analysis

It is amazing that you continue to think that tests showing a 970 faster than a fury x somehow show a good quality game and not a terribly optimized game.

 

[antihelten]

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.

To my knowledge there aren't any separate branches of HBAO+ or TXAA maintained by Nvidia outside of gameworks, the only semi-exception would be for the specific ones they maintain for larger game engines such as Unreal Engine (although technically, I think it's mainly EPIC that maintains this).

So either the dishonored devs are actually using the gameworks version of HBAO+ and TXAA and they simply decided to disable HBAO+ for AMD, since the game already runs poor enough as is. Or alternatively they are not using the gameworks version of HBAO+ and TXAA, which means that they actually went through the trouble of building a tailor made engine (the void engine), but then for inexplicable reasons decided to hamstring it with several years old versions of HBAO+ and TXAA, instead of using the newer and readily available gameworks versions.

Occam's razor would seem to suggest that the first scenario is the more likely one here.

 

[EXCellR8]

I am actually quite happy with how the game looks... because it's fun to play and doesn't crash or freeze. Framerate isn't bothering me because it very rarely becomes unplayable, and I think the art style and graphics work fine together.

There are better looking games for sure, and performance could certainly be improved, but it's either people complain about an on time release that needs to be tweaked, or a delayed launch on PC because of updates and optimization. The game could have been perfect on launch day, and players would probably pick it apart about being linear in 2016 and not having VR support.

PC gaming can be frustrating, but I hear consoles are all the rage these days anyway.

 

[Bacon1]

People often forget that HBAO+ has now been open sourced on GitHub,

AFAIK Hbao+ never made it to github

https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-source-github

No HBAO+

 

[Bacon1]

A detailed look at the initial performance and an analysis of bottlenecks.

http://www.pcgamer.com/why-dishonored-2-is-running-so-poorly/

 

[dogen1]

http://www.pcgamer.com/why-dishonored-2-is-running-so-poorly/

Understandably he wasn't really able to figure it out.

But we do get another game showing how much of a difference polaris' geometry improvements can make, and conversely how imbalanced the fury cards were.

 

[Headfoot]

Deus EX MD ran like crap at release, but I guess it got a huge pass because it wasn't a gameworks title. Weird how that always seems to be skipped over at ATF.

uh.... It didn't get a pass at all. I have no idea where you would get that impression from. Everywhere I saw folks holding off buying it because the performance sucked. That's what I did.

 

[Bacon1]

Deus EX MD ran like crap at release, but I guess it got a huge pass because it wasn't a gameworks title. Weird how that always seems to be skipped over at ATF.

Not only did DXMD run much better but it also looked much better. And yes people still complained about performance.


Fury X: 43.3 vs 65.8
1060: 53.8 vs 54.2
970: 45.6 vs 45.9
390: 38.6 vs 53.5


https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

 

[dogen1]

Not only did DXMD run much better but it also looked much better. And yes people still complained about performance.


Fury X: 43.3 vs 65.8
1060: 53.8 vs 54.2
970: 45.6 vs 45.9
390: 38.6 vs 53.5


https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

That Deus Ex shot looks pretty terrible too. Excessive sharpening, nasty aliasing all over the place, weird looking unrealistic bricks. More detail doesn't automatically make a game look better. That dishonored shot is a little hazy and soft, but what I've seen actually looks pretty good.

 

[USER8000]

OMG. This game not only runs like crap, but it also looks like one. Geometry, texture detail, lighting... looks like ps3 port.

WTF?? Fallout 4 seems to look better than that and with mods looks much better.

Doom is just better looking. Both of those are Bethesda games too.

Dragonage:Inquisition was released years ago and looks better than those screenshots.

 

[antihelten]

AFAIK Hbao+ never made it to github

https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-source-github

No HBAO+

It is available, but you need to be a member of their GameWorks developer program.

The HBAO+ library, with binaries for Windows, Linux and OSX, as well as complete source code, is available through Github. Just click the button below and follow the instructions to sign up for access.

https://developer.nvidia.com/shadowworks