GameGPU: Rainbow Six Siege Beta Benchmark

[Silverforce11]

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/rainbow-six-siege-beta-test-gpu.html

Very nice performance across the board. But non-functional CF/SLI. Runs on the Anvil Next engine from Ubisoft Montreal. Yes, it's Ubi and strangely, the performance is outstanding.

 

[dogen1]

Makes sense. This game is targeting 60 fps on console, and unity was targeting 10000 people crowds.

 

[AtenRa]

Is it a gameworks title ??

 

[crisium]

Looks like Nvidia is slightly lagging here with their drivers, although it's nothing drastic. 970 seems to under perform compared to the 290 series at 2560x1600. Although with an overclock I'd assume that both the 970 and the 290 can achieve 60fps minimum like the 290X has.

 

[tviceman]

Looks like Nvidia is slightly lagging here with their drivers, although it's nothing drastic. 970 seems to under perform compared to the 290 series at 2560x1600. Although with an overclock I'd assume that both the 970 and the 290 can achieve 60fps minimum like the 290X has.

Anytime Nvidia is under performing, it's considered "nice performance across the board." Anytime Nvidia is over performing, it's sabotage and buyouts and conspiracies. Anytime a game falls in line with the industry average, nobody cares.

 

[happy medium]

Anytime Nvidia is under performing, it's considered "nice performance across the board." Anytime Nvidia is over performing, it's sabotage and buyouts and conspiracies. Anytime a game falls in line with the industry average, nobody cares.

I guess that's why they call it a beta benchmark.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I wonder when people are going to forgive Ubisoft for doubting their technical expertise ...

Some of their recent past games were rough but they still knew what they were doing ...

 

[Headfoot]

the problem with ubi is that it rushes lots of games out before they are done. Common problem it seems

 

[RussianSensation]

Very nice performance across the board. But non-functional CF/SLI.

The graphics are very average for a late 2015 FPS.

If you look at the game in motion, there is a lot of texture/object pop-in. What is impressive though is the debris in the explosions. Looks way better than any artificial PhysX generated debris that usually wipes out 2-3X of the available performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WVWPjw7T2U

This game won't have a single player/story campaign. For me personally that kills all interest for this style of game.

I wonder when people are going to forgive Ubisoft for doubting their technical expertise ...

Some of their recent past games were rough but they still knew what they were doing ...

When Ubisoft does the following:

1) Hypes next generation graphics & physics and actually delivers;
2) Releases a next generation game that if destroys top of the line CPUs/GPUs actually has jaw dropping graphics;
3) Release a game that has working SLI/CF support without glitches and good scaling;
4) Releases a game that doesn't require 6-9 months of patches to fix bugs/glitches.

Rainbox Six Siege looks average at best so it's not a surprise at all that it runs well on modern GPU hardware.

Anytime Nvidia is under performing, it's considered "nice performance across the board." Anytime Nvidia is over performing, it's sabotage and buyouts and conspiracies. Anytime a game falls in line with the industry average, nobody cares.

Can you name some AAA games released in the last 2 years that are not GameWorks titles or not games based on Unreal Engine 4 that run significantly faster on NV's Fermi, Kepler and Maxwell hardware than AMD's competing cards/generations? I actually can't recall any off the top of my head. What's been consistent more often than not is AMD GE or brand agnostic titles run well on both AMD/NV hardware while most GWs/DX11 UE4 games run like crap on AMD cards.

I am pretty sure if AMD GE games had black-box source code and had huge chunks of the game engine running DirectCompute & Asynchronous Compute + required developers to buy a paid license to see all the source code for brand agnostic game optimizations, NV would start to significantly lag behind AMD cards in those titles. Imagine if AMD locked the source code for Dirt Showdown and encouraged the developers to program the game/engine to take full advantage of GCN's capabilities, and used this strategy for every AMD GE game? It would not be pretty. Personally I don't want PC gaming to get to the point where I need an AMD card for some games and an NV card for other games.

 

[Techhog]

Anytime Nvidia is under performing, it's considered "nice performance across the board." Anytime Nvidia is over performing, it's sabotage and buyouts and conspiracies. Anytime a game falls in line with the industry average, nobody cares.

This is only slightly off the average, though. On top of that, Nvidia has lower averages, but the same mimimums, which means that it'll feel smoother anyway. It's pretty much where it should be. When people complain about Nvidia overperforming, it's because of things going completely out of whack like a 760 and 290 performing at the same level, or it's after proving that the game has tons of unnecessary tessellation or excessive forced Physx.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is only slightly off the average, though. On top of that, Nvidia has lower averages, but the same mimimums, which means that it'll feel smoother anyway. It's pretty much where it should be. When people complain about Nvidia overperforming, it's because of things going completely out of whack like a 760 and 290 performing at the same level, or it's after proving that the game has tons of unnecessary tessellation or excessive forced Physx.

Exactly, or 770 2GB performing as well as an R9 290/290X which should not be possible in any well-optimized brand agnostic title. On average, 770 cannot even beat a 280X at 1080P or 1440P, and it gets destroyed by 35%+ by after-market 290/290X cards. No way should 770 ever be trading blows with a 290/290X level card.

Or 780Ti/970 wiping the floor with a 290X and outperforming a Fury X in a game? Ya right...

When we look at Rainbox 6 Siege, there is no gross favoritism towards AMD. Plus, it's a beta game so neither AMD nor NV have had the chance to formally optimize the drivers for it and neither has the developer finalized all the optimizations.

 

[Silverforce11]

@RS
The graphics may be average, but most Ubi games have average graphics with horrible performance. This is running extremely fast is the good surprise. I check the benchmark and was expecting a lot worse seeing Ubi logo..

Hopefully they focus on PC optimizations and releasing non-buggy games in the future.

 

[RussianSensation]

@RS
The graphics may be average, but most Ubi games have average graphics with horrible performance. This is running extremely fast is the good surprise. I check the benchmark and was expecting a lot worse seeing Ubi logo..

Hopefully they focus on PC optimizations and releasing non-buggy games in the future.

Besides the non-existent CF profile for months and SLI shadow glitches, FC4 had decent graphics vs. level of optimization.

FC4 was also held back by PS3/360, but Rainbox 6 Siege is made specifically for PS4/XB1/PC.

Look at this:

There better be some major issue with their screen capture/or washed out beta screenshots not representative of the final game because right now that looks awful.

IGN noted serious concerns on this front even in March 2015:

"Yes, this is an alpha. Heck, even some visibly unfinished textures are literally labeled “alpha.” And yes, gameplay is king – something Siege has in spades. But after the game wowed us during its E3 2014 debut, it’s hard not to notice how different it looks nine months later. Lighting, character detail, and smoke effects are all noticeably reduced from what we played last June – and even in a vacuum where the E3 demo had never existed, Rainbow Six Siege is not (currently) a particularly attractive next-gen game. Here’s hoping a few of those lost E3 layers of visual splendor are restored before it goes gold."

You can look at the video of the Alpha as of April 2015 and it looks like a last generation game.

I am not trying to come off as a PC-elitist snob that only would cares for Crysis 3 or Ryse Son of Rome level of graphics but it's late 2015 and this game doesn't even need to cater to Xbox 360/PS3 and it looks very mediocre. I am not impressed that it perform well cuz it looks bad.

The Beta on PS4 as of this month looks even worse than the PC version screens posted on GameGPU. It was also a giant unstable turd.

So, no SP campaign, graphics look mediocre for a 2015 FPS game that ditched PS3/360..thus far this game is shaping up to be another Ubisoft crappy title.

 

[wolf_squad]

what's with the blurred jaggies in all those screenshots? it looks like an upscaled framebuffer, not a render at the native resolution.