Mirror's Edge Catalyst 'Hyper' Settings Made Possible by 8GB VRAM

[antihelten]

Well that's the problem with Star Wars:Battlefront AND Mirrors Edge:Catalyst is that they are both running Frostbite 3 and have completely dropped AMD Mantle support and are only running DirectX 11. The Mantle support was already built in to the engine there should be no reason for dropping it. Star Wars:Battlefront was probably DirectX 11 only because of the mainstream appeal it has (i.e. an EA requirement). Mirrors Edge:Catalyst I having a feeling does not support AMD Mantle because of its close affiliation with nVidia.

I'm hoping Battlefield 1 is a DX 12 Native title.

Actually there's a perfectly decent reason to drop Mantle support from the Frostbite engine, it already supports DX12 and you don't really need both.

The question then is, why doesn't Star Wars and Mirror's Edge support DX12 when the engine does (technically Star Wars does support DX12, but only on Xbox One, so that doesn't really count)? I have no idea.

 

[Erenhardt]

I successfully launched SW:battlefront beta using mantle. It was stable for about 3 seconds.
I may have a screenshot somewhere.

 

[Yakk]

In large part the developers of the Frostbyte engine also developed Mantle for AMD, which in turn Microsoft adapted to DX12. So weather you call it Mantle or DX12, it's in there.

 

[Bacon1]

No idea why anyone would play in Hyper instead of Ultra.

Graphics look 99% identical, yet Hyper mode is a ~42% perf hit on 980 TI @ 1080p, and ~40% perf hit on the 1080!

Its not like you'll be playing @ 4k or even 1440p with Hyper since even the 1080 can only get 63 avg fps, which means you'll have dips into the 50s in a game meant to be played very fluidly and fast paced.

 

[BSim500]

No idea why anyone would play in Hyper instead of Ultra. Graphics look 99% identical, yet Hyper mode is a ~42% perf hit on 980 TI @ 1080p, and ~40% perf hit on the 1080!

A lot of the Super-Mega-Ultra-Hyper-Enhanced-Augmented-Celestial-Transcendent-Glorious-Master-Race-Epeen settings are a joke. Not only are many barely perceptibly better (requiring side by side screenshots with 4x zoomed in cutouts), some are different rather than 'better' (eg, soft shadows and various blurs are particularly subjective), whilst some others actually make the game look worse (excessive DoF, chromatic abhorration, etc).

But we have a new generation of GFX cards, and therefore it's time to intentionally cripple everything to run as slowly as possible as self-justification for blowing $700 on hardware capable of rendering an ultra-sharp 4K scene in 4ms... and the next 3ms promptly blurring it all out again...

 

[desprado]

Why no body posted this?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mirrors-Edge-Catalyst-Spiel-55642/Specials/Benchmarks-Test-1197847/


So much for gimping GTX 9xx series. The reason why people think that is because many review sites uses garbage nvidia reference cards which throttle a lot . A custom version of GTX 980 Ti which is clocked at 1300mhz is nearly 15% faster then reference version.

 

[Headfoot]

Well that's the problem with Star Wars:Battlefront AND Mirrors Edge:Catalyst is that they are both running Frostbite 3 and have completely dropped AMD Mantle support and are only running DirectX 11. The Mantle support was already built in to the engine there should be no reason for dropping it. Star Wars:Battlefront was probably DirectX 11 only because of the mainstream appeal it has (i.e. an EA requirement). Mirrors Edge:Catalyst I having a feeling does not support AMD Mantle because of its close affiliation with nVidia.

I'm hoping Battlefield 1 is a DX 12 Native title.

I keep seeing this argument, and its just not correct at all.

New AAA games on the same engine 99.9% of the time include engine-touching modifications. New graphics tech, new toolchains, new features. Every single thing you add to a game costs money in the form of manhours. Hours to build it, hours to test it, hours to support it and bugfix it after release.

If you are making SW:BF and you modify any piece of code that touches both the Mantle and DX11 codepaths in the existing engine, you have to modify both to keep Mantle support. This means more time which means more money. Mantle has been EOL'd so it makes no sense to continue to spend development hours building new features twice into the Mantle code path.

Does that mean that the existing Mantle code was deleted? Emphatically no. 99.9% likely it is still there.

If you are a smart developer who doesn't waste money, and you are making a DX12 codepath for your new game, will you write it from scratch or will you adapt the existing Mantle codepath which is close? You will adapt the Mantle path.

Bottom line. There are TONS of reasons to drop the Mantle code path right now given the situation, which is why it happened.

 

[RussianSensation]

Why no body posted this?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mirrors-Edge-Catalyst-Spiel-55642/Specials/Benchmarks-Test-1197847/

The coding for this game is an absolute JOKE. I've never seen a game in 2016 that needs > 4GB of VRAM to look this garbage as far as textures go. It's like RAGE all over again.

2007 Crysis 1 has better textures than 2016's Mirror's Edge Catalyst does on Ultra. Whoever made this game should go back to school.

If your "cutting edge" 2016 FPS game looks worse than Crysis 1 does, you should quit making video games.

 

[Bacon1]

The odd part is usually DICE has very optimized games with Frostbite.

 

[ZGR]

To be fair, Mirror's Edge 2 has to copy the same artistic style as Mirror's Edge 1. I don't think anyone found the first Mirror's Edge to be visually cutting edge either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a4nmHvPBaU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaxVR_BHH4

big difference is that the first ME ran great on low end hardware at max settings. It almost seems like they are using nearly the same engine but pushing it far beyond its original purpose.

At sane settings, it appears ME: C performs pretty well. Graphically, it looks a lot like the first game. It reminds me of Borderlands and how its graphical style has largely remained the same throughout all the games.

 

[desprado]

So much for maxwell gimping. That is why forums never represents sales or reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ8GJGw5I-U

GTX 970 getting around 90fps above and average of 80fps on 1080p.

 

[Bacon1]

So much for maxwell gimping. That is why forums never represents sales or reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ8GJGw5I-U

GTX 970 getting around 90fps above and average of 80fps on 1080p.

Not a valid test, he has the gpu memory restriction enabled. That will auto adjust settings to keep high framerate.