Search the Community

This is a weird post for the troubleshooting category because it's already fixed, I just want to know how. So I was playing Rise of the Tomb Raider but was having horrible lag (8-12fps), I tried lowering the settings, but got 12 on high and 8 on lowest which was pretty weird because I would expect there should be a bigger difference. So, I thought the bottleneck could be somewhere else, so I lowered the resolution from 1920x1080 to 1280x720 which increased the FPS to the 60 (because V-sync was on), but it went down to 12 again after ~30 seconds. I then tried reducing it to the minimum of 800x600, but the performance improvement was also only visible shortly after exiting the menu. I thought it might be caused by closing the menu or something, but that didn't seem to be the reason. Then I started looking at the clock speed, it was at a steady 4.1GHz and the temps where at 85c°. The game ran fine for a short while but then started to struggle again, I checked again and the clock speeds were down to 2.2GHz and the temps to 95-99c°. I tried to figure out what was happening, so I looked at the graph of the thermals and clock speed, and it seemed to be boosting and throttling back constantly. I think that that was the issue. Likewise, I figured it would be better to cap it at 3GHz to prevent it from going up and down too much. So entered 3000 thinking it would be in MHz, but I misread it, and it was in kHz and I therefore entered what ends up being 3MHz instead, however it didn't go below 800MHz. I didn't notice at first, there was a bit more lag when navigating Spotify and using Firefox but nothing too much to raise suspicion. I opened the system monitor and saw that the clock speed was at 800Mhz and realized a mistake. So I opened the game out of curiosity and to my surprise it actually works, but then I noticed that the game was running butter smooth and was nothing like the slideshow it was before which puzzled me the most. How could the decrease from 2.2-4.1GHz to 0.8GHz improve performance? "It surely is just being weird and will go back to lagging any second now", I thought, but it didn't. Then I thought that the displayed clock speed was false, however it showed up everywhere as 800MHz on all cores. I still have no clue how this is possible. Did the lowering fix some weird bug or something? Do any of you know what's causing this weird situation? Some further info: I use an optimization program called Game Mode created by the game's developers. I have tried cpupower-gui to change the max frequency I have tried cpufreq-manager to change the max frequency CPU: i7 8750H (6c) GPU: GTX 1060 RAM: 16 GB DDR4 I use an SSD I'm running PopOS 20.10 (Linux) I'm running the game using Steam (natively, so no Proton) The Steam FPS counter is showing 1 FPS even though it's not.

Found this method for A fatal error occurred while initializing the audio subsystem error in Rise of the Tomb Raider: 20 Year Celebration Run cmd as a system administrator Enter netsh and press enter Then enter winsock reset catalog and press enter Restart the computer Reference URL: https://steamcommunity.com/app/391220/discussions/0/152390648094402073/#c152391285466195891

Good day LTT LFG, I've been achievement-hunting in Rise of the Tomb Raider (Yay RTX 2070 for beautiful frames), and i'm stuck on the endurance co-op achievements. They require another player (maybe a 2 hour run?) but all the people on my list who play regularly are in Europe or Russia, and my connection with them from North America is unplayable Anyone who is playing out of North America who can help me get the achievements? Just one Endurance Co-Op Run in Rise of the Tomb Raider. No mic required. I'm on steam and discord via the same name. Thank you in advance!

hi, whenever I try to play rise of the tomb raider it crashes. I get to the home menu and it loads and the second the game starts, it crashes. it says there was a problem that made the program crash. if anyone could help that would be great.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Rise-Tomb-Raider-Gets-Ryzen-Performance-Update Crystal Dynamics released an update to their popular Rise of the Tomb Raider game, significantly increasing Ryzen game performance. The update did the following: Clearly developers have taken an interest in optimizing titles for Ryzen, and bringing Ryzen game performance within the ~7% IPC difference from Intel, rather than the large differences that were seen initially due to the majour architecture difference. Performance changed rather significantly: That is not the whole story however. Not only did the engine become more efficient, it actually lowered overall CPU utilization, indicating wasted resources in the last version of the game. This could potentially be present in many other games, resulting in wasted power that could be better utilized. Frame times decreased drastically as well, with frametime consistencies improving significantly, creating a much more fluid and pleasant gaming experience.

Anyone using mods for this game? If so, where do you find them?

Hello people of the internet. In my own inability to make decisions on game purchases, I have come here to ask the community... should I buy Rise of the Tomb Raider or DOOM? They are both currently on sale on steam for approximately the same price and don't tell me to just buy both. Wondering what everyone opinion is between the two games. Feel free to say which one you prefer and why. Cheers!

hello people. when i have ssaa 2x or 4x on i have this weird bug in the bottom left side of the screen. however.when i have fxaa or smaa instead of ssaa.i dont see any graphical bugs here is a vid:

My computer crashes after about 30 seconds of Rise of the Tomb Raider gameplay in the first level making my system restart and displaying an error screen as shown in the attached picture. My pc specs are: CPU: intel core i7 3770k GPU: msi gtx 1060 6gb RAM: 16gb PSU: 750W Note that as far as I have tested, this only occurs in this game at those first seconds of gameplay. I have played lots of other games that were demanding too and didn't have a problem like this. What can I do?

Like... Looking at the ground my GPU and CPU work harder, and when playing it goes down to 50% or less. Why this happens ? Specs: I7 3700, 1080gtx, 16gb ram.

So this is my first real deep dive into a topic like this. If you find any errors or have any questions about what I put down, don't hesitate to ask or tell me. . . So this essay was actually inspired by a session of gaming where I was playing Rise of the Tomb Raider where I noticed that the game was using all of my six cores and twelve threads on my Ryzen 5 1600. Closely inspecting the cpu usage graph for each core revealed that all of the cores seemed to have the same usage pattern which gave me pause as to whether or not the game was actually using all of the cores for a useful load or if it was just replicating data to be worked on across multiple cores at the same time. I did not notice this behavior in dx11 mode though my overall performance was lower in DX11 overall. I decided to further investigate this by seeing if I could disable threads and cores to find out at which point the frame rates would actually start suffering from the reduced thread count which should indicate how many threads Rise of the Tomb raider was actually using. My methods for testing were using Rise of the Tomb Raider’s built in benchmark in repetition at the medium preset with textures turned up to high, anisotropic filtering set to 16x, dof turned off, motion blur and vignette blur turned off, tessellation set to on, and smaa as my anti aliasing. DX12 was enabled as well as exclusive fullscreen with a resolution of 3440x1440. In order to test the core and thread differences, I would disable the amount of cores or disable smt in the bios of my Gigabyte ab350n motherboard prior to testing and then boot into Windows 10. I would allow all system processes to die down and then launch ROTTR. I used msi afterburner, HWINFO64, and windows task manager to monitor cpu and gpu usage along with temperatures and power draw. I would run an initial “sacrificial” run of the benchmark to allow the system to load whatever it needed to into ram to reduce stutter and random cpu usage which would be otherwise unrepresentative of the overall expected performance. I would then run the benchmark six more times sequentially recording the average, minimum, and maximum frame rates for each part of the test. At the end of the run I would take a screenshot of all aforementioned monitoring software for further analysis. The system in question is comprised of an AMD Ryzen 5 1600 overclocked to 3.8Ghz using 1.325 Vcore, 16Gb Team Group Delta rgb ddr4 running at 2666Mhz cl 15, an EVGA GTX 1070 ti sc black edition with a sustained boost frequency of between 2050-2025Mhz, all on a Gigabyte ab350n wifi mini itx board and with all components custom liquid cooled on a 240mm loop with all fans at 100% pwm to ensure temperature was not a variable in regards to performance. Starting with the baseline of six cores and twelve threads, we can see the average is 78.45 fps with minimums dipping down to 44.71fps. This is a good result and if we look at the cpu and gpu usage graphs we can see that the cpu has a general downward trend in terms of overall usage and the gpu has no dips in usage which is what we are looking for. Now, simulating a 4 core cpu with smt to 8 threads such as a 1400 or 1500x, we can see that the average is 79.2fps with the minimums dipping down to 37.72. The difference between these two averages are not statistically significantly different if using a standard value of 0.05 for a standard 2 sample T test and anecdotally that seems true. The minimums however are in clear favor of the 6 core 12 threaded cpu. Looking more closely we can see that the maximums for the 4 core 8 thread cpu are noticeably ahead of those of the 6 core 12 threaded one. The minimums of the 4 core smt cpu are overall lower with a narrower spread than that of the 6 core smt cpu. The minimums of the latter processor were significantly better than those of the former. Looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs shows us that there are a few more noticeable dips in gpu usage and overall cpu usage is higher though overall they both look good and would both make for a good experience. Now looking at a six core cpu with smt disabled so 6 cores and 6 threads, the average comes to 79.24 fps with minimums dipping down to 44.96. In this case lower thread configuration is measurably higher than that of the higher thread count cpu in terms of average fps. However when looking into minimums we can see that they are not significantly different and so are effectively the same. Overall the experience between these two were very similar and looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs reveals that while the cpu usage was overall higher, there appear to be a couple of times where the cpu spiked less though the gpu usage remained about as flat as the 6 core 12 thread cpu and gameplay remained similar between all three of the aforementioned cpus with a couple very slight frame skips with the smt enabled four core. Moving on to an uncommon cpu core and thread setup, I decided to test a 3 core and six thread configuration to see how smt thread performance would compare to real core usage. The average fps is 77.39 fps and the minimums are 39.95. This puts the average fps measurably worse than both the six core twelve thread configuration and the six core six thread configuration though only by about two fps at best. In terms of minimums, the three core six thread configuration is not quite statistically significantly different than the six core twelve thread configuration, though it would likely become different if sample size was increased, but is measurably worse than that of the six core six thread configuration which gives credence to the theory of an increased sample size. In gameplay there were again minor frame skips which is backed up by looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs which show that the cpu usage was high and that there were longer dips in gpu usage than in any of the previous configurations. Moving down to four cores and four threads effectively emulating something like a Ryzen 3 1200 or 1300x, we get an average fps of 76.32 and a minimum fps of 40.17. Comparing this to the original six core and twelve thread we can see that the average fps is measurably worse though the about two fps difference is not noticeable in gameplay. Minimums end up not being significantly worse since the sample size is low. Comparing to the four core eight thread configuration the four core without smt configuration comes in at about three measurable fps less with minimums that are effectively the same. In this case disabling smt ends up netting worse performance contradicting the six core configurations results. The last comparison to this configuration I thought was sensical was that of the three core six thread configuration since smt threads rarely equal real cores in workloads that are not highly parallelizable. In comparing these two there is a measurable drop in fps by about one frame per second which is measurable but is not perceptible in game. The minimums are once again effectively identical between the two configurations. Looking into the cpu and gpu usage graphs shows that there are longer periods high cpu usage in comparison to all other configurations with longer but even dips in gpu usage with the gpu usage dips being slightly deeper than those of the three core six threat configuration. Our last configuration is once again an odd configuration of three cores without smt for three total threads. While it is impossible to buy a modern cpu with this configuration it is useful for thread and core comparison. Also two cores and four threads was not stable with my overclock for some reason and by this time Rise of the Tomb Raider wanted me to wait 24 hours for it to revalidate that I had actually bought the game so I decided to cut it off at the three cores since you should probably not be buying a cpu with less than four in today’s market anyways. Moving onto the data, average fps come in at 75.21 which seems surprisingly high for such a low core configuration though not entirely surprising considering dx12’s claim to fame has always been better usage of weaker cpus. The minimums dip down to a pretty low 30.63 fps which begins to show how this cpu configuration is performing. This configuration is measurable and noticeably worse than all of the other configurations in both minimum and average fps. While the average fps seems to be pretty high, a quick look into cpu and gpu usage shows extremely high cpu usage with pretty much constant gpu usage variation with larger and longer dips than the previous configurations. I also observed during the runs that foliage would suddenly pop into existence while moving along in the run with other objects failing to load in at their proper times as well. Overall reviewing this data gives us a look into how Rise of the Tomb Raider utilizes threads in dx12 mode. Running this game in 1080p rather than ultrawide 1440p would have better accentuated thread differences but I chose to instead use a resolution that I think is somewhere near if slightly above the sweet spot for gaming right now. There are still some differences even if they are lower they do give insight as to how each thread of a system is handled in this game. Of note is that I would have liked to test a two core four thread configuration to match up older i3 cpus, it was unstable at my overclock of 3.8 Ghz but would run at 3.7ghz at stock settings. I did not want to redo all of my testing at 3.7Ghz so I decided that I would use a three core three thread configuration as a placeholder. Perhaps in the future I can take a deeper look into how a dual core with smt would fare in this game as well as others in comparison to the other configurations I have here. Overall it seems that this game prefers cores to threads though additional thread can make up for lacking cores. Smt does not have a purely negative impact on gaming as it did when ryzen was first launched and while it is usually behind in terms of minimum frame rates the difference is small enough to where I would say that there is no point in disabling smt in Rise of the Tomb Raider. In practice anything over 4 cores seems to be plenty to run this game at respectable frame rates and resolutions and in my testing scaling stops after 6 total threads. With that said I cannot dismiss that an eight core cpu might be a better performer though my data indicates that the cpu is already being used at a low enough amount that the additional threads should have no effect but to lower overall per thread usage. In the future I may add data should I get my hands on a higher core count cpu and it shows some significant difference in performance over this six core part. . . Here is a link to the Google sheets document containing all of my data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17NCvNtm4q08kRsa4j7uPNO0zQ_aS9oEwidojbPtGu-Y/edit?usp=sharing Here are the graphs from my data: and here are the screenshots of the cpu and gpu usage during the runs:

Sending out a bit of an SOS here. Just got 2 R9 Fury X's and IT IS STRUGGLING. I have updated to latest Crimson Drivers and Afterburner. Has anyone found a good setting to get Rise of the Tomb Raider? If so, please comment down below. Thanks bunches!

I need help. I just bought Rise of the Tomb Raider, and so far I can't really play the game. Nvidia drivers won't let me! After 30 minutes of gameplay or something like that, game freezes, driver says it has shutdown and recovered, and I receive a message from the game saying "there was a problem with your video driver". Worse than that is the fact that when this happens, the core Clock of my GPU goes down to 535.6MHz and nothing I do will bring it back to normal, so I need to reboot PC and the clock comes back to normal. I already installed 10 DIFFERENT DRIVERS. Some from early 2015, some from the end of 2015, some from the beginning of 2016 and the most recent ones too. Nothing seems to fix this. Nothing! My PSU is totally capable of running this card since its a XFX TS 750W (it's new and totally not faulty). Also, the GPU is not overheating, since she only reaches 66ºC as maximum temperature (when I get this crashes sometimes she is even at 60ºC). I also tried changing nvidia's control panel setting to "prefer maximum performance", and nothing happens.. I tried to underclock the GPU 100MHz on core/memory clock, but the same happens.. Soooooo.. I really don't know what to do next.. I've tried everything, and I know for sure, it's not a hardware problem nor heat issues.. What can I do?!?

i know there is 35% sale of rise of tom raider and 50% on the just cause 3, i really want rise of the tomb raider and there is duo pack for 57% on total price of these two games. is there any chance of getting more discount on tomb raider (flash sale or daily sale) because if i am going to buy tomb raider for £26 right now i might as well pay 10 more to get both for £36. if any of you have seen tomb raider go down more than 35% please tell me. btw why i haven't seen any daily deals

New 25% off preorder coupon at GMG went live today. Discounts Thursday's release Rise Of The Tomb Raider. Authorized retailer for these titles (not shady grey market). At Checkout Use Code: GREENM-ANGAME-25PJAN XCOM 2: Digital Deluxe (Steam) — $56.25 (list $75) Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (Steam) — $45 (list $60) Battleborn (Steam) — $45 (list $60) Total War: Warhammer (Steam) — $45 (list $60) XCOM 2 (Steam) — $45 (list $60) Street Fighter V (Steam) — $45 (list $60) Rise Of The Tomb Raider (Steam) — $45 (list $60) Hitman (Steam) — $45 (list $60) Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 4 (Steam) — $37.50 (list $50)

Saw this deal on cdkeys.com http://www.cdkeys.com/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-pc-cd-key-steam I have used them for close to a dozen different games, always satisfied, I got JC3 the day before lunch for under $30. From past experience, at less with JC3, the deal stayed up tell the day the game came out, not sure if that will be the case here or not.

I was browsing the jb hi-fi australia website when I noticed this: Microsoft has said that Rise of The Tomb Raider is an xbox exclusive so does this mean that we may see a repeat of what microsoft did with Titanfall?

press release: --- SQ is getting payed by MS to actively delay the game release for PS4 and PC, almost an entire year for PS4 - for no other reason than cash; and it hurts your brain when you recall SQ complained that TR 2013 didn't sold as expected .. and now they sign a exclusivity deal to cope with it!? WTF!! is there any technical reason why the game can't be released on PC and or PS4 simultaneously with XB1? none that I can see or think of is MS gonna sell more consoles because of this timed exclusivity? arguably, yes; but knowing Tomb Raider (2013) sold globally as of 20th Jun 2015 on all platforms (PS3, PS4, X360, XB1, PC) 5.88 million copies - that includes the "Definitive Edition" to put things into perspective on how dumb MS is (this is not a marketing move), they have sold 13 mil XB1 consoles globally compared to SONY's 23.58 million PS4s; while previous generation: PS3 85.77 million, X360 84.90 million the real kicker is SQ is planning the release (XB1) the same day as Fallout 4 <_< wow!

Title says it all. What a shame. I really liked the 2013 Tomb Raider and was excited to see a sequel at this years E3. http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/94529480860/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-update