Rise of The Tomb Raider PC Performance reviewed - Another Bad port?

[Humbug]

this is not a shitty port.

and it's not hip to accuse every PC game of being a shitty port. Let's reserve that title for the AC unitys, the Arkham Knights and the Watchdogs of this world.

[Razzaa]

I think the game looks great and plays fine. People just like to complain.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

1 hour ago, Razzaa said:

I think the game looks great and plays fine. People just like to complain.

Dude that was awesome :D. Totally agree with you.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

Okay, riddle me this: Why do you guys think that HairWorks is just a "tessellated pile of junk" while TressFX "runs well". So why? It makes no sense to me at all. They're both a means to an end. They do the same thing. They're computationally intensive. So why are you guys shitting all over Nvidia when they put hard work into the creation of GameWorks as a whole. Was their effort all for nothing?

...bunches of jackasses.

[Notional]

45 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

Okay, riddle me this: Why do you guys think that HairWorks is just a "tessellated pile of junk" while TressFX "runs well". So why? It makes no sense to me at all. They're both a means to an end. They do the same thing. They're computationally intensive. So why are you guys shitting all over Nvidia when they put hard work into the creation of GameWorks as a whole. Was their effort all for nothing?

...bunches of jackasses.

Because HairWorks uses 64x multiplier for no other reason than to gimp performance enough for people to buy more expensive cards.

The Witcher 3 HairWorks Geralt only: 20 fps penalty

ROTTR TressFX highest setting: 2-4 fps penalty while looking better.

People like to rip devs a new one when performance is bad, as they just call it unoptimized no matter what. GameWorks is by definition unoptimized to sell higher end cards. If you don't see the problem with that, or why people hate it, then idk what will. Oh year, and GameWorks will always run worse on AMD than Nvidia cards. TressFX runs equally well on both.

GameWorks is a marketing ploy to sell more expensive cards and sabotage the competition, and people love NVidia for it. The amount of dumb is astounding.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

Because HairWorks uses 64x multiplier for no other reason than to gimp performance enough for people to buy more expensive cards.

The Witcher 3 HairWorks Geralt only: 20 fps penalty

ROTTR TressFX highest setting: 2-4 fps penalty while looking better.

People like to rip devs a new one when performance is bad, as they just call it unoptimized no matter what. GameWorks is by definition unoptimized to sell higher end cards. If you don't see the problem with that, or why people hate it, then idk what will. Oh year, and GameWorks will always run worse on AMD than Nvidia cards. TressFX runs equally well on both.

GameWorks is a marketing ploy to sell more expensive cards and sabotage the competition, and people love NVidia for it. The amount of dumb is astounding.

I mean do you know how HairWorks and TressFX works? They use different algorithms but works the same after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TressFX

[Notional]

13 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

I mean do you know how HairWorks and TressFX works? They use different algorithms but works the same after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TressFX

No, HairWorks like all VisualFX parts (sans Turbulence) of GameWorks are tessellation based. TressFX is compute based. They are fundamentally different in the way they work.

Either way, HairWorks using 5-10 times more fps for the same or worse result is abysmal, and shows how useless of a tech it is.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

No, HairWorks like all VisualFX parts (sans Turbulence) of GameWorks are tessellation based. TressFX is compute based. They are fundamentally different in the way they work.

Either way, HairWorks using 5-10 times more fps for the same or worse result is abysmal, and shows how useless of a tech it is.

Okay fair enough then. I just want to put some personal experience with TressFX and see if it's just me, or my laptop (circa 2013) runs like ass.

When I benchmark Tomb Raider 2013 (Ultra preset, Tessellation ON, and some other settings I had forgotten by now, and Hair Quality Normal and TressFX), what I saw was about a 10 FPS difference. I need to benchmark the laptop again with that game. Love it.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, JurunceNK said:

Okay fair enough then. I just want to put some personal experience with TressFX and see if it's just me, or my laptop (circa 2013) runs like ass.

When I benchmark Tomb Raider 2013 (Ultra preset, Tessellation ON, and some other settings I had forgotten by now, and Hair Quality Normal and TressFX), what I saw was about a 10 FPS difference. I need to benchmark the laptop again with that game. Love it.

Tressfx version 1 was a ressource hog, although not as bad as hairworks.

In version 2 they introduced the master and slave principle, where only the master strands get's fully computed while the slave strands just followed the master strands. This made it much more efficient.

Version 3 is what rottr uses and deus ex mankind divided will use. More efficient, better looking and better physics.

So comparing tr 2013 might not be the best representation.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

Tressfx version 1 was a ressource hog, although not as bad as hairworks.

In version 2 they introduced the master and slave principle, where only the master strands get's fully computed while the slave strands just followed the master strands. This made it much more efficient.

Version 3 is what rottr uses and deus ex mankind divided will use. More efficient, better looking and better physics.

So comparing tr 2013 might not be the best representation.

Okay. I don't have RoTTR yet and I want to actually play it. I have played TR2013 three times. Third run I got 100% on hard.

[Notional]

8 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

Okay. I don't have RoTTR yet and I want to actually play it. I have played TR2013 three times. Third run I got 100% on hard.

Nice. I have 100% achievements in the game. Can't wait for rottr to go on sale :D

[Razzaa]

This is 1080p settings maxed. The game looks beautiful in my opinion. I will be playing on 1440p later on. I expect to get over 60fps.

 

 

 

1440p This game is demanding but looks and plays great!!

 

 

 

[Texhnlyze]

2 hours ago, Notional said:

Nice. I have 100% achievements in the game. Can't wait for rottr to go on sale :D

You can buy it on Windows store for 9 bucks btw.

 

 

Playing this game at 1440p with 970 and everything is maxed out except for the foilage. I could say that this port is definitely awesome. Although I could not get an fps counter to work because I bought it on windows store, I could guess my fps averaging at 50-60 depending on the scene. It's been smooth so far. 

[grayperview]

It looks like a good port, but quite a demanding game to run, Given how nice the game looks it not surprising its pretty hard to max out.

I think we will see an extra 5-10% performance increase on AMD cards with driver updates over the next few months. 

And maybe Nvidia drivers to gimp performance by 5-10%, in order to sell pascal cards when they come out ;..................................................Nah, they should improve too, Probably............They wouldn't would they??????

I may pick this game up this week. I loved the 2013 game, played through it once on 2x560GTX ran great with good SLI scaling, but sadly no tressFX, then got a 7970 and played it a bit more, ran great on max settings with fxaa and Tressfx over 60fps, then added a second 7970 and scaled beautifully in Crossfire, well over 100fps. i need to play this game again on my fury card..

 

 

 

[Prysin]

19 hours ago, Mantayd17 said:

Out of curiosity... is it me just dreaming or on AMD cards (not sure about Nvidia ones, don't have any) the frame times are odd? I tried to run it on a iMac 5K with a R9 M295X 4GB (recommended-level GPU) and although it should do 1080p at medium settings with ease, I don't feel it that much fluid when I drop below the 60 FPS range, although the GPU usage is fine and there is no thermal throttling. Tried on a M370X as well (bare minimum requirement), pretty much the same on low settings even if it's probably due to the GPU not making it every time.

Could that be Vsync turned on and/or motion blur being disabled?

Can't update drivers anyway, AMD denies those cards from getting any because they have "Apple Computer" as subvendor. Strange enough, on TR 2013 the M295X works great, and so does in every other game. Bugs me I'm getting something wrong.

 

AMD doesnt have a driver. basically, atm, every AMD card is brute forcing the performance. There is ZERO optimized drivers for Rise of The Tomb Raider atm.

[No Nrg]

I was playing this weekend on my rig and had a pretty good experience at 1440p. I'm running FXAA and everything else maxed, but pure hair off (not worth the 5-8fps). Kept a 40-60fps rate with my overclocked GTX 980, which is perfect given my G-sync monitor.

I do get random stutters mostly when large vistas are coming into view quickly and loading all at once or right before some cut scenes begin. Some intense scenes have me dropping frames or going into single digits. 98% of the time it is consistent and smooth though. Running FRAPS, I notice CGI cut scenes are locked at 30fps and I get a screen tear in the upper portion on all of these.

Overall though the experience is fine, the game looks amazing. The issues above are nothing a future update couldn't fix; certainly nothing that would have me cry foul and claim it's a bad port.

[aakopa]

Rise of the Tomb Raider runs fine on my 7970 at 1080p, it's running solid 45 fps on high-very high settings

[aakopa]

On 29/01/2016 at 4:00 PM, Prysin said:

 

We are on the brink of a new generation of GPUs, the 750Ti is old as fuck and supposed to only function at the low end. Honestly, this is the right thing to do. People need to upgrade.

 

 

750 ti isn't that old imo, I have friends that have 550 ti in their PCs.

[MEC-777]

Now running the game with the following settings on an overclocked 980:

-1440p (DSR) with FXAA and Vsync (triple buffer).

-High preset.

-Everything on except motion and vignette blur off.

-Pure hair on very high.

Runs at a solid 60fps most of the time with the ocassional dip into the 50's and the game looks damn good. Almost no aliasing/jaggies. 

 

I don't get why some people turn off, don't care or complain about the pure hair effect in the game (as well as TressFX in TR 2013). To me, having all aspects of the scene, especially the realism of the main character (whom you play and look at the entire time), look as real as possible is important to me. Why would you want her hair to look like an unrealistic solid block that barely moves? The pure hair effect in this game barely takes any performance hit. I'd much rather have Lara look as real as possible even if it takes 2-4fps to do it. Just my 2 cents. 

[raphidy]

I've been amazed that I could run this on my 670 at high on 1440p. Can't tell how many fps because there no fps counter on the windows store version. I guess about 35-40fps. It's really beautiful so far.

[No Nrg]

1 hour ago, MEC-777 said:

Now running the game with the following settings on an overclocked 980:

-1440p (DSR) with FXAA and Vsync (triple buffer).

-High preset.

-Everything on except motion and vignette blur off.

-Pure hair on very high.

Runs at a solid 60fps most of the time with the ocassional dip into the 50's and the game looks damn good. Almost no aliasing/jaggies. 

 

I don't get why some people turn off, don't care or complain about the pure hair effect in the game (as well as TressFX in TR 2013). To me, having all aspects of the scene, especially the realism of the main character (whom you play and look at the entire time), look as real as possible is important to me. Why would you want her hair to look like an unrealistic solid block that barely moves? The pure hair effect in this game barely takes any performance hit. I'd much rather have Lara look as real as possible even if it takes 2-4fps to do it. Just my 2 cents. 

Playing around I found that I was able to go to very high settings, both blur settings on and very high shadows with my overclocked 980 in native 1440p. I run lower fps in the 45-60 range, but G-sync makes that tolerable. I found Pure Hair to cost about 5-8fps between very high and off on my system monitoring with FRAPS. I don't notice the lack of moving hair 95% of the time. I feel it's worth the trade-off of dipping into the 30's at times or staying mostly stable above 50fps unless there's a demanding set piece. I look at the environment more than Lara's hair. Comes down to personal preference I guess.

[MEC-777]

12 minutes ago, No Nrg said:

Playing around I found that I was able to go to very high settings, both blur settings on and very high shadows with my overclocked 980 in native 1440p. I run lower fps in the 45-60 range, but G-sync makes that tolerable. I found Pure Hair to cost about 5-8fps between very high and off on my system monitoring with FRAPS. I don't notice the lack of moving hair 95% of the time. I feel it's worth the trade-off of dipping into the 30's at times or staying mostly stable above 50fps unless there's a demanding set piece. I look at the environment more than Lara's hair. Comes down to personal preference I guess.

Yeah, I felt like anything below 50fps was too choppy for me, but I'm on a 60hz panel. That's why I was ok with dropping settings to high (and I honestly didn't notice much of a difference). 

As for the hair, I just prefer if everything in the game (environment, hair, everything) looks as good/real as possible, so long as it doesn't compromise on frame rates. Indeed, to each, his/her own. It is a matter of preference I suppose.

[No Nrg]

15 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

Yeah, I felt like anything below 50fps was too choppy for me, but I'm on a 60hz panel. That's why I was ok with dropping settings to high (and I honestly didn't notice much of a difference). 

As for the hair, I just prefer if everything in the game (environment, hair, everything) looks as good/real as possible, so long as it doesn't compromise on frame rates. Indeed, to each, his/her own. It is a matter of preference I suppose.

I noticed when playing with settings that the toggle on/off/etc instantly takes effect on the screen behind it. Made it easy to notice what settings add or take away from a scene. Biggest impacts to quality I saw was Texture quality, Shadow Quality, Ambient Occlusion, Tessellation and Level of Detail.  

Sounds like you found something that works for you though

[MEC-777]

7 minutes ago, No Nrg said:

I noticed when playing with settings that the toggle on/off/etc instantly takes effect on the screen behind it. Made it easy to notice what settings add or take away from a scene. Biggest impacts to quality I saw was Texture quality, Shadow Quality, Ambient Occlusion, Tessellation and Level of Detail.  

Sounds like you found something that works for you though

Yeah, I love it when games make the settings take effect instantly and when you can actually see it happen (can see the difference). Otherwise, you're left guessing "is it really different?" lol. (in some cases).

Since I'm rockin a 1080p panel, I probably can't see the difference (it's not as prominent) between high and very high with certain things like you can at native 1440p. I think that's what makes the difference there. 

I could run the game at very high (maxed) at 1080p at 60fps + but the problem with that is the AA options all look terrible at this resolution (IMO). I found that using DSR at 1440p is a far better option and a worthy compromise (by dropping the settings to high) to balance image quality with smooth fps.  

[gunsman]

sli 980s at 1080p/max settings/smaa and i am getting between 20 and 120 FPS depending on scene, tried the sli fix but had no impact on FPS and caused the game to crash every hour or so. Also have the game installed on slow HDD, so i am getting massive frame drops when streaming textures come in from the HDD, but that only happens after several hours of play. looks great but sli, streaming texture issues and crashes are really leaving a bad taste in my mouth