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

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Looking through their settings unlike PCGameshardware, they didn't max out all the settings. Eurogamer did not run with Softshadows on, they used ASx2 instead of 16, Tessellation off  (but adaptive tessellation is used for snow deformation), and Dynamic Foliage was set to Medium.

They don't state if they're using HBAO+ either though.

 

 

They also state that

 

 

Hmm so a combination of different benchmark settings.. Wait so if the PCGameshardware was running on maxed, why did their 970 get a much higher FPS? Running maxed should be much harder on the gpus. But yet DF's 970 was significantly slower hmm....

[Valentyn]

Hmm so a combination of different benchmark settings.. Wait so if the PCGameshardware was running on maxed, why did their 970 get a much higher FPS? Running maxed should be much harder on the gpus. But yet DF's 970 was significantly slower hmm....

 

That's what's odd, specially in the part of Eurogamer where they say they can get 60fps solid with Tessellation maxed everywhere except the village.

I think that points more to something afoot on the Eurogamer tests. Eurogamer also mentions in their video the game uses the CPU quite a bit.

 

PCGameshardware were using a 6700K @4.5Ghz vs Eurogamers 4790K no mention of clock speeds. So assume default 4Ghz?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

That's what's odd, specially in the part of Eurogamer where they say they can get 60fps solid with Tessellation maxed everywhere except the village.

I think that points more to something afoot on the Eurogamer tests. Eurogamer also mentions in their video the game uses the CPU quite a bit, and they tried to avoid areas that hit it hard.

 

They've mentioned that they've tried to sidestep from it by using a 4790k for both the cards. What doesn't makes sense again is that the 6700k from PCGameshardware should alleviate the high cpu usage from the game. But the 390 4790k is out performing the 390 6700k...

 

Unless both are using completely different testing methods :huh:  

[-BirdiE-]

Simple and the same as with the Fallout 4 launch: It just doesn't looks good enough to be this heavy. People like to bring up Crysis well back them it was fucking impressive so the ridiculous requirements were justified.

Not seeing the justification here: nice but not great looking games should require nice but not great hardware to run.

 

 

Fallout 4's issues is that a lot of the textures were garbage. It ran poorly because all the lighting and particle effects were amazing when turned up. I thought, when looking around and the environment, Fallout 4 looked great. Was it worth it to have all those effects when the textures were garbage? Probably not... But it wasn't because it was terribly optimized.

 

But have you even seen what Rise of the Tomb Raider looks like for PC? It looks incredible. I don't know that I've ever seen a better looking PC game.

 

https://youtu.be/oVUTIplJP0k?

 

Now show me a game that looks better than that....

[Briggsy]

Digital Foundry's test with the gtx960 is interesting, showing just how much performance gain the consoles get using async compute, although a 4790k is more expensive then a 960 and they probably could have just used a locked i5.

[Valentyn]

They've mentioned that they've tried to sidestep from it by using a 4790k for both the cards. What doesn't makes sense again is that the 6700k from PCGameshardware should alleviate the high cpu usage from the game. But the 390 4790k is out performing the 390 6700k...

 

Unless both are using completely different testing methods :huh:  

 

Yup, must the test method and possibly area. Although the difference in 390 performance isn't that massive 45.9 FPS vs 48.8 FPS. So they're very close there.

Then it adds more confusion when one is fully maxed and the other is not on all settings. Although if the difference between fully maxed( PCGamesHardware) and not(Eurogamer) is only 3 FPS, I'd max it out. Then again the former is running with the 6700K at 4.5Ghz as well so changes things a bit. ( How much is that helping keep maxed out performance high?)

 

I think the real interesting thing is the 970 at PCGameshardware performing better overall maxed than the one at Eurogamer.

 

Edit: Then again Eurogamer do contradict their own final results a bit when saying the 970 averages 47.5fps, but then also say that they can get a solid 60FPS maxed with tessellation everywhere but one area ( the village ).

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Yup, must the test method and possibly area. Although the difference in 390 performance isn't that massive 45.9 FPS vs 48.8 FPS. So they're very close there.

Then it adds more confusion when one is fully maxed and the other is not on all settings. Although if the difference between fully maxed( PCGamesHardware) and not(Eurogamer) is only 3 FPS, I'd max it out. Then again the former is running with the 6700K at 4.5Ghz as well.

 

I think the real interesting thing is the 970 at PCGameshardware performing better overall maxed than the one at Eurogamer.

 

Nahhhhh what are you sayin? 

 

The only thing interesting is that the 750 Ti can't even play that game  :lol:

 

I guess we'll have to wait for more benchmarks to come out. And probably again when AMD releases a game ready driver lol. 

 

 

Edit: Their testing includes cut scenes and interior scenes if I'm not wrong  :huh:

[Valentyn]

Nahhhhh what are you sayin? 

 

The only thing interesting is that the 750 Ti can't even play that game  :lol:

 

I guess we'll have to wait for more benchmarks to come out. And probably again when AMD releases a game ready driver lol. 

 

I do hope AMD don't take too long in getting out their drivers. I'm expecting a nice performance boost. *fingers crossed*

[xAcid9]

I do hope AMD don't take too long in getting out their drivers. I'm expecting a nice performance boost. *fingers crossed*

From Nixxes rep though still no sign of the driver.

 

For AMD, please install AMD driver 16.1.1 which should be released shortly. This can be found here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/Pages/index.aspx

 

http://steamcommunity.com/app/391220/discussions/0/451852225133974177/

[Sauron]

It ran horrible on the 360 like frames not loading and audio glitches. Well maybe Ubisoft kicked Square Enix in the hole they dug

 

you mean the xbox 360?

[typographie]

Not sure why they included AMD in the testing anyways only to make them look bad?

 

AMD was included for the sake of completeness, and because people with AMD cards deserve to know how the game performs on their hardware before they buy it. If it's a driver issue that will be resolved someday, great, but it's your responsibility as an informed consumer to actually read the article and find that out.

[Valentyn]

From Nixxes rep though still no sign of the driver.

 

 

 

 

http://steamcommunity.com/app/391220/discussions/0/451852225133974177/

 

I noticed on the Overlockers.co.uk forums the AMD rep has disappeared as well, as more people are asking about the driver. It doesn't look good for a driver being out before or on launch time.

[mikeeginger]

They changed the embargo date so many reviews were done 

without the Game ready driver so ....... 

[Misanthrope]

Fallout 4's issues is that a lot of the textures were garbage. It ran poorly because all the lighting and particle effects were amazing when turned up. I thought, when looking around and the environment, Fallout 4 looked great. Was it worth it to have all those effects when the textures were garbage? Probably not... But it wasn't because it was terribly optimized.

But have you even seen what Rise of the Tomb Raider looks like for PC? It looks incredible. I don't know that I've ever seen a better looking PC game.

https://youtu.be/oVUTIplJP0k?

Now show me a game that looks better than that....

Dont think I'm buying it at release and also I don't think I'll get high end gpus soon so I'll take your word for it.

And yes textures on FO4 are bs, good thing the modding community immediately improved them.

[Humbug]

The developer has announced that AMD users should wait for Crimson 16.1.1 which will be released 'shortly'

http://steamcommunity.com/app/391220/discussions/0/451852225133974177/

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

 

Another benchmark. Seems inline with DF's video but only using a single cut scene to test.

[Prysin]

Time to test how this game runs on a AMD R9 295x2

[as96]

What resolution are you going to play at on your HTPC?

 

Because DigitalFoundry made a Video about the game.

 

Here's the video:

 

https://youtu.be/YHhPOvlnLGM?t=2m8s

I was hoping for 1080p30fps but I can drop it to 900p or 720p

[Sir Asvald]

I was hoping for 1080p30fps but I can drop it to 900p or 720p

I think you'll be fine at 720p medium settings. 1080p is a no go for HTPC.

[Humbug]

What resolution are you going to play at on your HTPC?

 

Because DigitalFoundry made a Video about the game.

 

Here's the video:

 

https://youtu.be/YHhPOvlnLGM?t=2m8s

I'm surprised the i3 choked on the game.

Tomb Raider 2013 was not a CPU heavy game. All kinds of CPUs used to perform the same because it was completely GPU bottlenecked.

[Sir Asvald]

I'm surprised the i3 choked on the game.

Tomb Raider 2013 was not a CPU heavy game. All kinds of CPUs used to perform the same because it was completely GPU bottlenecked.

Yeah, Very surprising. I think an i5 will become the standard CPU for gaming. The i3 is more towards light games, such as LoL, Dota 2, WoW etc. Not heavy games that require more than 2 cores. 

[Prysin]

i can happily report that AMD Crossfire is NOT working correctly with Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

I have no idea if it is forced, or if it simply uses the old games profile. But Riva-Tuner, aka MSI Afterburner, reports both GPUs being put under load.

 

it works, but it will not put actual heavy load on GPU2, it simply sits there doing something. But not a whole lot important.

 

Albeit, at 1080p, my GPUs have not gone past 62% usage even once....

[Prysin]

For all you GTX970 users. i can happily report that Rise of the Tomb Raider uses 3966MB of VRAM at MAX settings.

 

This is at 1080p.

[Sir Asvald]

i can happily report that AMD Crossfire is NOT working correctly with Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

I have no idea if it is forced, or if it simply uses the old games profile. But Riva-Tuner, aka MSI Afterburner, reports both GPUs being put under load.

 

it works, but it will not put actual heavy load on GPU2, it simply sits there doing something. But not a whole lot important.

 

Albeit, at 1080p, my GPUs have not gone past 62% usage even once....

I'm waiting for AMD to releases a new driver before I get the game. If not, Going to Green team. I've had enough of AMD taking the piss with their drivers. Releasing them late

[Prysin]

I'm waiting for AMD to releases a new driver before I get the game. If not, Going to Green team. I've had enough of AMD taking the piss with their drivers. Releasing them late

enjoy the Green Team drivers.

 

They may have Game Ready drivers for you. And game breaking driver bugs too. Dunno what happened to Nvidia around May 2015. But their drivers has been extremely wonky ever since. Every other driver has a major fatal error.

 

In Contrast, team Red has gotten increasingly better with their drivers. Sure, they're releasing them slowly, but every driver has been stable, and of very good quality