Hitman Alpha Cant run 60fps 1080p on Titan X

[sterreprop]

what you don't see is the millions of individual hairs being animated on his back, ars and crotch

Don't forget the eyebrows.

[That Norwegian Guy]

I'm gonna make a wild guess and say; Denuvo DRM is lurking in the code. Just stay away.

[Guest]

Dont even want to know about shit port of shit games. Perhaps they just want to sell to the niche that comprises of titan x or maybe gtx 980ti.

Its a bad move from marketing perspective. Barely anyone would consider buying this game at that level of pathetic performace.

It preety much confirms that the programmes behind this game are from some 3rd grade college with barely enough knowledge on how to code properly.

According to me, a company that doesnt even enough money to hire proper programmers to develop the very product on which there future revenue depends deserve to go bankrupt. And they don't deserve even a penny for there shit game.

Don't judge a game that hasn't even been released yet

If it was made by a bunch of college guys then what evidence do you

It's difficult to pull off a game even with the best programmers, they can make big mistakes too

 

The point is it isn't finished yet

 

So optimization can't be judged at this point 

The game does perform bad on a great card, but that doesn't mean you can already tell it's a bad game

[Techhog]

Heck, I don't even want to know how Arkham Knight ran in the alpha stage.

>Implying that it ever left the alpha stage before release.

 

It's obvious that they halted development of the PC version to get the console version out in time. The console version is one of the least buggy, best performing AAA releases of this generation, so it's obvious that they didn't even try with the PC release. All it needed was a 3 month delay.

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah people read it, its' in alpha and I doubt that this game would flop in terms of optimization on launch like some other. I'm watching you Batman.

[Misanthrope]

It is in alpha stage, what did you expect?

 

If it was WB, Ubi or even EA a year or 2 back? I'd expect them to release it on alpha, as I'm sure they had judging their release history.

[BKOben]

...................................................it's Alpha........................................................

[FakezZ]

Who is Tom Glancy??

Noticed it at first Glance

[IhazHedont]

Its an alpha first off

 

Second off isn't this what we want? Games pushing technology forward. The highest end GPUs didn't completely max out Crysis 1 when it came out. 

 

The thing is, Crysis was worth it, graphically speaking.

If Hitman isn't as "shiny" as Crysis was when it cames out, then it will be just a bad port, like Batman still is.

[Humbug]

Second off isn't this what we want? Games pushing technology forward. The highest end GPUs didn't completely max out Crysis 1 when it came out.

This is a train of thought that i have been fighting against for years and it's only recently that I see other people coming around. Games running at low frame rates or stuttering is not a sign of pushing hardware forward. Badly written code will run badly even on uber hardware. What we should be celebrating is games that run smoothly, scale and look good. That means games that utilize our hardware properly. Some devs also know that people are gullible so they try to excuse bad performance by saying stuff like "it's a true next Gen game". That's what ubisoft tried to do with Assassin's creed unity.

Also we will never again see the pace of graphical improvement which we saw a decade ago. That's over.

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

What's the point of this article, it's in an alpha stage for a reason

[Ekpyrosis]

Maybe they should stop using Hairworks to render 47's eyebrows.

[JuztBe]

This is a train of thought that i have been fighting against for years and it's only recently that I see other people coming around. Games running at low frame rates or stuttering is not a sign of pushing hardware forward. Badly written code will run badly even on uber hardware. What we should be celebrating is games that run smoothly, scale and look good. That means games that utilize our hardware properly. Some devs also know that people are gullible so they try to excuse bad performance by saying stuff like "it's a true next Gen game". That's what ubisoft tried to do with Assassin's creed unity.

 

Crysis was scaling good, it was running fine on older machines and it runs good on uber hardware. It was pushing standards.

Meanwhile Unity and few another games is another case. I agree with you there.

 

 

 

Also we will never again see the pace of graphical improvement which we saw a decade ago. That's over.

What makes you think so? I believe after current gens consoles will be replaced with new ones and we will shrunk GPU manufacturing process from 28nm, massive improvements should occur naturally. 

[Humbug]

What makes you think so? I believe after current gens consoles will be replaced with new ones and we will shrunk GPU manufacturing process from 28nm, massive improvements should occur naturally. 

Improvements in processing power will happen. But visible improvements in graphical quality to the naked eye have slowed down as expected. It's the law of diminishing returns. We now have to render ridiculously more amounts of complexity just to make things look marginally better to the naked eye. So much so that it is often not worth it considering how much more processing power that takes for very little reward. It's very difficult to wow us now with graphics. Subjective aspects such as art direction, atmosphere and world building are now far more important. For example it's now more difficult to tell the difference between high and ultra settings in most games. Yet the ultra settings will run much slower...

 

This was 1993 graphics- Doom

 

Eleven years later this was 2004 graphics- HL2

 

Imagine the pace of progress to go from Doom1 to Half Life 2 / Doom 3 in a decade! Just stop and think about that. Mind boggling.

 

In the decade since we have again made big strides but nothing compared to the above. And it's because of diminishing returns...

 

What i'm saying is that in a few years from now we may have GPUs that our 5x more powerful than a Titan X. But to the naked eye the games it can render will not look so different than what they do now.

[ivan134]

>Implying that it ever left the alpha stage before release.

 

It's obvious that they halted development of the PC version to get the console version out in time. The console version is one of the least buggy, best performing AAA releases of this generation, so it's obvious that they didn't even try with the PC release. All it needed was a 3 month delay.

I've seen posts on NeoGaf with video and picture evidence that the console versions are buggy too.

[Techhog]

I've seen posts on NeoGaf with video and picture evidence that the console versions are buggy too.

There are some small glitches because the physics engine is really weird, but it's the same stuff that's in every game in the series. Nothing that actually gets in the way of playing the game.

[patrickjp93]

omg. look, another retarded news thread that has nothing to do with tech news. is fps in games all you people talk about. god damn it.

The foundries are quiet, the Rx 300 series and Fury/X hype is done, and not much is going on right now. When the tech world is quiet, this forum switches to gaming news. The next big news item will be Skylake's launch and final, confirmed performance numbers most likely.

[Natanael]

It's in alpha stage. Calm your bits.

[Briggsy]

This game is not a gameworks title, but someone posted this on Reddit and its pretty funny.

 

[Techhog]

This game is not a gameworks title, but someone posted this on Reddit and its pretty funny.

 

Not even the version with the FPS counter? Come on...

[patrickjp93]

This game is not a gameworks title, but someone posted this on Reddit and its pretty funny.

It's glorious! The baldness is much more real on the right. I would know. I'm halfway there already and I'm not yet 22. How can anyone not see the artistry, the complexity, the true beauty that is Hairworks which AMD's TressFX can't come close to matching? All hail Jen Hsun. All hail Jen Hsun...

[Briggsy]

Not even the version with the FPS counter? Come on...

 

oh lol, yeah forgot about this one

 

[Nexxus]

And this post confirms your arrogance and that its a revelation that you are the only moron out here.

Why are you talking about it anyways? The heading itself says less than 60fps on titan x. So what are we supposed to say?

Are we supposed to applaud the programmes and game that they achieved less than 60fps on the most powerfull and costliest gpu right now. Even if it is in alpha stage?

Or are we supposed to line up for pre ordering this awesome game with such a great performace?

We talk about facts. And these kind of news are definately a bad thing even from marketing perspective whether you like it or not. Fact here is that right now its completely shitty. There is no reason to talk about it otherwise. And there is no way to tell what kind of optimization would come later until you have a magic crystal ball. You are only assuming it would be much better. I don't see that it would be running on any mid or low end graphics card that actually forms the bulk of purchases.

The topic is about performace of this game on titan x. Which is extremely bad. We would talk about how good or bad it would become once its finalized. But, here there is no need to assume that it would have astronomical improvements. Right now, at this level I don't have any reason to applaud it like you want everyone to do.

You are supposed to say something along the lines of. "meh it isnt done"

You are supposed to brush it off and reserve judgement it isnt done

You shouldnt be preordering anything.

Ya heres a fact for you 

IT ISNT DONE

 

Lol at bad at a marketing perspective ya cause im sure if it comes out and its running perfectly fine people are going to sit there with the item in their steam cart going "Hmm..ya know what, I was going to buy this, but because of how its performance was... 5 months before it was even meant to be come out was,  the hell with that.

[tono]

This is a train of thought that i have been fighting against for years and it's only recently that I see other people coming around. Games running at low frame rates or stuttering is not a sign of pushing hardware forward. Badly written code will run badly even on uber hardware. What we should be celebrating is games that run smoothly, scale and look good. That means games that utilize our hardware properly. Some devs also know that people are gullible so they try to excuse bad performance by saying stuff like "it's a true next Gen game". That's what ubisoft tried to do with Assassin's creed unity.

Also we will never again see the pace of graphical improvement which we saw a decade ago. That's over.

Games that do that are pushing boundaries. I think the biggest example is witcher 3, yes it requires a ridiculously expensive GPU to play at constant 50-60 fps at max settings, but it scales very well utilising almost 100% in GPU usage. So you know in the future, future GPUS would run wither 3 easily.

 

I think the biggest problem for gaming hardware now is not the GPU, but actually its the CPU.  Hopefully Vulcan and Direct X 12 lesson the CPU bottlenecks. Personally I think next gen gaming is not just graphical capabilities, but simulation capabilities, and that needs the CPU a lot more than the GPU. Stuff like intelligent AI should also be a factor in next gen gaming and it is likely the Virtual Reality market will bring it to us if it is successful.

[han_han08]

i thought the alpha in the title meant something like absolutíon, not alpha->beta etc

 

thank you comments