Well can it run Deus Ex MD ?

[Magpie2121]

I'm quite new to modern gaming and benchmarking. Here are my results:

i5-2500k (stock)
GTX 970 (stock)

High settings:

Medium settings:

Looks like I've wasted money buying this game as it's pretty unplayable on the above settings.

 

[Loosecannon]

I'm quite new to modern gaming and benchmarking. Here are my results:

i5-2500k (stock)
GTX 970 (stock)

High settings:

Medium settings:

Looks like I've wasted money buying this game as it's pretty unplayable on the above settings.

A minimum FPS of 37 is certainly not unplayable!

 

[Greebo]

A minimum FPS of 37 is certainly not unplayable!

Again when did PC players set their playable level of framerates so low?

Okay 37fps is technically "playable" but its not pleasant.

 

[Greebo]

Why are you not reading my posts clearly?

Are you doing that on purpose?

You are following benchmarks based on the built-in benchmark. ACTUAL performance in-game is a good deal better, which is what my posted graph and all my claims have been about, and something I've mentioned three freakin times at this point in my responses to you, which you have conveniently ignored every single time for god know's why - I'm guessing pure stubborness.

Well i didnt write the in game benchmark, the developers did

And if it performs that poorly in the benchmark there must be areas of the game which drops to that level as well even if in other areas or just walking around you get a higher framerate.

And on medium settings TAA is not enabled by the way so when I am talking about "MEDIUM" settings with no AA I am correct

And so what if it does perform 10% or 20% better? if you only get 30 fps in benchmark and then 33 to 36 in the game its hardly suddenly so much better and "runs like butter" is it?

 

[Yaayuh!]

Again when did PC players set their playable level of framerates so low?

Okay 37fps is technically "playable" but its not pleasant.

Indeed. Below 50 starts to get painful for me.

 

[spulse]

Again when did PC players set their playable level of framerates so low?

Okay 37fps is technically "playable" but its not pleasant.

i'm not suprised that a 970 is getting those figures, it's the titan x pascal benchmarks that are astounding me

 

[geordiejc]

I've just bought this game for £30.

I'm going to be benching 2 x 1070's with a single ribon SLI cable. i'll update this post with the result.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

I thought the GTX 970 is supposed to easily get 60fps on High settings from what some people here have been saying.

38FPS is pretty dire, and I find it rather suspect that the normal game will run 22 or more FPS better.

The game needs some seriously performance patches.

 

[fs123]

Why are you not reading my posts clearly?

Are you doing that on purpose?

You are following benchmarks based on the built-in benchmark. ACTUAL performance in-game is a good deal better, which is what my posted graph and all my claims have been about, and something I've mentioned three freakin times at this point in my responses to you, which you have conveniently ignored every single time for god know's why - I'm guessing pure stubborness.

The built in benchmark makes comparisons easier since everything is processed exactly the same everytime. With custom benchmarks it's impossible to replicate since we don't know which part of the game was used.

Generally the early levels in the game run very well since it's mostly indoors with very few NPC's walking around. The built in benchmark is using more detailed areas with more characters so gives a better indication of what the worst case might be.

In all the benchmarks which use the built-in benchmark, the 480 is ahead of the 1060 by at least 20% yet we have some german site claiming the 1060 is faster. Maybe it is in some selected area but overall the AMD cards are faster than their equivalents in this game engine.

 

[geordiejc]

So i've got a 2nd 1070 running in SLI, although the card shows utilisation, its defo not being used as intended here's the horrific 4k bench results in the spoiler:

Spoiler

4k, Ultra, MSAA = off.

4k, Very High, MSAA = off

4k High, MSAA = off

4k Medium, MSAA = off

 

[NirK]

I could never understand why people always moan if game doesn't perform greatly on maxed out settings on cards. That's why we have different settings to choose from. If the developers can't raise amount of effects on ultra settings, we never get better looking games.

Though I gotta admit that nowadays most of the effects that are resource hogs, are mostly overdone lightinng effects, that don't really justify performance loss. I think I would prefer better textures instead of more complex lighting myself. Atleast it's easier for human eye to see.

But from what I have seen, this game does not even look that good on ultra, yet runs like crap, seems like badly optimised game to me.

 

[Doom112]

This year all AMD evolve games are the worst port of the year.

Hitman 2016 (Mostly negative reviews in steam)

Total Warhammer ( mixed reviews)

Deus EX (entirely broken and bad engine)

Nvidia sponsored

Rise of the Tomb Raider (88% postive reviews )

The Division ran equally on each system (77% postive reviews)

Mirror Edge 2 Ran equally on both AMD and Nvidia

Paragon running good on both


In 2016 any game ,which is related to AMD is totally broken on PC and Console fell like more superior.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

This year all AMD evolve games are the worst port of the year.
In 2016 any game ,which is related to AMD is totally broken on PC and Console fell like more superior.

And last year it was all the NVIDIA ones that ran like **** on most systems.

Neither NVIDIA, nor AMD can be held accountable for bad developers; especially when the port is handed off to a third party.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Neither NVIDIA, nor AMD can be held accountable for bad developers; especially when the port is handed off to a third party.

+1

 

[Doom112]

And last year it was all the NVIDIA ones that ran like **** on most systems.

Neither NVIDIA, nor AMD can be held accountable for bad developers; especially when the port is handed off to a third party.

Same publisher and same company ported Rise of the Tomb raider on PC,which ran good in GTX 970, R9 390 and other cards as well.

in this game GTX 970 cannot maintain 40fps ,which is not even in the league of Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[HEADRAT]

Neither NVIDIA, nor AMD can be held accountable for bad developers; especially when the port is handed off to a third party.

Then they should have the good sense not to endorse that title in that case!

Developers need to take a leaf Id Software, DOOM was pretty epic in terms of performance from day one, it was a pleasure to play rather than a pain in the ****!

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Then they should have the good sense not to endorse that title in that case!

Developers need to take a leaf Id Software, DOOM was pretty epic in terms of performance from day one, it was a pleasure to play rather than a pain in the ****!

Sadly it doesn't happen. If it did we wouldn't have had NVIDIA go so HAM on the marketing for Batman Arkham Knight.
Or have them constantly market the old Ubisoft games that ran terribly and were buggy messes. ( Where Ubisoft even said that PC Gamer should just upgrade if their performance wasn't good enough.)
http://www.pcinvasion.com/ubisoft-trolls-pc-users-buy-bigger-gpu-comment

I completely agree about Id Software; they've set the ball for 2016 performance on launch day.
If only more actually did that.

Same publisher and same company ported Rise of the Tomb raider on PC,which ran good in GTX 970, R9 390 and other cards as well.

in this game GTX 970 cannot maintain 40fps ,which is not even in the league of Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Yes, and it's still entirely down to the developer and porting team to get the most out of the game for performance. Neither NVIDIA nor AMD can dictate to the Publisher or Developers what to do.
They can only give feedback at times and hope they're listened to.

As once again if they had direct influence do you really think NVIDIA actually approved Batman Arkham Knight for launch with it's performance? Let's not forget; the game ran so badly and was so broken it was entirely removed from sale so the developers could try and fix it.

 

[Doom112]

Sadly it doesn't happen. If it did we wouldn't have had NVIDIA go so HAM on the marketing for Batman Arkham Knight.
Or have them constantly market the old Ubisoft games that ran terribly and were buggy messes. ( Where Ubisoft even said that PC Gamer should just upgrade if their performance wasn't good enough.)

I completely agree about Id Software; they've set the ball for 2016 performance on launch day.
If only more actually did that.



Yes, and it's still entirely down to the developer and porting team to get the most out of the game for performance. Neither NVIDIA nor AMD can dictate to the Publisher or Developers what to do.
They can only give feedback at times and hope they're listened to.

As once again if they had direct influence do you really think NVIDIA actually approved Batman Arkham Knight for launch with it's performance? Let's not forget; the game ran so badly and was so broken it was entirely removed from sale so the developers could try and fix it.

This year Gameworks>>>>>>>>>>>>>AMD gaming evolve.

Paragon look at the customization and PC settings.

Rise of the Tomb raider one of the best graphic game this year

Mirror Edge 2 ran good on both.

The division look much better on Pc compare to Console.

 

[Doom112]

Sadly it doesn't happen. If it did we wouldn't have had NVIDIA go so HAM on the marketing for Batman Arkham Knight.
Or have them constantly market the old Ubisoft games that ran terribly and were buggy messes. ( Where Ubisoft even said that PC Gamer should just upgrade if their performance wasn't good enough.)
http://www.pcinvasion.com/ubisoft-trolls-pc-users-buy-bigger-gpu-comment

I completely agree about Id Software; they've set the ball for 2016 performance on launch day.
If only more actually did that.



Yes, and it's still entirely down to the developer and porting team to get the most out of the game for performance. Neither NVIDIA nor AMD can dictate to the Publisher or Developers what to do.
They can only give feedback at times and hope they're listened to.

As once again if they had direct influence do you really think NVIDIA actually approved Batman Arkham Knight for launch with it's performance? Let's not forget; the game ran so badly and was so broken it was entirely removed from sale so the developers could try and fix it.

Batman Arkham knight performs miles better and has better graphics then any AMD gaming evolve title released this year.

A broken Dx11 game>>>>>>>>>>>>AMD gaming evolve this year.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

This year Gameworks>>>>>>>>>>>>>AMD gaming evolve.

Paragon look at the customization and PC settings.

Rise of the Tomb raider one of the best graphic game this year

Mirror Edge 2 ran good on both.

The division look much better on Pc compare to Console.

This has no bearing to the narrative of the thread. Also I would hardly call Tomb Raider a gameworks title. It only features HBAO+, which is part of the open use license from NVIDIA. Many games use it and are not licensed Gameworks titles.

Also Most PC games look better than the console ones, not just the Division. What's your point?

Once again, NVIDIA and AMD have no direct influence in the development of the game, and as such it's entirely down to the developers and third party porting teams to provide a good looking, bug free, and well performing product.

Whether they use Gameworks libraries or AMD OpenSource, the implementation and optimization lies solely with that of the development teams. Tomb Raider used AMD OpenSource to create Purehair as well.

This has not changed.

Batman Arkham knight performs miles better and has better graphics then any AMD gaming evolve title released this year.

A broken Dx11 game>>>>>>>>>>>>AMD gaming evolve this year.

Now I know he's just a troll.