• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

The Star Wars: Battlefront Benchmarks Thread

Rroff said:
Godrays can be anything from a simple fairly static flare type system through to incredibly complex realtime simulation mind - whether the performance cost for each system is worth the noticeable difference in image quality is another matter.
Click to expand...

I think its the tessellation in the God Rays that is costing the performance, Nvidia seem to be addicted to tessellation, massively over tessellated Grass and Hair and now God Rays, its insane and it wrecks every game they touch no matter what GPU you are on but more for AMD.

You have to ask why this addiction to Tessellation at all let alone to levels that are utter madness.

How much of the money we pay for these Nvidia GPU's goes to game devs to put this game killing junk in them, every game thats been touched by Nvidia recently has had the wraph on the PC Gaming community come down on them, one even had to take it off sale for a couple of months it was that bad and yet they continue on with it finding ever new ways to wreck the performance.

Its bonkers and i suspect we are paying for it not just in broken games but also in cash.

You know what, hypercritically AMD get 30% higher Tessellation than Nvidia on the next Gen GPU.... Nvidia will stop with this Tessellation nonsense.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Yeah, of course, BF4 has it too, its nothing new and there is no performance cost.
Click to expand...

What options does it have for tessellation? Is it a simple on/off or is there low/medium/high/ultra again?

Also, is it doing all the volumetric lighting and stuff that FO4 does?

Why are we still blaming Nvidia's implementation rather than the FO4 engine?
Let's remember that STALKER Clear Sky had a massive performance hit too and that wasn't an Nvidia implementation.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
WWhy are we still blaming Nvidia's implementation
Click to expand...

Because you have got to cross your fingers with every GW's title that they actually run decent in the first place?

If a game is running Nvidia black box code...

You are ALWAYS going to create mass stink when a hardware vendor imposes strict sanctions on code implemented into games- especially if it imposes high performance penalties causing big impacts on fps game after game after game.

GW's is an enforced upgrade your gfx card eye candy effect-it's a genius move tbph, it's coining it in for Nvidia.
 
tommybhoy said:
Because you have got to cross your fingers with every GW's title that they actually run decent in the first place?

If a game is running Nvidia black box code...

You are ALWAYS going to create mass stink when a hardware vendor imposes strict sanctions on code implemented into games- especially if it imposes high performance penalties causing big impacts on fps game after game after game.

GW's is an enforced upgrade your gfx card eye candy effect-it's a genius move tbph, it's coining it in for Nvidia.
Click to expand...

The performance hit from God Rays isn't as bad as the hit from TressFX though (admittedly doing different things).

It seems like we're assuming that the engines of the games that GameWorks is being implemented in are otherwise superb and all the problems are down to GameWorks.
I mean it seems that GameWorks is always doing these effects in engines that can't do them themselves. So it doesn't strike me as that odd that a generic effects package can't be optimised as well as effects that are designed and implemented specifically in the engine. Is there a 3rd party library that implements these sort of effects with a smaller impact? What are we comparing GameWorks to in an apples to apples comparison in order to come to the conclusion it is bad?
 
Don't know, not getting into a what if scenario that never can bear conclusion, plenty other threads to talk about GW's, this ones about the performance of Star Wars BattleFront, which is spot on and met my expectations of where it should be on my 970.:)
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
The performance hit from God Rays isn't as bad as the hit from TressFX though (admittedly doing different things).
Click to expand...

Apples to Oranges, they are completely different effects, you have to compare like for like effects so the point is moot to the point its not even worth bring up.
Does TressFX have the same performance hit as Hairworks which is the obvious comparison.
 
Last edited:
tommybhoy said:
Don't know, not getting into a what if scenario that never can bear conclusion, plenty other threads to talk about GW's, this ones about the performance of Star Wars BattleFront, which is spot on and met my expectations of where it should be on my 970.:)
Click to expand...

But humbug does like to bring up GameWorks doesn't he?

Final8y said:
Apples to Oranges, they are completely different effects, you have to compare like for like effects so the point is moot to the point its not even worth bring up.
Does TressFX have the same performance hit as Hairworks which is the obvious comparison.
Click to expand...

I believe the conversation started by comparing an effect in the Frostbite 3 engine to an effect in a 3rd party library running in the Fallout 4 engine. Which is also apples to oranges but keeps getting brought up. Nobody seems to have an example of implementing God Rays in a different 3rd party library or via another method in the Fallout 4 engine, but comparisons are still made.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
I believe the conversation started by comparing an effect in the Frostbite 3 engine to an effect in a 3rd party library running in the Fallout 4 engine. Which is also apples to oranges but keeps getting brought up. Nobody seems to have an example of implementing God Rays in a different 3rd party library or via another method in the Fallout 4 engine, but comparisons are still made.
Click to expand...

We play plenty of games with Godrays in them, if the godrays in FO4 looked better than anything else then there could be an argument for it, but they do not.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
And how are they implemented in the other examples? Are they 3rd party libraries too?
Click to expand...

Again you are arguing semantics because it does not matter if its in house or 3rd party libraries because its about the performance hit and none of it is excused for being in-house or 3rd party libraries in AAA title.
 
Final8y said:
Again you are arguing semantics because it does not matter if its in house or 3rd party libraries because its about the performance hit and none of it is excused for being in-house or 3rd party libraries in AAA title.
Click to expand...

Not at all, if you're editing the core of the engine you can likely build things in a different way than if you're creating a 3rd party library that has to be generic. I doubt you could lift and shift the code from CryEngine into the Fallout 4 engine and expect it to work without making any changes because the engine is different.

Maybe I misunderstand this, but to me it's like with GameWorks you have someone speaking English and someone speaking Spanish and they talk to each other via a translator. Where it's implemented in-engine it's like having 2 people speaking English. Expecting the conversation to flow as smoothly with a translator is expecting a lot. But if you need the two people speaking different languages to communicate you have to be prepared for a slight inconvenience.
Now you can turn the translator off and you don't get the slowdown, but you also don't get the services of the person speaking Spanish. But some people seem to not want the Spanish person there at all or are blaming them for not being English.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
Not at all, if you're editing the core of the engine you can likely build things in a different way than if you're creating a 3rd party library that has to be generic. I doubt you could lift and shift the code from CryEngine into the Fallout 4 engine and expect it to work without making any changes because the engine is different.

Maybe I misunderstand this, but to me it's like with GameWorks you have someone speaking English and someone speaking Spanish and they talk to each other via a translator. Where it's implemented in-engine it's like having 2 people speaking English. Expecting the conversation to flow as smoothly with a translator is expecting a lot. But if you need the two people speaking different languages to communicate you have to be prepared for a slight inconvenience.
Now you can turn the translator off and you don't get the slowdown, but you also don't get the services of the person speaking Spanish. But some people seem to not want the Spanish person there at all or are blaming them for not being English.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse period so stop making them, as your example is a red herring.
 
Final8y said:
Apples to Oranges, they are completely different effects, you have to compare like for like effects so the point is moot to the point its not even worth bring up.
Does TressFX have the same performance hit as Hairworks which is the obvious comparison.
Click to expand...

No. But then it wouldn't, its not massively over tessellated.
 
Final8y said:
There is no excuse period so stop making them, as your example is a red herring.
Click to expand...

Surely the fault lies with Bethesda for not implementing God Rays in their engine rather than Nvidia?
You seem to be arguing that it's bad with no example of how to do it better.

humbug said:
No. But then it wouldn't, its not massively over tessellated.
Click to expand...

What is the hit from HairWorks?
 
humbug said:
No. But then it wouldn't, its not massively over tessellated.
Click to expand...

Yes it would because its about the effect and how it looks in comparison and the performance hit for it, that's what matters, saying well mine has a bigger performance hit because of tessellation but does not look any better does not change the fact that the implementation is less efficient, all it does is highlight the fact that tessellation was not need for the effect.
 
Last edited:
GoogalyMoogaly said:
Surely the fault lies with Bethesda for not implementing God Rays in their engine rather than Nvidia?
You seem to be arguing that it's bad with no example of how to do it better.
Click to expand...

As i said i dont care whos at fault so stop replying to me as if i do.

So you are saying you dont know about any other games that has god rays, we are done because you have been told regardless of your refusal to accept them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom