AMD Pure Hair comes at a very low performance hit - Great stuff

Ayahuasca · 28 Jan 2016 at 21:55

Very good looking game, some of the hair movement is still questionable but it's better than static hair. Performance isn't as bad as I thought it would be either.

GoogalyMoogaly · 28 Jan 2016 at 22:28

Ian Evey said:
What struck me is that there is wind in that tunnel and the hair blows about with it off, but with it on it just moves as if there is no wind anywhere.

Seems they turned some kind off physics off with real hair enabled.

I'm not sure that's intentional, it looks to be jumping about all over the place rather than blowing.

This is probably the best looking hair effects I've seen (based on YouTube videos) and the performance hit is good (would be interesting to see if it's the same across vendors once everyone has decent drivers out).
That said I still think it looks pretty poor and unrealistic, just less so than the others I've seen. I'm not sure I'd trade any fps for the effect as it is in Greg's video.

oldestgregg · 28 Jan 2016 at 22:40

Played this on Xbone in November but I'll be seeing what it looks like and performs on my TX @3440x1440. DLC looks good as well

pgi947 · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:06

shankly1985 said:
Going to try tonight at 1440p not sure what settings but I'll turn down the settings that don't show much IQ try and aim for 50/60fps

Try swapping out heavy AA settings in favor of a higher VSR resolution. Found doing the same with DSR gives a better trade off in some games

Will grab this at some point over the weekend, nearly 400 hours of rocket league is making me suicidal

Jarrastafari · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:22

Just read this article which suggests that the Pure Hair is a solution from Crystal Dynamics and not AMD as you mentioned. Performance @ 1920x1200 is good on 970 GTX on high settings and SMAA as you guys suggested.

Gregster · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:23

pgi947 said:
Try swapping out heavy AA settings in favor of a higher VSR resolution. Found doing the same with DSR gives a better trade off in some games

Will grab this at some point over the weekend, nearly 400 hours of rocket league is making me suicidal

You think that is bad.... I have almost 6 weeks worth of play in Elite Dangerous (1000+ hours). It is nice to have a couple of games to drag me away and ROTTR is certainly doing that.

shankly1985 · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:28

Jarrastafari said:
Just read this article which suggests that the Pure Hair is a solution from Crystal Dynamics and not AMD as you mentioned. Performance @ 1920x1200 is good on 970 GTX on high settings and SMAA as you guys suggested.

Its TressFX just a new name tbh SE developed the Tech with AMD. was talk about TressFX 2.0 and Tomb Raider ages ago and how different it was going to be including less performance.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...f-the-tomb-raider-will-have-improved-tressfx/

FoxEye · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:29

Am I the only one who doesn't get the obsession with in-game hair?

Has L'Oreal infiltrated the games industry?

savagesam117 · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:31

This game looks amazing, even at 1080p! Getting pretty much a solid 80+ FPS on super mega everything.. It's pretty demanding!

It seems to basically be the same as the last tomb raider though?

shankly1985 · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:32

Mmmm in the Games Options the under Very High Pure Hair is on. But if you select the Drop down they is another option for Very High Pure Hair.

Jarrastafari · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:41

shankly1985 said:
Its TressFX just a new name...

Ah, I see how NVIDIA spun that to avoid credit to their competitor, ha!

Gregster · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:43

savagesam117 said:
This game looks amazing, even at 1080p! Getting pretty much a solid 80+ FPS on super mega everything.. It's pretty demanding!

It seems to basically be the same as the last tomb raider though?

What is your VRAM usage at 1080P and all maxed please Sam?

savagesam117 · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:48

Gregster said:
What is your VRAM usage at 1080P and all maxed please Sam?

It was sitting around the 3.5gb mark, would bump up to 3.8 on demanding bits.

Gregster · 28 Jan 2016 at 23:52

savagesam117 said:
It was sitting around the 3.5gb mark, would bump up to 3.8 on demanding bits.

Thanks mate

AlamoX · 29 Jan 2016 at 00:02

bleh this looks like a shiety port, 40ish fps and almost 4Go at 1080p, i though that was 4k...

savagesam117 · 29 Jan 2016 at 00:03

Shame there is no willy waving benchmark for this.

shankly1985 · 29 Jan 2016 at 00:10

savagesam117 said:
Shame there is no willy waving benchmark for this.

They said it will get patched in along with Nvidia tech forget the name.

So far this is running very well for me @1440p FXAA no Blur very high preset. Avg around 40fps with jumps into 50s depending what is on screen..

Graphics are superb, very good I think this isn't a bad port more the fact its pushing PC hardware.

FoxEye · 29 Jan 2016 at 00:10

savagesam117 said:
Shame there is no willy waving benchmark for this.

BulgeWorks, coming soon.

Dave2150 · 29 Jan 2016 at 03:01

Jarrastafari said:
Ah, I see how NVIDIA spun that to avoid credit to their competitor, ha!

Yeap, standard tactics from them.

Aretak · 29 Jan 2016 at 05:58

The only weird thing for me is that the non-TressFX hair looks like absolute garbage. Way, way worse than the non-TressFX hair from the original Tomb Raider, which I spent a lot of time looking at as I hated the TressFX hair in that (this new one is quite nice though). The textures on it look like something out of a PS1 game.

One other thing I've noticed is that the hair has a much, much bigger performance impact during close-ups in cutscenes. During gameplay it doesn't seem to make much difference. I guess they dial the effect up in cutscenes or something.