• 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.

How much performance does TressFX cost?

Soldato
OP
Joined
23 Dec 2013
Posts
3,527
Location
North Wales
TressFX in Tomb Raider shot my FPS, so I just turned it off, as it made no difference to my experience. This was with using a 970

From what i've seen, HairWorks incurs around the same performance cost as TressFX. That said there have been a few revisions of TressFX since Tomb Raider 2013 so i'd expect it to be better than it is in Tomb Raider. Horses for courses i guess, as with both HairWorks and TressFX you do not have to use it if you don't want to. :)

That said, thread updated. Off to bed. :p
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2007
Posts
14,410
Location
ArcCorp
4790K @ 4.80GHZ + 980 Ti @ 1500/2000 Using Driver 358.91 @ 1440P Using Suggested Settings.


With TressFX

A7E8WXK.jpg.png


Without TressFX

bgKp8a4.jpg.png


Difference

cHEmoqm.png
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,940
Location
Dalek flagship
What precisely is your point? I said the performance hit is smaller at a lower fps you get at a higher resolution, so you post something at a high resolution giving lower overall impact on performance? Why would you expect it to change in SLI, throwing more power doesn't change the equation you just change the performance level. With all the results the performance impact of TressFX is lower at higher resolution precisely for the reasons I stated.

You based your point on the fact that at 2160p the fps were lower so there was more time between the frames and less opportunities for TressFX to have an effect on the performance.

So I did a run @2160p where the fps was higher than anything anyone else had posted yet the performance hit was still lower than 1080p.

DM you are busted !!!!
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
Definitely interesting results and not what I'd been led to believe about TressFX having a small performance hit. Good that it's even across hardware though. But negatively affecting both vendors performance was bad when HairWorks did it in The Witcher 3.

Seriously? It was well known when tomb raider was released that TressFX murdered FPS. I couldn't even run it when I had a 7950.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2010
Posts
13,067
Location
Under The Stairs!
Just looking back through an old TressFX thread and the performance hit for Nvidia when Tomb Raider was launched was huge but they did get on top of it in little time (less than 2 weeks iirc) and soon had it running well.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=23883799&postcount=275

I didn't see anyone accusing AMD of purposefully crippling Nvidia either and just accepted it.

+1

AMD couldn't get any flack, they don't impose black box code.

Hand in hand developer/vendor co-operation gets quick results when access to code is freely available with the option OF modifying the library code regardless the vendor.

Even had roll back-able updates/independent builds with code that worked on either while it waited for a universal build-Kudos to the devs/AMD.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2010
Posts
14,595
Titan X 1440P

TressFX

No TressFX

100 - 148 = 48% (nice easy one :D)
Greg your maths is off :D

No TressFx/original performance=148

TressFX applied= 100

So performance lose with TressFX applied= 32.5%

:D

So by enabling TressFX, you are retaining roughly 67.5% of your original performance comparing to no TressFX.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,879
Location
Planet Earth
It will be interesting to see how the latest TressFX does,as its meant to be have better performance optimisations so it could be run on consoles - the latest Tombraider has it running on the XBox One.

Can't believe that Tombraider is two and a half years old!!
 
Permabanned
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Posts
9,221
Location
Knowhere
It will be interesting to see how the latest TressFX does,as its meant to be have better performance optimisations so it could be run on consoles - the latest Tombraider has it running on the XBox One.

Can't believe that Tombraider is two and a half years old!!

And it still looks great in my opinion. One of the best games of the year (2013) and thankfully the new one seems to be an "If it ain't broken don't change it" game just like Far cry 4 was.

When it works like Tomb Raider and Far cry 3 did (once patched) all you need to do is add new story, new locations and new characters and then we (the gamers) should be happy.
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,321
Location
Essex innit!
And it still looks great in my opinion. One of the best games of the year (2013) and thankfully the new one seems to be an "If it ain't broken don't change it" game just like Far cry 4 was.

When it works like Tomb Raider and Far cry 3 did (once patched) all you need to do is add new story, new locations and new characters and then we (the gamers) should be happy.

I agree. TR was my most played game of 2013/14 and completed it twice and got all the secrets. Square did dun gud wiv it :)
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2010
Posts
14,595
And it still looks great in my opinion. One of the best games of the year (2013) and thankfully the new one seems to be an "If it ain't broken don't change it" game just like Far cry 4 was.

When it works like Tomb Raider and Far cry 3 did (once patched) all you need to do is add new story, new locations and new characters and then we (the gamers) should be happy.
To be honest I really think game developers should focus more on gameplay and stories, than putting more and more fancy graphic effects that hurt the gaming experience with running not as smooth, crashing issues and boring story.

I remember having hours and hours of fun playing on consoles back in the days, because the gameplay itself for games were great, even when they didn't have fancy graphic. But ever since PS3/Xbox, the game market became dominated by multi-platform titles from publishers that are only interested in making money, and keep on releasing the same kind of crap year after year.

The greedy publishers are actually what's stopping and holding back game developers from innovating and trying new approach and ideas for games :mad:

I want games that are fun to play with lots of contents, play in the way I want it, not games with little content that dictate how you must play the game with things like achievements and stuff like that, and penalise you if you don't.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Posts
20,638
Location
The KOP
I like that GodRays are evil because they cause a 10% decrease in framerates but TressFX is the poster boy for 3rd party libraries and it causes 30%+ decrease in framerates. But that's ok because we're running it on current hardware and the game it's used in isn't demanding...
The fact the game it's being used in isn't demanding doesn't make the fact it's a 30%+ hit good. Let's pick a more demanding TressFX game and see if it's still 30%+.
Does Tomb Raider have a sliding scale for TressFX effects or is it just on or off?

Definitely interesting results and not what I'd been led to believe about TressFX having a small performance hit. Good that it's even across hardware though. But negatively affecting both vendors performance was bad when HairWorks did it in The Witcher 3...

Out of interest what was the performance hit of HairWorks in The Witcher 3, did anyone test that?

My point again least they is a good enough difference between TressFX on vs off.. Is the difference between GodRays on vs off worth that performance hit? I very much doubt it..

This is why I said to PG in the other thread we testing this Gameworks or TressFX very wrong. We should be testing for IQ difference and then if performance is enough.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Dec 2013
Posts
6,307
Location
GPS signal not found. (11)
GTX TITAN @ 1202/6000
i5 2550K @ 4.6Ghz
358.50 Driver

1440p

Average FPS with TressFX on: 66.9
8fdIWOCl.png.jpg

Average FPS with TressFX off: 98.2
ACSMRcCl.png.jpg

Performance hit: -31.87%

Here is both a no hyperthreading and kepler result for you.

Side note: I've just used TRESemme - it makes your hair really soft.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2005
Posts
8,697
Location
Southampton
Q9300 @ 3.0GHz
Nitro R9 390 @ stock

2560x1440 with VSR 3200x1800...
Without 57.8 fps
With TressFX 40.7 fps
-29.58%

2560x1440...
Without 86.7 fps
With TressFX 58.3 fps
-32.76%
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,879
Location
Planet Earth
My point again least they is a good enough difference between TressFX on vs off.. Is the difference between GodRays on vs off worth that performance hit? I very much doubt it..

This is why I said to PG in the other thread we testing this Gameworks or TressFX very wrong. We should be testing for IQ difference and then if performance is enough.

Maybe then perhaps compare The Witcher and Tombraider?? They both use hair animation!!

Then when the next Tombraider is out we can compare it to the older one and see what IQ is like and whether the performance hit is less??
 
Back
Top Bottom