Is Division game DX12?

N19h7m4r3 · 8 Mar 2016 at 14:36

muziqaz said:
are you done? no one asked for this here. so if you could delete your nonsense, please.

Nah, the duality of people here is the real problem. Pointing out how easily they are to jump at a game that has issues and also uses NV tech, but if a game runs better on AMD with the same tech it's not NV's fault then.
Just like no one asks them to go on tirades about the evils of Gameworks, when it's clearly the ineptitude of the developers; Gears of War and Arkham Knight being a prime examples.

I for one am happy the game looks and runs brilliantly ( although on reddit they seem to think it's still unoptimized rubbish) on all hardware. To me it shows Ubisoft are finally getting their act together with PC Games.

Now if only they can sort their servers out so I can get online.

muziqaz · 8 Mar 2016 at 14:43

N19h7m4r3 said:
Nah, the duality of people here is the real problem. Pointing out how easily they are to jump at a game that has issues and also uses NV tech, but if a game runs better on AMD with the same tech it's not NV's fault then.
Just like no one asks them to go on tirades about the evils of Gameworks, when it's clearly the ineptitude of the developers; Gears of War and Arkham Knight being a prime examples.

I for one am happy the game looks and runs brilliantly ( although on reddit they seem to think it's still unoptimized rubbish) on all hardware. To me it shows Ubisoft are finally getting their act together with PC Games.

Now if only they can sort their servers out so I can get online.

So where does your crap fit in then in all of this? No one here in this thread, my thread, mention anything about how Gameworks ruin things to certain companies.
Original post suggest a surprising reaction, knowing it is nvidia sponsored, Ubisoft developed game. Not that long ago Ubisoft was openly blasting AMD for some reason. So the tone of this thread is surprising happiness that maybe finally we will start seeing better game optimisations from get go.

N19h7m4r3 · 8 Mar 2016 at 14:51

muziqaz said:
So where does your crap fit in then in all of this? No one here in this thread, my thread, mention anything about how Gameworks ruin things to certain companies.
Original post suggest a surprising reaction, knowing it is nvidia sponsored, Ubisoft developed game. Not that long ago Ubisoft was openly blasting AMD for some reason. So the tone of this thread is surprising happiness that maybe finally we will start seeing better game optimisations from get go.

We've been seeing better games for some times now, and many of them using NV tech. You need only glance at The Gears of War thread to see the duality of people.

Nothing I've posted ( despite being satire ) takes away from the fact that the game runs well on AMD hardware, better in fact than NVIDIA, while being a Gameworks game.

Especially since some of the people in this very thread rant on and on about the evils of Gameworks, are now suddenly saying it's because games are being tuned to AMD hardware; but if this game had the slightest issue it would be NV's fault yet again.

When we all know it's down to developers, how they create the game, choose effects, implement them, and optimise them.
This is also the first Ubisoft game I've bought in years because until this year none of the games have performed well enough, and weren't riddled with issues.

TheRealDeal · 8 Mar 2016 at 14:54

N19h7m4r3 said:
Once again NVIDIA have paid Ubisoft to use Gameworks, and once again it has destroyed AMD performance. The game even included PCSS+ shadows; as if HBAO+ wasn't enough.
When will we all stop the madness that NVIDIA inflict upon us!

Oh wait...I forgot. If there's a buggy game from the likes of Ubisoft or some other dev( Microsoft Studios) that uses Gameworks it's obviously NV's fault; but it's not NV's optimisations if a game that uses them are performing well with AMD. It's the developers; but it also can't be their fault if it's buggy, slow, and uses gameworks.

This game has only 2 Gamework effects that have been pretty decent in the past. I have only played a little and it runs great on my 290 card. If it plays well all the way through then good job Ubisoft.

N19h7m4r3 · 8 Mar 2016 at 14:55

TheRealDeal said:
This game has only 2 Gamework effects that have been pretty decent in the past. I have only played a little and it runs great on my 290 card. If it plays well all the way through then good job Ubisoft.

Yup, they've come along way since Assa Creed 4 saying that if the game doesn't run well enough we should just get a new GPU.

It's a shame it was downgraded to keep it inline with the consoles a bit, but it's been great so far.

The_One · 8 Mar 2016 at 15:00

Division runs brilliant for me at 1440p 144hz and ultra

Getting average fps of 57

That's an overclocked 290 tri-x

Stanners · 8 Mar 2016 at 15:04

muziqaz said:
are you done? no one asked for this here. so if you could delete your nonsense, please.

People can post what they like, where they like as long as it is in line with the forum rules. If you have an issue use the RTM function. It is not your forum to dish the instructions to people.

Schnippzle · 8 Mar 2016 at 16:27

muziqaz said:
1080p Ultra
ASUS Fury (non X) - 67fps
Palit 980 Super JetStream - 60fps
Sapphire 390 Nitro OC - 57fps
XFX 380X DD - 49fps
MSI 970 Gaming 4G - 47fps
XFX 270X DD - 35fps
EVGA 960 SuperSC 4G - 32fps
ASUS 950 Strix - 27fps

nvidia used game ready drivers (364.47), AMD 16.2.1 (non game ready ones)

Oh awesome, thank you very much.

muziqaz · 8 Mar 2016 at 16:33

Stanners said:
People can post what they like, where they like as long as it is in line with the forum rules. If you have an issue use the RTM function. It is not your forum to dish the instructions to people.

Were you involved in my conversation with him? No. Did I reply to his last post? No. So please stop derailing this thread even further.

Stanners · 8 Mar 2016 at 18:16

muziqaz said:
Were you involved in my conversation with him? No. Did I reply to his last post? No. So please stop derailing this thread even further.

As I said, use the RTM function and leave it to the mods what can and can't be posted.

Rroff · 8 Mar 2016 at 18:25

muziqaz said:
are you done? no one asked for this here. so if you could delete your nonsense, please.

Given that you seem to consider everything that isn't pro-AMD trolling and derailment and anything that might be even slightly pro-nVidia "nonsense" I have to question why you put yourself through reading this section of the forum.

muziqaz · 8 Mar 2016 at 18:51

Thanks for the input.

r7slayer · 8 Mar 2016 at 19:02

muziqaz said:
Thanks for the input.

Na just RTM it mate, don't rise to thier level. Let the mods deal with people who try to come in the threads and throw it off topic.

Anyway ive just downloaded this game so will play and see how it runs on my 980Ti at 1440p

Nice to see it running well on AMD hardware and that's impressive shanks! 1440p on ultra and getting near 60FPS is quite outstanding to say how old the 290 is now

muziqaz · 8 Mar 2016 at 19:06

r7slayer said:
Na just RTM it mate, don't rise to thier level. Let the mods deal with people who try to come in the threads and throw it off topic.

Anyway ive just downloaded this game so will play and see how it runs on my 980Ti at 1440p

Nice to see it running well on AMD hardware and that's impressive shanks! 1440p on ultra and getting near 60FPS is quite outstanding to say how old the 290 is now

It's all good

Its possible that AMD had enough time now to work on nvidia black box code to get some optimizations into their drivers. But then again, they would have trumpeted that achievement in their driver release notes.

Davanius · 8 Mar 2016 at 19:30

Quick question. Any difference in performance between the full game and the beta?

I was hoping for a bit more performance once the game was out.

Gregster · 8 Mar 2016 at 19:40

Davanius said:
Quick question. Any difference in performance between the full game and the beta?

I was hoping for a bit more performance once the game was out.

From an NVidia user, it seems pretty much on par with what was there before but a few more grphical options this time. There is an Ultra setting but then even more advancements in settings.

Davanius · 8 Mar 2016 at 21:31

Gregster said:
From an NVidia user, it seems pretty much on par with what was there before but a few more grphical options this time. There is an Ultra setting but then even more advancements in settings.

Cheers.

Dygaza · 8 Mar 2016 at 21:33

Game seems to be running quite well overall with all settings maxed. No problems here with gameworks features either.

Ian Evey · 8 Mar 2016 at 21:44

Game runs very well on a 780, ultra but shadows on medium 1920x1200. cant complain at all, this seems to look better than the Beta too.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Mar 2016 at 23:54

Some more tests incoming. Some reviews show AMD still ahead and others the Nvidia cards being closer - it appears Ultra with HBAO+ and PCSS+ does reduce the AMD performance a bit but without those on,the AMD cards move quite ahead.

GameGPU

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/tom-clancy-s-the-division-test-gpu.html

Their test is a bit unique as they mentioned:

Well they only benched it underground. Reading further explains the main reason behind doing so. Well the built-in benchmark may not display the appropriate fps avg for an unknown reason. Further more, due to the ever changing weather condition, it isn't to replicate the setting resulting on varied results on different setup

Ultra without HBAO+ and PCSS+ used.

Computerbase.de

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-03/...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

Ultra with HBAO+ and PCSS+ used.

An overclocked GTX980 matches a Fury.

PCGamesHardware

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Division-Spiel-37399/Specials/PC-Benchmarks-1188384/

Ultra without HBAO+ and PCSS+ used.

However,they are testing some Nvidia cards with decent overclocks,so its quiite interesting that even though the GTX980TI overclocked is still ahead,a GTX980 with a big overclock cannot beat a Fury!!

Guru3D

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_division_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

Ultra without HBAO+ and PCSS+ used.

However,it appears the Fury in some situations can even beat a GTX980TI,but in most cases the GTX980TI is ahead.

Sweclockers

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/21839-snabbtest-grafikprestanda-i-tom-clancys-the-division/3#content

Ultra without HBAO+ and PCSS+ used.

AMD doing quite well in this one.

However,the rest of the Nvidia range under it is not faring as well. The Fury and R9 390X are very competitive with the GTX980 even with HBAO+ and PCSS+ enabled.

The R9 390 seems very competitive with the GTX970 and the R9 380X is easily the fastest card for the game under £200,and can get within 10% to 20% of a GTX970!!

This makes the R9 380X probably the best value card for the game.

Apparently there are new AMD drivers for the game and the reviews used the latest Game Ready drivers for the Nvidia cards.