Well can it run Deus Ex MD ?

Greebo · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:33

Yet bizarrely we are in the minority and many people on here seem to think 37 fps with your £500 to £1100 graphics cards is great performance and perfectly acceptable :rolleyes:

Killer7xx · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:34

Doom112 said:
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.

Gameworks is not even comparable to AMD gaming evolve, Gameworks actually involves using Nvidia's proprietary code libraries while gaming evolve is basically just a sponsorship from AMD.

Doom112 · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:35

N19h7m4r3 said:
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.

This has not changed.

Now I know he's just a troll.

you just compare it. I never trolled or lie in my life. You compare both Hitman, Deus EX and Batman Arkham knight on PC.

geordiejc · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:35

I've downloaded the beta, why can't i use DX12 as showin here :http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/deus-ex-mankind-divided-test-gpu

Doom112 · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:38

Greebo said:
Yet bizarrely we are in the minority and many people on here seem to think 37 fps with your £500 to £1100 graphics cards is great performance and perfectly acceptable

Funny thing is that the IQ same as PS4. You see same people bashing Nvidia when DX12 will be patched. They will be cursing Nvidia and will accept 3-7 fps improvements on AMD but they will not see that game is not even par with 2010 graphic games.

Doom112 · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:38

geordiejc said:
I've downloaded the beta, why can't i use DX12 as showin here :http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/deus-ex-mankind-divided-test-gpu

It has been removed because DX12 was running worst then DX11 on AMD and nvidia both. It will be launched on 5th sep.

N19h7m4r3 · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:38

Doom112 said:
you just compare it. I never trolled or lie in my life. You compare both Hitman, Deus EX and Batman Arkham knight on PC.

You do realise Tomb Raider uses both NVIDIA and AMD tech right? Gameworks HBAO+, and AMD OpenSource to create their PureHair tech; which is based on TressFX.

It's a hardware agnostic game; similar to GTA V which uses technology from both teams.

Also you must be trolling if you honestly believe Batman Arkham knight performed better than most games out this year.
The game was removed from sale, because it performed so badly. Literally removed from sale.

crinkleshoes · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:39

I've tried playing this and can't stand the mouse response. The general movement difference vs aiming down scope is huge and really imbalanced.

Then when moving the mouse around... it feels really rubbery and unresponsive... v-sync is off and i'm getting about 80fps.

dancook · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:43

I put my mouse sensitivity at 13% - but because it was crazy sensitive.

Doom112 · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:47

N19h7m4r3 said:
You do realise Tomb Raider uses both NVIDIA and AMD tech right? Gameworks HBAO+, and AMD OpenSource to create their PureHair tech; which is based on TressFX.

It's a hardware agnostic game; similar to GTA V which uses technology from both teams.

Also you must be trolling if you honestly believe Batman Arkham knight performed better than most games out this year.
The game was removed from sale, because it performed so badly. Literally removed from sale.

I am talking about currently. You compare that broken game with any AMD gaming evolve title or AMD gaming evolve DX12 titles.

NirK · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:55

geordiejc said:
I've downloaded the beta, why can't i use DX12 as showin here :http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/deus-ex-mankind-divided-test-gpu

Good luck with the single 1070 at 4k.

geordiejc · 25 Aug 2016 at 11:56

I have SLI NirK, however i don't think its being utilised, even though it says it is in Afterburner.

Edit: I notice running in exclusive full-screen i gain 3-4 fps when i use the benchmark tool.

N19h7m4r3 · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:00

Doom112 said:
I am talking about currently. You compare that broken game with any AMD gaming evolve title or AMD gaming evolve DX12 titles.

Arkham Knight still runs badly and does look worse than even Deus Ex.

It's character models alone are inferior, never mind open world environments. It tries to hide that plasticy look that Unreal Engine 3 has by making everything as dark as possible; and putting you in the Batmobile most of the time. As such you don't actively walk around,and instead move at speed.

I simply cannot fathom how you actually think it looks great and performs great. I tried playing it again after it was re-released, and it still ran terribly and had lots of lag spikes and jitter when in the Batmobile; which is where you spend most of your time.

When the game launched it also looked inferior to the console version, as the PC one didn't even have proper Ambient Occlusion, less Depth of Field, and no extra transparency layers for water and droplets The rain didn't even show up on Batman or the Batmobile.

Where as the PS4 version had it all.

The PC version still doesn't even have SLI support, so I was stuck with negative scaling on my 980Tis, and performance on one was still bad.
https://www.vg247.com/2015/11/19/batman-arkham-knight-pc-will-not-support-sli-crossfire/

Storywise it might have been okay, but as a game it was terrible visually and performance wise; yet you're quick to harp on new PC games looking the same as the consoles versions; where as this actually looked Worse.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:07

Doom112 said:
This year all AMD evolve games are the worst port of the year.

Hitman 2016 (Mostly negative reviews in steam)

Total Warhammer ( 86% on metacritic)

Deus EX (excellent reviews but demanding)

Nvidia sponsored

Rise of the Tomb Raider (88% postive reviews but has broken DX12 and it tanks even on Nvidia cards and is very demanding and AMD is worse)

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

Mirror Edge 2 Ran equally on both AMD and Nvidia(apart from the fact its highest texture setting mode had issues )

Paragon running good on both(but I ignore the fact it is a MOBA so is designed not to tax hardware)

In 2016 any game ,I want to twist that anything Nvidia does is perfect and everything AMD does is not perfect,but since MY Nvidia card runs the game worse than a AMD one,but were not moaning when Tombraider DX12 was not working that well on AMD cards(let alone Nvidia ones),let alone the texture issues on AMD cards in Mirrors Edge,when some of the Nvidia ones were not running true Hyper settings at launch even though it was selected in the menus.

FTFY.

Also,Doom had a lot of AMD involvement - Nvidia runs fine under OpenGL but Vulkan is a fail(my GTX960 for example might as well run under OpenGL for the game). Nvidia were going on about Doom and Vulkan yet apparently AMD with all its broken games got a patch out first. Last time I checked Bethesda and iD were closer to Nvidia.

But make more excuses.

N19h7m4r3 said:
Arkham Knight still runs badly and does look worse than even Deus Ex.

It's character models alone are inferior, never mind open world environments. It tries to hide that plasticy look that Unreal Engine 3 has by making everything as dark as possible; and putting you in the Batmobile most of the time. As such you don't actively walk around,and instead move at speed.

I simply cannot fathom how you actually think it looks great and performs great. I tried playing it again after it was re-released, and it still ran terribly and had lots of lag spikes and jitter when in the Batmobile; which is where you spend most of your time.

When the game launched it also looked inferior to the console version, as the PC one didn't even have proper Ambient Occlusion, less Depth of Field, and no extra transparency layers for water and droplets The rain didn't even show up on Batman or the Batmobile.

Where as the PS4 version had it all.

The PC version still doesn't even have SLI support, so I was stuck with negative scaling on my 980Tis, and performance on one was still bad.
https://www.vg247.com/2015/11/19/batman-arkham-knight-pc-will-not-support-sli-crossfire/

Storywise it might have been okay, but as a game it was terrible visually and performance wise; yet you're quick to harp on new PC games looking the same as the consoles versions; where as this actually looked Worse.

Look at his posting history including every thread he has started:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/search.php?searchid=24246098

Not at all suspicious that a new account started in July when Polaris 10 was being launched tries to push as negative PR as possible.

Sarcasm\.

Amatyr · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:18

Greebo said:
Yet bizarrely we are in the minority and many people on here seem to think 37 fps with your £500 to £1100 graphics cards is great performance and perfectly acceptable

I want games to have insane graphics settings at the high end when we're pushing crazy pixel counts around. Just like good old Crysis, games should be able to challenge hardware when they come out.

Greebo · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:26

Amatyr said:
I want games to have insane graphics settings at the high end when we're pushing crazy pixel counts around. Just like good old Crysis, games should be able to challenge hardware when they come out.

Oh a agree but there is a world of difference between that and having to run on medium or low settings just to get a playable framerate.

Seanspeed · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:30

Greebo said:
Yet bizarrely we are in the minority and many people on here seem to think 37 fps with your £500 to £1100 graphics cards is great performance and perfectly acceptable

OH MY LORD

We went over this yesterday. I debunked your claims and yet here you are again, saying the same things as if that never happened. Are you having a case of Groundhog's Day, maybe?

Nobody is 'happy' with 37fps(or some might, but nobody here is claiming that). Turn down some settings if you want better performance. The visual hit is negligible. It runs fine on High and looks 95% what it looks like on Ultra. There is no 'problem' here, the game is not 'unoptimized'.

PC gamers just clearly, even after decades of having options, still dont understand what they mean or why they are there.

N19h7m4r3 · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:32

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
FTFY.

Also,Doom had a lot of AMD involvement - Nvidia runs fine under OpenGL but Vulkan is a fail(my GTX960 for example might as well run under OpenGL for the game).

.

Let's not forget NVIDIA were the first to demo DOOM under Vulkan; they used it at GDC to with the launch of the GTX 1080 to showcase their new top performance.

They also mentioned a new Vulkan driver to improve performance, but I haven't seen that appear yet it seems.

In the end my original statement stands: Neither NVIDIA, nor AMD can be held accountable for bad developers; especially when the port is handed off to a third party.

This is still the case whether Gameworks or OpenGPU libraries are used. Both can provide insight in the use of them; but ultimately it's the developers that have to properly implement and optimise the end product for consumers.

geordiejc · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:33

crinkleshoes said:
I've tried playing this and can't stand the mouse response. The general movement difference vs aiming down scope is huge and really imbalanced.

Then when moving the mouse around... it feels really rubbery and unresponsive... v-sync is off and i'm getting about 80fps.

dancook said:
I put my mouse sensitivity at 13% - but because it was crazy sensitive.

I also put my sensitivity at 13%.

There is DEFINITELY input lag. I'm playing @1440p 45-60fps very high settings with Gsync ON & Vsync ON in NVCP @ very high settings on 2 x 1070 in SLI.

The input lag was too much @ 4k with 30-40fps.

Overall, the performance is sluggish if you don't play in exclusive full-screen, at least on my system.

Greebo · 25 Aug 2016 at 12:33

Seanspeed said:
OH MY LORD

We went over this yesterday. I debunked your claims and yet here you are again, saying the same things as if that never happened. Are you having a case of Groundhog's Day, maybe?

Nobody is 'happy' with 37fps(or some might, but nobody here is claiming that). Turn down some settings if you want better performance. The visual hit is negligible. It runs fine on High and looks 95% what it looks like on Ultra. There is no 'problem' here, the game is not 'unoptimized'.

PC gamers just clearly, even after decades of having options, still dont understand what they mean or why they are there.

Well i can only on all the reviews as to what you get with a 970 on medium and high. And yes thats the benchmark as in some parts of the game that is exactly what you will encounter.

I must have missed your screenshots showing "true" 970 performance where a 970 beats a 1070 at 1080 in high...........

Please post them again.