Well can it run Deus Ex MD ?

[Dicehunter]

I don't want to worry you but 20:20 vison is far from the best you can have.

Having said that it is still pretty good.

I know, 20:10 is the best isn't it ? at least 20:20 means I can see well

 

[Kaapstad]

I know, 20:10 is the best isn't it ? at least 20:20 means I can see well

20:20 is good but a lot of people make the mistake of thinking it is the best.

 

[Dicehunter]

20:20 is good but a lot of people make the mistake of thinking it is the best.

If I had 20:10 my golf game would be sick !!!

 

[Seanspeed]

Doubt it. A 1070 on high at 1080p can scrape a min 56fps, needs to be on medium settings for a steady 60+

GTX1060 runs at 70fps average on High. Pretty reasonable to assume that those reporting 60fps on a 970, especially if its even a bit overclocked, are not lying about it.

And TAA *is* AA. Hence the 'AA' in the name, in case you missed it. Please stop going around saying 'no AA' when TAA is enabled. You're spreading complete and utter FUD.

Since when did pc gamers suddenly become happy and satisfied with running games at not much more than 30 fps console speed?

No idea what you're talking about here. Honestly, what an utterly baffling comment.

 

[Seanspeed]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/08/23/deus-ex-mankind-divided-benchmarked/3

Ah, I see where you're going wrong here.

You're using sites that are using the built-in benchmark. As I've said a couple times now, the actual game runs better than the benchmark results suggest(which isn't uncommon with these built-in benchmarking tools).

People actually playing the game and those who have done in-game benchmarking runs are reporting much better results than you're claiming.

 

[Kaapstad]

Could do with a few more scores in the actual bench thread.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

I in no way get FPS even close to the 70's at 1080p High on my GPU.
I don't even push that when just walking around in the game world.

No idea how some reviewers are pushing these numbers, but from experience so far the game has terrible performance for the visuals.

 

[nashathedog]

I don't want to worry you but 20:20 vison is far from the best you can have.

Having said that it is still pretty good.

After the last 6 years spending so much time in front of a monitor I'll be lucky if I still have 10:10 vision, I can no longer read anything or watch telly without glasses.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Surprisingly poor performance for a game that doesn't look all that special graphically

 

[VincentHanna]

Context? What setting and resolution?

 

[Rofflay]

After the last 6 years spending so much time in front of a monitor I'll be lucky if I still have 10:10 vision, I can no longer read anything or watch telly without glasses.

Try 15 and see how you do!

I found moving to 120hz and getting rid of jaggies helps relax my eyes hence why i run 4K/120hz DSR with strobing because most games now think SMAA and FXAA are actual proper solutions at 1080p maybe 1440p it is but not at 1080p. So am i going to be surprised this one has 8x MSAA or is it 4x? Being honest im still waiting to get around to Human Revolution but as soon as my 1080 arrives it will hopefully be nailed at max 4K/120.

 

[Seanspeed]

Surprisingly poor performance for a game that doesn't look all that special graphically

In-game performance is better than benchmark performance.

Honestly devs just need to

1) Stop putting in demanding settings

2) Stop adding built-in benchmark apps.

Obviously if benchmark performance doesn't match in-game performance, people are already going to get the wrong idea. It does nothing but hurt people's image of what your game can do.

But also PC gamers as a whole are clearly not informed enough to deal with these things and know how to come to any reasonable conclusion about things.

I wish this wasn't the case, but the alternative is that devs get bashed by consumers and it hurts word-of-mouth and sales.

 

[Dygaza]

I could never understand why people always moan if game doesn't perform greatly on maxed out settings on cards. That's why we have different settings to choose from. If the developers can't raise amount of effects on ultra settings, we never get better looking games.

Though I gotta admit that nowadays most of the effects that are resource hogs, are mostly overdone lightinng effects, that don't really justify performance loss. I think I would prefer better textures instead of more complex lighting myself. Atleast it's easier for human eye to see.

 

[Seanspeed]

I could never understand why people always moan if game doesn't perform greatly on maxed out settings on cards. That's why we have different settings to choose from. If the developers can't raise amount of effects on ultra settings, we never get better looking games.

Though I gotta admit that nowadays most of the effects that are resource hogs, are mostly overdone lightinng effects, that don't really justify performance loss. I think I would prefer better textures instead of more complex lighting myself. Atleast it's easier for human eye to see.

It's not some trade-off for the devs like that, though. They dont go, "Oh well, we could include better ambient occlusion options OR we could do better textures". All these things work quite differently.

Texture options are largely just a matter of resolution. In most games nowadays, different texture settings dont offer new and better textures, they just scale resolution. It gets to the point where in a lot of cases, the highest setting textures aren't even noticeable from the next lowest setting unless you get quite close up to them. This all doesn't take that much work at all.

It's different than including different AO or AA techniques, where each setting can require a very specific implementation that is completely different from another.

In terms of lighting, this is actually one area where you rarely ever see 'settings' for nowadays. Lighting is a very fundamental aspect of the graphics of a game and isn't something you can typically 'turn up or down'. Same with shaders, as lighting and shaders in modern games are symbiotic.

 

[Greebo]

GTX1060 runs at 70fps average on High. Pretty reasonable to assume that those reporting 60fps on a 970, especially if its even a bit overclocked, are not lying about it.

And TAA *is* AA. Hence the 'AA' in the name, in case you missed it. Please stop going around saying 'no AA' when TAA is enabled. You're spreading complete and utter FUD.


No idea what you're talking about here. Honestly, what an utterly baffling comment.

Well totally different results to the other reviews

 

[crinkleshoes]

Context? What setting and resolution?

4K Ultra, cpu and gpus at stock speeds.

Should be able to get it over 50fps with the overclock.

Oh well... It's the type of game I would rather play on my 2560x1440 144Hz monitor, so performance should be good enough for that at least

 

[crinkleshoes]

I could never understand why people always moan if game doesn't perform greatly on maxed out settings on cards. That's why we have different settings to choose from. If the developers can't raise amount of effects on ultra settings, we never get better looking games.

Though I gotta admit that nowadays most of the effects that are resource hogs, are mostly overdone lightinng effects, that don't really justify performance loss. I think I would prefer better textures instead of more complex lighting myself. Atleast it's easier for human eye to see.

It depends on the game and graphics capability.

Like Crysis / Crysis 3 etc... That was always bringing some really awesome visual improvements that really pushed the limits of gpus but had something to show for it.

I even waited to play these games until gpu hardware was good enough to do them justice and now I can play Crysis 3 at 4K over 60fps.

When a game is a resource hog for no visual benefit... It gets slated because the developers either made a mistake or are incompetent.

I still have to give it a proper play, but from what I've seen so far... The visuals don't look that much better than BF4 and yet it has 25% or less of the frame rate.

Heck... Even the many year old Metro Last Light looks better and performs better and that was considered to be badly coded before they improved it.

 

[Kaapstad]

It depends on the game and graphics capability.

Like Crysis / Crysis 3 etc... That was always bringing some really awesome visual improvements that really pushed the limits of gpus but had something to show for it.

I even waited to play these games until gpu hardware was good enough to do them justice and now I can play Crysis 3 at 4K over 60fps.

When a game is a resource hog for no visual benefit... It gets slated because the developers either made a mistake or are incompetent.

I still have to give it a proper play, but from what I've seen so far... The visuals don't look that much better than BF4 and yet it has 25% or less of the frame rate.

Heck... Even the many year old Metro Last Light looks better and performs better and that was considered to be badly coded before they improved it.

When more GPU grunt than even big Volta can deliver is used @1080p and it won't run at 60fps then it is a badly coded mess.

 

[Strife212]

Surely 21 min fps is due to SLI problems?

 

[Seanspeed]

Well totally different results to the other reviews

Why are you not reading my posts clearly?

Are you doing that on purpose?

You are following benchmarks based on the built-in benchmark. ACTUAL performance in-game is a good deal better, which is what my posted graph and all my claims have been about, and something I've mentioned three freakin times at this point in my responses to you, which you have conveniently ignored every single time for god know's why - I'm guessing pure stubborness.