Quantum Break тест GPU (Gamegpu.com)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
NV users get a version that works great with their hardware,

Even for NV users the DX-12 is the better option for their hardware





Higher fps doesnt always mean better gaming, DX-12 even in NVIDIA hardware has much better frametimes and it should be smoother than DX-11 at higher fps.

Also, if DX-11 with a Core i7 6700K has worst frametimes than DX-12, then what happens with a Core i5 or even worst with a Core i3 Sandy/Haswell ??

Have a look at this,

DX-11 with Core i7 6700K


DX-12 with FX 8370


With better optimization in DX-12 even the NVIDIA cards will benefit more than getting to DX-11 at higher fps.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
everyone saying dx11 is ok has obviously failed to look at the frametime graphs and thus should probably be ignored.

Like it or not DX 12 is the future, and a better API than dx11.

It is amazing that nobody even cares about Frametime the last year or so, everyone looks at fps and believe that DX-11 is better. And 99% of the reviews have a Core i7, nobody tests with a core i3 and see the difference between DX-11 and DX-12.

I would really like ComputerBase to make the same review with a Core i3 and see the frametimes in both DX-11 and DX-12 with the same cards.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
DX12 version is still there for any AMD user to buy. Everyone is happy. NV users get a version that works great with their hardware, AMD continues to have the superior DX12 version.

Everyone wins.

No, the developers ditching the windows store version is hardly a "win" for anyone who purchased it. Not to mention Nvidia owners who already bought the Win Store version, or and AMD users who purchased it once it went to steam.

Stop giving the developers a pass for releasing another bad port
 

ThatBuzzkiller

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2014
1,120
260
136
Would've been way more interesting if Remedy went full on DX12 with shader model 6 in the steam release instead of offering a DX11 path since it would've been a nice test case to see if it was fast/slow path for either of the IHVs since it's closer to Durango HLSL ...
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
No, the developers ditching the windows store version is hardly a "win" for anyone who purchased it. Not to mention Nvidia owners who already bought the Win Store version, or and AMD users who purchased it once it went to steam.

Stop giving the developers a pass for releasing another bad port

Odd I didn't give em a pass, and I already mentioned the devs screwing users who already bought it. I meant more so for future buyers. Both versions exist, and users can buy the version they prefer.

Either way, not my fight to fight. I'll pick this game up once it hits a price point I can tolerate.
 

IllogicalGlory

Senior member
Mar 8, 2013
934
346
136
Even for NV users the DX-12 is the better option for their hardware





Higher fps doesnt always mean better gaming, DX-12 even in NVIDIA hardware has much better frametimes and it should be smoother than DX-11 at higher fps.

Also, if DX-11 with a Core i7 6700K has worst frametimes than DX-12, then what happens with a Core i5 or even worst with a Core i3 Sandy/Haswell ??

Have a look at this,

DX-11 with Core i7 6700K


DX-12 with FX 8370


With better optimization in DX-12 even the NVIDIA cards will benefit more than getting to DX-11 at higher fps.
Interesting find, but the v-sync off test done by Digital Foundry does not reflect this. The frametime bar looks completely fine on DX11.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Except its faster (thus "worth a damn") for AMD users.

For AMD yes, but barely. Just face it, the DX12 implementation is extremely lackluster in Quantum Break. Remedy screwed up big time.. The problem is that the game likely isn't very CPU intensive, so most of the performance gains that comes with DX12 can't be tapped into in that respect.

So all you have are the GPU optimizations, and apparently, Remedy don't know what they are doing..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Even for NV users the DX-12 is the better option for their hardware

I don't think you're reading the graphs correctly. Yes, the frametime variance in DX12 is lower, but it's not enough considering that the actual framerate is significantly lower for NVidia as well..

The frametime for DX11 in NVidia looks like it's jumping 2-3ms per frame on average, with one big spike. Those 2-3ms jumps likely aren't even perceivable. The Radeon on the other hand is having much larger jumps, into the double digit range on average (10-12ms), plus several massive spikes that likely go 15-20ms..

Those are very noticeable, so the Radeon should obviously stick with DX12. But with NVidia, the frametime variance isn't enough to justify sticking to DX12 considering the lower framerates.

With better optimization in DX-12 even the NVIDIA cards will benefit more than getting to DX-11 at higher fps.

This is assuming that Remedy can actually pull it off.
 
Reactions: Sweepr

Unreal123

Senior member
Jul 27, 2016
223
71
101
Even for NV users the DX-12 is the better option for their hardware





Higher fps doesnt always mean better gaming, DX-12 even in NVIDIA hardware has much better frametimes and it should be smoother than DX-11 at higher fps.

Also, if DX-11 with a Core i7 6700K has worst frametimes than DX-12, then what happens with a Core i5 or even worst with a Core i3 Sandy/Haswell ??

Have a look at this,

DX-11 with Core i7 6700K


DX-12 with FX 8370


With better optimization in DX-12 even the NVIDIA cards will benefit more than getting to DX-11 at higher fps.
nonsense and baseless post. On Doom Vulkan, RX 480 frame times are more worse then QB on DX11 ,therefore, does it mean that Open GL is better then Vulkan?
 

Unreal123

Senior member
Jul 27, 2016
223
71
101
Even the gimp GTX 780 Ti is on par with fury X on Dx11 with up scaling on. It shows how much DX12 is holding the performance back and so much bad quality it is providing. Some people only support DX12 because it decreases the performance of 80% of PC users and 20% users has no benefit. DX12 has only manage to provide worst port this year ,and that is only achievement DX12 has provided to PC gaming.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Quantum-Break-Spiel-15745/Specials/Technik-Test-Steam-1209192/
 

PowerK

Member
May 29, 2012
158
7
91
Reading feedback from various communities and several reviews, it's obvious that this game is a mess.
I sincerely hope Gears of War 4 is different.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
So all you have are the GPU optimizations, and apparently, Remedy don't know what they are doing..

Joker's testing at 1440p on a GTX1080 reveals that turning just 2 settings -- (1) Volumetric Lighting from Ultra to Medium and (2) Screen Space Reflections to Off -- boosted performance from 34 fps to 58 fps (+71%).
1:48-2:20 min mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzsnm-PzT0

Remember how you stated during GTX680 era that this GPU will last throughout the entire PS4/XB1 generation? Then when the OG Titan came out, I believe you said that the $1,000 OG Titan would easily last throughout this entire generation. I completely disagreed with both of those assertions. When testing Forza Horizon 3, Digital Foundry found that on an i7 5820K system ($390 CPU) and a GTX970 ($330 GPU), they had to lower certain IQ below Xbox One S's settings and get rid of 4xMSAA entirely just to hit 60 fps at 1080p. Conversely, in that title, the Jaguar + HD7790 Jaguar-powered $200 Xbox One ran Forza Horizon 3 at roughly High quality PC settings with 4xMSAA, albeit at 30 fps.

MS just announced that Gears of War 4 will have an 11GB (!) day 1 patch for physical disc owners.

The reason I am bringing this up is that just like last generation of consoles and the generation before, this generation of consoles will continue to have horribly optimized console-to-PC ports.

BTW, Quantum Broken looks like washed out soapy garbage with Scaling ON. When running the game at proper PC resolution with Scaling OFF, the game looks miles better.

Scaling ON


Scaling OFF


Scaling ON


Scaling OFF


Scaling ON


Scaling OFF


Now that we have established that comparing performance of this game with Scaling ON is a complete waste of time since it wipes the floor with IQ, what do we get?

1080p:

We get a game that cannot even maintain 30 fps locked on a not even a 3-year-old $700 780Ti, a $550 R9 290X and hugely popular $330 GTX970.
We get also get a game that cannot maintain 60 fps locked on a 2016 $700 GTX1080. Pffff! A joke.



Naturally, when running the game at native resolution with scaling off at 1440p, the performance is horrendous. This is worse than Batman AK.



This game is the very definition of an optimized pile of ****, regardless whether it's run under DX11 or DX12. The DX11 vs. DX12 argument is irrelevant in this case entirely because the developer has no porting skills whatsoever to begin with. If a developer has no track record of well optimized PC games (DICE) and no track record of great console-to-PC ports, then how can we objectively even make a judgement about DX11 vs. DX12 in this title? Frankly, the entire title is broken.

I refuse to pay even $5 for a 2016 PC game that requires very high-end PC hardware, the likes of 6700K/6800K OC and GTX1080 and still struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p at all times, unless it looks like the best game in its genre, if not in all of 2016.

It's shocking just how optimized DICE games are compared to the vast majority of AAA garbage that gets released. I guess these developers think that 30 fps locked is a satisfying cinematic experience, so what's the big deal, right? /s

The fact that Remedy first released the title as a DX12 game under Windows 10 store, but then reversed their stance and released it as a primarily DX11 title under Steam only goes to show they themselves either don't believe in their own DX12 optimizations, simply lack the resources to do it properly, or most likely never made the title with the intention of porting it to the PC and when MS told them it's going to the Windows 10 store, they were extremely time constrained and released a turd. Knowing that, what were the chances that a short period of time after that they would dramatically improve the performance for Steam? DICE proves that you need a lot of alpha and beta testing and many, many months of optimization to arrive at a well-optimized PC game. So many of these new AAA games are now released as betas, we are asked to pay $50-60 USD + $30 DLC and then it takes 6-12 months to patch the **** out of these games to get them to run better (which isn't always the case either). No wonder so many PC gamers flat out stopped buying $60 USD AAA titles at release...it's like we are paying them to be their beta testers.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Even the gimp GTX 780 Ti is on par with fury X on Dx11 with up scaling on. It shows how much DX12 is holding the performance back and so much bad quality it is providing. Some people only support DX12 because it decreases the performance of 80% of PC users and 20% users has no benefit. DX12 has only manage to provide worst port this year ,and that is only achievement DX12 has provided to PC gaming.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Quantum-Break-Spiel-15745/Specials/Technik-Test-Steam-1209192/

That's with (up)Scaling ON, which looks awful. Any review benchmarks that has this option enabled without having a separate Scaling Off graphs is worthless. Upscaling runs this game at half the native resolution and then applies an anti-aliasing filter to upscale it back to native PC res. The end result is a game that looks completely washed out, with textures and details blurring out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzsnm-PzT0

The astute poster above you already pointed this out but you ignored it completely. With scaling off, the game can't maintain 30 fps locked on a 780Ti/R9 290X/970/390/1060 @ 1080p.

This is the perfect title to vote with our wallet and not buy until it hits $5-10. After gamers started boycotting Assassin's Creed after Unity was unoptimized trash, Ubisoft actually said "Wait a second, we have to improve." If we keep paying $50-60 USD for unoptimized games, why should the developer spend extra time and resources polishing/optimizing the game? The only way to send a message loud and clear is to not purchase the game at full price, or not at all.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
This is the perfect title to vote with our wallet and not buy until it hits $5-10. After gamers started boycotting Assassin's Creed after Unity was unoptimized trash, Ubisoft actually said "Wait a second, we have to improve." If we keep paying $50-60 USD for unoptimized games, why should the developer spend extra time and resources polishing/optimizing the game? The only way to send a message loud and clear is to not purchase the game at full price, or not at all.

+1
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126

The 'high-end' PC forums are so isolated from reality of PC gaming nowadays, it's almost a disservice to the 90% of PC gamers. If a console port doesn't run well on a $200 i5-6500 and 2-3 year old $400-700 GPUs, what's the big deal? Just get a $350-$400 i7 6700-6800K and a $400-700 GTX1070/1080. "Everyone is doing it." If you aren't upgrading your GPU every 2 years, you are just not PC enthusiast enough or are poor. Since PC gaming is a luxury, no one forces you to buy a $700 GPU and a $350 CPU to max out console ports (but if you start to complain or criticize poorly optimized PC games, you aren't a PC enthusiast as it's expected to brute force your way with new expensive shiny PC hardware to run unoptimized turds! The PC Master Race way!).

Then in the next 1-2 years when 1070/1080(& Vega) are struggling to hit 60 fps at 1080p in 2017-2018 PS4/XBox One games, who cares, just buy a $400-700 2018 Volta (to play AAA console ports!). If a 2016 Xbox One console port struggles at 1080p on a GTX970/390/780Ti/R9 290X, it's time to upgrade!!! Clearly, $300-700 2-3 year old GPUs with 3-4X the horsepower of an HD7790 are peasant PC hardware. The horribly unoptimized game engines and/or console-to-PC ports have little to do with it. /facepalm
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
For AMD yes, but barely. Just face it, the DX12 implementation is extremely lackluster in Quantum Break. Remedy screwed up big time.. The problem is that the game likely isn't very CPU intensive, so most of the performance gains that comes with DX12 can't be tapped into in that respect.

So all you have are the GPU optimizations, and apparently, Remedy don't know what they are doing..

Even the gimp GTX 780 Ti is on par with fury X on Dx11 with up scaling on. It shows how much DX12 is holding the performance back and so much bad quality it is providing. Some people only support DX12 because it decreases the performance of 80% of PC users and 20% users has no benefit. DX12 has only manage to provide worst port this year ,and that is only achievement DX12 has provided to PC gaming.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Quantum-Break-Spiel-15745/Specials/Technik-Test-Steam-1209192/

Fury X lost 3%, 390 lost 12%. Frametimes much worse in DX11 for everyone. Not to mention the CPU scaling showed MASSIVE differences. Even then its still ~10% faster than the 780 Ti. Not sure how that is "on par".

Fury X got 47% speed increase and 390 got 26% increase when used with the FX processor by going DX12 over DX11.

Nvidia would have had big increases as well if the original DX12 results weren't terrible.

The 1080 13% slower than Fury X in DX12 on the FX processor is pretty awful.

Instead of spending the time to fix the issues with DX12, they instead completely removed it, thus gutting AMD performance while working with Nvidia on DX11 implementation.

These reviewers really need to show CPU scaling as well as like computerbase showed, the CPU plays a major role in your FPS.
 
Last edited:

Head1985

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2014
1,866
699
136
Joker's testing at 1440p on a GTX1080 reveals that turning just 2 settings -- (1) Volumetric Lighting from Ultra to Medium and (2) Screen Space Reflections to Off -- boosted performance from 34 fps to 58 fps (+71%).
1:48-2:20 min mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzsnm-PzT0

Remember how you stated during GTX680 era that this GPU will last throughout the entire PS4/XB1 generation? Then when the OG Titan came out, I believe you said that the $1,000 OG Titan would easily last throughout this entire generation. I completely disagreed with both of those assertions. When testing Forza Horizon 3, Digital Foundry found that on an i7 5820K system ($390 CPU) and a GTX970 ($330 GPU), they had to lower certain IQ below Xbox One S's settings and get rid of 4xMSAA entirely just to hit 60 fps at 1080p. Conversely, in that title, the Jaguar + HD7790 Jaguar-powered $200 Xbox One ran Forza Horizon 3 runs at roughly High quality PC settings with 4xMSAA, albeit at 30 fps.

MS just announced that Gears of War 4 will have an 11GB (!) day 1 patch for physical disc owners.

The reason I am bringing this up is that just like last generation of consoles and the generation before, this generation of consoles will continue to have horribly optimized console-to-PC ports.

BTW, Quantum Broken looks like washed out soapy garbage with Scaling ON. When running the game at proper PC resolution with Scaling OFF, the game looks miles better.

Scaling ON


Scaling OFF


Scaling ON


Scaling OFF


Scaling ON


Scaling OFF


Now that we have established the comparing performance of this game with Scaling Off is a complete waste of time since it wiped the floor with IQ, what do we get?

1080p:

We get a game that cannot even maintain 30 fps locked on a not even a 3-year-old $700 780Ti, a $550 R9 290X and hugely popular $330 GTX970.
We get also get a game that cannot maintain 60 fps locked on a 2016 $700 GTX1080. Pffff! A joke.



Naturally, when running the game at native resolution with scaling off at 1440p, the performance is horrendous. This is worse than Batman AK.



This game is the very definition of an optimized pile of ****, regardless whether it's run under DX11 or DX12. The DX11 vs. DX12 argument is irrelevant in this case entirely because the developer has no porting skills whatsoever to begin with. If a developer has no track record of well optimized PC games (DICE) and no track record of great console-to-PC ports, then how can we objectively even make a judgement about DX11 vs. DX12 in this title? Frankly, the entire title is broken.

I refuse to pay even $5 for a 2016 PC game that requires very high-end PC hardware, the likes of 6700K/6800K OC and GTX1080 and still struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p at all times, unless it looks like the best game in its genre, if not in all of 2016.

It's shocking just how optimized DICE games are compared to the vast majority of AAA garbage that gets released. I guess these developers think that 30 fps locked is a satisfying cinematic experience, so what's the big deal, right? /s

The fact that Remedy first released the title as a DX12 game under Windows 10 store, but then reversed their stance and released it as a primarily DX11 title under Steam only goes to show they themselves either don't believe in their own DX12 optimizations, simply lack the resources to do it properly, or most likely never made the title with the intention of porting it to the PC and when MS told them it's going to the Windows 10 store, they were extremely time constrained and released a turd. Knowing that, what were the chances that a short period of time after that they would dramatically improve the performance for Steam? DICE proves that you need a lot of alpha and beta testing and many, many months of optimization to arrive at a well-optimized PC game. So many of these new AAA games are now released as betas, we are asked to pay $50-60 USD + $30 DLC and then it takes 6-12 months to patch the **** out of these games to get them to run better (which isn't always the case either). No wonder so many PC gamers flat out stopped buying $60 USD AAA titles at release...it's like we are paying them to be their beta testers.
GTX1080 is just mid-rande we both know it.If ATI was here we will have now FULL GP 102 at 500USD.That GPU will maintain 60Fps easy.Maybe even at 1440P with some OC.But ATI is gone and AMD sucks so we have 700USD GTX460 instead.
 
Last edited:

dogen1

Senior member
Oct 14, 2014
739
40
91
That's with (up)Scaling ON, which looks awful. Any review benchmarks that has this option enabled without having a separate Scaling Off graphs is worthless. Upscaling runs this game at half the native resolution and then applies an anti-aliasing filter to upscale it back to native PC res.

It not upscaling. It's temporal reconstruction using 4 previous frames. I think it's tuned more for temporal stability than sharpness though. It really didn't look that bad to me though. I've only seen still screenshot comparisons, but it looked pretty similar to native.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,026
753
126
It not upscaling. It's temporal reconstruction using 4 previous frames.
Yes 4 previous frames that are rendered at 720p and then upscaled to 1080p.
Although I do agree with you,doesn't look that bad.
(other then the faces that are really badly lit,at lest at lower qualities where I play it at)
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
My gut hunch is that Nvidia can do DX12 just as well as AMD can but it requires more work on the developers end and (probably) some significant help from Nvidia too. We could actually see a reverse trend of the last few years: instead of DX12 games getting faster on AMD over time, patches and driver releases benefit Nvidia more. To me that makes the most sense as console ports are already coded for GCN and DX12 "mirrors" Mantle. Nvidia is going to AoTS improve itself over time in DX12 titles.

This hunch you speak of. What is it based on exactly?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |