The Callisto Protocol: PC graphics benchmarks
G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
MSI Clutch GM31 Lightweight (+Wireless) mice review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900 processor review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 processor review
Watch Dog 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Posted by: on: 11/29/2016 01:33 PM [
103 comment(s) ]
We will look at Watch Dog 2 in a PC graphics performance and PC gamer way. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 14 15 16 17 > »
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 8091
Senior Member
Posts: 8091
Posted on: 12/01/2016 05:58 PM
Can't you? Do we know which console settings map to which PC settings? How do you know that? Not even Dishonored 2 was like that.
Temporal is not like FXAA nor SMAA, and you can't simply inject it.
EDIT: A little guide to how "easy" proper temporal is:
http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/
Having a zillion of menu options doesn´t make something a good port at all, what makes something a good port is the proper use of your hardware period. For this game you can´t duplicate a console like experience using a 1.7tflops gpu without turning off a **** ton of stuff, way below console gfx. But let´s forget about that, this is end of 2016, you can´t have an open world (inherently processor intensive) game port without using dx12 or vulkan and call it "well done".
Can't you? Do we know which console settings map to which PC settings? How do you know that? Not even Dishonored 2 was like that.
But I´m talking about proper efficient msaa allowed by those techniques that use directcompute to manage lighting, that has to be much harder than injecting borrowed fxaa/smaa code.
Temporal is not like FXAA nor SMAA, and you can't simply inject it.
EDIT: A little guide to how "easy" proper temporal is:
http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 14004
Senior Member
Posts: 14004
Posted on: 12/01/2016 06:01 PM
PS4 is 1.84Tflops and runs the game at 900p @ 30fps. GTX1050 is 1.8tflops and runs the game at 1080p @ 30fps with a higher level of detail. So not only are you wrong, you're wrong+.
Having a zillion of menu options doesn´t make something a good port at all, what makes something a good port is the proper use of your hardware period. For this game you can´t duplicate a console like experience using a 1.7tflops gpu without turning off a **** ton of stuff, way below console gfx. But let´s forget about that, this is end of 2016, you can´t have an open world (inherently processor intensive) game port without using dx12 or vulkan and call it "well done".
PS4 is 1.84Tflops and runs the game at 900p @ 30fps. GTX1050 is 1.8tflops and runs the game at 1080p @ 30fps with a higher level of detail. So not only are you wrong, you're wrong+.
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Posted on: 12/01/2016 06:51 PM
Can't you? Do we know which console settings map to which PC settings? How do you know that? Not even Dishonored 2 was like that.
Temporal is not like FXAA nor SMAA, and you can't simply inject it.
Of course it does, on ps4 pro it has like 99% the same IQ than a high end pc without the nvidia non sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1fMsgjeh4
And about those alternative methods, does it really matter?. My point is that we have the techniques to bring back proper msaa, what we lack is devs with enough expertise to do it. Even those fxaa geometry buffer demos look waay better than these journeymen devs can manage or care to do.
PS4 is 1.84Tflops and runs the game at 900p @ 30fps. GTX1050 is 1.8tflops and runs the game at 1080p @ 30fps with a higher level of detail. So not only are you wrong, you're wrong+.
2.3 tflops gpu high settings @7:13, runs like garbage, you´ll have to go way lower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mP24O6XaiY
Can't you? Do we know which console settings map to which PC settings? How do you know that? Not even Dishonored 2 was like that.
Temporal is not like FXAA nor SMAA, and you can't simply inject it.
Of course it does, on ps4 pro it has like 99% the same IQ than a high end pc without the nvidia non sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1fMsgjeh4
And about those alternative methods, does it really matter?. My point is that we have the techniques to bring back proper msaa, what we lack is devs with enough expertise to do it. Even those fxaa geometry buffer demos look waay better than these journeymen devs can manage or care to do.
PS4 is 1.84Tflops and runs the game at 900p @ 30fps. GTX1050 is 1.8tflops and runs the game at 1080p @ 30fps with a higher level of detail. So not only are you wrong, you're wrong+.
2.3 tflops gpu high settings @7:13, runs like garbage, you´ll have to go way lower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mP24O6XaiY
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 8091
Senior Member
Posts: 8091
Posted on: 12/01/2016 07:04 PM
Of course it does, on ps4 pro it has like 99% the same IQ than a high end pc without the nvidia non sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1fMsgjeh4
Shadow quality and filtering in general, is utter crap. That's not 99%, performance wise.
And about those alternative methods, does it really matter?. My point is that we have the techniques to bring back proper msaa, what we lack is devs with enough expertise to do it. Even those fxaa geometry buffer demos look waay better than these journeymen devs can manage or care to do.
Why is a method that only anti-aliases polygons a "better" and more "proper" method than methods that kill aliasing for all the contents of the screen? Why is MSAA desirable?
2.3 tflops gpu high settings @7:13, runs like garbage, you´ll have to go way lower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mP24O6XaiY
900p30, and no DX12, so you have much higher CPU overheads. Not even close as a comparison actually.
Of course it does, on ps4 pro it has like 99% the same IQ than a high end pc without the nvidia non sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1fMsgjeh4
Shadow quality and filtering in general, is utter crap. That's not 99%, performance wise.
And about those alternative methods, does it really matter?. My point is that we have the techniques to bring back proper msaa, what we lack is devs with enough expertise to do it. Even those fxaa geometry buffer demos look waay better than these journeymen devs can manage or care to do.
Why is a method that only anti-aliases polygons a "better" and more "proper" method than methods that kill aliasing for all the contents of the screen? Why is MSAA desirable?
2.3 tflops gpu high settings @7:13, runs like garbage, you´ll have to go way lower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mP24O6XaiY
900p30, and no DX12, so you have much higher CPU overheads. Not even close as a comparison actually.
pages « < 14 15 16 17 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
No one said it did.....
Having lots of settings to enable or disable does though.
I recently decided to jump back into new games, and a after the mostly negative public opinion, I found that most stuff actually exceeded my expectations.
I doubt I tied everything, but only Mafia 3 and Doom were so so technically, particularly Mafia 3.
Having a zillion of menu options doesn´t make something a good port at all, what makes something a good port is the proper use of your hardware period. For this game you can´t duplicate a console like experience using a 1.7tflops gpu without turning off a **** ton of stuff, way below console gfx. But let´s forget about that, this is end of 2016, you can´t have an open world (inherently processor intensive) game port without using dx12 or vulkan and call it "well done".
Two thirds of the examples in that page are using post-processing techniques. The rest are still ramming MSAA in scenes where it doesn't belong to. I'm not defending devs, I'm saying that implying that MSAA is somehow the harder solution compared to a proper temporal filter, is false.
But I´m talking about proper efficient msaa allowed by those techniques that use directcompute to manage lighting, that has to be much harder than injecting borrowed fxaa/smaa code.