Review: DX11 - Deus Ex: Mankind Divided PC Graphics performance

#5325716 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:07 PM

---

Thanks for the review Hilbert!

#5325726 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:27 PM

---

This game really pushes current hardware to it's knees.

And just look at the 780 Ti. Once a mighty card and now, it can barely keep up with a 380x. It has aged really badly...

#5325728 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:29 PM

---

RX480 beats GTX1060 once again, but this time in a DirectX11 game. Glad to see that.

#5325729 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:33 PM

---

LoL I think as usual, this game is not yet optimized. Just like the division at launch. A few more patches and better drivers should give us better fps at 1440p and 4k res.

If dx 12 boosts fps by 20% its good, but I still have a bad feeling about this game's graphics engine and optimization. As of today of course. We shall se, we shall indeed see.

#5325731 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:36 PM

---

Yeah, the Dawn Engine is a modified version of the Glacier engine -- AMD hardware has always ran exceptionally well on Glacier -- Dawn is mirroring that.

#5325732 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:38 PM

---

If you mean DirectX 11 then yep.

If it's the game engine that is referenced then Human Revolution allegedly used a altered Crystal engine that were mainly used for the Crystal Dynamics teams Tomb Raider franchise and now this sequel uses a new engine called Dawn although from what I just read it's core is a heavily updated Glacier engine from the previous game so eh I guess it's technically correct even if it's a fairly big overhaul in terms of features offered or how to say.

Could have done with some extra time for the PC version, yeah a delayed release would have been annoying too but I'd prefer a better optimized and bug-tested final product personally but eh that's up to the publisher to control mainly.

Nixxes is usually very supportive though as seen with multiple updates for the original Human Revolution - though the updated version is a bit so-so but handled by Eidos directly from my understanding. - and then there's Tomb Raider which started out a bit meh at least on AMD but now thanks to both game patches and driver improvements it's improved by a good bit.


EDIT: I heard the benchmark was a bit generous compared to the actual game but it's kinda funny to see with the 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 framerate results, Fury 4K framerate is more along what I experienced in the tutorial level though some areas do run a bit better though the fast VRAM consumption likely plays a part of this as well with how quickly it surpasses the 4 GB limit. (And some occasional areas partway through the level run worse, heh.)

#5325734 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:45 PM

---

Think about metro

This looks like the demo level from the start of metro. This has a load more detail though. Like a lot lot more detail so I'm thinking this is going to need some great SLI/Crossfire support if it is to sell well. Metro would have sold more units initially if the right hardware for it was available at launch. I run UHD (my local currys doesnt seem to have 1080p sets anymore) so for my SLI 980tis (still £700 worth of gear new) I won't be purchasing as I wont be getting over 40fps.

#5325742 Posted on: 08/24/2016 05:57 PM

---

Would've been nice to see how gtx 970 and 980 can run the game

#5325745 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:01 PM

---

Honestly this game isn't bad at a locked 30fps. For me i play the stealth route so i prefer 4K@30fps over 1440p@60fps (i have a water cooled Pascal Titan X) because playing on a 70" 4K UHDTV really makes the higher resolution (4K over 1440p) noticeable. With my OC i can run the game vysynced at 60Hz and run around 40-50fps... but locking it to 30fps really isn't that bad. Would i rather play at 60fps? Of course. But i will take a hit to framerate (in this game... not all) for the extra visual IQ in this case.

#5325747 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:05 PM

---

Pascal Titan X is a monster of a card. 1080 looked so powerful, but now it's on all fours in front of Titan X.

#5325750 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:11 PM

---

My thoughts exactly!

#5325762 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:40 PM

---

Somewhat "higher texel fill rate, higher fps?"

titan x 1 422
1080 2 257
fury X 3 268
1070 4 241
Fury 5 268
Nano 6 256
980ti 7 176
390x 8 184
480 9 182
390 10 160
470 11 154
1060 12 128
380x 13 137
780ti 14 205 "lost driver support"

#5325763 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:47 PM

---

It's getting panned on steam. A lot of people waiting for patches to see if there's any performance improvements...before getting a refund.

#5325766 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:54 PM

---

Thanks!

I have it installed but am waiting on better SLI performance. I should be able to max the game at 1080P.

#5325767 Posted on: 08/24/2016 06:56 PM

---

FYI, the in game benchmark is a lot different, and also tends to inflate AMD performance relative to the actual game itself. AMD seems to be doing this a lot recently with their G.E titles like Total Warhammer, where the scripted benchmark will return higher values for AMD hardware compared to the game itself.

PCGH.de tested the game using the Prague area, and there the performance was not only much better overall for both NVidia and AMD, but NVidia took the lead over AMD:

PCGH.de test results