Review: Watch Dog 2: PC graphics performance benchmarks

#5364204 Posted on: 11/29/2016 01:37 PM

---

Looks like you have a dishonoured 2 video in here instead of WD2
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

#5364205 Posted on: 11/29/2016 01:37 PM

---

Nice to see more performance comparisons, dialogues can be a bit quirky (I'm a bit old now though compared to the general target demographic or however it's called. ) but the game itself isn't too bad so far.

EDIT: If you meant temporal filtering with this.



Then from the recent GeForce.com guide. ->
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/watch-dogs-2-graphics-and-performance-guide

It actually works by scaling down your resolution in return for a pretty significant performance boost whereas for anti-aliasing this game offers either FXAA or SMAA for post-process AA (Or you can ReShade inject SMAA and/or other effects.) and then you can also use MSAA if you have some serious GPU power since it's quite demanding and finally for Nvidia GPU's there's also TXAA support (version 3.0) for some temporal stability which well this version is now far less blurry going by the guide I linked to above which should please people who previously criticized just that part about this AA technique.
(Going by the comparison image it's actually really good and almost equal to standard MSAA now in terms of sharpness.)

I'll just borrow this image from the guide itself since it explains it better and faster than me copy pasting the info about it, heh.

(There are interactive comparisons as well but flickering and aliasing are better seen in motion via video or directly in-game to get a full feel for how the effect lowers image quality though in return for a significant performance boost which in this case makes 2560x1440 fully playable at least on a 60hz screen and 4K is kinda playable too if you can tolerate 30 FPS.)

MSAA and the volumetric fog when active have a significant performance impact, PCSS+, HBAO+ and the Nvidia GPU exclusive HFTS shadow filter also affect performance though HBAO+ improves ambient occlusion noticeably whereas PCSS+ softens the shadows which compared to default ultra they can even look a bit low-res, HFTS improves resolution (And also accuracy.) over PCSS+ but costs a bit more to enable.
(Guessing TXAA is about on par with MSAA in terms of performance cost.)


EDIT: Also the GeForce.com guide isn't much of a GPU performance comparison as such since they usually only test a few GPU models or just one and it's more for understanding the various visual options the developers (And Nvidia) implement into the game.
(All testing is done with a 1080 in this particular case which I think is also the recommended GPU for ultra settings with was it a 1060 for high settings and 1070 for a mix of them or some such?)

#5364214 Posted on: 11/29/2016 02:08 PM

---

Temporal filtering is disabled and is recommended to leave it at that. All TF does is render the game @ half resolution then upscale it to your configured one.

#5364216 Posted on: 11/29/2016 02:13 PM

---

I'm not surprised. It's yet another piss-poor port coming from ubilol+nvidia collaboration.

#5364219 Posted on: 11/29/2016 02:19 PM

---

The Division and Siege both run fine and both are ubisoft/nvidia.

Stop posting garbage.