ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
Unprotected version of Final Fantasy XV loads faster
The unprotected version of Final Fantasy XV runs better than the Steam version. For this comparison dso gaming used an Intel i7 4930K (overclocked at 4.2Ghz) with 8GB RAM, NVIDIA’s GTX980Ti, Windows 10 64-bit and the latest version of the GeForce drivers. Both the Steam and a not so legal version were installed on an HDD.
Right from the start, the pirated version loads faster than the Steam version. The Steam version needed 30 seconds in order to launch (for the first time) whereas the pirated version was ready in just 3 seconds reports dsogaming. The second launch (by exiting and then re-launching the game immediately) needed 8 seconds for the Steam version, whereas the pirated version was – once again – ready in 3 seconds. The in-game maps also loads faster in the pirated version (58 seconds versus 1 minute and 40 seconds).
Below you can find a video with the loading times for both the pirated and the Steam versions. The Steam version also suffers from additional stuttering. While they did notice very minor stutters on the pirated version, things were a lot worse on the Steam version. By taking a closer look at the CPU/GPU/RAM and Disk usage, we can finally discover what is causing these additional stutters. From the looks of it, the Steam version is constantly using the hard disk drive, resulting in random stuttering.
BTW it certainly is good to see that everybody is appreciating our Afterburner software ;)
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 13546
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 13546
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5527825 Posted on: 03/13/2018 07:36 PM
and another game DRM that run s better with it gone
and another game DRM that run s better with it gone
ShutDown_Hussain
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2013-01-13
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2013-01-13
#5527889 Posted on: 03/13/2018 10:29 PM
...but why?
...but why?
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 2526
Joined: 2010-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2526
Joined: 2010-05-26
#5527920 Posted on: 03/13/2018 11:03 PM
Makes sense that it would load faster since there's no DRM being loaded. Does that make it better? no it just means buyers will get longer load times than pirates.
I'd take slower load times any day over risking using a torrented game.
Makes sense that it would load faster since there's no DRM being loaded. Does that make it better? no it just means buyers will get longer load times than pirates.
I'd take slower load times any day over risking using a torrented game.
TheSarge
Senior Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 2008-06-15
Senior Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 2008-06-15
#5528572 Posted on: 03/15/2018 07:10 PM
I'm glad that someone made this kind of comparison, but the test itself is not very reliable.
For starters tests system has only 8GB of RAM, which might be insufficient for a recent AAA game, therefore a lot of paging could happen.
PC should be rebooted before every game launch to avoid Windows File Caching.
They could have used graphs in Afterburner to better represent FPS and CPU load over time.
If they noticed unusual HDD activity they could use tools like Process Monitor to actually see what
this HDD activity is. Denuvo was accused some time ago for constantly writing to SSD resulting in lower life span.
Also running a prerecorded demo or in-game benchmark would give more consistent and comparable results.
FFXV's minimum RAM requirement is 8GB but the recommended RAM req is 16 so you're right, the game would likely rum better with 16 GB instead of 8. As we all know, running on a rig with the minimum reqs is always going to give you sub-par perf. If this tester really wanted to be thorough he should have tested with 8GB RAM and then with 16 GB RAM.
Also, he only tested at 720p and 1080p, not 2K or 4K. He used a i7 4930K, which is above 1080p req but below 4K req so I guess that's why he didn't test for 4K perf. Also, he used a 980ti and that's all, no 1080 or AMD GPU rigs, so he didn't test for perf under different GPU conditions; just one GPU tested for perf doesn't really give us the full picture.
Still and all, it's not surprising that a game with DRM removed (or bypassed) will run faster than a game with DRM enabled because most DRM will be sitting in the background, thus impacting overhead. A properly designed DRM should only do a validity check at exe launch and/or at the start of gameplay, not constantly throughout gameplay. Unfortunately, DRM makers do not value game optimization, just DRM security. In the end it's the people who paid to get the legal version that are being punished, not the pirates. The pirates almost always manage to crack the games and it's a loosing proposition for publishers to insist on performance-draining DRM all the time. World Of Goo (remember that game?) proved that you do not need DRM to be able to attract paying gamers (it was released with no DRM at all and it sold just fine) but the industry ignored that because they have their heads up their asses when it comes to DRM.
::sigh::
I'm glad that someone made this kind of comparison, but the test itself is not very reliable.
For starters tests system has only 8GB of RAM, which might be insufficient for a recent AAA game, therefore a lot of paging could happen.
PC should be rebooted before every game launch to avoid Windows File Caching.
They could have used graphs in Afterburner to better represent FPS and CPU load over time.
If they noticed unusual HDD activity they could use tools like Process Monitor to actually see what
this HDD activity is. Denuvo was accused some time ago for constantly writing to SSD resulting in lower life span.
Also running a prerecorded demo or in-game benchmark would give more consistent and comparable results.
FFXV's minimum RAM requirement is 8GB but the recommended RAM req is 16 so you're right, the game would likely rum better with 16 GB instead of 8. As we all know, running on a rig with the minimum reqs is always going to give you sub-par perf. If this tester really wanted to be thorough he should have tested with 8GB RAM and then with 16 GB RAM.
Also, he only tested at 720p and 1080p, not 2K or 4K. He used a i7 4930K, which is above 1080p req but below 4K req so I guess that's why he didn't test for 4K perf. Also, he used a 980ti and that's all, no 1080 or AMD GPU rigs, so he didn't test for perf under different GPU conditions; just one GPU tested for perf doesn't really give us the full picture.
Still and all, it's not surprising that a game with DRM removed (or bypassed) will run faster than a game with DRM enabled because most DRM will be sitting in the background, thus impacting overhead. A properly designed DRM should only do a validity check at exe launch and/or at the start of gameplay, not constantly throughout gameplay. Unfortunately, DRM makers do not value game optimization, just DRM security. In the end it's the people who paid to get the legal version that are being punished, not the pirates. The pirates almost always manage to crack the games and it's a loosing proposition for publishers to insist on performance-draining DRM all the time. World Of Goo (remember that game?) proved that you do not need DRM to be able to attract paying gamers (it was released with no DRM at all and it sold just fine) but the industry ignored that because they have their heads up their asses when it comes to DRM.
::sigh::
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 7835
Joined: 2011-07-20
the Pirate game is faster!....Looooool....