Benchmark review: Final Fantasy XV for Windows PC (Updated)
Click here to post a comment for Benchmark review: Final Fantasy XV for Windows PC (Updated) on our message forum
JonasBeckman
Good so see a article on the games performance. 🙂 Should make for a interesting read.
(And the benchmark makes comparisons pretty easy since it's a scripted run that is mostly identical in how it plays out.)
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
RzrTrek
Looks like GTX 1060 is ~14% faster on average vs. RX580 at 1080p.
Srsbsns
"This is an NVIDIA gameworks and this NVIDIA optimized title"
Is it really just optimized when your company is actually creating the black box methods for how the game actually renders stuff? How would one determine something isnt working right when only Nvidia knows? I bet its always working as intended /s
Back in the day it was a big deal when companies made game specific driver optimizations rather than something that optimized for the whole engine. We moved from that to working with the game developers to make sure hardware works correctly. Each hardware vendor could do this since the only barrier was the developer.
Take that to the next level with gameworks actually locking out the other vendor. I guess that in a nutshell is the whole gameworks argument.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
A difficult discussion, you can see that the perf hit with gameworks on/off is roughly equal for both parties. FF XV definitely seems to like GeForce cards a notch better though. BTW as mentioned in the article, I tested with the gamework features disabled, to create a more fair and balanced test field for both brands.
Agonist
Denial
https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-source-github
AnselSDK (EULA)
Flow (EULA)
FleX (EULA)
Blast (EULA)
Vulkan/OpenGL Samples (public)
NvCloth (EULA)
Blast (EULA)
HairWorks ( EULA )
HBAO+ ( EULA )
FaceWorks (public)
PhysX SDK ( EULA )
Volumetric Lighting ( EULA )
D3D Samples (public)
Nothing in the EULA/Terms signing up prevents AMD from seeing the source of the GW Libraries that are available. The bottom line is that the vast majority of Nvidia's libraries make use of tessellation and AMD's hardware is notoriously bad at tessellation levels above 16x.
And before you or someone else posts about the levels of tessellation being unnecessary:
http://imgur.com/a/VorPz
http://abload.de/img/amdreducedtessellatioclrrn.jpg - AMD "Optimized" Tessellation
http://abload.de/img/fulltessellation2jrki.jpg - Default Tessellation
x64 tessellation is also necessary in most forms of volumetric lighting.
Another example is GodRays where forcing lower levels of tessellation on AMD results in artifacting around dense regions of geometry.
Pictures of HairWorks are not a good example of 'over tessellation' because the high level of tessellation is to ensure simulation accuracy.
It AMD wants to do well in GameWorks games it needs to figure out how to turn this around:
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11717/90104.png
Force AMD's hardware into a lower tessellation level completely eliminates the gap in performance. This idea of GameWorks artificially gimping AMD's performance because it's "a black box" is nonsense and always has been nonsense.. even when they didn't have the source. Nvidia had no trouble issuing a driver update for TressFX in the first Tomb Raider fixing it's performance before the source for TressFX was released. In fact the majority of the time neither Nvidia/AMD ever get a games source and yet they are both capable of optimizing for binaries and do so regularly.
Source code for the following gameworks libraries is available here: JonasBeckman
-Tj-
alanm
Hilbert, theres some missing info in the chart on p8. I presume the processor core scaling chart colored bars are for resolutions. Its not mentioned so can be confusing.
AsiJu
Imo the 980 Ti does 'weird' in the results. Only slightly above 980 and notably behind 1070.
Either the game is better optimized for Pascal (if that's even possible) or highest preset would need more VRAM maybe?
Note how 8 GB cards have 6+ GB usage even at FullHD.
If that was simply due to filling available VRAM then the usage should be closer to 8 GB perhaps.
1070 and above have 8 GB VRAM.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Nomsky
To say that Adrenalin 18.2.3 officially supports FFXV is an outright fallacy. AMD shall release an optimized driver upon the game's official release, rendering this article redundant.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Agonist
Fender178
Well its good that I chose the 6GB 1060 in my gaming Laptop because of the High VRAM usage maybe if I turn down some of the settings it will decrease the amount of VRAM needed. It's good to see that you don't need a high end CPU to play this thing according to the CPU section. You can get by old the old i5s or i7s of generations past instead of getting the Coffee Lake based CPUs.
allesclar
Am i the only one thinking nice clevage? 😉
GlennB
vonSternberg
So I might be able to run that with an i3-2100 with an RX 560D @ 720p on low settings? Not bad at all!
To be honest I expected this game to be a lot heavier on the system. I hope I can get at least a consistent FPS
OnnA