Thanks for the review Hilbert!

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...

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

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.

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

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.

Albeit based on the same game rendering engine that was used in the previous edition the game actually looks good at both HIGH and Ultra quality settings, especially Ultra has very nice sharp textures but annihilates any graphics card.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

My thoughts exactly!

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"

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.

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

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

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...

That's nvidia for you.:) Maxwell will most likely have the same fate.

eh if 1060gtx barely does 35fps 53 fps i guess my 660gtx will not cut it for the game

Wow Fury X is spanking my GTX 1070 in DX11.... thats kinda unexpected.

I haven't actually played it yet, but in menu alone all maxed was ~40 fps lol, I can only imagine the fall in actual gameplay. Hopefully some patches/drivers will fix the performance, but it will take a while. I won't judge the game solely on this though...

Wow Fury X is spanking my GTX 1070 in DX11.... thats kinda unexpected.

Only on that demo. In real game when you get further in game, AMD cards start getting cpu bottlenecked and nvidia cards start performing better in comparision. Benchmark only shows kinda worst case scenario graphically, but not by cpu load. Still overall, I'm enjoying the game, and there's plenty of option to get fps higher if needed without really sacrificing anything.