Quantum Break Will Not Support Multi-GPUs

Denial

2016-04-14 13:30

I hope they do and you can be right.....only that I thought DX12 and it's features were supposed to "properly" support multi-GPU rendering in ways we could have never dreamed. I guess that is what it was.....a dream...

No, it just requires a bunch of work that Remedy wasn't willing to put in.

#5258059

Stormyandcold

2016-04-14 13:33

Just stop buying and supported this crap. Dirty/straight ports need to die.

#5258060

Undying

2016-04-14 13:39

When game works better on xbone and 1.2 tflops than gtx770 with 3.3 tflops you know something isnt right. Not a first and the last port that wont support multi GPU's.

#5258062

go4brendon

2016-04-14 13:43

To be fair Gears of Ware UE runs amazing in DX12 and crossfire

#5258063

evilkiller650

2016-04-14 13:48

Absolutely pathetic. It's obvious Microsoft don't give a **** about PC and the quality of the games they release on that platform. It was obvious something was not right from the start.... "Pre-order Quantum Break on Xbox One and get it FREE for PC!". They force people to use the ludicrously limited and useless Windows store that has massive problems of its own, never mind the games they have released and will release. It is pure greediness, selfishness and not caring one little bit. They don't care about the quality of there products or service, they only do the minimum to earn the most profit possible. Companies like that don't deserve to exist and need to fade away into nothingness. They only tarnish the reputation of PC gaming. People really, really need to stop supporting this crap. :3eyes:

#5258064

Denial

2016-04-14 13:49

When game works better on xbone and 1.2 tflops than gtx770 with 3.3 tflops you know something isnt right. Not a first and the last port that wont support multi GPU's.

770 has 2GB of vram, consoles have like 8.

To be fair Gears of Ware UE runs amazing in DX12 and crossfire

There are two modes for multi-gpu support in DX12. They can either choose to hand it off to the OEM or implement it themselves. I'm pretty sure Gears hands it off. The problem with handing it off, is that both OEMs' pretty much default to AFR for every title. More modern shaders don't support AFR, because they use previous frame data to render new frames. In AFR mode, neither GPU has the previous frame data, so the method isn't really compatible. I don't know if the performance trade-off is worth it but they do face an interesting problem. Lets say you setup the renderer to use previous frame data and you see a 35% increase in performance in single GPU situations, but the end result is it breaks AFR compatibility. 90% of the GPU market, including consoles, run single GPU setups. Do you give 90% of the market 35% or do you give 10% of the market working multi-GPU? Granted I'm sure with DX12's implementation they could work around the AFR issue. But who knows what strings the publisher has over them, or if they even staff engine developers that are capable of doing that. I'm sure it's not a simple problem.

#5258065

RzrTrek

2016-04-14 13:57

Way to go Micro$oft.

#5258067

Undying

2016-04-14 13:57

770 has 2GB of VRAM, I'd like to see a 4GB variant vs it.

You are always saying that and ignoring other 2GB cards like 960 and 380 that beat 770 regularly. Even a 950 is up there with its 2GB. Even a guru3d game reviews have some good examples of that. Grimbarian is one user i know here in guru3d with 770 4GB. He was complaining about crappy performance in Division just like 2GB versions.

#5258071

Denial

2016-04-14 14:03

You are always saying that and ignoring other 2GB cards like 960 and 380 that beat 770 regularly. Even a 950 is up there with its 2GB. Even a guru3d game reviews have some good examples of that.

Maxwell does memory compression on the frame buffer, it can technically/possibly store more than 2GB vram. 380x same thing with GCN 1.2. There are plenty of examples of disparities between the 2 and 4GB variants of the 770 in other games. All I'm asking is for someone to do a direct comparison. Edit: One person saying they are getting crappy performance doesn't really mean much. There were dozens of posts from 980Ti and Fury X owners saying they were getting crappy performance too. I don't know what that really means.

#5258075

ubercake

2016-04-14 14:13

A game that doesn't work that well!? Now that's my kind of game. I'll take all of the extra currency I use to wipe my arse and hand it over to them. Remedy (Ha! Great name for a company releasing something so buggy) should get this on a free-to-play list ASAP and figure out how to make it successful that way. Also, all of the haters putting down UWP need to try Microsoft Bingo on their phone and laptop or desktop. Then come back and state your peace. :eyes:

#5258076

chalky

2016-04-14 14:14

Maybe its time to stop upgrading our pc, only then will nvidia and amd step in to sort out crap ports,if nobody buys expensive video cards they will have to do something ?, i mean why are we buying these cards for,a load of sh.t games

#5258078

jmikkelson

2016-04-14 14:34

I guess I'm one of the shmucks who just bought a brand new computer to get ready for DX12 games this year! It does play my older games very well (BF4 and Witcher 3) but apparently I shouldn't get excited about any new DX12 games. I hope BF5 will run well though.

#5258080

Anarion

2016-04-14 14:37

A game that doesn't work that well!? Now that's my kind of game. I'll take all of the extra currency I use to wipe my arse and hand it over to them. Remedy (Ha! Great name for a company releasing something so buggy) should get this on a free-to-play list ASAP and figure out how to make it successful that way. Also, all of the haters putting down UWP need to try Microsoft Bingo on their phone and laptop or desktop. Then come back and state your peace. :eyes:

Honestly... UWP is not the problem and it's not even locked to Windows Store apparently. Sure, it has some annoying limitations currently but they are about to solve those. Bad ports are bad ports and common people seem to make somewhat misguided guesses like that UWP is the source of all problems. Kinda like when some think that GameWorks libraries are the source of all evil.

#5258087

Ieldra

2016-04-14 14:45

Vram usage is pretty excessive, I've seen ~5.5GB at 1440p. That said, game is ugly as hell, everything looks blurry, makes me nauseous

#5258097

BarryB

2016-04-14 14:58

I guess UWP = Useless Wank Ports then?

#5258099

Ieldra

2016-04-14 15:00

I guess UWP = Useless Wank Ports then?

I wouldn't call them useless, their purpose is to highlight how ****ty windows store is

#5258101

Seketh

2016-04-14 15:01

Why are people still blaming UWP games or even DX12? All of the issues with the exception of v-sync are due to the engine created by Remedy Entertainment. I mean, you have an official article from Remedy saying "we f*cked up these things", what other argument can convince you otherwise? How can you people still be all like hurr durr M$ UWP die already when it's cleary the developers fault and a terrible failure from Microsoft Studios QA? The problem isn't UWP or DX12, it's the old broken game and launch date set in stone problem. The game shouldn't have been launched in this condition.

#5258105

-Tj-

2016-04-14 15:14

Unfortunately MS and Remedy can't deliver quality PC gaming. Remedy released a broken game which was DoA. The game is also a hybrid between a video game and a TV series. This model did not work and did not help. MS promoted this game as a DX12/W10 showcase and made things worse. Also the current state and limitations of UWP are breaking things and hinder experiences. W10 is still not ready to deliver through UWP. MS should really stop trying to get in the gaming scene because they can't or don't know how to do it. They should focus only on their services and the OS itself. I get that they are trying to get into the "freemium" model to make money and monetize services but this is not working on PC. Quantum Broke and the cancellation of Fable Legends showed that they can't deliver. This is not how you advertise your own API. But axing games or releasing failed ones.

+10000 Well said!

#5258107

Tree Dude

2016-04-14 15:17

770 has 2GB of vram, consoles have like 8.

Consoles have 8GB of shared memory. They could never dedicate all 8GB to video. Also that means the memory is ultimately slower than the dedicated memory PC video cards have. The XB1 is even worse off as it uses DDR3 which is pretty slow for video memory. I really hope MS can fix this UWP so it gives the same flexibility as a normal PC game. We should get vsync control back in the next build (which I think is already available for insiders) but that is not nearly enough. I am hoping there are some more under the hood improvements not mentioned.

#5258108

waltc3

2016-04-14 15:18

Why are people still blaming UWP games or even DX12? All of the issues with the exception of v-sync are due to the engine created by Remedy Entertainment. I mean, you have an official article from Remedy saying "we f*cked up these things", what other argument can convince you otherwise? How can you people still be all like hurr durr M$ UWP die already when it's cleary the developers fault and a terrible failure from Microsoft Studios QA? The problem isn't UWP or DX12, it's the old broken game and launch date set in stone problem. The game shouldn't have been launched in this condition.

Yup...that is one butt-ugly game, I have to say. It's entirely the game itself that is to blame. It's clearly an xBone game very poorly ported to the PC--and wow, does it show. Ugh. Not interested.