The Division: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Click here to post a comment for The Division: PC graphics performance benchmark review on our message forum
Undying
"This article is on-going and will be updated as results come in..."
Ok, ok...i was like wtf is happening HH. :P
If you still doing including Kepler cards please include Tahiti GCN1.0 if you still have one around.
Denial
Look at AMD with 0's across the board.
Who cares if they have Async, they can't even render a single frame!
Dygaza
This is actually true. If I turn all options on, I can't even run benchmark as it crashes to loading, Well atleast game works just fine :P
Denial
That's weird -- there are other users doing benchmarks, though I haven't seen a Fury X yet.
In the beta AMD cards were faster than their Nvidia equivalents so I imagine the same will hold true for the final release. Maybe it will finally put the GameWorks nonsense to bed once and for all.
Lane
Not really, Nvidia gpu´s perf have gain around 15% when AMD one are down of 10% between Beta and final... maybe just a question of driver.
Beta > Final 1440p Ultra setting:
980TI: 51fps vs 59fps
FuryX: 59,8fps vs 55fps.
I need to base myself on 2 different reviews, so system can impact it. But well the review is only dated of the 22.02.2016 http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/the_division_beta_performance_review/7
Denial
Where do you see AMD losing 10%? Most of the people over on /r/amd are reporting increased fps since the beta. I haven't seen any direct comparisons at all so it's basically just user reporting.
Nvidia gaining FPS kind of makes sense considering there wasn't a game ready driver for it during the beta. Also I'm not saying that Gameworks doesn't favor Nvidia cards, it probably does, as it probably should. But it's pretty clear that this game runs extremely well, while looking really good, despite having GameWorks in it.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
If you hit refresh Fury X is already listed.
Dygaza
We don't even know if "ultra" settings are same. Afterall it's just a name for various variables. Besides, ultra settings ain't even close to maxed settings.
Lane
Ultra should be Ultra for all, if not one setting have been added between the 22.02 and today ( in 2 weeks ).. This said, its 2 different reviewers, 2 different system, different drivers. and i had not find one other, so we will need wait other reviews.
Denial
Nice, thanks!
Does Ultra enable PCSS/HBAO+ though? or are those separate? I know in the beta Ultra didn't up reflections to full and it looks the same as per Hilbert's screenshots of the settings, nor does it change the object distance settings.
JonasBeckman
There's a new shadow quality setting, I believe the ultra preset uses high quality shadows so then there's PCSS and that new HFTS technique.
(Which it seems you can just enable by editing the config file so it's not really locked to the GeForce 900 series GPU's, it's pretty demanding though.)
-Tj-
Thanks for review, great job!
Dygaza
If you look what ultra does in cfg screenshots you would see all is maxed
Ok except reflection medium and object distance a little lower.
Anyhu 980ti has some nice perf at 1080p, add factory oc gpu and its 90-95fps easy 🤓
Just shame the game is not that great as overall..
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Settings wise Ultra mode is 100% the same in-between the two brands, I checked that out prior to testing of course. And no it does not enable HFTS / PCSS / HBAO+ at default, it remains on the High setting
Dygaza
Also object detail on ultra is at 60%.
What I actually ment that settings in beta and final release ain't always neccessarily the same and can't be compared. For example Ultra in beta can be 16M samples, but in final release it can be 32M, and very high can be 16M samples instead.
Naturally we're talking about very short time period between last beta and final release in this game, so it's quite safe to assume they are same. But when developers do find performance improvements during betas, it's not rare to see them changing settings. Remember Normal, High, Very High and Ultra are only labels, and we don't see what's hiding behind them.
XenthorX
Nvidia published beta driver 364.51 with The Division official support.
And 364.47 are NOT WHQL, nor are 364.51
Barry J
thanks HH looking forward to multi card performance
Keesberenburg
What is the performance impact on AMD with hybrid frustum traced shadows on?
It's looks really better than other shadows option, but if it wors on AMD it's not good for gamers, i dont like that cause it make people trolling.
I play with all options to the right site and have nice performance.
Denial
I think I actually prefer PCSS
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/tom-clancys-the-division/tom-clancys-the-division-shadow-resolution-001-nvidia-pcss.png
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/tom-clancys-the-division/tom-clancys-the-division-shadow-resolution-001-nvidia-hfts.png
HFTS is like too hard, it needs to fade better with distance. In the game, up close, it looks better and seems to effect more objects -- which is nice. Overall I think PCSS is better though.
velocityx
HH do you happen to have bad flicker with amd 16.2.1 on this game? my crossfire setup is just oh my god so terrible I need to take breaks to not vomit because of that.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Haven't gotten to CFX just yet, single card radeons are fine though.
