Rise of the Tomb Raider: Performance Analysis

[BiggieShady]

Kudos for using gif to show all options in settings window ... this should be done everywhere.
I don't know why but I didn't expect w1zzard's hand to be that steady

 

[the54thvoid]

Is it me or are all these Nvidia titles now always feel overtly dark and strangely the same anymore.

It's not an Nvidia title. They simply did they old 'buy in' for gfx priority. You know, like AMD did with the first one with Tress FX. You know, Tress FX, the proprietary software. And anything with bunnies and deer and archaeology can't be dark. Unless you're a goth.

And for some reason WCCFtech say that Pure Hair is AMD? That's not right. Is it?

The release is fitted with a list of graphical updates that include the high-end ambient occlusion technique from NVIDIA that we know as HBAO+ along with higher Anisotropic filtering of 16x, full hardware based tessellation, increased geometry and textures, dynamic foliage compared to static allowing foliage to react dynamically to the player movement in the environment and last but not least, AMD’s Pure hair technology which uses their TressFX 3.0 engine to render and emulate Lara’s hair realistically.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-pc-performance-analysis/#ixzz3yefDfsc7​

 

[brutlern]

It's not an Nvidia title. They simply did they old 'buy in' for gfx priority. You know, like AMD did with the first one with Tress FX. You know, Tress FX, the proprietary software. And anything with bunnies and deer and archaeology can't be dark. Unless you're a goth.

And for some reason WCCFtech say that Pure Hair is AMD? That's not right. Is it?

Given the fact that AMD TressFX is part of it's new open source initiative GPUOpen, my guess is Nixxies/Crystal Dynamics took TressFx, tweaked it, and made a new one called PureHair. Just speculating here.

 

[Casecutter]

Sorry I can't truly say what it is... but perhaps it the games that are being release and that they've had a more brooding darkish feel even when out in the light of day. Sure it's like always this epic Goth feel, if you will. I suppose this is what HDR rendering to increase the quality of color in pixels is suppose to help.

And correct not sure who/what PureHair is... Nvidia it's Hairworks, RGT TressFX. Let's just finally everyone join hands and say just get on with great hair... and dispose of the the tri-angler matted look of yore. It like a mullet just say no.

 

[altermere]

Given the fact that AMD TressFX is part of it's new open source initiative GPUOpen, my guess is Nixxies/Crystal Dynamics took TressFx, tweaked it, and made a new one called PureHair. Just speculating here.

PureHair, a new hair solution made in collaboration between AMD and Eidos Montreal's research and development lab, improves upon TRESSFX.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/glimpse-of-the-purehair-hair-rendering-engine-at-gdc

Also, what about CPUs? Does 5820k provide any advantage of smooth frametimes over quad i7's?

 

[GLD]

This will be playable on my rig, but dang, it may struggle running on higher settings.

 

[Xuper]

impossible Look at this :

Now fury X is faster than Titan ?

 

[Keullo-e]

So I guess I won't have problems with 290..

 

[HumanSmoke]

Now fury X is faster than Titan ?

It looks like the hierarchy is sensitive to settings and maps. Depending on what is used you could make a case either way...and either way, there isn't much in it. ComputerBase's results also seem to reveal that the stuttering seems more apparent in HBM equipped cards - presumably some driver optimization still required for the tech.

 

[Fluffmeister]

I'm only a few hours into the game, but damn... it's pretty.

impossible Look at this :

What is impossible? There is a difference between VRAM usage and an actual baseline requirement to be playable, although equally thats not to say it doesn't impact performance. But the game brings a world of hurt to GPU's @ 4K, and as @HumanSmoke link suggested, different maps put different loads on the cards.

Now fury X is faster than Titan ?

Sure by 1FPS, but then Fiji is already under water and Titan X is pretty conservatively clocked as far as GM200's go, hell it's basically got it's brakes on.

Regardless AMD's top dog does just fine.

 

[RustyKats]

Why did you add that jibe against AMD?

Performance is outstanding with the Steam release version (there was actually a pre-day 1 patch).

390X is ~= or faster than 980.

Fury X scales at higher resolutions.

On twitter, RTG/AMD have said they are releasing a driver in the next day or two, to enable CrossFire and further optimize the game.

This is an NV sponsored title, it normally isn't this quick to optimize through the closed source GameWorks features.

 

[Osjur]

Everything maxed except SSAA on Fury X and its playable at 1600p (35-60fps) but it stutters if I use Very High textures. Changing that setting to High and it doesn't stutter anymore. So my guess is that 4GB VRAM is not just enough with this resolution :/

A side note: Very High preset is not maxed as there is still shadow and pure hair settings which you can increase.

Another note: HBAO+ works with AMD cards, you can even test it in game. Performance hit is around 10-20% on Fury X. I don't know why TPU says that its Nvidia only feature?

Though I will most likely just disable HBAO+ as the performance hit is not worth with the IQ increase (and in some cases: decrease).

 

[buffyvpsfan]

WTH no r9 390 in review, I know its almost just like a 970 but only that nvidia didnt lie about how much vram it had and its got 4+ more vram. couldnt that make a difference in tomb raider. seems VERY biased you didn't include team red gpu here to compare the 970.

 

[W1zzard]

Another note: HBAO+ works with AMD cards, you can even test it in game. Performance hit is around 10-20% on Fury X. I don't know why TPU says that its Nvidia only feature?

Though I will most likely just disable HBAO+ as the performance hit is not worth with the IQ increase (and in some cases: decrease).

fixed, thanks

WTH no r9 390 in review, I know its almost just like a 970 but only that nvidia didnt lie about how much vram it had and its got 4+ more vram. couldnt that make a difference in tomb raider. seems VERY biased you didn't include team red gpu here to compare the 970.

Unfortunately I don't have a 390 non-X, AMD doesn't seem interested in sampling it.

 

[xfia]

allocating the whole vram pool is not a bad thing and it doesnt mean that you need 4GB for 1080p or that 8GB is some kind of minimum now or in the foreseeable future.
the game is beautiful right? well that is how they do it well in this case.

Memory management is the act of managing computer memory at the system level. The essential requirement of memory management is to provide ways to dynamically allocate portions of memory to programs at their request, and free it for reuse when no longer needed. This is critical to any advanced computer system where more than a single process might be underway at any time.[1]
Several methods have been devised that increase the effectiveness of memory management. Virtual memory systems separate the memory addresses used by a process from actual physical addresses, allowing separation of processes and increasing the effectively available amount of RAM using paging or swapping to secondary storage. The quality of the virtual memory manager can have an extensive effect on overall system performance.

 

[arbiter]

A lot of reviewers are reporting stutter fest and most of them reviewed it with Nvidia hardware.

Those used the pre-release version of the game. The game runs perfectly here (rig in my system specs and VGA test rig as listed in the article)

Yea i used very high settings at 1080p on a gtx980 and pretty much flat 60 for 90+% of the game.

This is one of those sloppy devs, this is as bad as it gets. Just cram all the textures possible into VRAM, even if they aren't anywhere near being used to render the current scene. This is what makes it seem like we need more RAM, when we really don't

The company that did the port has did a lot of few games that turned out well. totalbiscuit said that on his review, they did games like theif, deus ex HR, Hitman absolution. Company has history of doing the job pretty good.

Really... Nvidia has had this game for months to play with and optimize and you harp on RGT!

Really.... how far in advance did Nvidia have the LAST tomb raider game? I bet amd had access to this game a lot earlier then nvidia did with the last one.

 

[Relayer]

Unfortunately I don't have a 390 non-X, AMD doesn't seem interested in sampling it.

Aren't all 390/X aftermarket only? You wouldn't get them from AMD, would you? I assumed they'd come from the AIB's?

 

[sweet]

Hope that this won't turn out to be a bug fest like most of Gameworks title

 

[Fluffmeister]

Everything maxed except SSAA on Fury X and its playable at 1600p (35-60fps) but it stutters if I use Very High textures. Changing that setting to High and it doesn't stutter anymore. So my guess is that 4GB VRAM is not just enough with this resolution :/

A side note: Very High preset is not maxed as there is still shadow and pure hair settings which you can increase.

Another note: HBAO+ works with AMD cards, you can even test it in game. Performance hit is around 10-20% on Fury X. I don't know why TPU says that its Nvidia only feature?

Though I will most likely just disable HBAO+ as the performance hit is not worth with the IQ increase (and in some cases: decrease).

Indeed, HBAO+ is the only nvidia feature, and it still works on AMD cards as you say, so no drama there.

PC Perspective noticed spikes/stuttering on Fiji based cards too, probably just needs some driver love to fix it, or maybe a future game patch will address it.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Performance-Results/Adding-GTX-970-and-R9-390

 

[xfia]

impossible Look at this :

Now fury X is faster than Titan ?

Its common for AMD gpu's to pull ahead at higher resolutions and it looks to still be the case. Its because at every tier they use more powerful vram. NV wouldnt have a chance without AMD and Jadec spoon feeding them free technology.

 

[jabbadap]

Indeed, HBAO+ is the only nvidia feature, and it still works on AMD cards as you say, so no drama there.

PC Perspective noticed spikes/stuttering on Fiji based cards too, probably just needs some driver love to fix it, or maybe a future game patch will address it.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Performance-Results/Adding-GTX-970-and-R9-390

Most likely due cpu, guru3d:s cpu scaling test shows that fury works best with one core(Amd and dx11 threading ). Needs driver patch from amd, well dx12 rendering path patch from CD should work too.

 

[newtekie1]

The company that did the port has did a lot of few games that turned out well. totalbiscuit said that on his review, they did games like theif, deus ex HR, Hitman absolution. Company has history of doing the job pretty good.

When I say sloppy, meant in memory management only. Just slamming as many textures as possible is sloppy, but that doesn't mean they are overall bad.

 

[gpu2016]

I playing DOTA 2 with my 980 ti

 

[Casecutter]

Really.... how far in advance did Nvidia have the LAST tomb raider game? I bet amd had access to this game a lot earlier then nvidia did with the last one.

While I whole heartedly see a sponsor (Nvidia/RGT) will always have the advantage, that's not my gripe. Though now Nvidia promotes "Game Ready" release day drivers, I can't recall AMD in the past expounding on such an advantage.

It's was the idea that W1zzard included a disparaging paragraph of RTG not following suite, when clearly RGT was not at all sub-standard with there performance in playing the game. If RGT came with release day drivers; A) there would be calls of copying and trying to steal Nvidia's Thunder; B) They'd relinquish the position to see what Nvidia was delivering and having several days of ascertaining real instances of "bugs" and getting such 'fixes" in one all encompassing release.

If RTG had an issue within the game or waning performance, then yes there's reason to call RTG to task but, that was clearly not the case. The non-sponsoring side should be as RTG has been "amiable", then use the opportunity of being second-fiddle to their advantage. Perhaps RTG is sitting on optimizations that are huge, knowing what they know is there any reason to jump in with huge 10% improvements, or pocket those till later. Me I'd wait a 5 days or so and bring any fixes and raise performance 2-3%, as not show that I've got a handle on what Nvidia might bring down the road.

 

[No Nrg]

I was playing this weekend on my rig and had a pretty good experience at 1440p. I'm running FXAA and everything else maxed, but pure hair off (not worth the 5-8fps). Kept a 40-60fps rate with my overclocked GTX 980, which is perfect given my G-sync monitor.

I do get random stutters mostly when large vistas are coming into view quickly and loading all at once or right before some cut scenes begin. Some intense scenes have me dropping frames or going into single digits. 98% of the time it is consistent and smooth though. Running FRAPS, I notice CGI cut scenes are locked at 30fps and I get a screen tear in the upper portion on all of these.

Overall though the experience is fine, the game looks amazing. The issues above are nothing a future update couldn't fix; certainly nothing that would have me cry foul and claim it's a bad port.