• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Performance Analysis

las said:
The game does not look good, so it's probably only demanding because of bad optimization. This looks downright terrible:

screen5.jpg
Click to expand...
Hahaha lmao that is not how the game looks. That has to be on Low.
 
Captain_Tom said:
Hahaha lmao that is not how the game looks. That has to be on Low.
Click to expand...
Agreed. They put out a patch already so now I can pay. High@1440 no MSAA, still kinda testing but looks great to me and 60-70fps in the first level. Looks way better than that tho.
 
AndreiD said:
Can we have a test with all of the 'GCN optimized' effects turned off? Would be an interesting exercise to check out how it runs with AO set to only ON or OFF, Contact Hardening Shadows OFF and Volumetric Lighting ON or OFF.
DE:MD seems to be using most of AMD's GPUOpen libraries, like TressFX, AOFX and ShadowFX, it would be nice if they at least labeled them properly in the settings menu.
PCGH tried to keep it more agnostic, they have CHS (ShadowFX) turned off and AO toned down and their results are more in line with what's expected.
Click to expand...
If I'm reading their graph right, it doesn't change anything: RX480 is still 5 FPS faster than a GTX1060; there's a noteworthy thing though - RX480 is 15 FPS faster than the castrated GTX1060 3 GB. Perhaps Nvidia overdid it with the cutting?
 
Cut down 1060 is to go against RX 470 so the perf is okay I'd say.
 
Captain_Tom said:
Yes. Ultra actually means Ultra in this game. Run it on High, it should double your framerate and look nearly the same.
Click to expand...

Agreed. High looks almost the same as Ultra and very playable. None of my screenshots look like the game either. People just have to see it...it's a very good looking game.
 
Feel kind of let down by the visuals in this. It has an aesthetic and graphics similar to Killzone Shadow Fall yet that game did it nearly 3 years ago and on relatively weak hardware.

Here's my own *heavily compressed* screenshots from when i played KZ:SF, feel free to point out where Deus Ex game manages to look better (I noticed that the volumetric lights in particular are far higher res) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g6e4p2sletykx43/AAB_zJd6x1N0UN1ecvrDFpA2a?dl=0
 
Heres my screenshots. Ultra settings Texture resolution 4x and msaa off.

20160824200401_1.jpg 20160824200425_1.jpg 20160824200553_1.jpg 20160824200546_1.jpg 20160824202640_1.jpg
 
hmm no 1070 tests, though it seems like it will be between 980Ti-FuryX in performance?
 
This just proves that no GPU is futureproof. Newer games will bring even a Titan X on its knees @ 1080p maxed settings. It's better to buy midrange cards, sell, and then buy the next one.
 
Kanan said:
Cut down 1060 is to go against RX 470 so the perf is okay I'd say.
Click to expand...
Not really - RX470 is the same 5 FPS ahead of GTX1060 3 GB. This marketing naming bullshit is gonna create some awkward situations.
 
ZeppMan217 said:
Not really - RX470 is the same 5 FPS ahead of GTX1060 3 GB. This marketing naming bullshit is gonna create some awkward situations.
Click to expand...
It is because the pricing is the same. Naming is shit though, yep.
 
I tweaked the settings turned some of the post effects off and left most things on high with the texture quality on very high
completed my play-though without is dipping below 60 and most of the time venturing into the 70's and licking the 80's

the loading times are artocius tho if its not installed to a ssd

the game is short unless you care about every irrelevant side quest
only about 12h and thats doing some of the sidequests
 
Last edited:
It seems that MSAA is the culprit in poor performance. HardOCP just released their own test results and according to them a minimum of MSAA 4x is required for acceptable quality, at a hit of around 30FPS. They recommend using Temporal AA instead, which apparently looks just as good and only costs ~1FPS. It also looks like the built-in benchmark is very much a worst-case scenario, which is a good thing IMO.

@W1zzard what AA settings (if any) did you use for your benching?
 
Yeah, I realized MSAA was too big of a hit at release. People can go by my settings i listed earlier here for a very good playability while still looking great setting.

Temporal AA on and I don't see the jaggies.....honestly don't know why they even offered the MSAA. With Temporal, it's unnecessary.
 
rtwjunkie said:
Yeah, I realized MSAA was too big of a hit at release. People can go by my settings i listed earlier here for a very good playability while still looking great setting.

Temporal AA on and I don't see the jaggies.....honestly don't know why they even offered the MSAA. With Temporal, it's unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I have MSAA off too, and when it comes to 2k-4k resolutions, you can barely see the jagged edges anymore, so its pointless to have AA or MSAA on. It's a performance hit like you said. I know there is another form of AA that mimics MSAA without the hit. It might be FXAA, but I'm not sure.
 
Has anyone with a 900/10 series Nvidia Card forced MFAA via NVCP to mitigate the MSAA performance hit?

Actually dont own the game (yet) but no one has mentioned MFAA yet and considering 2xMSAA+MFAA should give you 4xMSAA visuals but only have a perf cost to that of 2xMSAA, might be useful...
 
Last edited:
Sampled AA of any type is going to incurr a hit the game really does not need it the engine does a good job of managing the aliasing and you have txaa to fallback on I didn't have any noticeable aliasing even at 1080
 
Running a 3770k and 980ti SLI at 3440 x 1400 at Very High settings. This game is sooo beautiful and it flies.

Loving this game.
 
I bought the game yesterday, at 3440x1440 with 2 GTX 970 OC SLI I can barely run the game at Ultra with MSAA off over 35 FPS :( . I can see now the limitations of my cards, first time I've seen this was in The Division and now it's all obvious. Come on already with the 1080Ti !!!
 
I think it was unrealistic to expect any more... Especially as the game might be limited by the 3.5GB + 0.5Gb memory config and you are asking your cards, to push 5 million pixels around in ultra detail.
 
xkm1948 said:
980Ti lagging behind FuryX further and further away.
Click to expand...

It's been said for awhile, NV GPUs age terribly. After a next-gen arrival, current stuff gets put on legacy and "Game Ready" optimizations shift to the new GPUs.

Did you guys see the 780Ti?

It's getting totally wrecked by the 290 and 290X, which back then, it was 15% faster. This is actually quite common in most of the recent AAA games, Kepler is just dead.


Medium.png


At GURU3D as well:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

MKhppA4.jpg


Seriously, anyone who bought 290 or 290X from way back then, still enjoying great performance today in modern AAA games. Right up there with 390/X! They were a lot cheaper than 780, Titan or 780Ti too.

RX 480 vs GTX 1060 now, already trading blows, give it another 6 months and the RX 480 will destroy the 1060 as all the newer games come out.
 
I think you are being selective in the benchmarks you are showing. The 1070 and the 980 ti scale much better as the resolution increases. These cards are made for 2560 x 1440 and above. This is taken from the same review you mentioned.

All things said, this is just ONE game. Over the past 2 years I think, team 'green' have made the best cards. Hopefully team 'red' hits back soon.

I think it is clear in 2016, for AAA titles that 4GB graphics memory, is now starting to be a minimum requirement for resolutions above 1080p.

index.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top