• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Ghost of Tsushima Performance Benchmark

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,663 (3.74/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Ghost of Tsushima is finally available for PC after being a PlayStation exclusive for four years. Thanks to the porting work by Nixxes, the game runs very well, even on weaker hardware. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection of modern graphics cards.

Show full review
 
This is a great example of how a game should be programmed. Support for all major super sampling modes. No wasted code on RT. Cards from Intel, Nvidia and AMD all fall about where they should given their general rasterization rendering performance. No huge winners and no huge losers. Good performance and game play across all hardware. And best of all no bias towards one company over another.

Great job, Sony! And great review, W1zzard!
 
Game is great and runs good as this review shows.
 
Played this on PS4 Pro. It's one of the best looking games. The art style and cinematography are just gorgeous. I'll wait for it to be discounted on PC then give it another run, this time on an ultrawide.
 
Thank you, Sony!
Hell, no.
This seemed to be a game I was definitely going to have to get.
Unfortunately, I am in a wrong country.

While there has been some drama about a Sony PlayStation Network registration, the single-player portion of the game runs flawlessly without registering.
If you can get the game.
Steam does not have this game for me. Most digital sales sites do not have this game for me. The few that list it very clearly state that this will not activate for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jun
It just shows that AMD's Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the better choice over the much more expensive RTX 4090.

1715953866824.png


1715953895255.png
 
Amazing review. Never expected that RDNA 2 would age this good, better than Ampere which is an elegant architecture but its driver overhead is showing its age, even worse on Ada Lovelace. The scaling is amazing.
 
Amazing review. Never expected that RDNA 2 would age this good, better than Ampere which is an elegant architecture but its driver overhead is showing its age, even worse on Ada Lovelace. The scaling is amazing.
It's a console port and the consoles use RDNA 2 derived graphics so it's not too surprising that the PC version plays well on RDNA 2 GPUs. Also likely why it's fairly modest with VRAM requirements etc.

Game is well suited for graphics overhaul mods now it's on PC.
 
It's embarrassing to get those kinds of framerates at 4K, it's a decent looking game but it's not "barely 60 fps at 4K" type of good looking.
 
SMAA 2TX is the best AA with zero impact. Do we have any comparison between SMAA 2TX vs DLAA ??
 
Another game where the 7700 XT performs comparatively worse than it's peers. Would make sense if it was the memory bus, but the 7600 has a smaller one and doesn't seem to be affected. Maybe a driver issue?

Could be our review suite favored it a bit too much so the comparisons are now not as nice.
 
Another game where the 7700 XT performs comparatively worse than it's peers. Would make sense if it was the memory bus, but the 7600 has a smaller one and doesn't seem to be affected. Maybe a driver issue?

I don't think it's a driver. RX 7700 XT is in fact a rebranded true RX 7600 XT or RX 7700, and is generally weaker, in everything, less shaders, less TMUs, less ROPs, lower memory bandwidth than the RX 6800.
Same goes for RX 7800 XT vs. RX 6800 XT.
 
I don't think it's a driver. RX 7700 XT is in fact a rebranded true RX 7600 XT or RX 7700, and is generally weaker, in everything, less shaders, less TMUs, less ROPs, lower memory bandwidth than the RX 6800.
Same goes for RX 7800 XT vs. RX 6800 XT.
Cant be compared exactly. RDNA 2 has very consistent performance as it does not rely a lot of compiler tricks to exploit its performance. RDNA 3 does need it for its dual issue aka VOPD execution. In a worst case scenario, its as fast as RDNA 2 as shows with the 7900GRE vs 6900XT with identical core count (Minus the halved Infinite Cache that does really hamper performance) Same goes for the 7800XT vs RX 6800. The 7700 and RX 7700XT are based on Navi 32 which is a chiplet design, unlike the RX 7600 series which is a Navi 33 monolithic design. I always suspected that the chipset design has a little too much latencies.
 
RDNA 2 has very consistent performance as it does not rely a lot of compiler tricks to exploit its performance. RDNA 3 does need it for its dual issue aka VOPD execution.
They all rely on compilers. Shaders are simply not always bound by compute, it's the same story on Nvidia GPUs post Ampere.

always suspected that the chipset design has a little too much latencies.
This is not very relevant for GPUs as memory access latency is hidden by design, it's why memory speeds keep increasing every generation while the latency gets worse every time and this doesn't cause any issues.
 
Appreciate the review and follow up article on this game @W1zzard

I was excited for this one to come out. Nice to see so many others were too.
 
It just shows that AMD's Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the better choice over the much more expensive RTX 4090.

Um, nope. Good luck enabling DLAA on the Radeon. As the article confirms, DLAA once again takes the cake in terms of image quality. It is unsurpassed awesomeness that only nVidia can deliver. AMD peasants need not apply.

BTW, has anyone tried XeGTAO on nVidia? Is it better or worse looking than HBAO+?
 
Um, nope. Good luck enabling DLAA on the Radeon. As the article confirms, DLAA once again takes the cake in terms of image quality. It is unsurpassed awesomeness that only nVidia can deliver. AMD peasants need not apply.

I don't need anything that "is delivered" by nvidia. I am fine with the native AMD quality.

- AMD is definitely punching up in this title (and most PS/Nixxus ports) but let's not get carried away here.

This is the exception, not the rule.

But the XTX costs 820$ (lowest, open box), while RTX 4090 costs 100% more - 1699.99$.

There is no performance or feature set difference that justifies that price difference.
 
Um, nope. Good luck enabling DLAA on the Radeon. As the article confirms, DLAA once again takes the cake in terms of image quality. It is unsurpassed awesomeness that only nVidia can deliver. AMD peasants need not apply.

BTW, has anyone tried XeGTAO on nVidia? Is it better or worse looking than HBAO+?
Oh, the elitism for a piece of PC hardware lmao. I can't fathom living in a world that braggs about a Lasko deskfan or a General Electric Washing machine, commodities that costs a penny lol. Same goes for the RTX 4090, if you think that 1,600 is too much money, I have a bridge for you for sale...
 
It just shows that AMD's Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the better choice over the much more expensive RTX 4090.

View attachment 347727

View attachment 347729
...for this game. And tis still not faster, so 4090 can keep its halo price intact just fine even if you were just looking at this game and its all you played. After all, then you would defo want the best perf in it, right?
 
i am very curious, how much performance from rtx 3080 10gb with maximum setting+DLSS v2 on 3440x1440 ?
 
Back
Top