Review: Rise of the Tomb Raider: PC graphics card performance

Hmm, honestly this raises more questions then answers for me. I know at the end you said you're going to update with diff perf settings, I'm assuming you'll include purehair on/off -- but please also include Fury X at different tessellation settings. I'm curious to see how much of an impact the tessellation has on it.

Also wasn't this game supposed to include VXAO? Does it? I can't read the settings page =(

 

The game seems to run well with a single card but you get poor GPU usage in SLI. I very rarely see it go above 70% for most cards and usually hovers around 50-60 with 40-50FPS.

 

This game mess up AMD really bad. On 2560x1440 290 beats 290x and 390x is above Fury and Nano.

 

Just another example of why I ditched SLI. No matter what game there are always problems at launch, and it never works correctly until drivers are released after the fact, and sometimes not even then.

To me, its no longer worth the effort over a single card.

As for the benchmark, I'm astounded by how much stronger a TI is over a Fury and the rest of the AMD lineup @ WQHD.. I mean, that's a huge gap in framerate..

 

Yeah, sorry, I bet it's a pain -- but honestly the game benchmark reviews are probably the things I reference the most here on Guru3D. I rarely go and relook at old card launches, but I often go back and reference the game comparisons. And Guru3D is almost always on top of Google searches when I'm looking.

I'm just curious to see how much the tessellation impacts the performance here. It doesn't have to be anything extensive, just one test, any res, on a Fury X.

Seems to be a VRAM limit.

 

GTX 980 Ti is so much ahead the rest that it's almost unreal... Fury performs really badly even when compared to 3x0 cards.

 

As a recent SLi > single card convert, I agree 100% :thumbup:

While I can't say I'll never do SLi again, I will always favor single card over multi GPUs from here on..

It's the tessellation. AMD still has very low tessellation performance compared to NVidia..

 

At 2560x1440 the VRAM usage is below 4GB and all those cards have at least 4 GB of VRAM. I mean there is no difference in VRAM between 290 and 290x only the last one is more powerful, or should be.

 

Hm weird. I think he might have just updated those graphs. I might be going crazy though

Idk, there has to be some kind of bottleneck occurring. If it's not VRAM and it's not tessellation it has to be draw call limit or something.

 

Yeah the last year has been the worst in memory when it comes to SLI. From some AAA not working on launch (Fallout 3, RS Siege etc) to others that just don't support it at all (Arkham Knight, Just Cause 3).

I'm very strongly contemplating just buying a 980ti when I get paid tomorrow as overclockers have some for 499gbp. Not sure whether to hold out though for the next gen of nvidia cards.

 

Why is 950 obtaining better results than 960???

 

So where is the AMD magic driver ? Fury X performing on the same level as the ref. 980 is not acceptable...

 

Most certainly some kind of bottleneck is capping the performance at approximately same level on the all AMD spectrum of cards. The difference between FuryX and 290 is 8 fps.

 

You haven't been paying attention, if you have never seen Fury/X being unable to significantly differentiate itself from Hawaii cards in the terms of raw fps.

 

Well, it doesn't usually significantly differentiate itself -- but I can't think of another game where a Fury X loses to a 980.

Like there is clearly something wrong here. There are benchmarks around with no tessellation and it looks the same. So it's definitely not tessellation. VRAM isn't maxed at QHD/1080p, so it's not that either. The game uses Pure Hair, so it's not like Nvidia completely developed it.

Btw Pure Hair looks f*cking incredible and apparently it has nearly zero performance hit. Looking forward to that in more games.