Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Havel, Jan 26, 2016.
Sounds like your enjoying the game, might give it a go.
Why is there such a difference in performance between AMD and nVidia in this game? Digitalfoundry said volumetric lighting in Quantum Break kills nVidia performance. Do they use async for it? Can performance be fixed without degrading quality?
People are debating everywhere why. Some say its async compute, some says its broken engine, all we know is that difference can be big as 50% in some scenes.
While the way the game up-scales the resolution does cause some blur, the in game AA option ruins the image.
I turned off the in game AA and instantly noticed a huge visual improvement. The image is clearer, sharper and the game itself seems to run better.
I'm forcing FXAA (as well as 16xAF) through NCP. It's hugely improved the look and feel of the game.
The temporal AA used in the game is awful.
And some people drone on like borderline neogaf losers that steam is bad and that it's a good thing that X game isn't on steam lol.
Nvidia release a new driver to fix the game or is a problem of dx12 and async tech-nvidia ?
If there is something wrong in the current drivers then a updated driver release could give a substantial performance boost, AMD claims a "up to" 35% I think it was gain with the FuryX in this game with 16.4.1 compared to 16.3.1 as a comparison so Nvidia might be able to get even more out of optimizing the drivers for this game.
I think a solid driver update from Nvidia could do a lot for this game.
If they are able to manage optimization to DX12 and direct optimizations for the game itself, we could see a nice improvement.
And, Remedy are looking into performance improvements, which most likely won't come in a update for a bit.
The v364.72 driver was the game-ready driver from NVIDIA for Quantum Break so if a big performance improvement was possible then surely that would have been the one to include it?
Considering how quiet NVIDIA have been on the DX12 front, in particular in regard to the asynchronous compute issue, I cannot help but wonder if NVIDIA are focusing more on their forthcoming Pascal hardware and hope that everyone forgets the issue with Maxwell and their sub-par DX12 performance. I would have thought in light of all the negativity with their DX12 driver performance that they would be keen to be seen as pro-active but the reality is that AMD very much have the upper hand here, even with previous generation hardware which is frankly an embarrassing situation to be in. Not that they seem to care. Maybe they think their majority market share will see them through this "hiccup"?
nvidia don't have any solution to it, they will try to sugar coat it with some dx12 that are unique to them that will never be used, or try to eliminate async all together.
Soon all eyes will be on polaris and pascal so they can sweep it under the rob, history will repeat as it happened with kepler, people have short memory.
Thats just awful. Your card should be comparable to mine but somehow its not. I am runing 1080p/ Ultra preset (shadow resolution and volumetric lightning on high) game is really smooth. OSD isnt working but im definitely feeling 30fps+ without any unplayable drops.
I also noticed that game is using 11.2GB system ram. I've never seen game using so much ram.
The "Game-ready driver" for Gears of War Ultimate Edition was okay, but people got better performance from Gears with the following drivers.
Most of time, I find with nvidia I tend to get better performance from future driver releases instead of their "game-ready drivers".
Same thing happened with Fallout 4 and Arkham Knight. Drivers that followed the games release improved things, and in some cases... improved things a LOT.
The ''Game-ready drivers'' are nothing but a POS.
most of game ready driver are not game ready at all, just a nice title and a useless driver.
There is something wrong with the textures or the look of the game but general gameplay is cool and the time manipulation is enjoyable. Most people are so disappointed with reviews.
I think a lot of reviewers set expectations too high.
After Max Payne and then Alan Wake... I remember some places talking about how incredibly amazing this game was going to be.
And some places had the wrong person review the game.
Like Giantbomb had Jeff review it, when he's said in the past he didn't like Alan Wake, he wasn't interested in Quantum Break at all. And when Drew came back from playing it... while Drew and Brad seem impressed and interested, Jeff just seemed bored.
Is the story complete btw? Alan wake isn't and just ends on weirder and weird cliffhangers (main game to dlc)
" The maximum frame-rate seems to be limited to 5/6th of the refresh rate - this means, when using a 60Hz monitor, the game simply cannot go beyond 50 frames per second. We even tried it with a Core i7 system paired with Titan X running at 720p on the lowest settings, but 50fps was still the limit - and the same thing applies to AMD GPUs too. The resulting frame-time graph sees the game bouncing between 16.7 and 33ms throughout the experience - even with the most powerful PC hardware available."
Well Well Well. They pulled out an Arkham Knight? lol I've to say Arkham Knight story was awesome , i don't know about this one ..
Guess i'll just buy Tomb Raider and wait for some fixes to try this game!
Not sure who you talked to but that's bull****. I've gotten a refund from the store before an my account was never banned. The only thing I don't like is the fact it takes them 2 weeks to process the refund.
I've just completed Act 4. possibly the most demanding and by far the most impressive one so far on PC. Total playtime around 7.5 hours with 5 hours of it being played on PC.
At the start of Act 4, I experienced some really serious framerate issues which turned out to be caused by PerfectDisk deciding to optimize my H drive, where the game is installed, while I was watching the Episode 3 TV show (streamed) for 20 odd minutes. Great, thanks Raxco! Once I paused the defragging then the game ran fine but I think encountered some more slowdown during the last section of Act 4. It is here that there are tons of lights from cars during an outdoor night time section and I was literally playing the game at what felt like 10 fps. My hard drive was not being defragged though; it almost felt like the game had a major memory leak as exiting the game and reloading/continuing the game to the same section then ran much better. 20 minutes of sub-optimal performance out of 5 hours is not bad, though it did obviously make the combat much harder since aiming was almost impossible (helped only by the auto-aim since I was using a controller).
Act 4 is by far my favourite chapter of the game. It really is quite stunning from the bridge sequence (yes, the part seen in the early demo trailers) to the exciting plot development. Hopefully, this is not a spoiler but the parts of the game where you walk around areas that are frozen in times are just so damn cool. I think this game is amazing. In terms of gameplay it is a lot of fun and is spread out among the cutscenes and exploration enough to not feel too repetitive. Visually, the game strongly reminds me of inFamous: Second Son/First Light on PS4 in terms of lighting and effects combined with an evolution of Alan Wake's shaky, distorted screen effects from the Darkness IMO. Graphically the game is a real stunner, only occasionally let down by some weird lighting on Jack's face in certain places (where he looks almost cartoonish). Sound is also astonishing good, especially during the combat when time effects are in use.