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

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 28, 2016.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,272
    Likes Received:
    8,827
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    We take a look at Rise of the Tomb Raider in relation towards PC gaming graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Many graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked...

    Article updated with CPU scaling (must read!).

    Review: Rise of the Tomb Raider: PC graphics card performance
     
  2. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,234
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    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 =(
     
  3. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,272
    Likes Received:
    8,827
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Honestly time wise these reviews are getting more and more crazy. I just flicked the higher (Very High) image quality mode and moved onwards from there.

    But sure, I'll certainly have a look at it.
     
  4. sephking

    sephking Master Guru

    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    2x EVGA 980ti Classified
    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.
     

  5. xxela

    xxela Master Guru

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega64 Nit
    This game mess up AMD really bad. On 2560x1440 290 beats 290x and 390x is above Fury and Nano.
     
  6. ScoobyDooby

    ScoobyDooby Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,114
    Likes Received:
    85
    GPU:
    1080Ti & Acer X34
    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..
     
  7. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,234
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2016
  8. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,602
    Likes Received:
    376
    GPU:
    GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
    GTX 980 Ti is so much ahead the rest that it's almost unreal... Fury performs really badly even when compared to 3x0 cards.
     
  9. Carfax

    Carfax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,915
    Likes Received:
    463
    GPU:
    NVidia Titan Xp
    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..
     
  10. xxela

    xxela Master Guru

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega64 Nit
    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.
     

  11. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,234
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    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.
     
  12. sephking

    sephking Master Guru

    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    2x EVGA 980ti Classified
    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.
     
  13. Juakin

    Juakin Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS GeForce GTX 960 2GB
    Why is 950 obtaining better results than 960???
     
  14. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,272
    Likes Received:
    8,827
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Because yours truly screwed up :nerd: Chart was fixed before you could even write this.
     
  15. Szaby59

    Szaby59 Active Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire RX Vega56
    So where is the AMD magic driver ? Fury X performing on the same level as the ref. 980 is not acceptable...
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2016

  16. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,107
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti
    Wow, this game does not like AMD GPU's too much...

    Funny that it's a console port using AMD GPU's. :D
     
  17. xxela

    xxela Master Guru

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega64 Nit
    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.
     
  18. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,580
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    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.
     
  19. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,234
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    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.
     
  20. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,580
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page