Watch Dog 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Nov 29, 2016.

  1. CK the Greek

    CK the Greek Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    GB 2060S,Gsync,3DV2
    I don't say I am against to have more options so users may choose their perf/IQ ratio BUT many of you lose the point of my post,

    I've read everywhere (I don't bother with Nvidia's advertising and giving SO MUCH credit about it,they have to sell stuff,business is all about money..) that

    "this temporal filtering trick is amazing"

    "I have so much nice performance and using it I don't lose quality,it's the same maybe even BETTER" (Jesus..)

    "hey all using this a get stable 30 fps on 4k, I am so happy"

    and I really wonder how the new generation brain works?

    Yes it's just a ****ty option that is so "good" for consoles, for developers that ARE LAZY for optimization their software, for developers that due to time deadlines (business/money in the middle again..) have to release no matter what or how the perf is, and last and worst: many gamers are happy with such tricks leading developers to use more "cheap" techniques at loss of quality as they see that their customers "take the pill" 'cause they don't care much for quality..(for example consoles like PS4 "pro" is another gimmick that so many ignorant customers believe that is BETTER if it can render 4K !?!?!

    Bottom line
    (hopefully I will be so wrong about this..but only time will show)

    as long we,PC gamers, accept to lose quality (due to lack of hard and obviously much time consuming work on games by their developers) some techniques will be taken for granted and then a day will come that games start to developed/released only with temporal filtering which then would be just "regular" method of gaming..

    it's all about the money these days, "make it fast,cheap,release and get the money" .

    ASK for better optimization, DEMAND better support for your hardware, DONT be -PC industrial- fashion victims.. is it so hard to just think of it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
  2. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,801
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    There is zero evidence that the current iteration of games are poorly optimized. People are crying about the absolute maximum being difficult for the highest iteration of card - but maximum quality of a game can be infinite. I can take a single tree and just bump the poly count to 10 billion and the best card would **** the bed. Had Ubisoft removed the maximum setting and just renamed Very High to Maximum (or whatever they call it in game) none of these nonsense posts would have ever even been made. Everyone would be satisfied with the performance.

    The bottom line is that you have a finite amount of time to develop a game and the bar for graphics is increasingly being raised. The tools are improving, but it's not improving nearly as fast as graphics are plateauing. It's not longer the days where you can simply double polygon count and see a massive increase in quality. I constantly see posts about "graphics horsepower is doubled, but quality/perf hasn't" - it's because there are diminishing returns on the output. A slightly better lighting system might use the entirety of that newly unlocked performance for only a 5% increase in "quality". And that lighting system takes thousands of man hours to develop.

    Options like temporal filtering is the better optimization people have been asking for. It barely impacts image quality, with a massive boost to performance. Your alternative is either asking for the developers to dedicate thousands of more hours for barely any increase, or simply stripping the game of all options and just making it look like crap on low performing hardware by reducing quality of all the assets and rendering/lighting systems.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  3. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    886
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    No, it's not. Writing a fast and efficient temporal anti aliasing shader is multiple times harder than just applying MSAA, which is literally an API/driver call.

    Cards like the 1080 and the 1070 are efficient, but they aren't as fast as you are lead to believe, especially in engines tuned for the opposite architecture. They also are able to run it with supersamling, but that would depend on your resolution. Downsampling from 1440p to 1080p, along with the temporal AA should make jaggies non-existent.

    Also to that other guy who complains about temporal AA: Have you played DOOM and you seriously say that temporal AA solutions are worse than MSAA? Like, you can say that with a straight face? You also know that MSAA only anti aliases polygons, not alpha textures and effects, and it does NOTHING for shimmering, right? In effect, even at the highest setting, it works worse than a temporal AA shader. For all intents and purposes, it's better to use DSR/VSR, than crappy MSAA.

    I'm glad we're going away from it.
     
  4. Monchis

    Monchis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 950
    One just have to take a look at eurogamer pc vs console screenshot comparisons, needing 6-8 times the horsepower to run console ports with virtually the same graphics is laughable. Only reason for these ports being so demanding are newer cards, the more gfx horsepower you give to the usually suspect porting devs, the lazier they become.

    You need to try some anti aliasing demos from humus coder, you are defending devs that can´t even get fxaa right, obviously doing some nasty dx11+ proper msaa is beyond them:

    http://www.humus.name/index.php?page=3D
     

  5. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,495
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    CK, from what i can see you are arguing with the old generation, PR, Denial and myself are all getting on abit as far as im aware, Rearden might be as well.

    This game has high end image quality settings that batter high end hardware, but also mid range and low end settings that prioritise performance.
    It's the best of both worlds.

    If someone with a midrange card wants to max it at 1080/30 or someone with a high end card wants 2160/6o or 1440/144 then good for them.

    Stupid people are ruining PC gaming, it's like they are plants trying to make us all look dense, they don't know anything and base everything they know on monetised You Tube videos aimed at the lowest common denominator.
    They need to be called out and pushed out.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  6. Monchis

    Monchis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 950
    Being able to turn off stuff doesn´t make something a good port, the things one has to read.
     
  7. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,495
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    No one said it did.....

    Having lots of settings to enable or disable does though.

    I recently decided to jump back into new games, and a after the mostly negative public opinion, I found that most stuff actually exceeded my expectations.
    I doubt I tied everything, but only Mafia 3 and Doom were so so technically, particularly Mafia 3.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  8. millibyte

    millibyte Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    203
    GPU:
    3080 12gb
    This game seriously needs a good TAA solution. There are many different aa offerings, true, but they're all different shades of poop. TXAA is very costly and looks worse than FO4, Doom4 or even DXMD TAA, all of which have very little performance cost.
     
  9. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    886
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Two thirds of the examples in that page are using post-processing techniques. The rest are still ramming MSAA in scenes where it doesn't belong to. I'm not defending devs, I'm saying that implying that MSAA is somehow the harder solution compared to a proper temporal filter, is false.
     
  10. shymi

    shymi Member Guru

    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3070
    Great article, Hilbert! Meanwhile - something interesting I realized while looking at the graphs - the difference in fps between 1080 & 1070 is double compared to the difference between 980 & 970.
     

  11. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    VRAM. That is your reason. This game uses 4GB+ at 1080 in ultra.
     
  12. Monchis

    Monchis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 950
    Having a zillion of menu options doesn´t make something a good port at all, what makes something a good port is the proper use of your hardware period. For this game you can´t duplicate a console like experience using a 1.7tflops gpu without turning off a **** ton of stuff, way below console gfx. But let´s forget about that, this is end of 2016, you can´t have an open world (inherently processor intensive) game port without using dx12 or vulkan and call it "well done".

    But I´m talking about proper efficient msaa allowed by those techniques that use directcompute to manage lighting, that has to be much harder than injecting borrowed fxaa/smaa code.
     
  13. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    886
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Can't you? Do we know which console settings map to which PC settings? How do you know that? Not even Dishonored 2 was like that.



    Temporal is not like FXAA nor SMAA, and you can't simply inject it.


    EDIT: A little guide to how "easy" proper temporal is:
    http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  14. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,801
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    PS4 is 1.84Tflops and runs the game at 900p @ 30fps. GTX1050 is 1.8tflops and runs the game at 1080p @ 30fps with a higher level of detail. So not only are you wrong, you're wrong+.
     
  15. Monchis

    Monchis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 950
    Of course it does, on ps4 pro it has like 99% the same IQ than a high end pc without the nvidia non sense:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1fMsgjeh4

    And about those alternative methods, does it really matter?. My point is that we have the techniques to bring back proper msaa, what we lack is devs with enough expertise to do it. Even those fxaa geometry buffer demos look waay better than these journeymen devs can manage or care to do.


    2.3 tflops gpu high settings @7:13, runs like garbage, you´ll have to go way lower ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mP24O6XaiY
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016

  16. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    886
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Shadow quality and filtering in general, is utter crap. That's not 99%, performance wise.

    Why is a method that only anti-aliases polygons a "better" and more "proper" method than methods that kill aliasing for all the contents of the screen? Why is MSAA desirable?

    900p30, and no DX12, so you have much higher CPU overheads. Not even close as a comparison actually.
     
  17. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,801
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    If you bothered to read the comments, the guy explains that he doesn't get that issue unless he's playing for a long period of time, which indicates thermal throttling or memory leak. He's also recording the game which not only induces a straight up performance drop, but it also can cause hitching. Nor is it to mention that the 960 you chose is only 4GB and the game goes over that and the consoles have more then that. Also the PS4/Pro/Xbox all have similar performance drops/hitching in the game so pointing that out as a difference is meaningless.

    But I guess it's easier to ignore all that and continue to make the same argument in nearly every game benchmark thread.
     
  18. Reardan

    Reardan Master Guru

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    130
    GPU:
    GTX 3080
    Or that it's running on a ****ing FX 6300.
     
  19. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    886
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Which is still at least x4 the CPU that the Xbox One/ PS4 have. It's an issue of APIs too.
     
  20. Monchis

    Monchis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 950
    To me they look pretty close, I mean embarrassingly close. As for antialiasing I think you have not played a game with proper msaa in a long time hehe.

    The way I see it, the real issue is journeymen devs going the easier route with dx11... and they sell their game as top tech with nvidia supporting them, what a joke.

    People with high end setups are having hiccups problems too... same devs, same problem to a degree from the first watch dogs. Solution, stop supporting and defending them. But there is no need for a call to arms hehe, game bombed on pc too, so badly that ubi marketing director has had to stream the pc version himself, and nvidia shills all over europe have been forced to do it as well ;).
     

Share This Page