Did you managed to get 60fps at 1080 with a 1080? If so what settings?Scaling off obv.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Quantum Break PC performance thread
- Thread starter GroinShooter
- Start date
Kaffeemann
Banned
Digital Foundry: Quantum Break: Better on DirectX 11! GTX 970/1060 vs RX 480 Gameplay Frame-Rate Tests
GTX 970 runs over 30% faster and has no more stutter and driver crashing.
GTX 1060 runs about 20% faster.
No difference for the RX 480.
GTX 970 runs over 30% faster and has no more stutter and driver crashing.
GTX 1060 runs about 20% faster.
No difference for the RX 480.
digitalrelic
Banned
I'd really like to see how you clowns are going to try to justify UWP performance now.
Looks like it will be a much smoother experience with my 970 on the Steam version, nice. I especially couldn't stand the stuttering and hitching in present in the UWP version on that card.
Wowfunhappy
Member
This has nothing to do with UWP. It has to do with DX11 vs DX12.
Rise of the Tomb Ralder UWP has comparable performance to the Steam version.
digitalrelic
Banned
Either way, I'd like to see how these people are going to continue to try to justify Quantum Break's original performance, as they have the past few pages, now that we're seeing 30% gains on the DX11 version.
I would say that the performance difference is based off of the familiarity of the API used by the developer than just DX11 v. DX12 in itself. It's clear that MS rushed Remedy to make the game, why it was DX12, don't know (UWP has nothing to do with that as Killer Instinct is DX11 I believe). Time and familiarity are the causes for these performance issues (granted that could be for anything but we all presume that this is a rushed port)
digitalrelic
Banned
Agreed. But again, read back through this thread. Many were claiming that there were no "performance issues", but it's just that Quantum Break is the new Crysis and it looks so amazing and is so far ahead of everything and that's why it runs like total shit.
dr_rus
Member
Quantum Break Benchmark : Steam mit DX11 gegen Windows Store mit DX12
Yep, some insane performance gains on NV, basically confirming that the UWP/DX12 version was just very badly optimized for NV h/w:
AMD seems to be loosing a bit of performance but I'm pretty sure that they'll gain this bit back with new drivers.
More at the link.
Yep, some insane performance gains on NV, basically confirming that the UWP/DX12 version was just very badly optimized for NV h/w:
AMD seems to be loosing a bit of performance but I'm pretty sure that they'll gain this bit back with new drivers.
More at the link.
Locuza
Member
If you follow the article to Comuterbase you will see that for AMD there are quite big gains from DX12 if you have a weak CPU.
For AMD and Nvidia the UWP-Variant shows better frametimes than the Steam-Version at least most of the time but Nvidia does have ugly frame-spikes under UWP so DX11 does feel smother nonetheless.
For AMD user it's a mixed bag, since it depends on how your system is balanced if UWP (DX12) or Steam (DX11) is better.
From a customer perspective it's really bizarre and dissapointing that Remedy decided to make DX12 and DX11 store specific.
For AMD and Nvidia the UWP-Variant shows better frametimes than the Steam-Version at least most of the time but Nvidia does have ugly frame-spikes under UWP so DX11 does feel smother nonetheless.
For AMD user it's a mixed bag, since it depends on how your system is balanced if UWP (DX12) or Steam (DX11) is better.
From a customer perspective it's really bizarre and dissapointing that Remedy decided to make DX12 and DX11 store specific.
Nice gain after all. Initial benchmarks lacking direct comparison were probably a bit quick to be judged as reference.
I hope they'll add the DX11 renderer to the Store version but I'm still confused whether or not they'll do that. Probably the latter ugh
dr_rus
Member
This is a bit of a strange result tbh as my personal feeling says the exact opposite, at least on a GTX 1080 - Steam version in exclusive fullscreen have better frametime stability than UWP one in a window.
LukasTaves
Member
The game is far ahead of anything Imo, but while any improvement is welcome it's not like now it runs amazingly and before was like shit. It's still a taxing game to run everything maxed.
icecold1983
Member
gains are much bigger than i expected
nextgeneration
Member
I'm out of the loop on this one. So, does this mean that people who have Quantum Break from the Windows store will or won't get a DX 11 patch for this?
digitalrelic
Banned
Won't. I just refunded my UWP copy of the game.
It would probably be too embarrassing for MS to release DX11 patch on their store that runs better than DX12 that they are hyping.
Locuza
Member
The results from Computerbase back this up, since the smaller variance will be probably unnoticeable while the huge frame spikes which occur sometimes are definitely recognizable.
I think triple buffering is disabled for me, anyone with the same problem?
The framerate jumps from 60 to 30 and then back to 30, no middle ground.
I have vsync on (obviously) and am running the game on a 970, latest nvidia driver. Steam version.
EDIT: also, any way to hide the mouse pointer when I'm playing with a pad? It keeps popping up right at the center of the screen in menus and when I read documents, VERY annoying.
The framerate jumps from 60 to 30 and then back to 30, no middle ground.
I have vsync on (obviously) and am running the game on a 970, latest nvidia driver. Steam version.
EDIT: also, any way to hide the mouse pointer when I'm playing with a pad? It keeps popping up right at the center of the screen in menus and when I read documents, VERY annoying.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
What does UWP have to do with performance?
Is a badly optimized game, it being UWP shouldn't factor in on that.
cleveridea
Member
Quantum Break Benchmark : Steam mit DX11 gegen Windows Store mit DX12
Yep, some insane performance gains on NV, basically confirming that the UWP/DX12 version was just very badly optimized for NV h/w:
AMD seems to be loosing a bit of performance but I'm pretty sure that they'll gain this bit back with new drivers.
More at the link.
Wow that's bad where you cant get 1080/60 on 980 Ti with the DX12 version
I dont understand why they cant just update the windows store version with the DX11 version that steam has. Feels wrong to me to buy the game a second time just to get 1080/60 on Titan X (OG)
chromatic9
Member
Nice gains there, especially on medium, we're looking at roughly 3x the performance of Xbox and real world a 980/1060 has 3x the perf in games.
Glad to have waited. Feel sorry for 970 windows store owners, they should get sent a Steam code if you have proof of owning windows store version.
Just to add, the devs went for 20% of the GPU market and also nerfed the most popular card, the 970. What a sorry ass launch QB was.
digitalrelic
Banned
I'm not saying UWP has anything to do with performance. It doesn't.
Pathfinder
Member
this.
it's sooooo annoying sitting on the couch playing on the tv and the mouse cursor keeps popping up everytime i find a collectible or go into a menu.
vsync seems to be double buffered to me. i set it myself via nvidia inspector and disabled the ingame one.
yeah the ingame cutscenes are locked to 30fps.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The best part is the price that Quantum Break will be at the next Steam sale. I'll definitely consider grabbing it then.
Braag
Member
Some of the outside areas with a lot of effecs going on are a lot demanding than others and it's usually in these areas that the frame rate jumps all over the place.
Here I'm standing looking at this car and the game is at a steady 60 fps
But as soon as I aim at the car my fps drops to 30. Not a single frame higher or lower, but a steady 30.
I'm running a GTX1070. This is the first game where I've experienced such huge jumps in frames with this card.
Here I'm standing looking at this car and the game is at a steady 60 fps
But as soon as I aim at the car my fps drops to 30. Not a single frame higher or lower, but a steady 30.
I'm running a GTX1070. This is the first game where I've experienced such huge jumps in frames with this card.
Dictator93
Member
That is double buffered Vsync.
digitalrelic
Banned
Oh my god guys for the last fucking time I'm not saying UWP is what's killing performance. I'm just saying there's two different versions of the game: UWP and Steam. UWP runs like ass. Not because it's UWP. There's just two different versions of the game out there and one runs like ass. I never said it runs like ass because of UWP.
digitalrelic
Banned
Vsync. It means you were probably just above 60fps before, and just below after. WIth Vsync on that will cut your FPS in half and sync it to 30.
Pathfinder
Member
Hey, don't get angry with us because you leaned toward being confrontational rather than being articulate with your thoughts.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Doesn't that game also run poorly? Not sure why you're using it as an example of good performance from a UWP game
Braag
Member
That's right.
Turning off Vsync dropped my frames from 75 to around 40 when aiming in that same spot. Yet once I enable borderless window my frames don't drop and stay at a steady 60 regardless if I'm aiming or not.
Pathfinder
Member
icecold1983
Member
very poorly
You are using double buffered vsync.
EDIT: Beaten. In other news, the most demanding effects in this game to turn down with minimal visual impact are the "visual effects" or whatever they're called. Basically the refraction from the time shifting effects are what hit it the most for me.
It's one of shitiest and weirdest performing UWP games out there. Plagued with stuttering, awful cpu utilization and bad performance on most older gpu architectures. I mean when a 390 is half as fast as a 480 there's something seriously wrong.
Pathfinder
Member
I'm personally not running into any issues with the game on my rig, so I can't comment on issues others are having. I'll pop over to the PC performance thread.
Oh boy you're in for a treat.
Pathfinder
Member
Quite possibly. I usually don't bother checking PC performance threads unless I'm having problems myself and want to know what's up.
Nostremitus
Member
Considering it didn't change for the 480... It may be due to Nvidia's DX12 performance.
That's not how DX12 works. DX12 performance is all on the dev. The difference between DX12 and DX11 is all the performance Remedy left on the table compared to Nvidia's driver team.
Nostremitus
Member
Unless it's due to async compute limitations. Nvidia's implementation is nowhere near as efficient as AMDs. So, if a game relies on Async heavily in it's DX12 implementation, then Nvidia cards will suffer. Pascal corrected a lot of the issues that Maxwell 2 had, such as:
Source Anandtech:
on Pascal :
and in comparison to AMD:
This could account for the difference between the 970 and the 1060 on DX12 and for the difference between the 1060 and 480. It seems to scale pretty well with the async compute capabilities of the cards.
Dictator93
Member
NV cards won't suffer (as in run worse) as they will just run it serially as they would anyway under DX11 (on Maxwell and below).
Nostremitus
Member
That's just it, if a game's implementation of DX12 relies on running code asyncronously, then running serially could cause lower framrate and could stall out if the card isn't able to keep up with vital processes. Sort of like what seems to be happening with the 970 in the GF video which leads to a driver crash.
Considering that the DX12 version was coded to maximize performance on a console, it's a safe bet that it heavily favors async compute as that should be the best way to maximize performance there.