• 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.

Rise of the Tomb Raider PC |OT| Hello... it's me.

Nere

Member
How well do you think a laptop with the 970m can run it? I can run the witcher 3 on ultra high with 35-40 fps.
 

benzy

Member
image_rise_of_the_tomb_raider-30659-2982_0005.jpg


image_rise_of_the_tomb_raider-30659-2982_0006.jpg
 
As expected console ports require more powerful PC hardware as months pass.

If a year ago you could double a console fps using a GTX 770, now you need a 970. And it's only 1-2 years. And if you wanted parity with console you needed a 750 ti, now you need a 960, that on its own is 75% of the cost of a whole console.

Wait another 1-2 years and the 970 matched with a i7 at 3+ Ghz will be required for simple parity with console.
 
As expected console ports require more powerful PC hardware as months pass.

If a year ago you could double a console fps using a GTX 770, now you need a 970. And it's only 1-2 years. And if you wanted parity with console you needed a 750 ti, now you need a 960, that on its own is 75% of the cost of a whole console.

Wait another 1-2 years and the 970 matched with a i7 at 3+ Ghz will be required for simple parity with console.
I doubt it.
 
Enjoy the terrible inner monologues at campfires.
Hopefully the PC version isn't afflicted with that input lag. Having responsive controls might have almost made the game worth it.
 

Spinifex

Member
As expected console ports require more powerful PC hardware as months pass.

If a year ago you could double a console fps using a GTX 770, now you need a 970. And it's only 1-2 years. And if you wanted parity with console you needed a 750 ti, now you need a 960, that on its own is 75% of the cost of a whole console.

Wait another 1-2 years and the 970 matched with a i7 at 3+ Ghz will be required for simple parity with console.

That's not what is happening here. This game is less a port and more a remaster.
 

Sky Saw

Banned
As expected console ports require more powerful PC hardware as months pass.

If a year ago you could double a console fps using a GTX 770, now you need a 970. And it's only 1-2 years. And if you wanted parity with console you needed a 750 ti, now you need a 960, that on its own is 75% of the cost of a whole console.

Wait another 1-2 years and the 970 matched with a i7 at 3+ Ghz will be required for simple parity with console.

Maybe look at the comparisons and see that it's not just doubling FPS of the console version, but a version with much superior graphical features.
 
That's not what is happening here. This game is less a port and more a remaster.

but

The Xbox One version of the game was clearly optimised to operate at its best on a closed platform and as such, it's not actually possible to fully duplicate console settings here. The closest match requires a meaty system to get the job done - an i5 quad with something along the lines of a GTX 960 to hit 1080p30 on high settings.

First and foremost, the venerable DF budget PC with an i3 processor and GTX 750 Ti finally met its match with Rise of the Tomb Raider. Running with settings similar to Xbox One, we found that testing areas saw the game turn in frame-rates between 13 and 25fps
 
Hmmm... not sure. DF said that at Xbox One equivalent settings their 750Ti was handing in like 13-25fps. :/

Xbox One settings are a mix of High, Medium, and Low. I'm talking *all* Medium-Low settings.

At any rate, the 750Ti is above the minimum requirement by a bit, so it can definitely run it. The question is, how low will I need to go for that magical 60fps?
 
Isn't 960 basically equivalent in terms of GPU power to the current gen consoles? Which current gen game on PC outperforms it's console counterpart on matching settings using a 750 Ti? I'm not following

Looks... Hot :^)

Most multiplatform games, so far.
But in this game, it's definitely not looking good for the budget PC. It's either the vram requirements are high, or just not really a good port.
 
As expected console ports require more powerful PC hardware as months pass.

If a year ago you could double a console fps using a GTX 770, now you need a 970. And it's only 1-2 years. And if you wanted parity with console you needed a 750 ti, now you need a 960, that on its own is 75% of the cost of a whole console.

Wait another 1-2 years and the 970 matched with a i7 at 3+ Ghz will be required for simple parity with console.

Not a chance.
 
I'm having to ask myself some hard questions re: that assertion. Nixxes have an extremely good reputation, their past ports were amazingly well optimized. I can't imagine what's different this time around.

Perhaps the culprit is indeed the vram requirements. I heard the consoles have up to 8gb of vram or something like that.
High textures are xb1 textures. I presume they do not fair as well with less than 3 GB of VRAM. Then again, I am not positive.
Have there been reports of how 2GB cards fair on high textures?
 

scitek

Member
I'm having to ask myself some hard questions re: that assertion. Nixxes have an extremely good reputation, their past ports were amazingly well optimized. I can't imagine what's different this time around.
... After some patching, their ports are always good. They have a track record of some issues on day 1.
 
I'm excited as hell too, and cannot wait for midnight, but from what I'm seeing, it's not better than The Order 1886. That's still the best looking game this generation.

The Order is way too murky to hold that title. AF is not where it needed to be either.

OT: Didn't think I'd be joining the fray for a while, but just got a code from the BTS thread, so ... I'm in? lol
 

JustinBB7

Member
Nice, didn't know pre-load was up. Doing that now, ready for tomorrow. Going in pretty fresh, haven't seen much. Tomb Raider 2013 was a sleeper hit for me, really really enjoyed it. Can't wait to play this one.
 
Top Bottom