I think its more GPU heavy, the score is right where it should be on the chart
Printable View
I think its more GPU heavy, the score is right where it should be on the chart
Ryzen 5 1600 and sapphire rx480 4gb
standard quality 1080p - score 5749
high quality 1080p - score 3232
for high quality the camera panning was very jumpy, start of fight sequence with robot was a few smooth frames then a second or two of 'granny doing powerpoint' amount of fps.
[IMG]https://forums.hexus.net/members/ste...s-resullts.jpg[/IMG]
I benchmarked it on my current system:
Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770
16GB DDR3
GTX1080FE
Its smooth,but there is hitching too,when the game seems to stutter a bit. I also seem to be probably a bit CPU bottlenecked.
https://i.imgur.com/tD1nPuM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZqE1MPw.jpg
OK, so here are my results:
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 non OC
16Gb DDR4 3000
MSI Geforce 1070 FE Aero OC
Standard/1080p: 8122
High/1080p: 5708 (GPU got heated after first bench,so I suppose lower than expected result,but still OK)
So not bad.
I just do not get the buzz around it (or this game), and graphics do not look "Wow", something like from 2-3 years ago.
FX8350
R9 380 4GB
1920x1080 windowed
3894 standard
That's 2 percent lower than the official R9 380 score, I guess that's what I get for not having the latest i7 :)
I am qHD too,so I suspect I won't be getting 60FPS on this,and I suspect this game my challenge ARK for being how taxing it is.
If you look at the benchmark thread on OcUK for the game,it seems a newer CPU does make a difference:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/th...ench.18810408/
https://i.imgur.com/sPMqZfV.png
https://i.imgur.com/H8lMTQU.png
Well the benchmark did have some weird hitching and even GN with its own scripted tests saw the same:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-ben...phics-analysis
GN,has done extensive testing of the game.Quote:
Conclusion: FFXV GPU Results
These results are more cause for investigation. We’re digging into which graphics options specifically are causing the hitching behavior that’s present on both nVidia and AMD hardware. As it stands now, “High” settings, as a blanket, are exacting a detrimental impact on frametime performance and consistency. This is most severe on AMD cards, which are struggling to cope with – we’d assume – the GameWorks settings, although other graphics options do change alongside the GameWorks options. This is something that we are actively investigating, now that we’ve figured out how to toggle settings manually. We should have more soon.
There’s no doubt that the game is visually impressive. The achievement of the visuals, by and large, is done with heavily tessellating things like terrain and ground elements, which provide the apparent depth to the ground. Hair is also tessellated, and the shadow libraries (although the pop-in isn’t great) are pulled from GameWorks. That’s not to discredit Square Enix’s own contributions, though: Texture quality is impressive, and the huge amount of texture detail is indicative of precisely why the 4GB cards are struggling the most. That’s a lot of data to stream, and is also a major contributor in frametime spikiness on the first test pass.
GameWorks & Hidden Graphics Settings in Final Fantasy XV Benchmark:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/news/322...y-xv-benchmark
Quote:
We’ve been working on our Final Fantasy XV benchmarking and already have multiple machines going, including both CPU and GPU testing. This process included discovery of run-to-run variance, pursuant to slow initialization of game resources during the first test pass. We can solve for this with additional test passes and by eliminating the first test pass from the data pool.
One of the downsides to Final Fantasy XV’s benchmark is that there is no customization for graphics settings: You’ve got High, “Middle,” and “Lite.” Critically, the medium settings seem to disable most of the nVidia GameWorks graphics options, which will impact performance between nVidia and AMD cards. We spoke with AMD about a driver update for the game, and have been informed that updated drivers will ship closer to the game’s launch. In the meantime, we’ll be testing High and Medium settings alike, building a database for relative performance scaling between AMD and nVidia. That content is due out soon.
Final Fantasy XV (FFXV) Benchmark Variance Run-to-Run:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-ben...nce-run-to-run
FFXV Pretest: CPU numThread, SMT, NV/AMD GameWorks ScalingQuote:
In the meantime, here are some frametime graphs. This is ad-hoc testing on an 8700K at 5GHz, 1.42V, with 3200MHz CL14 GSkill Trident Z Memory. We are using a GTX 1070 Gaming X card for this test, which is running on the latest drivers. Windows version 1703 is being used. The blue bar demonstrates performance variability during the first pass, something which we must reconcile as we continue to run benchmarks. The frametime spikes are felt in the form of long, noticeable stutters in gameplay.
Be sure to follow our testing as we iterate. We are working all day on FFXV PC benchmarks.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-ben...eworks-scaling
https://i.imgur.com/QYXqlcU.pngQuote:
The High preset is presently the only time that GameWorks graphics options are enabled, and two of those options supposedly remain disabled for the benchmark utility. The ShadowWorks library is disabled at present, as is voxel-accelerated ambient occlusion. That said, the same user who detailed these settings as disabled later posted a screenshot of the on-screen display, having hacked it to work in FFXV, and now believes that VXAO is enabled for 1080p/High settings. Either way, we previously detailed most of these graphics settings when they were unveiled, back at GDC 2016. VXAO converts the screen space into voxels based upon geometric data, which reduces the complexity present from raw triangles and primitives. VXAO then runs a cone-tracing pass for shadowing computation. The result is that ambient occlusion can theoretically be calculated more accurately, demonstrated with nVidia’s tank asset.
Quote:
Let’s pull some quick data out of our upcoming GPU benchmark. This will look at relative performance scaling between the RX 580 and GTX 1060 6GB cards, switching between Medium and High settings. The idea is to see if relative scaling worsens with the higher settings, as that is where nVidia theoretically has more optimization. Keep in mind that more than just the GameWorks settings change between medium and high, but those are most likely to be drivers in performance deltas.
The GTX 1060 6GB card is baseline here, marked at 100% performance. The GTX 1070, under both medium and high settings, maintains 137% of the GTX 1060’s performance. It is almost equal for both presets.
UPDATED Section: The RX 580 maintains 81.4% (original test indicated 60%, we discovered some more issues with the benchmark that caused us to rerun tests) of the GTX 1060 performance when using High settings, or 95.5% (original text said 66.6%) of the GTX 1060’s performance when using low settings. AMD is regaining ground at medium settings, which means that at least one of the settings enabled under “High” is more taxing for the RX 580 than it is for the GTX 1060. This comes down to shader-level optimization and/or architectural level differences, where shader-level optimization would also account for driver and library differences involving GameWorks. We cannot conclude that GameWorks is the cause of the 6-percentage-point disparity, but it is a likely contributor, as it is reasonable to assume that GeForce would process those nVidia effects with greater performance.Quote:
As for SMT, we'll spoil that we've found performance uplift on the R7 1700 (stock and overclocked) by disabling SMT altogether. This seems to coincide with the numThread=8 performance uplift.
Quote:
As for SMT, we'll spoil that we've found performance uplift on the R7 1700 (stock and overclocked) by disabling SMT altogether. This seems to coincide with the numThread=8 performance uplift.
Don't know how "new" the cpu needs to be when my good old haswell 4790k did good 200 points above baseline and cool 1000 points above when overclocking gpu. Seems to be gpu bound as usual.
Oh and as per "what actual fps I have with x score" - I would agree with the divide by 100 comment. With fps overlay and score of 6000 I had about 55-60fps at all times, and when dropped gpu overclock and scored 5000 points I had 45-50 ish fps.
Had 4288 on High quality and 6216 on standard with My 970 and 3570k non overlocked. Interestingly a little over the 970 listed considering the cpu is on the dated side. Was a little choppy on high settings though.
I got 7928(1080p and high) and then 3507(4k and high) with my 1800x@ stock and gtx 1080.