Jin
Member
Holy shit. Frametimes everywhere.
Quantum Break PC performance thread
- Thread starter GroinShooter
- Start date
Holy shit. Frametimes everywhere.
What tool are you using for the FPS in the upper right?
curiouscharles
Member
ok tried twitter, wasn't greyed out, but failed when i tried to move it to D drive... :/
So I just got done playing a decent amount, and am currently in Act 2 of the game. The whole experience so far has definitely been a mixed bag, but I am enjoying the game in spite of the many issues.
Here is my rig:
GTX 970 @ 1435mhz
i7 980x @ 4.0GHZ
12GB DDR3 @ 1600mhz
I have been playing the game with all settings on High. With the fps unlocked, I believe I probably had a variable fps between 30fps and 60fps, that averaged probably in the low 40s most of the time. VRAM would range from ~2700MB-3700MB.
- Positives -
The graphical effects really look awesome, and are very impressive to me.
Global illumination looks pretty good.
Really liked the facial mocap.
Real time cut-scenes look great, and have run well for me.
Gunplay feels amazing. Very tactile and fun when combine it with your powers. The lack of an transitioning animation when aiming downing the sights really did not end up mattering to me. I liked the snappiness of it in-fact.
- Negatives -
Frametimes.
Frametimes. Frametimes. This is easily the worst thing about this port, the frametimes are simply not consistent at all. 30fps lock on/off, doesn't make a fucking difference. I experienced bad framepacing either way. I would have good strings of gameplay where the framepacing felt just fine. I wasn't able to monitor the FPS or Frametimes with software, just didn't have whatever can do that on UWP when I played, but I have a fairly decent feel for it IMO. The frametimes felt like they were fluctuating constantly. When I enabled the 30fps lock, it was very easy to tell the difference between good framepacing and fucked frame pacing. Shit would feel "buttery smooth" one second (yeah yeah a smooth 30fps lol, but a consistent 33ms with a gamepad is something I can very much live with), and terrible the next second. The controls would feel "heavier" and less responsive, the game became perceptible less smooth as well. Act 2 for whatever reason was running better for me overall, so I experienced longer stretches of decent framepacing, it felt good. But even during that good stretch I would still encounter random hitches. Like when jumping down from a tall box or crate. That shit was consistent and odd. This really hurts the game the most, because it messes up the game feel completely. If the framepacing was tighter, I would be able to ignore the other issues this port has much either.
IQ
The IQ in this game is a mess
This game is grainy as a motherfucker at "1080p". The re-projection tech makes everything look blurry in motion. I remember the artifacting and ghosting described in the Digital Foundry video, and it's all definitely here too. Being able to run the game at true native resolution would go a long way I believe in improving the look of the game. I hate the fuzziness, it feels like it's obscuring all the texture detail. I was able to get past this fairly quickly though as my eyes adjusted to it and I scooted my chair waaaay back. Then other things became apparent.
Graphical Oddities
Object Pop-in and LOD changes seem to pop-in quite aggressively and can be distracting. Shadows seem to flicker quite frequently. And it feels like something is wrong with the color depth or something of the like. I'm not even all that positive, but something felt wrong in the visuals of the game. Maybe it was the DoF or the resolution of some post processing effect, but things looked blocky and pixelated and just a bit off. Probably can notice this in my screens. This really brought down the visuals of the game for me, and whatever the problem I'm describing is messing with the effects.
Oh, and one last picture that was both amusing and not so amusing all at the same time.
Here is my rig:
GTX 970 @ 1435mhz
i7 980x @ 4.0GHZ
12GB DDR3 @ 1600mhz
I have been playing the game with all settings on High. With the fps unlocked, I believe I probably had a variable fps between 30fps and 60fps, that averaged probably in the low 40s most of the time. VRAM would range from ~2700MB-3700MB.
- Positives -
The graphical effects really look awesome, and are very impressive to me.
Global illumination looks pretty good.
Really liked the facial mocap.
Real time cut-scenes look great, and have run well for me.
Gunplay feels amazing. Very tactile and fun when combine it with your powers. The lack of an transitioning animation when aiming downing the sights really did not end up mattering to me. I liked the snappiness of it in-fact.
- Negatives -
Frametimes.
Frametimes. Frametimes. This is easily the worst thing about this port, the frametimes are simply not consistent at all. 30fps lock on/off, doesn't make a fucking difference. I experienced bad framepacing either way. I would have good strings of gameplay where the framepacing felt just fine. I wasn't able to monitor the FPS or Frametimes with software, just didn't have whatever can do that on UWP when I played, but I have a fairly decent feel for it IMO. The frametimes felt like they were fluctuating constantly. When I enabled the 30fps lock, it was very easy to tell the difference between good framepacing and fucked frame pacing. Shit would feel "buttery smooth" one second (yeah yeah a smooth 30fps lol, but a consistent 33ms with a gamepad is something I can very much live with), and terrible the next second. The controls would feel "heavier" and less responsive, the game became perceptible less smooth as well. Act 2 for whatever reason was running better for me overall, so I experienced longer stretches of decent framepacing, it felt good. But even during that good stretch I would still encounter random hitches. Like when jumping down from a tall box or crate. That shit was consistent and odd. This really hurts the game the most, because it messes up the game feel completely. If the framepacing was tighter, I would be able to ignore the other issues this port has much either.
IQ
The IQ in this game is a mess
This game is grainy as a motherfucker at "1080p". The re-projection tech makes everything look blurry in motion. I remember the artifacting and ghosting described in the Digital Foundry video, and it's all definitely here too. Being able to run the game at true native resolution would go a long way I believe in improving the look of the game. I hate the fuzziness, it feels like it's obscuring all the texture detail. I was able to get past this fairly quickly though as my eyes adjusted to it and I scooted my chair waaaay back. Then other things became apparent.
Graphical Oddities
Object Pop-in and LOD changes seem to pop-in quite aggressively and can be distracting. Shadows seem to flicker quite frequently. And it feels like something is wrong with the color depth or something of the like. I'm not even all that positive, but something felt wrong in the visuals of the game. Maybe it was the DoF or the resolution of some post processing effect, but things looked blocky and pixelated and just a bit off. Probably can notice this in my screens. This really brought down the visuals of the game for me, and whatever the problem I'm describing is messing with the effects.
Oh, and one last picture that was both amusing and not so amusing all at the same time.
I actually enjoyed the tv episode but the streaming was choppy as hell.
Hmm, can you run winver from search or command line? Do you have version 1511?, you may need to update.
curiouscharles
Member
ive got 1511 :/
tried updating, one update is failing but it's nothing major i don't think.
GroinShooter
Member
No 6K screenshots today, the game cannot be rendered in higher resolutions than 4K. Resolution dropdown menu doesn't show my 6K resolution when I change my desktop resolution to 6K. Only way I could get it to display near 6K is using windowed mode.
The good news keep on coming:
I'm curious how were they getting "mid 40s performance" if the game has double buffered vsync.
I'm very interested what DF has to say about this port.
http://gamingbolt.com/quantum-break-graphics-analysis-the-xbox-one-version-is-surprisingly-better-than-its-pc-counterpart said:
I'm curious how were they getting "mid 40s performance" if the game has double buffered vsync.
I'm very interested what DF has to say about this port.
GroinShooter
Member
OK, so I was able to use 6K and get some screenshots in windowed mode resulting in a resolution of 5418x3048, here are the results.
[URL="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1548/26288165005_4f3ca14a75_o.png"]
[/URL]
[URL="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1548/26288165005_4f3ca14a75_o.png"]
[/URL]
sertopico
Member
Incredible how it still manages to be blurry, even at that res.
family_guy
Member
OK, so I was able to use 6K and get some screenshots in windowed mode resulting in a resolution of 5418x3048, here are the results.
[URL="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1548/26288165005_4f3ca14a75_o.png"]
Seems like at it's core this is just not a visually impressive game in screenshots but in action it fares better. Some of the screens I've seen put it on par with The Last of Us...PS3 version.
GroinShooter
Member
Absolute garbage, about 5-10 fps.
Cheers for suffering through that for the greater good
the greater good
Garrett Hawke
Member
I still can't believe they left the reconstruction stuff in without even an option on PC. Crazy.
chromatic9
Member
What are the high settings like or high to medium?
I only see a few outlets describing their ultra/max setting experience which in most PC games doesn't tell the story as some settings can be silly expensive. Just wondering if we're only getting the max/ultra everything or cry about it on the internet crowd out of the small number who bought the game.
I only see a few outlets describing their ultra/max setting experience which in most PC games doesn't tell the story as some settings can be silly expensive. Just wondering if we're only getting the max/ultra everything or cry about it on the internet crowd out of the small number who bought the game.
Inspectah_Deck
Member
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-04/quantum-break-pc-uwp-probleme/
They wrote about the presets, but it´s german.
Basically they say that there is barely any visible difference between Ultra and the next lower setting Middle (direct translation, perhaps called normal in english).
But the lowest setting should be avoided, because the hit in graphical fidelity is huge.
dgrdsv
Member
GameGPU's benchmark:
Key takeaways:
- fuck 2GB videocards!
- fuck playability in 4K res on anything at all!
- fuck optimal CPU usage in DX12!
- fuck SLI, fuck CF!
- fuck stable frametimes, especially on those rare 60Hz displays!
- fuck no vsync! (okay, UWP's problem here)
- fuck you!
On a more scientific note: Kepler keeping in line with Pascal in DX12 means that there's basically zero optimizations done in this engine for NV's videocards.
Key takeaways:
- fuck 2GB videocards!
- fuck playability in 4K res on anything at all!
- fuck optimal CPU usage in DX12!
- fuck SLI, fuck CF!
- fuck stable frametimes, especially on those rare 60Hz displays!
- fuck no vsync! (okay, UWP's problem here)
- fuck you!
On a more scientific note: Kepler keeping in line with Pascal in DX12 means that there's basically zero optimizations done in this engine for NV's videocards.
chromatic9
Member
Yes it's more in terms of frame rate and frame time as well.
I tried to read the article but seems they only do some graphs in ultra. Again one single ultra setting could be crazy expensive and not needed at all.
The benches of gamegpu seem to be doing VHQ or ultra again. Will have to wait for Digital Foundry I suppose.
Not trying to defend the game, it's a shitshower but would like to see a comparison of high and medium benches/frame times to see if the experience can be improved.
prag16
Banned
Yeah, people keep mostly ignoring these comments from a minority in these topics. I have a 2550k/970 and there's jank if I try to max everything out on ultra at 1680x1050. Using a combo of medium/high settings, I don't know if I'm locked at 60, but it's pretty damn close. Yeah the IQ still isn't very good, but it's a perfectly fine experience. Definitely not experiencing any significant frame pacing issues, outside of an odd hitch here or there.
Same as you said, I'm not exactly "defending" the game; it's clearly still a lousy port with a ton of room for improvement.
I know as PC gamers with beefy rigs, we feel 'entitled' to run the game on ultra, at 4k, maxed out, etc etc etc, if we can't we deem it a horrific unplayable train wreck.
There are numerous valid complaints here, don't get me wrong. But I can't really get on board with how extreme a stance some are taking on this.
The bottom line for me: If you weren't really looking forward to the game and were on the fence to begin with, you probably shouldn't bother with this PC version.
But if you like Remedy and you WERE really looking forward to playing this game and will never own an xbone, consider swallowing your pride, and don't deprive yourself of what's still a very fun game.
Inspectah_Deck
Member
^The problem is, that the game is not really benchabel framerate wise, because of the strict double buffer.
(And also because of the UWP limitations)
(And also because of the UWP limitations)
I was REALLY looking forward to this game and I will never own a Xbone and I will just wait.
GHG
Member
GameGPU's benchmark:
Key takeaways:
- fuck 2GB videocards!
- fuck playability in 4K res on anything at all!
- fuck optimal CPU usage in DX12!
- fuck SLI, fuck CF!
- fuck stable frametimes, especially on those rare 60Hz displays!
- fuck no vsync! (okay, UWP's problem here)
- fuck you!
On a more scientific note: Kepler keeping in line with Pascal in DX12 means that there's basically zero optimizations done in this engine for NV's videocards.
What's worse is that those "1080p" benchmarks are actually 720p.
Resolution reconstruction in a PC game... What on earth were they thinking. Just look at the "6k" shots above. The game looks like blurry shit no matter what you do with it.
For me, this is worse than Arkham Knight. At least with that game you could clean it up via downsampling, you could sort out frame pacing through 3rd party applications, they responded quickly and tried (but failed) to fix it quickly, they issued refunds to everyone that wanted them and you could get it cheap from 3rd party key sellers if you really wanted to.
This would be Maxwell, right?
But all things said, yes, this port is very underwhelming.
I don't know how much is entitlement and how much is wanting devs to do a decent job. I'm sorry, but you having to settle for medium at 1680x1050 with a 970 isn't acceptable, even more because the game doesn't look that much advanced to be murdering rigs this way.
I can love the developer and want to play a game as much as i want, but i'll not accept a subpar product when I know that if they really wanted they could have made a much better job.
This is awful.
Indeed, looks like upscaled low-res stuff. As if they render the various parts at different resolutions, especially the character models are lower res than the environment, it seems, then upscale it to a higher res, and that's the final output image. Terrible IQ.
GHG
Member
I stopped reading the moment he mentioned his resolution. If you're going to defend something then at least try to make it look good.
I don't even. These must be the most blurry "6K" screenshots I've ever seen.
I cry from the inside, I want to see the game without the haze and dynamic rendering stuff. Just can't believe this is how it's meant to look.
GHG
Member
Cross posting from the other thread...
This just in from their official forums:
http://community.remedygames.com/fo...-quantum-break-win10-plans-for-the-pc-version
Let's see what they manage to come up with.
This just in from their official forums:
http://community.remedygames.com/fo...-quantum-break-win10-plans-for-the-pc-version
Let's see what they manage to come up with.
Starfield
Member
This cant be true.
Im playing with a GTX780, i7 4770k and 16gb ddr3 1366mhz and all i get on 1080p/high is around 20fps ....at BEST.
Can anyone tell me how i could boost the performance up so i can have atleast 30fps?
I really really want to play the game but I know my PC can do better (smooth 60fps on Ultra in BF4 or even Battlefront) but in Quantum Break? ...well lets just say my gpu crashed when trying to play on Ultra
Im playing with a GTX780, i7 4770k and 16gb ddr3 1366mhz and all i get on 1080p/high is around 20fps ....at BEST.
Can anyone tell me how i could boost the performance up so i can have atleast 30fps?
I really really want to play the game but I know my PC can do better (smooth 60fps on Ultra in BF4 or even Battlefront) but in Quantum Break? ...well lets just say my gpu crashed when trying to play on Ultra
prag16
Banned
I hear you, but I guess I'm not "principled" enough (or whatever you want to call it) to deprive myself of fun for that reason.
wat.. That's the native resolution of my monitor, yes I know it's an old ass 22 incher. It's close enough to 1080p not to invalidate my experience though. And I'm certainly not the only one here reporting a generally "decent to good" experience on a 970.
As I said, yes, it's shitty that the 970 doesn't cut it on ultra and i have to use half and half high/medium. It sucks and should be complained about. But I'm not going to deprive myself of a game I've been anticipating for years on account of this. I'm having a blast so far. I hope they fix that shit, and I'm not defending the sub par port.
Just trying to convey to the "I was really interested, but if it's an unplayable mess on a 980ti lol" crowd that if they WERE really that interested, they maybe shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
Anybody with no xbone, and a 970 or better that was really anticipating this doesn't necessarily have to miss out on it. It's not necessarily the "hands are tied" situation some people are making it out to be. That's all.
GHG
Member
Look, the game won't even be rendering at 1650x1050. If you are "happy" with that then more power to you, but don't make it out like the rest of us who are waiting to see if they can fix this mess are not in their right minds.
The frametime graphs and videos are there for everyone to see. Nobody is suggesting anybody should miss out on it entirely, but why the hell would you buy it in its current state at its current price when you would be far better off waiting until it's actually fixed (and maybe a bit cheaper) and have an overall better experience?
prag16
Banned
Well, first off I'm not overly optimistic it's going to be fixed, at least not any time soon, for various reasons (UWP, the strange reconstructing stuff, MSFT's track record, etc; and we have no idea if/how they'll handle sales on that storefront). But mainly, the rest of my 2016 is pretty packed gaming and IRL wise, and the month of April worked out to be a great time for me to be playing this, a game that I've been anticipating for years (may even have broken down and bought an xbone just for this one game).
Like I said, I'm running close to 60 from what I can tell, at a half/half high/medium hybrid. I'm not seeing the frametime issues from those graphs/videos at these settings... I only run into that type of stuff when I go more towards ultra. If I wait, and they fix it, maybe I can do a high/ultra hybrid with better IQ?
My post (along with the handful of others reporting decent results with a 970 I'd imagine) was more directed at the people seemingly under the impression that it's an unplayable dumpster fire no matter what you do.
GameGPU's benchmark:
Key takeaways:
- fuck 2GB videocards!
- fuck playability in 4K res on anything at all!
- fuck optimal CPU usage in DX12!
- fuck SLI, fuck CF!
- fuck stable frametimes, especially on those rare 60Hz displays!
- fuck no vsync! (okay, UWP's problem here)
- fuck you!
On a more scientific note: Kepler keeping in line with Pascal in DX12 means that there's basically zero optimizations done in this engine for NV's videocards.
Why am I getting better performance than them with a 970 on a lesser CPU?
If vsync cannot be disabled, how are they getting an average of 68 fps?
If there is no triple buffering, how are they getting an average of 43 fps? Is it because of playing on a 144Hz monitor?
And that reconstruction is probably an integral element of the rendering pipeline, back when PC version was not planned.
Also, looks like Phil Spencer was 100% right
"Going to those teams mid-cycle and saying: ‘Hey, by the way, I want to add a platform' didn’t really feel like necessarily the best way to end up with the best result for the game" - and then Spencer went and did EXACTLY that.
If there is no triple buffering, how are they getting an average of 43 fps? Is it because of playing on a 144Hz monitor?
They did not event bother to add a proper quit button to the main menu...
And that reconstruction is probably an integral element of the rendering pipeline, back when PC version was not planned.
Also, looks like Phil Spencer was 100% right
http://www.pcgamer.com/why-scalebound-crackdown-3-and-quantum-break-arent-coming-to-pc/ said:
"Going to those teams mid-cycle and saying: ‘Hey, by the way, I want to add a platform' didn’t really feel like necessarily the best way to end up with the best result for the game" - and then Spencer went and did EXACTLY that.
RenderJosh
Member
dood.jpg
prag16
Banned
Are you maxing it out? If so that's interesting. I have issues with my 970 when I do that, but on half high, half medium, I'm close to 60.
Ricerocket
Member
Well not if that video you posted earlier is exactly how you see your game. From your video, it looked like 30fps. I can feel the input lag as you barely turn the cam in that vid and that's in a room with nothing happening.
SEGAvangelist
Member
I'm curious if it was a demand or maybe with a push from Remedy in this case (they do love PC gaming). Still a poor idea no matter who is to blame. All this does is hurt the reputation of the developer/game/and MS's Win 10 gaming push. No one wins... especially when it comes to the gamers interested in the product.
The video I posted is awful quality and its sole purpose was to show my settings and FPS in the top right.
dgrdsv
Member
Yes, of course, getting ahead of time here thinking on how GP104 chips may end up =)
Yes, you can get above 60 on a 144Hz monitor obviously.
As for 43 fps - these are averages, they are counted from all frametimes you've had, DB vsync will only create steps in frametimes themselves, not average fpses.
Remember - Averages are just that: an average. You can average 43 FPS even if 0% of the frames were actually delivered at 23.2 ms. It just means that the game fluctuated wildly between 30 and 60 FPS.
EDIT: Actually, since they're playing on a 144 hz monitor, it's more like it's fluctuating between 36 and 72 FPS.
Even if it does, the prices are high across the board. MS really does not want people to buy this game.
Thanks for clarification, the minimum framerate also is an average?
GroinShooter
Member
Wouldn't recommend even trying, seems a lot can go wrong with that method and it possibly won't even work anymore. Your bank could call you back and be freaking out that someone tried to use or used your credit card from another country or the transaction might fail and the bank could charge you a small fee for trying to do a thing like this (you won't get that money back). In some countries doing this might also fall under committing a fraud, so please, don't. Plus if MS finds out, lifelong ban.