Support NeoGAF

[Agent_4Seven]

Definetly one of the most advanced and best looking games out there.

I'm sorry, what? *epicfacepalm*

Even with the upscaling turned off and x4 MSAA the game looks no where near good and impressive enough to call it "the most advanced and best looking", it's just a joke. QB in terms visuals is very bog-standard game for 2014-2015 and there's much and much better looking games out there right now - Uncharted 4, Horizon, The Witcher 3 - PC max settings, Arkham Knight - PC max settings, Rise of the Tomb Raider - PC max settings, DOOM - PC max settings, and Arkham Knight (absolutely the worst optimized game of all time at launch) runs flowlessly in 1440p max settings right now and looks absolutely amazing and much and much better than QB.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I would think at high settings you could turn scaling off if you lock it at 30.

Huh, it looks like that's the case.

I wonder if I could get 60fps with medium settings and scaling (GTX 1060). I'm guessing not.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I think it would've helped to make little pop-ups with explanations and performance impact of various settings. But in the end people should just read up and learn something instead of always throwing around the words like "shit, unopitimized, lazy devs". That's too easy of an excuse (not only for video games) in this day and age with so much information available for free with only a few clicks.

Why exactly should gamers need to learn and read up stuff? Developers should simply properly label their stuff and put some thought into the presets. They are the ones selling a product here.

Ultra settings are meant to be the mindless holy shit everything maxed out settings. That's their purpose. It used to just be low, medium, and high. If any devs add settings higher than ultra then they aren't labeling their settings properly.

No. Ultra =/= Max. An Ultra preset is useless if you can not even run it with the best GPU.

 

[Zojirushi]

Why exactly should gamers need to learn and read up stuff? Developers should simply properly label their stuff and put some thought into the presets. They are the ones selling a product here.



No. Ultra =/= Max. An Ultra preset is useless if you can not even run it with the best GPU.

Ultra = Beyond.

And that's what it should be. Beyond the capabilities of current GPUs.

Problem is the scale is all messed up now and people with 970s and 980s put settings on Ultra and complain about shit being unoptimized .

 

[Gaogaogao]

Ultra = Beyond.

And that's what it should be. Beyond the capabilities of current GPUs.

Problem is the scale is all messed up now and people with 970s and 980s put settings on Ultra and complain about shit being unoptimized .

people with 1080s say the same thing. its not impressive.

 

[BONKERS]

Even if the DX11 renderer works well, the overall rendering tech is just way, way too expensive for today's cards, 4X MSAA and global illumination are no joke.

The fact that the visuals are almost 100% the same as the XBO version and rendering really at 720p. Mid to high end GPUs should destroy this game. But they don't.
4xMSAA in a properly designed Forward+ setup shouldn't cost *that* much. MSAA is a waste of resources anyway in modern games just to tackle geometry aliasing alone. It works well when combined with other techniques. Which is why they combined it with TAAand their up-rendering crap. Which have all kinds of ugly ass artifacts and edge quality ends up not being all that great because of it. Not that MSAA on it's own would really look all that much better.


Ultra offers piss shit in terms of visual upgrades over the XBO version in QB. They didn't even extend the LOD distances.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/185949
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/185950
Is it wrong to expect a game to run extremely well when the XBO runs the game at 720p with 4xMSAA somewhere in there at 30FPS solid and looks essentially exactly the same bar light shafts and shadow map resolution?

What is the excuse when so many other ports of games that run on the same consoles run so much better? It can't be just the choice of rendering technology.. Compare that to other companies ports that have significant visual upgrades at max settings and understandably require a lot more performance. But Quantum Break has almost nothing significantly upgraded to explain the performance issues.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Ultra = Beyond.

And that's what it should be. Beyond the capabilities of current GPUs.

Problem is the scale is all messed up now and people with 970s and 980s put settings on Ultra and complain about shit being unoptimized .

Ultra doesn't mean "beyond", you've made that up. And your definition makes no sense at all. It's perfectly ok to offer settings which exceed the capabilities of current GPUs. But it makes no sense at all to include those settings in the Ultra preset. Presets are meant to offer people an easy way to enjoy the game when they don't want deal with tuning every setting individually. Also, why are you talking about 970/980 owners? Not even 1080/Titan X owners can run this game smoothly with the Ultra preset.

 

[Zojirushi]

Ultra doesn't mean "beyond", you've made that up. And your definition makes no sense at all. It's perfectly ok to offer settings which exceed the capabilities of current GPUs. But it makes no sense at all to include those settings in the Ultra preset.

Are you freaking kidding me now?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ultra-

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Are you freaking kidding me now?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ultra-

Ok my bad, didn't know this, sorry. But my point still stands that this doesn't has to mean that those presets exceed the capabilities of current gen GPUs. Because what's the point of it? Also, Ultra presets haven't been used that way in the industry for ages.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Again, the game's problem is not poor "optimization", but the rendering tech is not simply built for PC and Remedy did not tune it for the platform. Disappointing for sure, but I have no problem having a game with impressive technical ambitions, that could serve as a great future benchmarking tool years down the line.

 

[Bl@de]

Why exactly should gamers need to learn and read up stuff? Developers should simply properly label their stuff and put some thought into the presets. They are the ones selling a product here.

I wouldn't be surprised if people turn settings like Real-Time Global Illumination all the way up and then complain about performance without knowing the impact of such settings.

 

[Nostremitus]

No. Ultra =/= Max. An Ultra preset is useless if you can not even run it with the best GPU.

Low
Medium
High
Highest
Ultra

Highest is the highest playable settings

Ultra is literally supposed to be higher than that. It's the reason ultra presets were added to games to begin with.

Ultra means beyond as in beyond highest setting or Extreme as in extremely taxing settings.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Are those the setting names used in Quantum Break? I remember them differently. And your definition does not really reflect how those names are generally being used in the industry. The expectation, that high end GPUs should be able to run Ultra presets with playable framerates, exists for a reason. Because it makes a lot of sense, and because the industry has used them this way.

 

[Nostremitus]

Are those the setting names used in Quantum Break? I remember them differently. And your definition does not really reflect how those names are generally being used in the industry. The expectation, that high end GPUs should be able to run Ultra presets with playable framerates, exists for a reason. Because it makes a lot of sense, and because the industry has used them this way.

Quantum Break doesn't use all of the preset settings. They only offer Medium, High, and Ultra.

The only reason many devs don't use the ultra setting correctly is because too many people who don't know what the setting means complain that the games are broken if they can't get good performance using the setting. Your misunderstanding of what the setting is supposed to mean is proof of this. A lot of devs just play it safe and name their high or highest settings as Ultra and call it a day in order to keep people from crying foul if they use settings that the industry isn't ready for.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Your definition is based on certain assumptions, for example the existence of the "Highest" setting which you define as highest playable setting. But devs don't have to use this model, and I doubt that many do. If Ultra means beyond, it's simply another way to say that it is higher than the previous settings. So those devs are using it correctly.

 

[Nostremitus]

Your definition is based on certain assumptions, for example the existence of the "Highest" setting which you define as highest playable setting. But devs don't have to use this model, and I doubt that many do. If Ultra means beyond, it's simply another way to say that it is higher than the previous settings. So those devs are using it correctly.

Think what you want, just realize there's no point getting mad when devs use it as intended.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

But it's not intended that way. Only if one uses your own, arbitrary definition, which isn't really shared by the industry.

 

[dgrdsv]

I'm sorry, what? *epicfacepalm*

Even with the upscaling turned off and x4 MSAA the game looks no where near good and impressive enough to call it "the most advanced and best looking", it's just a joke. QB in terms visuals is very bog-standard game for 2014-2015 and there's much and much better looking games out there right now - Uncharted 4, Horizon, The Witcher 3 - PC max settings, Arkham Knight - PC max settings, Rise of the Tomb Raider - PC max settings, DOOM - PC max settings, and Arkham Knight (absolutely the worst optimized game of all time at launch) runs flowlessly in 1440p max settings right now and looks absolutely amazing and much and much better than QB.

I agree, I don't see how QB is more advanced or better looking than, say, The Division which manages to run _several times faster_ than QB while being an open world game. Northlight just seems like a badly optimized renderer at the moment, or maybe their choice of core rendering tech wasn't that great in the end. It's really puzzling to see an XBO game with loads of pre-baked stuff to perform this poorly on much more advanced PC h/w.

 

[LewieP]

Did anyone who bought it from the Windows store get a refund request declined?

 

[SimplexPL]

Ultra offers piss shit in terms of visual upgrades over the XBO version in QB. They didn't even extend the LOD distances.

They did improve some things after release. Set everything to ultra and zoom like on the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqx0fIER4hc

The bush will no longer horribly pop-up like this.

 

[Dictator93]

I personally think ultra settings should be punishing settings made for near-future GPUs, or even much further down the line GPUs.

Does that mean I think this game's ultra settings are "good" ultra settings? Not always. I think they designed a lot of the way the game is around base xb1 hardware considerations, meaning when they dial up sample counts / internal resolution of effects, etc: the results are not as grand while at the same time costing 2x as much. That makes me think some of the base designed effect systems, are actually not designed much at all for scaling in the first place. GPU power is better spent elsewhere IMO in this title. Turn off the upscaling, put GI, volumetrics, and SSR to xb1 settings and try and achieve 60 if you can. 60 fps is much nicer in this game than having volumetrics look a bit meh.

I also got the distinct impression due to my GPU power utilisation that Quantum Break DX12 was underutilising the GPU. I am curious to see if it is the same in the DX11 release. I was getting 20% higher power utilisation in TW3 than I was in QB... and considering dx12 is designed to increase and max GPU utilisation more than DX11... something was not right.

 

[KageMaru]

So with Remedy admitting that even a GTX 1080 can't play this game at max, I'm guessing the steam version still has performance issues with current cards?

 

[Hamlet Machine]

Don't know if it's been answered but can we transfer saves ?
I have the game on XBOX one.

 

[mourad louali]

So with Remedy admitting that even a GTX 1080 can't play this game at max, I'm guessing the steam version still has performance issues with current cards?

No. It just means whatever they are doing can't be handled by current cards.

The main issue with the windows store version wasn't about maxing the settings. The framerate was far from stable. It had random drops/locks even with modest settings or locking to 30fps. And of course, the upscaling which they said can't be patched but was fixed a month later.

If those issues are fixed, I will buy the collector edition.

 

[digitalrelic]

Ok my bad, didn't know this, sorry. But my point still stands that this doesn't has to mean that those presets exceed the capabilities of current gen GPUs. Because what's the point of it? Also, Ultra presets haven't been used that way in the industry for ages.

Regardless, "Ultra" in Quantum Break doesn't make the game look anywhere near good enough to justify its' terrible performance. DOOM looks better and runs at 2x the framerate. Same can be said of dozens of other games like Ryse, The Division, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Star Wars Battlefront, etc.. etc.. all look more impressive than Quantum Break and run at way higher frames.

 

[jett]

Benchmark from Steam DX11 version:

This is looking like an awful engine regardless of where it's running.

 

[MaLDo]

I personally think ultra settings should be punishing settings made for near-future GPUs, or even much further down the line GPUs.

Does that mean I think this game's ultra settings are "good" ultra settings? Not always. I think they designed a lot of the way the game is around base xb1 hardware considerations, meaning when they dial up sample counts / internal resolution of effects, etc: the results are not as grand while at the same time costing 2x as much. That makes me think some of the base designed effect systems, are actually not designed much at all for scaling in the first place. GPU power is better spent elsewhere IMO in this title. Turn off the upscaling, put GI, volumetrics, and SSR to xb1 settings and try and achieve 60 if you can. 60 fps is much nicer in this game than having volumetrics look a bit meh.

I also got the distinct impression due to my GPU power utilisation that Quantum Break DX12 was underutilising the GPU. I am curious to see if it is the same in the DX11 release. I was getting 20% higher power utilisation in TW3 than I was in QB... and considering dx12 is designed to increase and max GPU utilisation more than DX11... something was not right.

I think the best compromise between what a standard player wants and what a player with high ambitions in terms of hardware wants, is allowing a maximum preset on game options that runs at 60 fps minimum using the most expensive hardware available on the game's release date. But the game having "hidden" options through file edit or console commands to raise the graphical options above that level.

A basic user will be happy enough. The advanced user has no problem using configuration files to go further and will be happy too.

About Quantum Break, is like Remedy had taken exactly all wrong decisions regarding technical objectives for the game.

 

[dgrdsv]

I personally think ultra settings should be punishing settings made for near-future GPUs, or even much further down the line GPUs.

Does that mean I think this game's ultra settings are "good" ultra settings? Not always. I think they designed a lot of the way the game is around base xb1 hardware considerations, meaning when they dial up sample counts / internal resolution of effects, etc: the results are not as grand while at the same time costing 2x as much. That makes me think some of the base designed effect systems, are actually not designed much at all for scaling in the first place. GPU power is better spent elsewhere IMO in this title. Turn off the upscaling, put GI, volumetrics, and SSR to xb1 settings and try and achieve 60 if you can. 60 fps is much nicer in this game than having volumetrics look a bit meh.

I also got the distinct impression due to my GPU power utilisation that Quantum Break DX12 was underutilising the GPU. I am curious to see if it is the same in the DX11 release. I was getting 20% higher power utilisation in TW3 than I was in QB... and considering dx12 is designed to increase and max GPU utilisation more than DX11... something was not right.

But that's the thing - if they'd spend PC h/w power on some additional stuff instead of upping the samples / counts / lods of XBO effects it would probably give them more for less performance cost. Hence why I say that its bad optimization. If you run 980Ti into the ground with ultra volumetric lighting which still show considerable sampling artifacts then maybe don't use such volumetric lighting option at all? The fact that they were forced to use D3D12 only didn't help either of course.

 

[Dictator93]

I think the best compromise between what a standard player wants and what a player with high ambitions in terms of hardware wants, is allowing a maximum preset on game options that runs at 60 fps minimum using the most expensive hardware available on the game's release date. But the game having "hidden" options through file edit or console commands to raise the graphical options above that level.

I am starting to think devs should start doing this. It is getting increasingly obvious through things like steam reviews and performance threads on GAF that there is a heavy negative backlash to demanding settings in games, regardless if they are the best "optimised settings" or are justifiably heavy.

About Quantum Break, is like Remedy had taken exactly all wrong decisions regarding technical objectives for the game.

Yeah. That does not mean though that I do not think the game can look really wonderful at points though. There are 2 particular levels / encounters that I think shows off their tech in a great way as it showcases indoor / outdoor lighting, a variety of materials (diffuse and specy stuff) with comparatively less colour grading and mindnumbing fracture effects work. I think the game's art direction made a big mistake by relying so much on colour grading and the fracture effects work: it made picking stuff out in a fight visually tedious and obscured some really nicely modelled assets. It was just too busy.

But that's the thing - if they'd spend PC h/w power on some additional stuff instead of upping the samples / counts / lods of XBO effects it would probably give them more for less performance cost. Hence why I say that its bad optimization. If you run 980Ti into the ground with ultra volumetric lighting which still show considerable sampling artifacts then maybe don't use such volumetric lighting option at all?

Yeah exactly. The volumetric lighting, and the way they do it in QB seems like something which is "comparatively" not that great. You can kill your performance with it by increasing the sample count, but it still shows a number of artifacts!

Good point.

 

[lmbotiva]

So, it seems like a "NO BUY" if early performance charts are anything to go by?

 

[Zojirushi]

So, it seems like a "NO BUY" if early performance charts are anything to go by?

Maybe there's an NVIDIA performance guide for the steam release. Would be interesting to know what kills performance and if there's a way to get good performance.

 

[SmartWaffles]

So, it seems like a "NO BUY" if early performance charts are anything to go by?

No buy if you want ultra settings at 60fps only and won't take any kind of compromise, despite that ultra don't offer much visual improvement for the performance cost.

 

[SimplexPL]

No buy if you want ultra settings at 60fps only and won't take any kind of compromise, despite that ultra don't offer much visual improvement for the performance cost.

So is there some kind of "community compromise" on which settings to drop down so that the game runs well and still looks good (for example for Forza Horizon 3 those are shadows and reflections).

I'd guess that volumetric lightning quality is the first thing that should be lowered.

 

[Zojirushi]

So is there some kind of "community compromise" on which settings to drop down so that the game runs well and still looks good (for example for Forza Horizon 3 those are shadows and reflections).

I'd guess that volumetric lightning quality is the first thing that should be lowered.

I bet there will be once the steam version is out. Problem with the UWP version is that none of the overlays like Afterburner work with it so it was kinda impossible to easily measure CPU/GPU impact of various settings.

 

[Daingurse]

So is there some kind of "community compromise" on which settings to drop down so that the game runs well and still looks good (for example for Forza Horizon 3 those are shadows and reflections).

I'd guess that volumetric lightning quality is the first thing that should be lowered.

You can turn everything to medium besides Texture Quality and Geometry frankly, and the game still looks great with upscaling and film grain off. I know there are a lot of flaws in the visuals, and optimization leaves much to be desired, but the game can really look stunning at times.

 

[Vuze]

You can turn everything to medium besides Texture Quality and Geometry frankly, and the game still looks great with upscaling and film grain off. I know there are a lot of flaws in the visuals, and optimization leaves much to be desired, but the game can really look stunning at times.

"Great" is very much relative. I just booted the game up, set everything except Textures and Geometry to medium (Ultra for the other two) and it's a poorly performing blurry mess at 1440p - on a GTX1080.

However, now that I think about it, I might give the Steam version a go once it drops below 10 bucks. Perhaps it doesn't crash when I try to display the game on my TV unlike the WinStore version. I guess the blurriness of the picture would be less of an issue with some distance to the display.

Did you turn upscaling off?

A quick screencap with upscaling off.

 

[Zojirushi]

"Great" is very much relative. I just booted the game up, set everything except Textures and Geometry to medium (Ultra for the other two) and it's a poorly performing blurry mess at 1440p - on a GTX1080.

Did you turn upscaling off?

 

[shandy706]

So, it seems like a "NO BUY" if early performance charts are anything to go by?

"Great" is very much relative. I just booted the game up, set everything except Textures and Geometry to medium (Ultra for the other two) and it's a poorly performing blurry mess at 1440p - on a GTX1080.

However, now that I think about it, I might give the Steam version a go once it drops below 10 bucks. Perhaps it doesn't crash when I try to display the game on my TV unlike the WinStore version. I guess the blurriness of the picture would be less of an issue with some distance to the display.


A quick screencap with upscaling off.

This game ran just fine on my 980 Ti last time I played it. Did it get worse or something?

I'm glad I didn't have this thought process when Crysis hit..lol. Heck, I wonder what I can play Crysis at now...

 

[digitalrelic]

This game ran just fine on my 980 Ti last time I played it. Did it get worse or something?

I'm glad I didn't have this thought process when Crysis hit..lol. Heck, I wonder what I can play Crysis at now...

Crysis looked generations ahead of any other game when it came out. There was actually a legitimacy as to why Crysis ran poorly. This game ain't Crysis.

 

[dgrdsv]

So, it seems like a "NO BUY" if early performance charts are anything to go by?

I mean, you can get to 60 fps in "1080p" with upscaling pretty easily even on Maxwell and it's not like you're missing much of graphical effects by going with medium or even low settings so "no buy" seems a bit excessive. They did listen to us and brought the game both to Steam and to DX11, this should be rewarded I think, I personally will re-buy the Steam version but it's rather cheap where I am so YMMV.

 

[4jjiyoon]

"Great" is very much relative. I just booted the game up, set everything except Textures and Geometry to medium (Ultra for the other two) and it's a poorly performing blurry mess at 1440p - on a GTX1080.

However, now that I think about it, I might give the Steam version a go once it drops below 10 bucks. Perhaps it doesn't crash when I try to display the game on my TV unlike the WinStore version. I guess the blurriness of the picture would be less of an issue with some distance to the display.


A quick screencap with upscaling off.

that does indeed look "great" to me. i'd be happy with those visuals and 60fps. not sure if it's possible with the steam version and a 970. i wanna see it before i buy.

 

[Fishook]

I have bought this game just because I fancied the look of it. As a pc gamer of over 20 plus years you have always need fairly good pc's to play multi-format releases. Its nothing new I guess.

I have always said if you want to play new AAA releases, you are better off on consoles, unless you are prepared to spend some serious money. Just because you are spending silly money on high end rigs (I include myself) it doesn't automatically mean every game is going to run brilliantly.

Looking forward to testing it out later, I suppose it helps that I have dodgy eyesight and a lot of the advance graphical settings I struggle to see to benefit. But I am not obsessed with benchmarking and such.

 

[digitalrelic]

I have bought this game just because I fancied the look of it. As a pc gamer of over 20 plus years you have always need fairly good pc's to play multi-format releases. Its nothing new I guess.

I have always said if you want to play new AAA releases, you are better off on consoles, unless you are prepared to spend some serious money. Just because you are spending silly money on high end rigs (I include myself) it doesn't automatically mean every game is going to run brilliantly.

Looking forward to testing it out later, I suppose it helps that I have dodgy eyesight and a lot of the advance graphical settings I struggle to see to benefit. But I am not obsessed with benchmarking and such.

Don't confuse this title with your average multi-platform release. The performance of this game is an absolute travesty on PC. From a performance standpoint it's one of the worst AAA games ever released.

 

[scitek]

that does indeed look "great" to me. i'd be happy with those visuals and 60fps. not sure if it's possible with the steam version and a 970. i wanna see it before i buy.

That screencap is with upscaling off, which means you will not be getting 60fps. I barely get 30fps at 1080p with max settings on a GTX 1080.

That said, it's a pretty good looking game, if you ask me.

 

[shandy706]

Crysis looked generations ahead of any other game when it came out. There was actually a legitimacy as to why Crysis ran poorly. This game ain't Crysis.

Yeah it's not, but I found it (with everything going on on screen, plus all the lighting, reflections, etc) to be beyond anything else when it came out. I think people sell it FAR short of everything it is doing on-screen. FAR short. There's a reason they had to use the reconstruction and shortcuts JUST to get it running at 30fps on the X1.

I'd like a breakdown of why and what it is doing should NOT be taxing by people that freely say otherwise.

The game is absolutely impressive. My own shots..

Even little lights on enemies helmets reflect off of them. The poly-count at times has to be ridiculous too. Things like time backpacks/hardware are insanely detailed.

Things like veins (in an NPC) show in ears and thinner body parts appear to show light though them (can't remember what that is called)

Sigh, I found jaw dropping when you looked at some of the stuff going on in real time.

People saying it wasn't/isn't impressive have to be delusional. I 100% totally and completely disagree with those people.

 

[4jjiyoon]

That screencap is with upscaling off, which means you will not be getting 60fps. I barely get 30fps at 1080p with max settings on a GTX 1080.

That said, it's a pretty good looking game, if you ask me.

i'm fine with the upscaling on tbh. as long as you can match xbox one in visual quality but 60fps i'd be happy. doesn't sound like that was even possible with the windows 10 release though.

 

[digitalrelic]

Yeah it's not, but I found it (with everything going on on screen, plus all the lighting, reflections, etc) to be beyond anything else when it came out. I think people sell it FAR short of everything it is doing on-screen. FAR short. There's a reason they had to use the reconstruction and shortcuts JUST to get it running at 30fps on the X1.

I'd like a breakdown of why and what it is doing should NOT be taxing by people that freely say otherwise.

The game is absolutely impressive. My own shots..

Even little lights on enemies helmets reflect off of them.

Things like veins (in an NPC) show in ears and thinner body parts appear to show light though them (can't remember what that is called)

Sigh, I found jaw dropping when you looked at some of the stuff going in in real time.

People saying it was/isn't impressive have to be delusional. I 100% totally and completely disagree with those people.

It's not that it isn't impressive. It looks pretty good. It's just that games like DOOM, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and many others look better and run twice as well.

Here's some of my own shots of those games:

 

[Javin98]

Just out of curiosity, is there even a significant difference between GI quality on High and Medium?

 

[The Janitor]

It's not that it isn't impressive. It looks pretty good. It's just that games like DOOM, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and many others look better and run twice as well.

Here's some of my own shots of those games:

Can't say I agree with DOOM, it's not really on the same level as Quantum Break visually.

 

[Mohasus]

i'm fine with the upscaling on tbh. as long as you can match xbox one in visual quality but 60fps i'd be happy. doesn't sound like that was even possible with the windows 10 release though.

60FPS at 1080p, medium and upscaling on was definitely possible on the W10 store with a GTX 970.