Wowfunhappy
Member
Ah, thank you! That sounds terribly inefficient though, since the game is clearly doing some intense post-processing at the higher resolution.
Quantum Break PC performance thread
- Thread starter GroinShooter
- Start date
Ah, thank you! That sounds terribly inefficient though, since the game is clearly doing some intense post-processing at the higher resolution.
Who would play any game with a 30hz monitor anyway... but we had that discussion in the other thread.
Dictator93
Member
Couldn't people with 4k 30hz screen force disable Vsync via the Inspector on NV cards?
Since the 60fps cap workaround works through NV inspector... I imagine that might as well.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Thanks! That looks pretty nice, but it's still upsetting we aren't getting the native resolutions.
Not if you have a 770, apparently.
No, it's not.
Right, but you have no idea when the PC porting process began. Was it immediately after QB was delayed? Was it shortly before the announcement? Was it prior to the delay?
We don't know. You are adding context where there is none. its clear that this port could have used more time, yet it was released in this state.
So if you read that article and walk away with the notion that he's claiming he's been "polishing" the PC version since before the holidays, and Sam Lake is a big fat liar, then that's on you.
It's pretty clear that he was talking about the delay of the Xbox one version of the game, and what kind of work they were doing on that version since the delay.
I mean, it's the exact same comment he made in April 2015, when the Xbox version is all we knew about.
plagiarize
Banned
The only issues that might be vendor specific are the performance problems some have had. The fact it isn't rendering natively is going to be an issue for anyone playing the game.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
They don't do refunds after release. And why didn't you preorder for the free PC code in the first place?
Once I get my free game code I will test it out at 4k on pc.
prag16
Banned
Skipped over several pages here, can't catch up; Has anybody tried with a 970 yet? As long as it can maintain 30fps at 1080p on high-ish (or whatever facsimile of 1080p they're using) I'm okay. Not "thrilled". But "okay".
Ninja'd by this guy. Interesting, and on 1440p at that. My CPU is only a 2550k, but this bodes well if it's a representative example.
Ninja'd by this guy. Interesting, and on 1440p at that. My CPU is only a 2550k, but this bodes well if it's a representative example.
IcyRhythms
Member
I'm curious, did they ever fix the Gears of War problems? Does the game still take an arm and a leg to run?
dgrdsv
Member
NV's vsync override doesn't work in DWM surfaces (borderless windowed as well as simple windowed) I believe. It didn't work for me when I tried it in GearsUE at least. There's no way of disabling vsync in UWP at the moment basically, MS has promised to patch in the support for vsync off in May.
Brutal. Thanks.
I've got a good rig, weakest link is my GTX 960, and I'm really close to getting this game.
What does that have to do with UWP? That's a mistake of Iron Galaxy not UWP.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
If I remember right a GTX 960 is probably only as fast or slightly slower than a GTX 770 and if you have a 2GB model, well, you're still fucked.
Every single screenshot posted here looks blurry, even the 4K ones. Fallout 4 had that neat sweetFX fix where you can do a tiny tweak and it makes the game looks sharper. I hope you can do the same with Quantum Break. Although, now that I think about it, Fallout 4's problem was the AA solution they used.
Well shit. Being a relative layman I thought my 960 would be more powerful than the 770. I mean, it has a higher number, right?
Right?
I have a 4GB model, for reference. Other specs are 95 4690k and 16GB RAM.
sertopico
Member
LukasTaves
Member
What performance issues TR had? The only reports from performance I've seen pointed to it performing better than the win32 version (save for sli performance).
what the actual fuck were they thinking??
Remember when Max Payne 2 was one of the best looking games of 2004 and ran on a toaster?? Or when Alan Wake ran at 1080p60 on any midrange card? Oh Remedy..
This (they keeping the reconstruct tech) has nothing to do with shobby port. That's simply the design choice Remedy made. They have been advocating for games being oversampled before this gen started and that they would pursue less, but more expensive pixels. The reconstruct tech is just the delivery on their vision, enabling the resolution to go down without compromising the smooth look (which is again by design, as clearly noticeable even from the first game showings in 2013).
Also AW came when 360 was already a generation behind compared to the pc Market, this is a game that has some very novelty techs, specially for lighting and that's rendering in 720p and 30fps on xbone, and not even completely locked either, as there's some minor tearing, it was bound to be a heavy game, for god's sake they keep a gbuffer and a voxel representation of the scene at the same time for delivering all their effects (and most likely the resolution of both go higher with the output resolution).
In short, the game is doing much more than many others visually, so it being quite heavy is expected.
Dead wrong, not locked to 30fps.
digitalrelic
Banned
I think Gears runs pretty well now. Could be better, but it's acceptable. I can run it at 4K maxed with a ~50 FPS average on my 4790k / 980Ti / 16GB RAM rig.
When did you get the 960? Amd basically destroys nvidia in that price bracket with the 380/380x.
brotkasten
Member
Microsoft is the publisher of the game, they have the final say in this. If they didn't give Remedy enough time and/or resources to port this game in a proper manner, then it's hard to blame Remedy. They've shown on more than one occasion that they're more than capable of putting out a well working PC Version of a game.
While I don't think they found out about PC version at the same time as everyone else did, I seems clear that it wasn't the plan all along.
Forget SweetFX, the UWA does not allow that for now.
oh yeah, that's right
SunBroDave
Member
Reconstruction has no business in a PC game. At the very least it should be togglable.
I'm actually playing at 1080p. I bumped it up to 1440p just to see what the game looked like, but 1080p is definitely the resolution you're going to want to play at.
GroinShooter
Member
Forget SweetFX, the UWA does not allow that for now.
Neither does DX12 at the moment.
It's not completely busted but the Win32 version still has the edge as it allows you to inject proper SMAA
Got it from eBuyer. Wasn't that expensive. A tech-savvy friend put together the shopping list for me.
I'll be buying one of the new GPUs, possibly on launch, in the coming months, anyway.
No? What's with the conflicting reports then?
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
I did preorder for the free PC version. I was expecting it to not be a delayed release.
LukasTaves
Member
But it's the vision Remedy had for the game, should they change it just because they released on PC?
Keep in mind that they released a 720p 30fps in 2016 on xbone, so it's not like that is Pc only, they simply had a vision for the game and decided to go with it.
The game has already a very cgish look on xbone, I can only assume cranking up the res on Pc it's only going to look better. It's not the most sharp looking game at all, but it does a heck of an job coming close to the filmic look they went for.
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
Yes
On PC, I reject your vision and substitute my own . If your game ships blurry and with black bars, you better believe I'm modding that shit out asap *cough the evil within*
Beerman462
Member
I wouldn't mind if it was a toggle. If I could set it to reconstructed 1440 and get a better picture than 1080 with out a huge performamce hit. I wonder how big of a hit the reconstruction is on VRAM. Like does a 1080 screen built from four 720 screens take more space, if so is it a lot more? I only have 2GB of VRAM atm so....
mullet2000
Member
Honestly, I don't mean to be harsh but someone who bought a 30 hz screen made a really bad purchasing decision and I don't think that bad decision should result in everyone else getting a potentially worse experience.
There is no conflicting report regarding framerate cap.
obviously the win32 modding advantage will persist no matter what, i was just trying to think of major UWP games that worked correctly with no major issues given the limitations of the platform. as far as i can remember tomb raider is the only one, and coincidentally it's the only one that also has a win32 version.
keltickennedy
Member
Do you have a XB1? You should be good if you do.
LordRaptor
Member
their vision should be augmented
Pjsprojects
Member
Maybe it's worth a thought that at least gamers without an Xbox one can play the game even if it means running it exactly the same as the console version.
I await my code from a mate who pre ordered the X1 version. EBay will be flooded with cheap Win 10 codes.
I'm curious what res is the game upscaled from when you play in native 720p. 320x180? 640x360? 848x480? 960x540? (that's native Alan Wake res on 360) 
Sorry to dissapoint, but 960 is a really weak and overpriced card - it's barely faster than 760 and actually SLOWER than 770 (or on par wit it), if I am not mistaken. And the minspec for this game is 760, and according to MS, at min spec you will be able to play at 720p30 in low detail:
Sorry to dissapoint, but 960 is a really weak and overpriced card - it's barely faster than 760 and actually SLOWER than 770 (or on par wit it), if I am not mistaken. And the minspec for this game is 760, and according to MS, at min spec you will be able to play at 720p30 in low detail:
So, people with i7 6700K and 980Ti like Yours Truly should expec 1080p60 at max settings. I think this does not seem to be the case, but at least we have a source that we can quote.http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/feature/handson-preview-quantum-break said: