Thugnificient
Banned
This Russian site has it hitting a low of 64fps and an average of 77fps at 1440p/Ultra.
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/horizon-zero-dawn-test-gpu-cpu
-
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.
Horizon Zero Dawn PC Footage
- Thread starter Thirty7ven
- Start date
- Trailer Platform
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/horizon-zero-dawn-test-gpu-cpu
Yup. For example Death Stranding has a much smaller polygonal budget. As if they were aiming to run on PC...
Stuart360
Member
Just been reading the Steam forums and a lot of articles going around showing that the performence is not as bad as some poeple are saying.
Also apparently the game has 4 graphics settings, Low, Classic, High, and Ultra, with 'Classic' being the PS4/Pro settngs. Looks like the PC version has some nice upgrades.
Also apparently the game has 4 graphics settings, Low, Classic, High, and Ultra, with 'Classic' being the PS4/Pro settngs. Looks like the PC version has some nice upgrades.
Sunset overdrive was a pretty bare bones port but I remember it running at 5k 30 fps on my rx 580 and 1080p 30 on my aging gtx 760.
After going thru several sites seems I'd love them to clarify if the benchmark is more demanding than the game itself. Folks benchmarking in game seem to be getting get much better results.
Another issue is that older cards lack optimization and they should be performing better.
GymWolf
Member
performance are all over the place, the df guy and another reviewer on reeee were discussing how someone seems to have unexplicable better performance than other people...
GymWolf
Member
so texture on ultra are confirmed better looking than console version?
Fake
Member
DLC is great. The new weapons and zone are trully worth.
GRIEVEZ
Member
Really enjoyable review and fair assessment!
Your agenda is pretty transparent, if you see a 1:1 port as inferior version.
(Even disregarding 60fps and fov)
Last edited:
GHG
Member
According to that it looks like I have two options. 1440p @ 60fps or 4k @30fps.
DLSS would have been a god send for this title.
GHG
Member
According to that Russian site I should be ok with my 2070 super and 3900x combo:
The minimums are lower than 60fps at 1440p but it depends on how frequent they are. At 4k the minimums are not much lower than the average which suggests theres a bottleneck somewhere that isn't the GPU.
Last edited:
Stuart360
Member
If you look at Rock Paper Shotguns recent article, they were getting a locked 60fps at 1080p on 'High' settings with a GTX 1060. I think you would have a very good chance at 1440p/60 on a 2070 Super, at Ultra, or atleast High.
Thirty7ven
Banned
It's a port, not a remaster. And it seems to perform well enough, it just seems to me that for some PC players unless they can play at max settings 60 FPS then it's a bad job. Just lower the settings for 60 FPS.
Stuart360
Member
I dont know it doesnt say. I think probably not with textures, i'd guess it would be more things like lighting, further draw distance, more interactivity with foliage (i know that one is already confirmed).
Thugnificient
Banned
A 1060 doesn't sniff 60fps at 1080p/low settings.
Performance is very inconsistent according to reports.
Last edited:
RedVIper
Banned
Actually yeah it kinda does, it's a 10 year old game and it still looks phenomenal with mods. Not to mention it's a much better open world than either of those games (regardless if you like the rest of the game).
Fake
Member
Skyrim have a long way to be a better open world than the rest, but opinions mate. And I agree with him, using mod for getting a 'better graphic' don't qualify for graphic comparison. This happens only between vanilla.
Thugnificient
Banned
High Settings
This is Low Settings.
This is Low Settings.
Fake
Member
fov settings difference ? i mean the difference between what you display can matter
exemple between 70 and 90
horizon can hit 100.
Of course can matter, no doubt. If you fighting many foes at once, could really make a difference. BTW, hell of old game you showed here. Long time I played Gunz.
Interesting finding. This brasilian you tuber made some tests with low end hardware (Ryzen 3200G and a 1050ti) He is getting 30 FPS on the benchmark at 1080p ps4 settings but it's getting more performance in the actual game, close to 35 - 40 fps average which makes sense as the 1050ti is slightly more powerful than a base ps4.
His numbers seem to be alligned with the offlicial benchmark on the trailer and Rock Paper Shotgun. Seems the benchmark is unoptimized and quite the CPU hog. I remember this happening in Deus Ex Mankind Divided.
His numbers seem to be alligned with the offlicial benchmark on the trailer and Rock Paper Shotgun. Seems the benchmark is unoptimized and quite the CPU hog. I remember this happening in Deus Ex Mankind Divided.
RedVIper
Banned
I don't see why I shouldn't be able to compare a 10 year old game with mods with modern games, the fact that skyrim can still look spectacular shows how much love the community has put into the game.
Fake
Member
Indeed, but keep in mind that mods don't solve the game problems. Neither HZD and RDR2 get their main issues solved.
BlackTron
Member
Thank you for verifying that I made the right choice grabbing the complete edition on PS4 for $10 used....
Finally got a Pro and filling in all the gaps I missed, my PC is getting cold lately.
RedVIper
Banned
Yeah I doubt HZD will be very modable.
Reindeer
Member
Lol
Entroyp
Member
I’m waiting for the inevitable Aloy on a g-string video. Should temper my expectations?
nowhat
Member
More like, why wait. I'm sure googling "Aloy rule 34" will bring many results relevant to your interests.I’m waiting for the inevitable Aloy on a g-string video. Should temper my expectations?
ultrazilla
Member
Went from a day 1 "must buy" to reading the reviews and waiting because of the apparent performance issues.
I'll see how well they patch the game up before jumping in.
I'll see how well they patch the game up before jumping in.
Fake
Member
I guess is a mix of both parts from both sides.
I don’t mind 45-60 FPS if Gsync is working. What drives me crazy is stuttering that can’t be fixed, or serious, ever-present run-time issues.
I’m playing Red Dead 2 maxed out at 4K and most of the time I’m in between 40 and 45 FPS. It’s okay though because there’s no stuttering.
I’m playing Red Dead 2 maxed out at 4K and most of the time I’m in between 40 and 45 FPS. It’s okay though because there’s no stuttering.
Last edited:
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Most PC gamers would be happier if developers would just rename High to Ultra and never bother with Ultra-settings. The difference in image quality is usually neglible and PC-gamers without a 2080 TI would be ecstatic that they can play games in 4K FPS in Ultra-mode at 60 fps easily. Win-Win.
Ultra is a curse, not an image quality setting.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
What I mean is, perhaps Sony doesn't really want the PC experience to be so apparently superior on a PS exclusive game, and they're just "willfully allowing" the port to be shoddy so most people won't get much better than they will on a Playstation.
I don't think that's the case. Maybe it's more of a learning experience. I remember when MS ported gears ultimate edition out of nowhere. Before they started their xbox/pc strategy. The port was abysmal. Forza horizon 3 took 6 months to fix.
I hope Sony works hard to fix this port. If they do that, their games will sell like hotcakes on steam just like death stranding.
They'd rather learn from this so that the bloodborne port is flawless.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
IMO is fine. Lets imagine the port beggers only want the ultra version of the game just for bully instead of want a game of some console just because the game is good and deserves more players.
VFXVeteran
Banned
Shouldn't we give him a chance to defend himself?
VFXVeteran
I think he deserves that from us at the minimum.
Hey guys!
For those wanting to know where my head was at:
Over the years, realtime 3D graphics have made milestones towards reaching offline rendering. Out of a mirad of games for all platforms, the following features are listed where each has a "cost" associated with it for the GPU. Some of these 3D features can tax a CPU as well, but in general, you can find at least one or more of these features within any game:
GPU Cost Ratings: Low, Medium, High, Very High, Variable
Resolution - Very High - increases the number of pixels that need to be rendered from the final frame buffer to the screen. The more pixels, the more costly are the internal computations.
FPS - Very High - This determines how fast you want the number of pixels to render per second.
Shadows - Very High - There is a reason why most games only support 1 shadow-casting light source. This feature requires rendering the scene from all light sources and storing shadow maps into depth buffers. On top of that, many games lower the resolution of the shadow maps to get around the high cost. The results though is that you see pixelated shadows.
Global Illumination - High - today most games use light probes that represent an area of a scene that has indirect lighting. Since these light probes are pretty inexpensive to compute, the performance hog would be increasing these probes which would increase the lookup times to resolve a solution on a single pixel. Using the ray-tracing version will be significantly more expensive.
Textures - Variable - Textures can range in sizes and in number. We have to account for normal maps, and multiple layers of textures on the same surface. The higher the resolution of all the textures, the better quality the asset will look. But also the higher bandwidth required to move textures into and out of VRAM. We also have to look at the number of bits per channel for textures. Normal maps usually need at least 16-bits of precision for good detail. Full float 32-bit channel textures aren't unheard of. Photogrammetry also goes under this feature.
Transparent Geometry - Very High - This feature is extremely expensive when trying to display FX, water pools, glasses, etc.. The reason for this is most renderers are based on deferred shading. But when dealing with transparent polygons, you must sort all the polygons from back to front in order to display correctly. Sorting usually costs O(n log n) time. When a renderer would rather compute arbitrary geometry because transparency is too expensive, they implement shortcuts (i.e. making a cookie-cutter shape of a tree's leaves for example).
Texture filtering - Low - Most hardware has built in ability to filter a texture. Anisotropic filtering is required to give the best results. The more texels you sample, the better the approximation at oblique angles. 16x is pretty much optimized within Nvidia hardware and has very little cost.
Parallax Occlusion Mapping - Very High - This texturing feature brings out extremely good detail on landscapes where normal mapping fails. The problem with this approach is it's ray-casting technique within texture space. So it goes beyond just getting a texel at a UV position on the surface. You now have to trace a ray across many texels to get self occlusion. The results are very pleasing to the eye however.
Environment Lighting - Medium - indexing an environment texture to add to your final surface color is pretty common. Using 32-bit HDR textures, however, can be costly depending on how accurate you want the lighting to be. A procedural sky would be even more costly as it would go beyond a simple texture lookup.
Subsurface Scattering - Very High - Most graphics platforms don't have enough GPU power to approximate this BRDF with a reasonably good dipole scattering. Most gameplay shots of characters and foliage don't use the conventional SSS to shade skin. A lot of cutscenes use the higher approximation but the gameplay switches to either a lower approximation or none at all. Foliage in environments usually forego this BRDF and use a reverse-normal hack for the diffuse part of the rendering equation.
Tessellation - Medium - I say this because GPUs are very good at rendering geometry. As we saw in the UE5 demo, geometry all the way down to near subpixel size. Nearly every new game out now uses tessellation in one form or another.
Ambient Occlusion - Very High - typical SSAO is the least expensive solution and we see that in every current gen console. The PC however uses more complex solutions which are very expensive. HDAO and HBAO are expensive and sometimes cost like 20% of render time. Even more costly using RT. But I can't stress enough how important AO is to the look of the scene. That's one of the reasons FS2020 looks so good. Correct ambient shadowing is crucial to lighting.
Reflections - High - the typical SSR isn't so expensive but we already know the shortfall concerning that route. Going RT reflections would be costly in a highly complex scene, but since most reflections are on a limited number of objects, I would say they are high cost instead of very high.
Ray-Tracing - Very High - RT is completely dependent on screen resolution as each pixel traces rays into the scene for intersection. we have 4 types that are common you should watch out for: Shadows, GI, Reflections, AO. Implementing all the features together at 4k resolution would still be far from reach unless something like DLSS 2.0 or an equivalent reduces that cost.
PBR Materials - Medium - I think we've come full circle with PBR matierals. The Order 1866 is one of the best looking implementations of good PBR. It takes a lot of knowledge of light energy and how it conserves when bouncing off of objects.
Motion Blur - Low - I haevn't yet seen MB be very expensive. They have really good techniques now that are pretty efficient.
Anti-Aliasing - Variable - I would tend to think that FXAA is good enough for a true 4k render but there are various techniques that are low cost and some high cost.
Volumetric Smoke - Very High - Still not able to do true volume ray-marching, this feature requires transparent cards which wreak havoc on the GPU. Again, sorting.
Surface Water rendering - Very High - to do this with some good accuracy requires an SSS solution. Most companies don't bother with making surface water rendering look good. It requires reflections, a good energy-conserving BRDF and light propegation down into layers of water underneath. AC games have a good solution though.
Animations - Variable - Mocap or Hand drawn? A lot of flexibility here. ND uses a sophisticated system that probably involves lots of key and follow-through animation. AC has pretty good animation too.
Procedural Textures - Very High - We don't see a lot of this happening due to it's complexity and the difficulty with filtering such functions analytically. I like FS2020's use of texture synthesis. Probably very expensive.
Tone Mapping - Medium - Since most games use a simple tone map operator, this isn't that costly.
FX (Fire, Smoke, Electricity, etc..) - Very High - transparent polygons again with animated textures. Make them look really good requires surface illumination on the transparent cards which adds to the complexity.
LOD (Level of Detail) - Variable - This will always depend on the bandwidth of the GPU. Popin will still be with us for awhile. They even have shadows limited by LOD now.
It's these features that I judge every game's graphics tech off of. From game to game, devs will pick and choose from this list what would be more important and which one would sacrifice too much GPU power. Previous generation consoles only saw some of these graphics features and most at a reduced quality level. I am making an educated guess when I say that games next-gen will probably have more of these features and higher quality that rival the PC's implementations last gen.
As an aside, the reason why I made the claim about HZD on PC *could* rival or look better than HZD2 on PS5 is based on these features. If we equal out all the art direction talent and ignore scenario changes (i.e. we don't say HZD:Frozen Wilds looks better than HZD because it was made with the same graphics tech and only the scenery changed), and given the PS5's GPU performance compared to a top-tier Nvidia GPU, the PC version could implement more of these graphics features than PS5 HFW. It's not a wild stretch to assume that previous games use the same graphics engine with a few tweaks here and there. RE7, RE2: Remake and RE3: Remake are good examples. All of them are pretty similar in look to each other because they used the same team and same engine.
When I play PC HZD tomorrow, I'll analyze the differences between "Classic" and "Ultra" modes in the game. This will give us a picture at what the dev team was able to add with the extra GPU power on the PC. It would have to take PS5 HFW's graphics tech to implement several of these features and at higher quality in order to declare a remarked difference between the PC version and HFW. That's my logic anyway given the PS5's GPU disadvantage but I could be wrong and will state it as such. We can revisit once we see actual gameplay footage and not cutscene footage. We can never compare a cutscene to actual gameplay as the cutscene does indeed use more of these features and higher quality of these features, but in a fixed camera setting. That's why cutscenes look better than gameplay.
Hope this clears things up..
GHG
Member
Nah fuck that noise.
I don't want the top end PC setting options to disappear because a few snowflake PC gamers complain about not being able to max stuff out on their mid-tier rigs.
One of the best things about PC gaming is returning to old games with new hardware and being able to max them out without any problems when you'd previously run into framerate issues.
ultrazilla
Member
Digital Foundry on Horizon: Zero Dawn..
Sounds like a TERRIBLE PORT JOB
Sounds like a TERRIBLE PORT JOB
Last edited:
Karak
Member
Its not amazing for sure.
Some of us ran into less issues some more. Also some of what they say was directly in the notes when the codes were given out but they discuss it like they don't know the issues. Not sure exactly how that occurred.
That being said. I ran into some issues but very very playable. Some had better perf than me. Others worse. At least you can return steam games lol./
Amaranty
Member
Eh, everyone has different tastes. I platinumed Horizon and have over 300 hours in MHW. I think the combat in Horizon is better than in MHW.
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
.
Last edited:
Same ol G
Member
MHW... is that your first monster hunter?
Cause that game is nowhere near the older games i'm comparing it with the previous games where G rank can be quite punishing .
drotahorror
Member
I think this is a meme at this point. No serious PC gamer busts nuts over putting everything on Ultra. Any only some nerdy ass stereotypical geek would throw a fit over not being able to Ultra everything 4k 60fps
I have a GTX 1080, got it when it released. I didn't run and put everything on Ultra. In fact, I always mess with settings to get the best performance to looks ratio. Also, anyone who ever gets a 120hz+ monitor will tell you they prefer framerate over Ultra shadows and reflections.
People that have gamed on PC long enough know that Shadows can cost a lot. Anything with 'Volumetric' cost a lot. Some forms of Ambient Occlusion cost a lot. MSAA, SSAA, Resolution scaling, cost a lot. Even raising your FOV can result in FPS loss.
I hope I can get 120fps in HZD, but if I can't, I'll lock to 60 and tweak shit until I get no stutters or any fps drops. Maybe even raise resolution a bit.