playsaves3
Member
ID wait for Nx gamers vid
-
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.
Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales for PC | Review Thread
Gaiff
Member
And that's coming from the person who was dismissively comparing PS5 settings vs PC with RT shadows, hand waving the performance impact of RT shadows when according to the metrics, no RT to Very High RT shadows can impact performance by 30%.
There's an edit feature. No need to post 10x in a row.
Last edited:
Stuart360
Member
It seems the extra time Nixes had to work on this has done wonders. The game is basically half as cpu intensive as the first game on my 3700x. 25% cpu usage at a locked 60fps when swinging through the city, compared to 50% cpu usage and random drops into the 50's with the first game. The game still only uses 8 cores like the first game but thank god they sorted out the cpu usage and streaming problems the first game had.
There is a trade off though, and thats the game is more gpu intensive now. With FSR i could run the first game at 4k/60 on my 1080ti., but i have to run this game at 1440p/60 with FSR. It still looks great and to be honest the trade off is more than worth it as a locked 60fps is better to me than slightly sharper visuals (plus FSR 2.1 looks super sharp anyway).
Good work Nixes, now lets try and implement these cpu changes into the first game please.
Oh and i said i wouldnt be buying this earlier in the thread but i managed to find a key for £22 so thought i'd give it a shot.
EDIT. Just skimmed over the thread and seen a lot of warring by Sony fans and stuff. I'd just say to them, and to any PC users having cpu usage probelsm with this game, i'm on a 1080ti so obviously i'm not using ray tracing. CPu usage for me without ray tracing has been halved from the first game, and i'm only on a midrange 3700x. So high cpu usage problems must be ray tracing related.
There is a trade off though, and thats the game is more gpu intensive now. With FSR i could run the first game at 4k/60 on my 1080ti., but i have to run this game at 1440p/60 with FSR. It still looks great and to be honest the trade off is more than worth it as a locked 60fps is better to me than slightly sharper visuals (plus FSR 2.1 looks super sharp anyway).
Good work Nixes, now lets try and implement these cpu changes into the first game please.
Oh and i said i wouldnt be buying this earlier in the thread but i managed to find a key for £22 so thought i'd give it a shot.
EDIT. Just skimmed over the thread and seen a lot of warring by Sony fans and stuff. I'd just say to them, and to any PC users having cpu usage probelsm with this game, i'm on a 1080ti so obviously i'm not using ray tracing. CPu usage for me without ray tracing has been halved from the first game, and i'm only on a midrange 3700x. So high cpu usage problems must be ray tracing related.
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Gold Member
67 to 61 is a 9% difference. Drop off of ~5 frames w/ a PS5 equivalent CPU. Player in the video I referenced was using a 3080, not a 2070 Super. Now STFU for Christ sake. You continue to retrieve answers from higher authority without any logical input from yourself or other contextual contribution. I can accept the former, but the latter is vomit inducing and extremely low effort.
Desprado123
Member
Yes because RTX 3080 is performing exactly as it should. IMO it is performing 70-80% faster than PC on same settings of fidelity mode.
10 GB Vram is enough for 4k+Ray tracing for this game.
yamaci17
Member
btw its also not representative of actual 2070super performance. it is cpu limited there (by ryzen 3600) around 70 framerate average with a %80 GPU utilization (so it would average 85-90 framerate at 1080p. and by extension, it would actually still continue getting 60-70 framerate average at 1440p due to GPU performance headroom being available)
that part is not even shown to showcase 2070s performance , it is a part to show the CPU bound performance of r5 3600 CPU
so 2070s is not getting 1080p 70 framerate, not at all, it will easily do 1440p 60 with that kind of headroom
(another golden logic nugget: compares CPU bound impact of Ray traced shadows when the discussion is about its GPU bound impact. just great!)
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Gold Member
WITH THE GPU UTILIZATION ALREADY AT 85%!!!???
Yeah, we're done here. Shame, I thought you were better than this.
playsaves3
Member
The ps5 is cpu limited as well so next
yamaci17
Member
You cannot really know that unless you see actual metrics from the hardware itself. Going by how PS5 performs in its locked modes and the kind of resolutions it drops to, it is QUITE clear and comprehensible that VRR unlocked modes are GPU bound, MOST of the time. the fact that even VRR unlocked modes still shift resolution, IT IS still GPU bound, in a controlled state by the developer
next
Last edited:
yamaci17
Member
see people, this is why you don't do drugs
www.techspot.com
Based on the data here, 2070 super renders 104 frames at 1080p, and 79 frames at 1440p in the very same engine.
A performance drop of %75.
RTX 2070 super in the DF's video and his "gotcha" picture is shown to hover around %85 at 1080p while getting 72 frames per second.
With a better CPU, RTX 2070 super would get around 84 FPS average with that extra %15 headroom (100/85 = 1.17) (72*1.17)
Based on how it drops %75 of its 1080p performance with ray tracing enabled at 1440p, we would get... 84*0.75 = 63 FPS
You're welcome.
No no, I THOUGHT you were better than this. You truly showed your colors. But beyond that, you simply fail at making simple deductions on a given data. Bravo.
If this isn't enough, here, MATCHED PS5 settings (not optimized settings) on a 3070 at native 1440p;
Now... how fast is the 3070 compared to 2070 super? Around %35 faster.
So in this scene, with matched PS5 settings, 2070 super would be getting around 70 FPS.
You're welcome.
You're also invited to understand that Turing and Ampere scales better at higher resolutions due to their architectures not being effective at low resolutions such as 1080p. But you probably didn't know that either.
Here another scene,
86 frames per second... so 64 FPS or so for 2070 super.
YOU'RE very, very welcome..
These PS5 matched ray tracing settings do not even sweat any midrange RTX GPU. Real deal starts with Very High ray traced geometry, which once again, most midrange and above RTX GPUs handle gracefully, 2070 super INCLUDED while having the best upscaling in tow in DLSS to push it even more gracefully.
Spider-Man Remastered GPU Benchmark
Spider-Man Remastered has arrived to PC with unlocked frame rates, FSR 2.0 and DLSS upscaling, ray-traced reflections, and ultra-wide monitor support. Let's now take a look at...
www.techspot.com
Based on the data here, 2070 super renders 104 frames at 1080p, and 79 frames at 1440p in the very same engine.
A performance drop of %75.
RTX 2070 super in the DF's video and his "gotcha" picture is shown to hover around %85 at 1080p while getting 72 frames per second.
With a better CPU, RTX 2070 super would get around 84 FPS average with that extra %15 headroom (100/85 = 1.17) (72*1.17)
Based on how it drops %75 of its 1080p performance with ray tracing enabled at 1440p, we would get... 84*0.75 = 63 FPS
You're welcome.
No no, I THOUGHT you were better than this. You truly showed your colors. But beyond that, you simply fail at making simple deductions on a given data. Bravo.
If this isn't enough, here, MATCHED PS5 settings (not optimized settings) on a 3070 at native 1440p;
Now... how fast is the 3070 compared to 2070 super? Around %35 faster.
So in this scene, with matched PS5 settings, 2070 super would be getting around 70 FPS.
You're welcome.
You're also invited to understand that Turing and Ampere scales better at higher resolutions due to their architectures not being effective at low resolutions such as 1080p. But you probably didn't know that either.
Here another scene,
86 frames per second... so 64 FPS or so for 2070 super.
YOU'RE very, very welcome..
These PS5 matched ray tracing settings do not even sweat any midrange RTX GPU. Real deal starts with Very High ray traced geometry, which once again, most midrange and above RTX GPUs handle gracefully, 2070 super INCLUDED while having the best upscaling in tow in DLSS to push it even more gracefully.
Last edited:
sachos
Member
Haven't watched the video yet, does Alex do a propper side by side VS with the PS5 like he did with the recent Plague Tale video?
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Only cut few settings. He kinda avoids console version but also it’s a goal of the video. He looks for similar settings
Gaiff
Member
Look at the disingenuous twat. Alex in this scene is claiming that just turning RT Shadows to Medium has a 9% cost on the CPU which is why he DOES NOT recommend turning them on on mid-range hardware. This further cements that RT shadows are heavy on both CPU and GPU. Alex speaks the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim.
67 to 61 is a 9% difference. Drop off of ~5 frames w/ a PS5 equivalent CPU. Player in the video I referenced was using a 3080, not a 2070 Super. Now STFU for Christ sake. You continue to retrieve answers from higher authority without any logical input from yourself or other contextual contribution. I can accept the former, but the latter is vomit inducing and extremely low effort.
Alex: I recommend them only for those with really high-end CPUs and GPUs.
You: RT shadows are not demanding. Vindicated.
Christ, you're insufferable. Your claims have been debunked and you haven't put forward a iota of proof for what you said. Quit wasting everyone's time with your warring nonsense.
Last edited:
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
And? It’s a console. A set box with one configuration.
On PC it can be swapped out for a newer, more powerful CPU that will get you a nice frame rate boost.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
The video I originally posted was testing 3080 benchmarks. Is a 3080 GPU mid-range to you?
Instead of putting words in my mouth, you can simply reference what I said. The only negative is your mischaracterization gets exposed for everyone to see
Words matter. Again in the context of the video I posted with the 3080, turning on RT shadows had negligible impact on performance, meaning it is not the underlying cause of why console is performing significantly better than PC from a GPU/CPU/RAM spec comparison.
However there is always a logical answer and my position has always been the fundamental difference in how data is managed and moved throughout entire system. A lot of you PC owners keep looking at individual components in a vacuum when that's not how it works.
I thought we could all silently agree to disagree after the back and forth yesterday, but if you wish to continue antagonizing, I have no problem defending my original comments from the slander.
Gaiff
Member
In a world with 4090/80s and 7900 XT/X coming in a few weeks, yes. I'm obviously assuming that Alex considers it high-end still but the point is that RT shadows are taxing, they're not negligible even on high-end hardware as you seem to imply.
Which again was debunked. Even "relatively" speaking is false. RT shadows can and often are more demanding than reflections. Reflections entirely depend on the number and roughness of surfaces. That shadows are relatively light is completely false no matter how you slice it.Instead of putting words in my mouth, you can simply reference what I said. The only negative is your mischaracterization gets exposed for everyone to see
There's no disagreement to be had. You mad false claims that were debunked and double-down. We'll just go back to ignoring you and your nonsensical claims that as of yet are still unsubstantiated.
1. Shifting settings frequently without restarting the game can negatively affect performance.
2. The fact that the 3080 is at 49fps then a second later 20fps should tell you exactly what is happening. There are massive fps lurches and sudden spikes.
From Tom's Hardware. But at this point, it's blatant you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't got the faintest idea how PC hardware works.
Done wasting my time with you. Over and out.
Last edited:
TrebleShot
Member
Funny to see people warring in here.
I the two years it took for this to come to PC I’m sure Insomniac (arguably the best dev in the world right now) would be able to squeeze more out of the PS5 to add some bells and whistles. Even then it looks amazing on PS5, it was cross gen remember.
I the two years it took for this to come to PC I’m sure Insomniac (arguably the best dev in the world right now) would be able to squeeze more out of the PS5 to add some bells and whistles. Even then it looks amazing on PS5, it was cross gen remember.
... You mean with RT on?
Without RT on a 9900k should do fine.
Because RT is extremely heavy on the CPU just as it is GPU.
playsaves3
Member
Because it’s not an equivalent gou bench at that point
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
What do you need an equivalent bench for?
What do you get out of holding back a PC to a two year old console level? Is there some need to make it look like they’re on the same level, when they’re not?
Do you also need a Switch level PC to get Monster Hunter Rise benchmarks, or else it’s not fair to make the console look worse?
Last edited:
Revolutionary
Member
Just finished the game on PC - first time playing it.
Man, that was weak. The venom powers were interesting at first but ultimately (pun intended) I prefer the Ratchet & Clank-ness of the combat in Pete's game. They're also kinda OP because I probably died a grand total of two times prior to the final boss on the hardest difficulty. It's also incredibly short - my playtime was 13 hours, and that's with most of the side stuff done. Just a handful of hideouts that I couldn't be bothered to mop up.
As for the story... I think the less said about it, the better.
Having said all that, it sure was a pretty game on PC. But I should have waited for a sale.
Man, that was weak. The venom powers were interesting at first but ultimately (pun intended) I prefer the Ratchet & Clank-ness of the combat in Pete's game. They're also kinda OP because I probably died a grand total of two times prior to the final boss on the hardest difficulty. It's also incredibly short - my playtime was 13 hours, and that's with most of the side stuff done. Just a handful of hideouts that I couldn't be bothered to mop up.
As for the story... I think the less said about it, the better.
Having said all that, it sure was a pretty game on PC.
But I should have waited for a sale.
Last edited:
elcapitano
Member
https://vginsights.com/game/1817190
Anone notice that all the Sony new PC releases aren't selling well at all?
Like Miles Morales is supposedly at like 300k.
Seems like Horizon sold well with the hype of it being one of the first on PC. Then God of War did ok but less than Horizon. And each new release just seems to do worse and worse now.
Anone notice that all the Sony new PC releases aren't selling well at all?
Like Miles Morales is supposedly at like 300k.
Seems like Horizon sold well with the hype of it being one of the first on PC. Then God of War did ok but less than Horizon. And each new release just seems to do worse and worse now.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
People who wanted to play the games, did so on cheap ps4 or ps5.
elcapitano
Member
I mean yeah maybe but the initial Sony releases where selling a few million.
Now there appears to be a clear trend of the newer ones doing worse each release.
Same trend can be seen in the release day peak player numbers.
Looks like Days Gone GOW and Horizon got onto PC early enough when there was hype about Sony releases but now that hype has died it seems.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
That's because Miles Morales is more similar to a DLC than a full on game.
The other thing to consider is that those are estimates. There are a few other sites that also have estimates on game sales on Steam, and they can vary wildly.
Still, if you go by VGInsight's estimates, Sony games are selling by the million.
God of War -1.9M
Days Gone - 1.6 M
Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered - 1.7M
Horizon Zero Dawn - 2.7M
The exception seem to be Uncharted 4, Miles Morales and Sackboy.
Uncharted 4 flopped because it's a bad port, and most PC gamers don't care entering the franchise in it's 4th game.
Sackboy probably didn't sell all that well even on the PS4, compared to other Sony games. And it's not the kind of game that really appeals to the PC crowd.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
If Sony wants success on PC they need to ship day and date. If they don't they can expect sales to be lower.
A lot of these games explode on launch, due to the hype created by marketing, their fans and the reviews.
A lot of these games explode on launch, due to the hype created by marketing, their fans and the reviews.
YeulEmeralda
Member
The sales window is extremely short for most games. You make your money in the first few months. Or even earlier, preordering has become normal.
I appreciate what Sony is doing but I'm a patient gamer. Will happily play games years after release. But this is a hype driven industry. Sony wants the sales on Steam they need to release them day one.
The Cockatrice
Gold Member
It was an idiotic move to port the 4th game in the series when all of them are connected in a way and most of the story beats in the 4th are expecting you to know and love the characters. Sackboy is niche. Miles Morales is pretty much an expansion more than anything else. Also has a shit villain and it feels like a filler more than anything. That being said, PC, especially on steam has more legs than anyone can count. The sales will continue to grow constantly. I remember Witcher 3 being on top sales for 4 years in a row or something in steam charts. Also games like GoW and Spider-man were most likely already been played by most PC users.
Rendered Tangent
Banned
Well, it's not like they have a ton of overheads when releasing on pc.
It's mostly pure profit.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Maybe they should release their games without stupid prices...
Buggy Loop
Member
I have such a huge backlog, even Sony games I had. I had uncharted 4 for free with my 5800X3D, haven’t even installed it yet.
I buy at deep discounts. I’m on steam since its launch, I’m a patient man and I won’t buy ports at full price.
Rendered Tangent
Banned
You should play it, it's brilliant.
Rendered Tangent
Banned
Spiderman really is a great piece of entertainment.
winjer
Gold Member
You do realize this is the PC thread.
Eiknarf
Banned
Yeah I couldn’t find the Review Thread for the PS5. That’s why I wrote “for the PS5”, cuz I knew I was in the PC thread
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Isn’t $49 a bit steep for Miles Morales? Even the PC release can be found for under $25.
I’ll probably pick it up at some point myself, as I still haven’t uninstalled Spiderman because the combat (and mod community’s work) is so good.
Eiknarf
Banned
Actually I don’t know
If you look here, at Gamestop, it’s $69 new and $49 pre-owned
https://www.gamestop.com/search/?q=spider man miles morales&suggestionV=2
Even the pre-owned PS4 version is $44
Last edited: