Review: Rise of the Tomb Raider PC graphics card performance

Published by

Click here to post a comment for Review: Rise of the Tomb Raider PC graphics card performance on our message forum
#5224677
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
Hmm, honestly this raises more questions then answers for me. I know at the end you said you're going to update with diff perf settings, I'm assuming you'll include purehair on/off -- but please also include Fury X at different tessellation settings. I'm curious to see how much of an impact the tessellation has on it. Also wasn't this game supposed to include VXAO? Does it? I can't read the settings page =(
#5224681
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/16/16662.jpg
Administrator
Honestly time wise these reviews are getting more and more crazy. I just flicked the higher (Very High) image quality mode and moved onwards from there. But sure, I'll certainly have a look at it.
#5224685
data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp
This game mess up AMD really bad. On 2560x1440 290 beats 290x and 390x is above Fury and Nano.
#5224687
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/90/90726.jpg
The game seems to run well with a single card but you get poor GPU usage in SLI. I very rarely see it go above 70% for most cards and usually hovers around 50-60 with 40-50FPS.
Just another example of why I ditched SLI. No matter what game there are always problems at launch, and it never works correctly until drivers are released after the fact, and sometimes not even then. To me, its no longer worth the effort over a single card. As for the benchmark, I'm astounded by how much stronger a TI is over a Fury and the rest of the AMD lineup @ WQHD.. I mean, that's a huge gap in framerate..
#5224688
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
Honestly time wise these reviews are getting more and more crazy. I just flicked the higher (Very High) image quality mode and moved onwards from there. But sure, I'll certainly have a look at it.
Yeah, sorry, I bet it's a pain -- but honestly the game benchmark reviews are probably the things I reference the most here on Guru3D. I rarely go and relook at old card launches, but I often go back and reference the game comparisons. And Guru3D is almost always on top of Google searches when I'm looking. I'm just curious to see how much the tessellation impacts the performance here. It doesn't have to be anything extensive, just one test, any res, on a Fury X.
This game mess up AMD really bad. On 2560x1440 290 beats 290x and 390x is above Fury and Nano.
Seems to be a VRAM limit.
#5224690
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/115/115710.jpg
GTX 980 Ti is so much ahead the rest that it's almost unreal... Fury performs really badly even when compared to 3x0 cards.
#5224692
data/avatar/default/avatar11.webp
Just another example of why I ditched SLI. No matter what game there are always problems at launch, and it never works correctly until drivers are released after the fact, and sometimes not even then. To me, its no longer worth the effort over a single card.
As a recent SLi > single card convert, I agree 100% :thumbup: While I can't say I'll never do SLi again, I will always favor single card over multi GPUs from here on..
As for the benchmark, I'm astounded by how much stronger a TI is over a Fury and the rest of the AMD lineup @ WQHD.. I mean, that's a huge gap in framerate..
It's the tessellation. AMD still has very low tessellation performance compared to NVidia..
#5224693
data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp
Seems to be a VRAM limit.
At 2560x1440 the VRAM usage is below 4GB and all those cards have at least 4 GB of VRAM. I mean there is no difference in VRAM between 290 and 290x only the last one is more powerful, or should be.
#5224697
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
At 2560x1440 the VRAM usage is below 4GB and all those cards have at least 4 GB of VRAM. I mean there is no difference in VRAM between 290 and 290x only the last one is more powerful, or should be.
Hm weird. I think he might have just updated those graphs. I might be going crazy though Idk, there has to be some kind of bottleneck occurring. If it's not VRAM and it's not tessellation it has to be draw call limit or something.
#5224701
data/avatar/default/avatar31.webp
Why is 950 obtaining better results than 960???
#5224703
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/16/16662.jpg
Administrator
Why is 950 obtaining better results than 960???
Because yours truly screwed up 🤓 Chart was fixed before you could even write this.
#5224710
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/156/156133.jpg
Moderator
Wow, this game does not like AMD GPU's too much... Funny that it's a console port using AMD GPU's. 😀
#5224712
data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp
Hm weird. I think he might have just updated those graphs. I might be going crazy though Idk, there has to be some kind of bottleneck occurring. If it's not VRAM and it's not tessellation it has to be draw call limit or something.
Most certainly some kind of bottleneck is capping the performance at approximately same level on the all AMD spectrum of cards. The difference between FuryX and 290 is 8 fps.
#5224714
data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp
You haven't been paying attention, if you have never seen Fury/X being unable to significantly differentiate itself from Hawaii cards in the terms of raw fps.
#5224716
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
You haven't been paying attention, if you have never seen Fury/X being unable to significantly differentiate itself from Hawaii cards in the terms of raw fps.
Well, it doesn't usually significantly differentiate itself -- but I can't think of another game where a Fury X loses to a 980. Like there is clearly something wrong here. There are benchmarks around with no tessellation and it looks the same. So it's definitely not tessellation. VRAM isn't maxed at QHD/1080p, so it's not that either. The game uses Pure Hair, so it's not like Nvidia completely developed it. Btw Pure Hair looks f*cking incredible and apparently it has nearly zero performance hit. Looking forward to that in more games.
#5224725
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/201/201426.jpg
Wow, this game does not like AMD GPU's too much... Funny that it's a console port using AMD GPU's. 😀
It does have nvidia slapped on it. But even just 1 290x handles this game with 60fps @ 2560x1080 on all high settings with true hair. And sadly still havent seen the 16.1.1 driver released yet.
#5224726
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/156/156133.jpg
Moderator
Snip Snip
Can I just say, thank you for referencing a benchmark on guru3d instead of a different website's benchmark? =]
#5224729
data/avatar/default/avatar13.webp
Can I just say, thank you for referencing a benchmark on guru3d instead of a different website's benchmark? =]
Proly should have linked the entire review instead. I hate when ppl link random benchmark charts (although Guru3D is not random). http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/anno-2205-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,1.html Point being, stuff like this (Fury/X under-performing, unable to utilize all its HW glory) does happen, and it does not have to be Project Cars.
#5224733
data/avatar/default/avatar02.webp
You haven't been paying attention, if you have never seen Fury/X being unable to significantly differentiate itself from Hawaii cards in the terms of raw fps.
I was paying attention. I dont want to spam this thread with pictures especially that they are of the topic but if you want, check this reviews, on 2560x1080 section, and see what I meant to say ( the difference between 290 and FuryX) -> Links removed. Let's keep this thread clean please.

Next Page