Hard disagree on this type of game being unplayable at 30 fps. If the game is good, it should still be enjoyable at 30 fps. Of course i will concede that 30 fps is not super enjoyable in itself; in a poor game it will be annoying, but in a good game it will be fine.
That said, I can remember one game(cant remember which) where the game felt much slower then the fps i was getting implied. If that is the case for this game…where 30 fps feels like 10 fps…then ya that would be mostly unplayable. But, i doubt that is the case.
I don’t want to play games at 30 fps anymore, but i can very easily play games at that frame rate…or even less, its never stopped me before.
Gpus looking clowns and getting more expensive barely reaching the console both amd and Nivida GPUs are dumb stagnation for years Nivida decide the price amd slot in its cards to look more value for money zero inovation in GPU side some times I even think is ryzen really amd product shame on you amd
rip fine wine
Who would’ve thought in 2020 that Turing would age better than RDNA1?
Everyone?
Turing had DLSS 2 support at that point already while AMD didn’t even have FSR1 out yet.
No it didn’t, DLSS 2 didn’t exist until 2020.
Turing supports RT. RDNA1 does not.
RT was never relevant on a 2060 Super, it’s too slow even without RT to ever make it worth turning RT on. Anyone who wasn’t drinking the kool-aid knew that RT’s demands were going to outstrip the first generation hardware, that’s how it always works with new technology.
Turing is DX12 Ultimate compliant. RDNA1 was not.
Which has been completely irrelevant until now, when it only matters in a single game.
This “everyone” who knew Turing would age better have been proven completely wrong, the 5700 XT still murders the 2060 Super in the vast majority of games over 4 years later.
5700XT is comparable to a 2070/2080 in most games other than Alan Wake 2. Digital Foundry even suggests this in one of their videos.
I guess there must be a fallback of sorts. Either that or the game crashes at some point.
The 2060 6GB was the minimum spec recommended by Remedy so the results seem as expected. There doesn’t seem to be a massive performance delta between the low preset and the high preset (without RT). The 5700XT can’t maintain 30FPS on low, but the 2060S looks like it can get a solid 30FPS lock (or perhaps 40FPS with DLSS).
Sort of minimum as they intentionally made very safe and conservetive system requirements.
They said 2060 will get 30 fps with dlss quality at low.
Based on the numbers even a 1660 super will get 30 fps on just low native 1080p Possibly better perf than the 5700xt
That’s also why low setting in this game is a LOT different from other games.
The low setting here looks better than medium in basically all other games.
Probably low = console setting
Console settings are around medium
Console settings for quality mode or performance mode? I’m guessing quality.
RE4 looks better and runs better on both if these cards. Tf lol
I think its obvious to pretty much everyone that RE4 doesn’t look better. You gonna have to upgrade your 5700xt at some point. Technology is not going to wait until you can afford new gpu
re4 looks good, alan wake 2 looks leaps and bounds better than re4. Even a blind person could see
Although RE4 is a good looking game, shadows are almost non existent and lighting is monotonous and static. It’s basically a remake with high-res textures. It still looks good because of textures but seriously? lol.
If your vision of optimization is to just use high res textures on graphics that are decade old so it runs well on 5700XT, hate to break it you…that’s not exactly “optimization”. I very much would like to you what you think “optimization” means and what you want it to be? To me it sounds like you just want graphic advancement to be stationary, not advance because otherwise it’s too taxing on the GPUs, that’s not “optimization”.
according to Steve textures is what makes games look good . He has been downplaying cyberpunk visuals every time , because to him textures are low res . For such an intelligent man with decades of experience he has no clue what makes games good looking .
I guess there must be a fallback of sorts. Either that or the game crashes at some point
Wasn’t that already said in the twitter thread that started all?
In any case, I think this all has been blown out of proportion. A 4 year-old mid range card is unsuported in one game it couldn’t really run decently even if it had the required features.
Expecting a 5700 XT to keep up with games that aim to push the state of the art of graphics seems just unrealistic.
The problem is that games are getting more demanding while gpu performance is stagnating. The 5700xt was a $400 gpu in 2019. Today for $400 you are looking at a 7700xt or a 4060ti. The 4060ti is a joke while the 7700xt is on average only 70% more powerful. Used to be that we would get that type of uplift in just 1 generation, and generations were every year. That means in 4 years we would see performance per dollar quadruple. Games on the other hand haven’t slowed down how demanding they get to stay in line with the gpu performance slowdown. This means people have very little reason to upgrade. To put the final nail in the coffin, AW2 also runs like shit on today’s $400 gpus. Good luck hitting 1440p 60 fps high settings on a 7700xt without upscaling.
Obviously there is, otherwise the game wouldn’t be running at all on RX5000 and GeForce 10.
I kinda disagree with his assessment that 30-40fps in this style of game isn’t playable. I find it completely playable in this game.
Also use of DLSS at 1080p balanced or performance setting to get near 60fps wouldn’t be that terrible vs not be able to play IMO. DLSS even at 1080p doesn’t look anywhere near as bad as FSR2.
I kinda disagree with his assessment that 30-40fps in this style of game isn’t playable. I find it completely playable in this game.
Used to console gaming? lol
You might disagree but that’s not most people, only if you are used to gaming at a merely 60fps or bellow with low refresh rate then maybe.
But anyone who used to play at 144-200+ fps and high refresh monitors, EVEN 60 can feel choppy and is like a bare minimum, no one wants to play feeling those stutters that comes with low fps, as soon as it starts dropping in the 50s, it feels like power point, some of us even get dizzy wit that shit.
That’s absolutely not most people lol. For 144+ FPS on games like Alan Wake 2 you’re looking at a tiny sliver of gamers on high end PCs.
most people are using 1080p 60hz monitors with 3060s . What are you talking about. 30fps is playable, been playable since the dawn of video games . When crysis came out, no hardware that year could give you 50fps at 1024x768 resolution . Just think for a moment .
I don’t believe for a secondary most people are that dump for still on 60hz and buying a 3060.
FSR 2 looks fine. DLSS handles the shimmering a lot better. Thats the only difference really and its minor.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I completely agree. People act love to act like FSR 2 is “absolutely terrible” and “uncomparable” to DLSS, when in reality they’re really rather close in quality. FSR has less ghosting and more shimmering, DLSS has more ghosting and less shimmering. Yet, if you suggest that FSR 2 is comparable to DLSS, people act like you’ve just committed a war-crime.
RX7600 test if someone is interested
https://youtu.be/64q7AeiGMkUAnyone tried dxvk with it yet?
It’s DX12, so it needs VKD3D.
AMD GPUs can’t run VKD3D on Windows, but Nvidia GPUs can.
Does DXVK support Direct3D 12 now?
Well it has a mesh shader extension and that’s dx12: so I would think so
Nice.
What kind of firehose video is this, why do they even care? So, they said 4 years ago that a 5700xt was a better buy than the 2060 super, and from their point of view they where correct. They do not until very recently embraced raytracing, forward looking features or upscaling. And many times don’t even do it now, such as saying DLSS is shit on 1080p. They are very clear on this, and anybody buying from their recommendations would know what they get.
However most people do not buy according to their recommendations, and many, many Turing owners can bring out the controller, turn on DLSS and play this game. Even if it’s at 45fps.
They truly over exaggerate it, for whatever reason. DLSS at 1080p is perfectly fine and I think in many cases, it’s superior to TAA as it has more detail and better motion stability, even the lower presets.
The only reason its blurry in Alan Wake 2 is because the sharpening pass is disabled. But you can easily add sharpening yourself.
I came here hoping to see someone’s experience with the 6800 XT since I’m broke and holding off on buying it. Oh well.
I have à 5700xt and the game seems payable, performance are not great as expected… But 30fps look Ok to me for this type of game. The launch pop-up warning is iritating tho… Remind me that I’m poor… But also mess with the steam remote play and prevent me to stream the game on m’y steam deck, is there any way to disable this launch warning mesh shader thing?
So…I have a Vega 64 and have some pretty bad meshes. Is there no way to deactivate this feature so I can play or am I fucked?
press F for Pascal.
Meanwhile, I’m worried at the gatekeeping and elitist attitude that “30 FPS is unplayable”, when in fact it’s at least a bare minimum that works.
Sure we all love to play at 60 FPS minimums, but up until yesterday we were all happy with playing 1080p@30 on consoles. Heck, we still are happy with that on the Nintendo Switch and the latest Zelda even has the casual dip below that. Is Tears of the Kingdom unplayable?
Is Tears of the Kingdom unplayable?
On the switch yes. On emulators its fine. I get 60 fps with 5800x3d.
It’s all up to personal preference, back on the family PC in the day I would accept less than 30 if I could just play the game.
Now that I can afford a better experience it’s hard to go back, I usually try to aim for a min 80 fps and am willing to reduce GFX quality to hit it without using DLSS.
That’s just me, kinda sucks though, I love high FPS but DLSS just doesn’t look right to me, theres anyways a few textures that just seem off to me.
Do I care that anyone is okay with playing at 30 fps, not one bit, find your enjoyment where you can. But in my mind, 30 fps is sub par for my experience, so I avoid, which again sucks cause I really want to enjoy Xenoblade chronicles 3 but I just can’t at that frame rate.
I tried playing TLoU2 on a PS4 pro, the game visually looked great except it could barely manage 30 FPS with dips lower. The experience was jarring.
If you’re happy with <30 FPS games, good for you, you can save a ton of money not upgrading hardware, but for most of us we notice the difference and for some of us it ruins the experience.
up until yesterday we were all happy with playing 1080p@30 on consoles
What a weird thing to say, who is “we” exactly…? The last time I owned a console, Kaz Hirai was still the CEO of Sony. For me 30 FPS is unplayable unless it’s a turn-based game or some other extremely slow genre. The PC crowd has never been “happy” with a shooter running at 30 FPS.
Personally I skipped Resident Evil 4 Remake because my current PC can’t run the game at 120 FPS, which I consider the minimum for an action game where you aim with a mouse. I’ll pick it up once I upgrade my computer, I’d rather wait.
And I would never play Alan Wake 2 at 30 FPS either: again, I’d rather wait.
Is Tears of the Kingdom unplayable?
For me, yes. I mean, I can still “play” it fine if I have to, so “unplayable” isn’t the right word. But the low framerate would severely hinder my enjoyment of the game.
We definitely played games at 30fps in the voodoo, tnt2 etc era
You’ve just got really high standards, like in the 1% of standards before you enjoy a game.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but you are part of a very small minority.
Talk about elitism, mate.
Nice to see that the game at least works without Mesh Shaders, but obviously runs worse as performance benefits are the point of Mesh Shaders
What if you use amd driver frame gen on top of this? Does it become playable?
Not supported for rdna1 yet
🍷