The latest update for Quantum Break includes an option to disable the reconstruction tech, via which the game was rendering at a lower resolution and was then upscaled to your desired resolution. And below you can see for yourselves what this game looks like in 4K without that annoying tech.
Quantum Break is beautiful. No, let me rephrase it. Quantum Break is perhaps the game with the best visuals we’ve ever seen. Its lighting system is spectacular, it’s packed with really high-quality textures for pretty much all surfaces, its shadows and ambient occlusion effects are stunning, and its reflections are sweet.
Let’s make one thing clear here; there is no doubt that the game could benefit from further optimizations. However, Quantum Break is visually one of the best PC games we’ve ever seen, if not the best. Seriously, just take a look at the following screenshots. Everything looks sooooooo good. Yes, the game does require a really powerful GPU in order to shine but the end result is simply glorious and beyond anything available on the PC (better than Assassin’s Creed: Unity or Crysis 3… with only Star Wars: Battlefront able to compete with it). Yes, Star Wars: Battlefront runs better but that’s a beast of its own that has not been topped even by other Frostbite 3 games.
Quantum Break was simply unplayable on our GTX980Ti in 4K. We are pretty sure that we were hitting below 20fps (yeap, it was THAT bad). However, the game in 4K without its reconstruction tech looks stunning. So let’s forget for a second its UWP nature, its lack of multi-GPU support (that it’s due to DX12, at least for now), and that everyone hates Microsoft’s store and let’s focus on the quality of its visuals.
What’s also worth noting here is that we did not use a Reshade. This is vanilla Quantum Break in 4K, and it looks THIS good.
For your viewing pleasures, we’ve downsampled the images at 1080p. We strongly suggest downloading the uncompressed 4K screenshots from here in order to enjoy the images in their full 4K glory!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
I still think Assassin’s Creed: Unity and Need For Speed look better.
Mass Effect: Andromeda whenever it comes out will be the undisputed best.
no they dont.
Anyway whatever is the best looking game on PC right now is irrelevant because we will have a new champion on May 5th, when Forza Motorport 6: Apex comes out.
Looks very average to me. I don’t see it looking any better then AC.
Prepare to be blown away.
Does it really look that good? I haven’t seen anything about Forza Apex.
Lighting and effects in this game awersome
Quite sharp indeed.
looks good but how does it run on Nvidia cards now.
With an Overclocked 980 Ti and i7-4790k I get 50-60 fps at 1080p/Max Settings and around 40 fps at 1440p/Max Settings. Tried 4k but was getting cinematic fps so switched back to 1080p.
And how does that fair next to a Fury X…
I don’t know, I don’t have a Fury X to test but I pretty sure Fury X will run this game better than the 980 Ti at least.
Maybe 1080 Ti will be able to get 1440p/60fps in this game. 4k/60fps will take some time. This is without doubt the most demanding game on PC right now.
They’re roughly about the same. Fury falling slightly behind at max details.
From Overclock3d dot net
4 GB VRAM is Fury X’s Achilles Heel and “sole” reason I did not get it.
Seems AMD didn’t have the confidence to put 8GB of HBM on and charge a bit more than the 980 Ti but undercut NVIDIA instead as usual. One day AMD might actually grow some balls and charge more for their claimed better product.
runs like complete garbage, you better save up for AMD, oh no you can’t.
Steam version is all i want remedy.
lol Remedy can’t do that… Only MS can.
Maybe Remedy could slip MS a fiver and a wink to get us a Steam version.
Are you serious? Do you want even stronger Steam monopoly? Why?
If Steam is a monopoly it’s because they provide the best product. They don’t have 130+ million active subscribers because they’re forcing people to use their services. People are CHOOSING it. There are no Steam exclusives (at least not by Valve’s doing) and Valve pays no one to put their game on their service, unlike Sony/Microsoft that pays devs for software exclusivity.
Steam is the kind of “monopoly” that you want.
I’m sorry – I don’t want Steam monopoly. I don’t understand people who wish monopoly. If Valve is so great why they not release own games like Portal, LOL and on others stores? I want buy Portal from GOG or EA Origin!
Not sure what happened to your reply to my comment, but anyway, since I caught it in time & typed all this up, I figured I might as well post it anyway;
Actually, I’d love DX12 on Windows 7.
Unfortunately, since it’s never going to happen, & I’m not going to switch over to Windows 10 either, we find ourselves in a stalemate that could only be broken with one of two things;
Quantum Break going DX11, or
Quantum Break going Vulkan.
Honestly, I’d be all for either one, especially the latter, since it would mean another VG Development Studio has taken steps to break away from Microsoft’s Direct3D Monopoly on the Industry.
As for Windows 7 being old…. Well, what can I say, I like my Aero-Glass theme, my ads-free Star Menu, & Ribbon-free UI. Besides, they’re the ones trying to shove Windows Spyware 10 up into everyone’s business in literally one of the worst times in history to try & launch a Surveillance State-style OS. Not to mention the idiotic UWP-based Windows Store, which is basically a “gated community”/monopoly as well, so yeah. At least Valve has gained, & manages to keep people’s trust, Microsoft doesn’t even try anymore.
I’d have at least moved to Windows 8/8.1 if I could just convince myself it wouldn’t be a downgrade, but unfortunately I can’t even make that step, so yeah; Windows 7/Direct3D 11 ftw, 8-year old technology or not.
LOL, Microsoft never did, their business model has always been malicious and anti-competitive since before 2000, that’s what you get for supporting a monopoly, but people are always going to complain about their slave owner.
THEY YOU DON’T HAVE TO USE STEAM. How is this a problem?
Origin only sells EA games. That’s not Valve blocking them out. You want to complain about monopolies? Consider EA not wanting other games on their platform, or Ubisoft with UPlay. Steam sells everything. As long as you have a PC or laptop of any kind, you can use Steam. There’s no limitations.
And for LoL, they’ve developed and HOST that game. That’d be like telling Blizzard they need to let other companies host WoW clients. LoL is Valve’s game so of course it’s going to be on Steam.
No, Origin doesn’t sell only EA games. Check your facts. And I’d love to see you play a Valve game on PC without Steam.
Yes but it’s 99% are their own titles with only a few other games from the likes of Ubisoft, and a few other PC games not made by EA.
Whether more third-party developers and publishers choose to distribute their games via Origin is upto them, but the provision is there.
What Cooling said.
Also, Valve didn’t do LoL, that’s Riot Games.
Valve did DOTA 2.
Yes there are Steam exclusives. All of Valve’s own games are exclusive to Steam.
lol No they’re not. The Orange Box is on consoles.
And Quantum Break is on Xbox One, so what’s your point?
He means the PC versions of Steam games are only available through Steam.
Counter-Strike only gets updated through Steam these days. Half-Life 2 only goes through Steam, just like the Ubisoft Games all go through uPlay, etc.
Only difference is, we like Valve & Steam.
We don’t want a “stronger Steam monopoly” as much as we just want a PC version of Quantum Break free of Windows 10.
Seeing as that would mean releasing it on Steam however, yes, in other words, a Steam version. Or, a Steam-Origin version, if you’d rather. Alternatively, a Windows 7 version.
Honestly, “nobody” gives a f*ck where else it ends up as long as it works on Windows 7 & Steam.
No, i wanted to be exclusive on win10 and don’t work on any other OS out there beside win10. we all know what PC gaming is all about. it’s all about Restrictions, in M$ eyes of course.
Why do you want Steam? I can’t understand that. Do you want even stronger Steam monopoly? Strange
i’d take a steam monopoly over Microsoft having even the smallest amount of control over how pc gamers play.
I don’t want Steam monopoly
More stores = better prices, more sales. Its simple
Does it still apply x4msaa if you disable upscaling?
Yeap, it still does
is there going to be another game that would be better than Quantum Break in 4K?
I was thinking, since it uses MSAA, can’t we apply Nvidia’s MFAA to make the quality comparable to x8?
At one point, for about a minute, this was one of the only Xbone games I wanted on PC. How misguided I was.
Not the same same Remedy that made Max Payne 1 & 2 more than a decade ago.
Exactly.
Reading the first few paragraphs, I was skeptic of the claims “best visuals we’ve ever seen” But even the 1080p screens are impressive. I’d still give best visuals to unraveled but this is up there.
Unraveled?
Sorry, “Unravel”.
A slow news year i see 😀 nothing but shilling for EA/Ubi/M$ at least 4 times a day.
So writing down someone’s opinion is shilling these days? The game looks better than most others, and that’s a fact.You seem to have all sorts of issues when someone says something nice about those companies, even when that compliment is well-deserved.
“well-deserved”
So releasing a broken mess which is still a broken mess, needs compliment ? of course i have problem with those companies that treat people like s**t.
It’s not broken, it’s a somewhat poorly optimized game that also happens to be very demanding due to the advanced graphics tech it’s using.
It is broken and poorly optimized and it’s not that great visually to begin with. game itself is a mediocre crap published by a crappy publisher.
No, you didn’t mention anything about “broken mess” and neither did the article. The article praised the graphics alone. Then you claimed it was shilling.
well, should i mention such an obvious thing every time ? just look at the articles after articles in the past few months, it doesn’t matter if the game is any good or runs good or has a consumer friendly bussiness model, as long as it made by those publishers (no matter how bad they are) you will have tons or articles related to them.
Do you have some examples in mind? Just three would be enough.
examples for what ? you just come and collect examples and you leave like always 😀 remember GTAV’s DRM ?
Just look at the titles of any news here in the past couple of months, it’s either clickbait stuff or just praising these companies.
No I just need some examples to find a pattern. Gimme sum examplez plijh. I scrolled through the Disqus feed but got nothing.
But right, GTA V DRM. I remember you were having an issue with it? Could you just remind me what happened once more (just the overall idea)? I didn’t exactly forget about it, but just didn’t have the time to get back to you with something helpful.
Well few months ago when we had a news about new assassin’s creed game and how ubisoft wants to make sure that the PC version is optimized, i posted a comment like this (2009 – ubisoft: pc gamers are pirates – 2011 – we wont bring x to pc because piracy – 20xx no this game don’t have online drm 20xx that said game have always online drm etc…) guess what ? john deleted it, there weren’t any insult or anything in my comment. since then we have at least 2 or 3 news article per page about how beautiful and awesome some games (said companies) are etc… jon read the headlines in past few pages.
About GTAV’s DRM: game will stop working offline after 72hours being offline, game asks you to go online and activate it again, same as dragon age inqusition and tomb raider. guess what ? that latest GTAV’s update is now cracked and they removed that anti tamper crap from it, not only i can now play a game that i paid 60$ for, it also performs better. this is why i’m against DRMs so much, treating consumers like s**t and again we see articles in here that praises such DRMs and that makes me sad.
What’s wrong with TR’s DRM ? well see it in the pic, after one or two weeks it won’t launch offline anymore and it asks you to go online if it’s your first time playing the game, which is not, i finished that game months ago (finished it in 2hours ? no i play offline so no time will save, that said 2hours because i was online 2hours with the game running)
Pic is pending….
“guess what ? john deleted it, there weren’t any insult or anything in my comment. since then we have at least 2 or 3 news article per page about how beautiful and awesome some games (said companies) are etc…”
Ah now I see the real reason… it’s because of a deleted comment that you brought up “shilling”. But anyway, which article was it? And how did you know John deleted it? I think I’ve might’ve seen that comment from you before, but can’t exactly remember when and where. Additionally, you might try asking John directly regarding the matter, since I’ve never seen comments on DSOGaming being entirely censored or deleted to my knowledge.
“again we see articles in here that praises such DRMs and that makes me sad.”
Honestly I’ve never seen DSOGaming praise intrusive DRMs in any way. Any articles you have in mind where you think this happened?
Regarding the GTA V DRM, from what I’ve found it indeed has periodic entitlement verification. That means you have to re-activate the game after a certain period before you can resume playing offline again.
As for DA:I and TR, I’m getting conflicting reports that mention the issue might be with Denuvo or Origin/Steam. Nothing is certain as of now due to lack of information. But I’m just curious, is there a special reason you choose to play in offline mode mostly? I know it’s not a replacement solution, but at least you can play the game properly in online mode when you already happen to have an internet connection which I’m assuming you do, right?
No, not because of deleted comment but it had it’s impact. i can’t remember it but it’s either john or ubisoft themselves which is impossible. i asked several times about it but he did’t answered.
The article about Denuvo, he praised denuvo and how good it is and how it doesn’t have any negative impact on performance or other things without any proof.
I have two PCs, one is online and one offline, beside that i like to play offline all the time, but my problem is not the internet connection, it’s the unlimited power that it gives to the publishers who already had way more power before. they might force you to update and they might remove some features from the game and you might not be ok with it (GTA SA – they removed sound tracks etc or GTAV evey update means mods wont work and you have to download the new version) game updates supposed to be optional not forced, forcing you to go online then forcing an update for the title is what i’m having problem with these limited offline times. if you remember, i said this issue made Dragon Age unplayable for me due to Origin updates being under sanction in here, game works/downloading and buying works/updates no. what happened ? i bought the game, i played the game, then it forced me to go online, then it asked for an update, you can’t reject, you are forced to download the update, then it didn’t update so it didn’t worked anymore. these are the limitations that a legit user will get, lets say most peoples are not living in places that are under sanctions, ok! it’s still s s**t move and it’s still a limit which has no benefit for consumer. imaging after afew years they shut down something. for GTAV i didn’t have problem for re-activating the game but it was annoying to delete and download mods eveytime so i used a crack to not deal with that.
Don’t be so stupid
Don’t be so re*ard and end yourself.
Amir, still being a dumbass I see.
oh, you again ? you were gone for a long time, i see they gave your shilling job back to you again you stupid monkey. it was ubisoft then, what is it now ? M$ ?
This game is beautiful. Can’t wait to buy new GPU – GTX 1080 “Pascal” or something from AMD (Polaris). I hope that new GPU will have enough power to run this game in full 4K at locked 60fps.
10 years ago we have “Crysis 1” – first real game using DX10. Most gamers must wait a 2 years to buy GPU fast enough to run Crysis in full 1080p. Now 10 years later we have “Quantum Break” – firs real game using DX12. In a year or two most gamers buy new hardware and can will play this game at 4K
Pre-Aliens Crysis was awesome. Once the Aliens came into the picture, yeah…..
Suffice it to say; a Crysis reboot/whatever with nothing more than an “Island Jungle Paradise Sandbox World” & a guy in a Nanosuit rampaging around hunting nothing but Humans (CELL, KPA, other, or whatever) would be the hands down best entry in the franchise.
Wouldn’t even need to have much of a story, scripted stuff, etc. Just one big Sandbox – pick a direction & go find yourself something to stalk into insanity & pants-wetting ^^ Oh, & of course, top-tier cutting edge graphics with which to melt our overpriced GPUs 😀
That’s interesting though, I heard Quantum Break has a great Campaign story O.o
“From what I’m hearing, Quantum Break is not a good game, making it more like Tresspasser”
I like this game more that Crysis. Crysis was pure FPS like Call of Duty or Battlefield – lots of shooting and no real background story Quantum Break is different, it’s more like Uncharted – pure story driven. I really like this game because it’s different. But I know that story driven games are not for everyone – check youtube walkthough if you are not sure about this game.
This game is soooooo unoptimized not even pascal or polaris will run it at 60fps 4K
I think that GTX 1080 will be enough for 4K. New GPU will be designed for DX12 and use 2x more transistors than my current 980 (14nm instead 28nm).
Do you even know what u’re talking about or you’re just repeating what you read somewhere or what someone told you?
GTX 980:
– single hardware command queue (Xbox have 2 queues, PS4 have 8)
– no asyc shaders
– 28nm
– achitecture designed for DX11
GTX 1080:
– multiple hardware command queues !
– full async shaders (like on Radeon)
– 14 nm (2x more transistors)
– architecture designed for DX12
I really like my 980 but now its time to change GPU. I cant wait to buy Pascal or new card from AMD. I hope for at least 60% more raw power
you won’t get nowhere near that percentage of boost, and also don’t copy paste things cause by doing that you only confirm what i said
Keep dreamin’ bro 😀
What you hope for will come but in next-gen Volta not Pastecall.
There is a GPU Pascal diagram already in the Web -> look in it
AMD have said that Polaris won’t be for high end cards and only for mainstream.
“AMD’s upcoming Polaris 10 and Polaris 11 graphics chips won’t be powering high-end graphics cards, according to recent comments by AMD. In its latest financial report, the company noted that Polaris 11 would target “the notebook market,” while Polaris 10 would target “the mainstream desktop and high-end gaming notebook segment.”
So a 980ti gets 20fps and you expect the 1080 to get 60? The 1080 will be 10% better, not 300%. And one should compare it to the 980, not 980ti actually.
Quantum Break is actually pretty damn good.
Yes it looks Great !
But don’t compare it to other games. Crysis 3 (Maxed with Mod) still looks better IMO.
AC:U and S are great looking Open World games also.
In SW BF we have Photogrammetry, and Yes its best as for now.
None of them come close as far as the lighting is concerned. QB lighting is sooo much more advanced than any of those.
Besides, I don’t really think you can compare games like Crysis 3 and QB. What is there to compare on ? The two focus on different aspects when it comes to graphics.
Agree. The lighting in QB is better than those, but not the textures or post processing effects.
Textures are generally very good in Quantum Break and definitely quite comparable to those other games.
For me, in terms of photorealism AC: U still edges out the others simply due to the detailed world and architecture. But this still looks very good.
And if we consider modded versions, then the most photorealistic in my opinion is Skyrim with the right kind of ENB.
I agree in that AC Unity can be stunning at times, when Syndicate came I could immediately tell the difference, I brought this up on steam and fan boys were coming out of the wood works to claim they are the same fidelity wise because they used the same engine. Some of the backgrounds in Unity where pretty damn close to photo realistic, and the ability to fill the streets with hundreds of protesters at once was amazing.
Huh? Syndicate was better in some ways, worse in others, but overall equally as good-looking as Unity. Syndicate definitely has better looking foliage and better use of physically based rendering which improves the look of the lighting and how it interacts with the materials.
The “more money for us” argument works for Steam as well. It’s just that Steam has perfected the art.
Plus, they were first 😛
I mean, they literally created the Digital Distribution Industry single-handedly. Hell, they even pushed Consoles into making their own respective Online Stores because it became so popular.
Don’t get me wrong, if Steam ever goes the way of IBM, I’ll be happy to see them lose their monopoly & eventually become just “a company” amongst many, but until then, & as long as Origin continues to completely & utterly SUCK;
Viva Steam.
I don’t care who was first. I don’t want monopoly. I regreat that some digital games are only on Steam. It’s because of monopoly. You cant buy that games in different stores. In each year Steam monopoly is stronger and more game developers release its game only on Steam.
More stores = more sales, better prices. It’s simple.
Yeah, them greedy publishers are going to lower their prices depending on how many Digital Retailers carry their product…..
Not.
Didn’t happen with EA & Origin, won’t happen with anyone else either. Actually, EA games prices have only gotten worse since Origin. Sure, in the long term you might find some better Ubisoft deals on uPlay, but that’s just about it. Digital distribution isn’t like physical, the publisher controls the price setting directly, even when the game goes on sale, they get to choose what % it goes on sale at. It’s completely in their hands, Valve has no control over it, so the prices aren’t going to change just because Valve suddenly has 20 competitors.
In my country Steam is most expensive store. I never bought a single game directly from Steam. If game is released only on Steam – its “no buy” from me
More expensive than Retail? Wow.
Australia? I know they keep abusing prices there on Software, claiming the giant price tags are due to “high distribution costs” even though there’s no such thing as “distribution costs” when it comes to Digital downloads….. Not that the Government cares to launch any sort of real Investigation into why Adobe is charging distribution prices onto a Digital Download.
“More expensive than Retail?”
At least twice. I can’t even use my local currency. I regret that some games are released only on Steam and don’t have retail version.
Yeah, that I can understand perfectly, unfortunately. Damn.
It was the same for me till recently, before Steam introduced regional pricing. I can relate to the price differences. Whereas Origin had regional pricing from much before. Not to mention their customer support is fantastic.
It would; with regional pricing most of the games would be priced along the lines of retail (which generally have much lower prices due to local distributors), instead of the direct 60$ conversion. In fact, even most indie games which don’t have boxed versions cost way less with regional pricing than without.
It’s not a middle finger to anything since the developed world makes roughly 10x more in terms of disposable income. The prices are calculated in percentages than in absolute figures, except when physical imports are concerned, in which case we pay more than you do despite the much lower income. Hence the commodity costs are adjusted accordingly. From a bottle of water to a shirt.
“One product, one price”.
Absolutely not. If that is to be implemented, then the developed world should have an income which is the same as those of developing countries. Are you willing to give up your extra income and work twice as much in order to accommodate the so-called special discount? You are prioritizing a unified pricing model over affordability, which is downright WRONG. You have absolutely no idea what repercussions it would have on the rest of the world if that were to happen. You cannot sustain a market at all where the consumer cannot afford anything to begin with. Your outlook seems selfish and extremely one-sided.
Subsidized Steam codes are fine, as long as parity is maintained with the disposable incomes of the buyers. If “you” get a fair deal, so should others based on the percentage model I mentioned.
Indeed, it’s well-deserved. A lot of titles wouldn’t even have PC versions if not for Steam so it’s become somewhat of a necessity. But at the same time I’m also open to other innovative ideas flowing in, provided they bring something new to the table.
I have to say this is one of the most stunning games around once you remove the film grain and upscaling tech. Removing upscaling still provides a pretty brutal hit to framerate though. As far as the patch goes I’d see ehhh, 5/10. The better gfx options and quit button are plus. They said they got rid of the gsync issues, but I noticed that when I have it enabled a certain tmes my fps would literally drop by half, which is a definite sign of some sort of vsync running in the background. Also ran into some minor driver problems with my xbox 1 pad, had to update the driver via device manager to get to function in game again. I’d say if they can add option to straight up disable vsync would be most appreciated.
For the graphics its self, the environs look great, and the facial models/animation are outstanding, there is no doubt ho your are playing as. The charecters looks almost exactly like the real world actors, down to facial ticks and moles. But still this is a game that would sooooooo benefit from sli support its a shame it doesn’t have it, although that seems to be more of a dx12 problem than a UWP specific issue
“Removing upscaling still provides a pretty brutal hit to framerate though”
upscale: 1280×720 = 921 600 pixels
native: 1920×1080 = 2 073 600 pixels
Haha even worse for me as my native res is 1440p, with upscale off, film grain removed dxtory tells me I’m dropping 25fps on average by comparison, still above 30 though but still rough. If they would figure out multigpu support this could be a power house of game,
Remedy don’t plan add multi-gpu. They use own northlight engine designed for single GPU. But in next month we will get more advanced single GPU from Nvidia and AMD
– 14nm instead 28nm
– designed to DX12 (async shaders, multiple command queues etc.)
I hope that GTX 1080 will have enough power to run this game in 4K.
I thought it was because SLI and crossfire aren’t supported on UWP yet.
“it’s shadows and ambient occlusion effects are stunning”.
and that’s without Nvidia GameWorks effects like HBAO+ and PCSS. Pretty much sums up what I always wanted to say, if game developers want they can achieve anything without using any closed SDK.
Sure it’s demanding but I blame that partly on DX12’s immaturity and UWP, other than that it looks like an awesome game and it’s from Remedy so no doubts there.
Yet even a 980 TI can’t play the game on it’s highest settings at 1080P and hold 60 FPS… At least Witcher 3 can do that FPS and way way more and that’s even with Hairworks Maxed out XD. HBAO+ has next to nothing for a performance hit. And HBAO+ is no longer closed SDK XD
I hope that GTX 1080 will run this game 4K 60fps. Can’t wait for Pascal and Polaris. New GPU will be better designed to DX12 (multiple command queues, async shaders etc.)
Not going to happen. you can’t fix a game with hardware when it’s a bad port. you need to wait a few generations if you want 4K native and expect 60 fps constant…
Current hardware is not enough for real DX12 games. For example my GTX 980 can’t use asynchronic shaders. This GPU have only one hardware command queue when Xbox have 2 concurrent command queues and PS4 have 8 queues. New GPU’s will be far better designed for DX12. Plus you will 2x more transistors (14nm instead 28nm). I hope for at least 60-80% more power in DX12 titles
We have no real DX12 games other then AotS and that game is mainly a benchmark of a game then a game it’self.
And Async shading is not the only thing that is DX12. It helps a lot when done right but it’s not the only solution to gain performance. Dev’s can use threaded rendering as well. But if they don’t you can’t gain performance by using your cores properly from your CPU.
So much hype with Async but only Stardock / Ox use it right and it took them a year from starting benchmarks to current to get the performance they want out of it.
I think that Quantum Break is first real DX12 game. Game have best graphics I ever seen on PC. Use own engine Northlight designed only for DX12. What do you want more?
Next month I will buy GTX 1080 and run this game at 4K 🙂
If it was a DX12 game it would have way better performance. It’s not a DX12 game from the ground up. It’s a DX11 game with a DX12 wrapper. This game don’t need 27GB patches. It needs jesus.
I been PC gaming for a very long time. MS is not fooling me with this console port.
This game is on custom engine without support of DX11. Its one of the first game uses DX12 on Xbox One an d best looking game on PC.
DX12 is not about a better performance. Its about ‘raw power’ of GPU. More demanding lighting, more geometry, more effects. Better use of fastest existing GPU without problems with CPU. New GPU’s will use multiple comand queues in PC and far more processing units than any CPU can handle in DX11 mode. It’s all about releasing real GPU power. Game will be more GPU demanding than ever. Specially game converted from Playstation Neo. All we need is fastest GPU 🙂
If they used threaded rendering and properly optimized the game on PC a 980 TI would be playing this game at 60fps no problem. But it don’t. And if this was a true DX12 game on PC it would run a lot better and not need insane 27gb patches.
980 TI is very good GPU of DX11 era. But it’s not designed for DX12. GTX 1080 will be much faster in ‘dx12 games’ because it will be designed for DX12. Wait a month, sell GTX 980TI, buy GTX 1080. Simple
And DX12 is about having better performance and handling more drawcalls on screen without having the api breakdown in performance. Also when using more cores you can handle a higher drawcall limit then under DX11 while gaining higher fps. I run the tech demo’s on my own PC and see the differnce from high lvl and low lvl API. I am pretty sure I know wtf I am typing about.
And if you base 980 TI not being good for DX12 based off a few MS tiles and hitman that is borked even on AMD hardware then you are jumping the gun way to soon on that notion.
on Rise of the tomb raider i get 15 fps more in DX12 max settings 1080p compared to DX11 max settings and that with a GTX 970 G1 GAMING. 15+ fps on a dx 12 game for a 2014 game is more than enough to prove that current cards can still run great on dx12.
What drivers because I only noticed a higher min in performance over DX11
Run Witcher 3 at 4k with a 980 Ti and it will also give you 30 – 35 fps, it was made on a much more stable API (DX11) and doesn’t have better graphics than Quantum Break, sure you can argue about it being open world and other stuff but as far as raw graphics are concerned QB excels there.
QB as whole is a demanding game (specially at 4k) sure but take PCSS Ultra in ACS and that alone hit 980 Ti quite hard and at 1080p lol. I take a developer made tech over a closed SDK any day even if it’s demanding, also QB isn’t just a simple port, it’s made by Remedy and they care for PC. Listening to community and disable reconstruction tech is one example of that.
I blame performance issues on UWP and the fact that DX12 development is not mature yet. It’s funny that all GameWorks games look proper PC games to you while anything without GW sounds like a console port. When you will finally begin to understand ?
Also HBAO+ got open source after AMD’s GPUOpen initiative so give AMD credit where it’s due.
Yeah try running QB at 4K and get 10FPS on a 980 TI. And If you want to talk about ACS they optimized it well in the last patch for ACS I went from 12/15 fps too 34/42 fps with Ultra HBAO+ on and Ultra PCSS. But those are being replaced anyways with VXAO and HFTS.
And yeah AMD get’s credit. But at the same time GPUOpen would not be so open if AMD had money XD.
Dude look at the graphics before you criticize a game, you’re one of the biggest Nvidia fanboy I have ever seen even if you try to hide it very well lol.
First blame Nvidia for having weak performance in DX12, this game doesn’t use Async and still runs bad on Nvidia so blame them for having poor support of DX12 then blame UWP and DX12’s immaturity, finally if something is remaining then blame devs for that.
I really don’t care what they did with ACS because it’s late now and I am done with that game, QB runs well with a mix of medium/high settings at 1440p on a single GTX 980 (70 – 78 fps) as explained by @disqus_G8OmK7HWGn:disqus so that’s pretty good performance with a new API and UWP.
Also please don’t write things that are not happening in reality like “GPUOpen would not be so open if AMD had money”.
Sorry I am not a Nvidia fanboy. And it’s not weak performance for DX12 lol. It’s just a crummy console port from MS behind their prop MS store of gimp. The game is even a joke on AMD hardware.
The only one that should be blamed is MS for not having their own dev’s make the game right on PC. And not having insane 27GB Patches that don’t do jack s h i t for overall performance. I mean the game had a upscale for f’ks sakes.
And yeah when a company does not have money it goes for open source. But hey True audio is prop tech… Hardware related and all.
And sorry but my last AMD card was a HD 7990 Devil 13. And I been in the game for 30 years. … Just because I call things out to be BS does not make me a fanboy. And QB should not be this demanding on any hardware. And it’s a DX11 game with a DX12 wrapper. It’s not a f’king DX12 game from the ground up on PC.
You’re making a lot of assumptions, Nvidia has weak performance on DX12 that’s a fact whether you like it or not doesn’t change it. The only problem in QB is UWP where I agree with you other than that the game is fine, should have been a lot better had they released it on Steam. Right now it’s joke on 970 compared to 390, see DigitalFoundry’s video and find out who to blame with all that driver crashing even with GameReady drivers and terrible performance lol.
If you’re 30 years old in gaming then you should understand it very well right ? but it’s not the case here, the 27 GB patch is because they probably had to write major portion of game in order to disable reconstruction tech.
And my current cards are from Nvidia and their state in gaming is not looking good, first poor DX12 performance, poor SLI support despite myths like Nvidia have the best dual GPU support and recently their drivers are sub par too, calling them GameReady is just a gimmick to make users happy.
And how do you know that it’s a DX11 game with DX12 wrapper ?
Nothing to cry about with the R9 390 beating the GTX 970, it’s called competition, why do people think the 970 shouldn’t be beaten? 390 came 9 months after the 970, it should beat it, it’s called competition.
Doesn’t matter, 390 is technically a newer product but it seems people don’t have an issue with this paying for the same card twice.
Well, then let’s talk about how Maxwell has much better overclocking and power usage, this is where Maxwell can beat AMD.
LOL, no.
Go cherry pick some games where a stock 390 beats a overclocked 970.
Overclocking has more power usage, OH YOU DON’T SAY.
Maxwell isn’t radically different to Kepler, Maxwell is a Kepler refresh. Fermi was a DX11 refresh of Tesla. Kepler was a totally new architecture and Maxwell was a refresh of that architecture while Pascal is a completely new architecture, NVIDIA use the same base architecture with tweaks for 4 years….
390 use an old architecture while 970 use a new one so it means a new architecture is getting outdated faster ?
You are only saying that based on Async and nothing more, DX12 is more than one feature, it’s mostly a software update not hardware. DX12 benefits CPU limited hardware so if you have a GTX 970 and a older CPU you will get a massive benefit, so much for your silly single minded argument about DX12 and how Maxwell is outdated. Also, Rise of Tomb Raider performs better on min and max FPS in DX12, so again DX12 benefits Maxwell.
It’s not a fact. If it was a fact then why does DX12 performance fair better with Rise of the tombraider. The only fact is DX12 is still a new API and we have not seen enough games on the market to decide if Nvidia is weak at it or not.
And in your state of gaming everything under “DX12” that Nvidia is losing at are all AMD titles. I don’t see one Nvidia DX12 game other then Rise of the Tomb Raider. Yet Nvidia is winning at that…
But like I said before you or anybody passes some judgment on performance let the API mature more with developers. And the term GameReady is not a gimmick. It’s for marketing in name but the drivers to work. Just like with Dark Souls 3. I tested before “Gameready” Drivers and the game was not stable in many area’s as well as performance next to the Gameready drivers.
Sounds like you are just not a happy person. Chill out and have patience before jumping the gun like you tend to do about what is what XD
Note yet gives NVIDIA no credit at all and AMD all the credit while using NVIDIA hardware, making ethical arguments about NVIDIA, using backing Windows monopoly that has been proven to be anti-competitive and malicious. lol
Yeah and does not bother caring about performance when I bring it up for optimization. Only person I know that has 980’s in SLI but complains like a AMD fanboy on Tech sites
Ask him how’s that Hitman performance on ultra where even a R9 390 drops into the 40s and can’t keep a sold 60fps in DX12.
Tell me how PCSS Ultra performs in ACS using a 980 Ti at 1080p despite being part of Nvidia GameWorks SDK ?
I just mention facts fanboy, it’s you who give them face of ethical/non-ethical. I am the only person here who doesn’t let his purchase cloud his judgement, otherwise all of you including that John is just trying to defend their purchase.
What is ACS?
assassins creed syndicate.
But with Nvidia Gameworks it would had been even better because Nvidia Gameworkss effects are made for high end nvidia cards.
And that’s the very reason why GW should stay away from game development, it’s not something that makes video games drastically better on PC, it’s a way of marketing from Nvidia to force their users to buy new graphic cards every now and then. It’s closed so there is no check and balance on what’s going on inside it and how it’s becoming increasingly demanding.
Quantum Break looks pretty good in it’s current state.
That is so true GW at times does not scale well. But I think a lot of devs rush and just shoehorn GW in, without making it scale properly on hardware. Many devs just use to it for that “wow” factor and call it a day.
No you don’t, misinformed people say that and there are a lot of misinformed people. Maybe these people should tell you the truth of how ultra settings destroy performance for little benefit, even more so than Gameworks effects.
Did these same people tell you that Hairworks in The Witcher 3 is actually less intensive than 1 ultra setting? What about how HBAO+ takes only 3-5FPS on a 970? What about how in The Division ultra volumetric lighting is actually more intensive than PCSS and HBAO+ yet the ultra settings is virtually no different to medium.
I dont use ultra settings and I agree about that. But at sometimes some gameworks depending on the implementation performs just like said ultra settings. As I said before I think it;s up to the devs to make GW scale properly. There good implementations of gameworks .
Yes and then people don’t talk about how Hairworks performs better in later patches. I can get above 60FPS constantly in TW3 with Hair works on with 2 options not on ultra, because those 2 ultra options hurt performance a lot more for little benefit.
HairWorks in Call of Duty Ghosts had the worst performance than any other game. I did some videos on that and if need be I’ll post them here (again).
HairWorks performed horrible in TW3 when the game came out and it took a lot of bashing before they fixed it or say made it better. Still not that great on AMD.
FarCry 4 had terrible LOD issues in HairWorks which are still not fixed I think, an example is that even a group of wolves at far distance where you can’t even see them will hit your fps because hairs are still being rendered.
Add more insult to injury PureHair, a tech based on TressFX 3.0 runs far better than any implementation of HairWorks on any card you throw (be it AMD or Nvidia), not only that it also looks better than HairWorks.
No one other than Square Enix is using Purehair, I mean you can say it’s “better” all you like, devs are not using it even though it’s open source. Again you are going to realise that might be due to support and tools, devs like to work with NVIDIA because of it, John Carmack even said it. If you think just open sourcing your tech is enough you better think again.
Because PureHair is not open source, it’s a variant of TressFX 3.0 made by Square Enix with better optimization. TressFX 3.0 itself is open source and anyone can get it from GPUOpen site. If devs are not using it then it’s their fault.
Where was Nvidia’s support and tools when Call of Duty Ghosts had terrible performance of HairWorks ? Where was the support when HairWorks ran like crap in TW3 ? Where was it when PCSS Ultra was down right unusable even on a 980 Ti ? It seems Nvidia is just willing to offer GameWorks to whoever want it, they never care about the actual performance of their product because hey bad performance means more high end GPU sales…
Batman was also one of their most advertised game, they probably sold a whole lot of cards because of the hype of that game and how they advertised those GW features but what happened ? it was nothing but hot garbage. The game never ran like those GW trailers they posted so what they were doing ? nothing but false advertising. It’s very unlikely that they didn’t knew about the status of the PC version but they kept on hyping it because hey lets sell more graphic cards and worry about problems later.
Batman AK is a lot better now, you seem to be arguing about what was, but now it pretty much fixed. TW3 performs much better now, PCSS ultra also performs better now. Why don’t you go pick alot of games that have no Gameworks at all and come out running like crap because of bugs or driver issues. Also, maybe use your brain a bit that the devs that use Gameworks didn’t to a good job, which can happen with any tech, COD Ghost was a joke anyway, NVIDIA do side with questionable games that’s for sure.
Right, devs are not using TressFX and it’s open source, ask yourself why that is and why only Square Enix is only using it.
“Was” is irrelevant. Nvidia most likely knowingly falsely advertised Arkham Knight to the public, claiming things they knew were impossible to do because of how broken the game was.
Again, Nvidia is flirting with extremely shady business practices, & I’m surprised it hasn’t hit them back yet.
I don’t use ultra settings and I agree about them. But at times depending on the implementation for the game gameworks performs just like said ultrasettings. I’m not saying gameworks should but often times you need high end hardware to run it decently, because at times the FPS drop using them can be overkill. I’m not saying gameworks is bad completelly.
Except think about how lovely it would look even more with gameworks
It’s more than lovely in it’s current state, it would be bad to add another layer of closed SDK. Might just make fanboys happier but no other benefit.
One day you will learn the “closed SDK” isn’t an issue if you are a NVIDIA customer, it’s just a moral issue people can’t get past, and the effects run better than some ultra settings that don’t even make much difference.
True the effects can be made to run good if devs put the time to make them run properly.
That one day will never come because as a developer myself (not a
game developer though) I know how detrimental it is when you obscure the code behind tightly closed SDKs then try to sell those SDKs as middle ware keeping you locked it to specific features only available through those SDKs or keeping others out of specific optimizations. It’s a horrible practice that should be erased from any kind of development.
It gets worse when the party selling the SDK have some gains for example destroying their rival’s performance or pushing users to buy new hardware.
Well, you tell all the game studios that because they seem to be just fine with it because it clearly benefits them. On the ethical side I don’t really care if it’s not optimised for AMD because I don’t have their GPU or invested in them, nor did I care when I had a R9 280. It seems AMD don’t now either, they use 4 Gameworks titles with the tech off to show how FuryX beats the 980TI.
This is just about taking the moral high ground and you know it, you have brought into a proprietary platform where companies try to destroy each other.
Why should I tell them ? they will learn that when they won’t see any tangible benefits of GW, several are actually shifting to DX12 like Ashes, QB, Hitman, Duex Ex, Star Citizen and those games look great without GW.
” if game developers want they can achieve anything without using any closed SDK.”
1. Well, the quality of the lighting in Quantum Break doesn’t come for free. Remember that right now, this is prettymuch the most demanding game out there. Sure, it also has to do with the fact that this is not a proper PC version that’s fully optimized. Remedy obviously didn’t spend a lot of time on it.
2. Not all devs can spend the time creating these kind of visuals. What Remedy have done here is no small achievement. They’ve given us visuals (especially lighting) that we haven’t really seen in real time before. HBAO + and PCSS are great, don’t know what the downside is to including them. HBAO has vastly improved AO for lots of games, and PCSS gives us life like shadows. Both are hardware agnostic, unlike Hairworks. The two options you mentioned are a great addition to any game for those who have high end hardware.
The closed SDK argument isn’t an argument, devs use it because it’s supported well, saves them time and money on a platform that doesn’t sell well in the AAA space than consoles. that’s the reality I’m afraid. NVIDIA provide their tools not only for value to their customers and GPUs but also help sell the game on that, so it’s worth their time and money using Gameworks so PC gamers can have an option for better quality effects.
In the real world, devs want to make the same effects for all platforms, no one is given any special treatment because it costs time and money, Gameworks allows for the PC to get special treatment, not just higher settings.
It’s never been about how much the PC sells, it’s about how much money they can save doing the PC version. It always has been. Even if the PC outsold both Consoles combined (in many cases it still outsells each individual Console, I believe), they’d still be as cheap as possible, because they know they can get away with it.
They know PC Gamers want more, so they throw us a few scraps hoping it’ll shut us up. Then, being the idiots they are, they go & do something stupid, like taking Nvidia money to do Gameworks, or locking it at 30 FPS because some moron coded in a cap long ago & nobody knows how to remove it from the Engine.
Gameworks isn’t “special treatment”, it’s borderline anti-competitive tactics. Not to mention the reports of Gameworks seemingly getting worse & worse on older games….. *Hint hint.*
There is a lot of misinformation about Gameworks, I bet these “reports” are just their view because that’s all it is. Gameworks isn’t anti-competitive as long as there is an option to disable it and in most Gameworks titles there is. Notice how AMD don’t moan about it any more but the whining users do, even AMD do benchmarks with Gameworks features disabled. Also, who reports that Gameworks doesn’t take much performance over other settings? it’s just news and hits for media sites, while none of them can actually take a stand and not support NVIDIA, none what so ever.
Did you see how stupid people showing NVIDIA logos in Project cars? They didn’t show the other logos did they, didn’t tell you how NVIDIA gave Slightly Mad Studios free promotion so they gave NVIDIA some back, no these idiots just jumped to conclusions.
Well, I haven’t played it but Project CARS had some problems with AMD cards because of some idiotic coding of PhysX. Now, I couldn’t say if it came from the devs or Nvidia but that actually happened.
PCars uses CPU PhysX only.
I don’t recall correctly if that was that way at first or not, but there was performance issues because of PhysX at launch. Whether it was poorly implemented on the CPU at first and later fixed, or they put it that way later is something I’m not entirely sure.
If it was GPU Accelerated PhysX, the game would not run on AMD.
Ok, then it was poorly implemented. Hope they already fixed that.
I don’t buy because of it but I know that due to the card in my PC that the game that supports Gameworks will look better then the on AMD hardware. And that to me makes a difference. Not in which games I buy but in what GPU I buy. And I have had ZERO issues with Gameworks. The only people who have issues and spread misinformation are butt-hurt AMD users. Other then that it is people who can enable the features but their cards are just too weak (GTX950 and so on….). Anyway I have the option of buying which ever product I want and if Nvidia are going to allow me to have my games look better then on the competition then that’s where I’m spending my money. It’s no different then PC vs. Console. I game on both but the better experience is on PC… and on PC it’s with Nvidia.
Nothing comes for free we all know that, when Crytek pushed visual boundaries with Crysis it also didn’t came for free. however it was a good achievement for game industry, the whole game was a graphic marvel. Tell me any game with GameWorks that helped push visual boundaries to that extent ? GameWorks only add niche effects that you can brag about with generally big performance cost and it’s only meant for the niche class who owns high end Nvidia product. It’s not even good for mid range Nvidia users.
Several good engines including CryEngine, Red Engine, Unreal Engine and FrostBite can achieve life like visuals pretty easily. Even individual hobbyists make very nice projects with Unreal Engine, Cry Engine also went amazingly cheap and Amazon Lumberyard is a free engine based on CryEngine tech so it’s just an excuse that GameWorks help devs achieve something that they can’t otherwise.
The fact is devs are getting lazy because of this trend, make a shoddy PC port, slap GW on top of it to give a lollipop to PC gamers and then say hey we made a high quality PC version ! Remedy stayed away from this trend which is a good sign even if their game is demanding, at least it doesn’t force you to stick with AMD or Nvidia.
I’m sorry, I strongly disagree. Nvidia features like HBAO+, TXAA, and PCSS have dramatically improved the look of many games. Take those features away and those games would have looked noticeably worse.
You can talk about what devs “should” do all you want, but the reality is that most games that don’t have these Nvidia partnerships simply lack advanced graphical features altogether. You have exceptions like Quantum Break, but those particular Nvidia gameworks games would likely just have been crappier looking games otherwise.
That’s because Developers are lazy though. Without the Nvidia crutch to fall back on, they’d face stronger grumbling over how ugly their games look, & arguably be more enticed to actually do something about it using first-party methods, rather than 3rd party generic crap.
Granted, this is more of a long-term “yeah future Games won’t look as bad” thing, but still, PC Games shouldn’t look this bad in the first place anyway. Not today, in this day & age of 2016.
It’s a f*cking disgrace.
First of all let me make it clear that I have no problem with HBAO+ since it’s a harmless technique across the board and now open source as well, people get my meaning in wrong way, I meant that devs can achieve HBAO+ like visuals or better if they want, that’s it.
TXAA is also fine since it’s an Nvidia hardware exclusive feature like Mantle was for AMD GCN, PCSS is ok but PCSS Ultra was totally useless judging by it’s performance cost, there are a lot of games that have very good shadows without having that much performance hit at all. Offering these costly technologies only make devs lazy and doesn’t bring substantial improvement to PC version, half of the time you don’t even notice the shadows and you’re compromising 15 – 20 fps for them just because they give you some bragging rights ? be reasonable. Even vanilla Unreal Engine can achieve Ray Traced Soft Shadows without killing your hardware.
And see what I have written carefully, powerful professional engines are becoming more accessible then ever before, even Indie devs are now using Unreal Engine and CryEngine for their projects so it’s only a matter of discovering them properly rather than relying on closed source SDKs that have biased gains towards a graphic vendor.
half of the time you don’t even notice the shadows and you’re compromising 15 – 20 fps. PCSS does not take away 15-20 fps over the ultra setting in the game. HFTS maybe, but that’s to be expected, it’s another level of crazy detail that we’re simply not ready for (I have no problem with this since nvidia did not market it in trailers for The Division)
For those who prefer realistic, lifelike shadows as opposed to the same resolution shadows everywhere. One simply looks a lot more realistic. For people like me, it’s instantly noticeable. eg in The Division. Having some shadows soft, but the character shadow hard. It really looks fantastic.
Too right, and bring back Havok Physics and get rid of that trash PhysX.
“”it’s shadows and ambient occlusion effects are stunning”.”
Did you just seriously alter a quote to put an apostrophe that’s not supposed to be there?
its – possessive pronoun of it
it’s – it is; it has
He did not. We made a typo and fixed it 😉
Oh, I see. Sorry BACE, and good that you, John, fixed it.
John can u post your fps (1080p)
Without reconstruction, 40-60fps with these settings: http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/quantum-break-pc-performance-analysis/
Beautiful, but unplayable (for most)? Sorry, but I’ll take playability over visuals any time. Thanks for the screenshots though.
It’s probably not optimized really well, but more advanced graphics are always going to be more demanding.
It’s playable for me in any case. Gorgeous game.
“It’s playable for me in any case. Gorgeous game.”
Yep, you now work at M$. no one cares how it runs for you, you stupid shill.
This game is still a joke for performance. Try running this game Native with the BS upscaling option off. Runs like garbage even at 1080P on flagship hardware. Watch Bang4buck’s new videos for the update. It’s a joke on performance still.
Well, remember that to run it on the XBONE, then had to render at 720p (basically half of 1080p), then gimp shadows to lowest res, then gimp volumetrics to a really low res, then have really low LOD for shadows and vegetation…
Remember that on top of all that, remember that this is on a closed platform where they can get much more performance compared to an equivalent PC (advantage of consoles in general, even with DX12 on PC)
So it’s not too much of a stretch for the performance to be this bad, especially when you turn everything up to ULTRA settings !
The biggest reason that the game is demanding is that it’s lighting model is very heavy. It’s really that simple. It’s got every advanced feature there is in modern games, and more.
Now, couple that with the fact that Remedy didn’t spend a lot of time on a dedicated PC version…
Pity, if they’d have done that and released it on steam…
Even on 1080p it looks very beatuiful. Too bad that i already finished the game 2 weeks ago. I might replay it some time in the future again to enjoy it with the best graphics !
I will buy it if they ever make it run worth a d a m n. When I see a 980 TI stuggle with it at just 1080P that is when I draw the line.
After downloading the fullsize screenshots and studying them I can only agree that it looks really good indeed. I’d say it’s on par with Crysis 3 or Division. Some elements like shadows and bloom/soft lighting looks incredible. But overall I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s the best looking game as of yet.
It is hard to say what the very best looking game is, because different games excel at different things, but I can say unequivocally that Quantum Break is one of the best looking games on PC.
Lol there is a lot of 9 years old amd and nvidia fanboy
Yeah that’s gorgeous and I loved Alan Wake so I really want to play this game at some point. I just don’t want that cancerous operating system on my main rig and I’m not sure how my 970 system would fair at 1440. Further research is required.
Yet you upgraded to Windows 7 and still have morals about Microsoft forcing you to use it for DX10/11 But but Windows 7 is a good OS, it doesn’t spy on you at all, it’s not anti-competitive, malicious or anti-consumer. The hypocrisy is so overwhelming, I mean you are willing to drop all your ethical arguments for a “good” Windows OS like 7 LOL
You have no argument but at least you make your utube money off your slave masters.
LOL!
It was just a matter of time, here come Johnny boy out swinging – The Best Looking Game Ever Made. Well it’s not like he says that a few times a week eeh!
For F*CK sake John, lay down that hash pipe, to much weed makes you’r brain retarded bro!
This game looks the same as all other crap out there, it looks like a turd.
4k or 24k will NOT make a turd look any better. As one said before on the Division ugly POS for a game, it’s like pouring sugar over SH*T!
Well, hes right. Other than character models, which imo, leave a lot to be desired.
The gfx for this game are far better than anything else out there, even the beloved Frostbyte engine or The Witcher “Downgrade” 3
You actually mean that bro hmm.
So this looks better then even Crysis 3 or so. The pics doesnt allway tell the story but they dont look that special.
Well I will test it out later I guess 🙂
Other than characters models, yes this far better than crysis 3.
Crysis 3 looked fairly avg imo to begin with. Just looks like concept art, far too flat. and boring
you know that’s saying Remedy makes unoptimized trash then right? You show off Crysis yet Crytek claimed Crysis 1, warhead, and 2 were unoptimized and they were still trying to figure out how to use tessellation right yet failed hard.
Yet a game like the Witcher 3 has stunning visuals and is very well optimized even with added sdk such as gameworks. Sure it took a few patches but at least it did not take 27gig’s and patches while still running bad on high end hardware.
And btw Crysis 1, warhead, 2 still don’t scale well with new hardware. And will only do so if revamped…..
Warhead was actually well optimized, it just didn’t age well.
Crysis 2 yeah, it failed hard at Tessellation.
Get ethical all you want but this is proprietary business, the platform you are using is as guilty of this than any other. You should know what using a proprietary platform comes with.
Then why do you cry when your 970 doesn’t do good in DX12 if it’s all business and proprietary platform ? At least AMD doesn’t make closed SDKs, their API Mantle benefited DX12 and Vulkan development which is available to Nvidia as well so who’s playing fair here ? you are just repeating the same thing over and over and wasting your and my time.
I’m not crying about DX12, I and many others and I suspect you didn’t buy your Maxwell GPU for DX12 because it was before DX12. Why are you making such sweeping statements about a few DX12 games when most are DX11?
Well again you seem to be making this ethical argument about fairness, you seem to think open is always better when it’s not. OpenGL is open, virtually no dev uses it for games on Windows, reason is because it’s complicated and not as well documented as DX. So your argument about being open is just wrong, just like saying everything proprietary is evil and malicious.
Well, at least people can run QB at 1080p 60fps, unlike Crysis which was so unoptimised and ahead of it’s time 2 GPU gens later couldn’t even get 60FPS. LOL. Some would say it’s a bad thing for a game to be so ahead of it’s time because most people can’t play it.
That’s why nobody who still benchmarks with Crysis uses Crysis, they use Warhead, but even Warhead was ahead of its time, melting GPU’s like a boss.
For that matter, when Quake 3 came out, it was also melting the top-end Voodoo GPU’s of its time, & it was coded by Carmack himself, in his prime. People didn’t feel the need to complain about it at the time.
It’s just that these things are no longer the norm because while GPU’s have kept advancing, Consoles ensured Games grinded themselves to a standstill years ago, & only recently made minor leaps forward in visuals.
Why did they even introduce this reconstruction tech in the first place if it was detrimental for the game? Couldn’t it just be an additional, not default setting, for weaker computers?
It helps the game performance, remember this is an XB1 title, the only way they can get this game to look so good with the advanced tech is use reconstruction.
Yeah, but as I said, it could’ve been just a setting for weaker PCs from the beginning.
It could have been and should have been a setting. Unfortunately some people in the PC gaming community seem to judge how “optimized” a game is solely on how easy it is to run, with no consideration for what the game is doing from a technical perspective. Those ignorant complainers share part of the blame. Still, Remedy should have ignored people like that and simply put in the setting from the beginning.
Lol I don’t even have Windows 10 on my system, I am still running Win 8.1, you’re so eager to prove me wrong that you make assumptions but anyway tell me an alternative to Microsoft’s API right now and I will shift on that, Vulkan is great but it needs time and support to go further, that’s why I like Steam’s Linux gaming initiative as well as the fact that monopolies should end along with the ways that help establish monopoly like GameWorks.
As for why I am using Nvidia, I told you many times before but you keep on repeating this, I don’t cloud my judgements with what is running inside my system, I pick what is better. I picked Maxwell because AMD had no response for it but it appears Nvidia did a lot of false advertising with Maxwell too, it’s not as ready for DX12 as AMD’s Hawaii which makes it a short lived architecture.
I will go for AMD next time because they look strong in DX12 and recently they started doing good in DX11 too, will YOU also buy AMD if it turn out better ? seems unlikely because you’re so blind in defending Nvidia that it will also cloud your judgement when you visit a shop.
About a year ago I had a full AMD setup, FX8350/R9 280 so you see you keep accusing me of being a blind NVIDIA fanboy is just pathetic. I’m sticking with my GTX 970/G-Sync monitor, I’m happy. Also, I’ve been using AMD CPUs and GPUs since the Athlon/AMD64 days so please, stop with fanboy comments, you clearly don’t know what the word means.
I’m sorry, but this sounds like another MS propaganda. It looks good no doubt, but overall it’s just a current gen title, one of the many.
But aside from other titles that may be worth your time, this is an extremely average and unoptimized game. I really wish this site was spending more time telling us about truly good games, rather than trying to push forward MS trash.
It’s called being objective, John doesn’t care much about your ethical view. If it was your site you could not report on MS store games but it’s not so read it or don’t
Don’t worry, he will post another “WOW Starwars BF is amazing in these 8k shots” tomorrow and the day after that “these forza apex shots makes you crap in your pants” and then “mirror’s edge is the best looking game ever created”.
DSOG in the past year.
You belong with AMD with all your ethical crying about NVIDIA, I’m sure your 980TI is full of your tears. I mean you have Windows 8.1, looks like you made another stupid mistake. If you go AMD you will have to go Windows 10 and enjoy your AMD DX12 performance gain when you switch.
Looks great but Crysis looked like this,if not better, in 2007. Dynamic lighting, soft particles, volumetric lighting, high res textures, etc etc.
Consoles have finally managed to catch up. In 2016.
uh, no, no it didn’t. Not even close to this.
I love Crysis and Crysis Warhead. Definitely some of the most impressive games ever made. Amazing simulation, both physics and graphics. Crysis 2 was a huge step down…
Even so, Crysis doesn’t hold a candle to this xD. Take any similar scene from both and QB will look better. Besides, how do you even compare ? The two are very different. One is open world with vegetation. The other is in a completely different environment.
Man, some of those screenshots look almost like an architectural rendering that takes about 2-hours to make PER FRAME! Hell, that texturing work, alongside with the lights and shadows is really amazing!
Without SLi support 4k on this game is pointless, besides who wants to play their PC games at 30hz.
The game still forces MSAAx4, which is why 4k performance is so bad. AA obviously destroys FPS even more at higher resolutions. Without that you’ll get 30fps.
Oh, and as far as settings go the high/ultra are clearly terribly optimised, and they make little different to IQ either, so set them to medium.
In which way? The graphics in this game ARE extremely impressive.
Could you name any games with similar setting/scenes that are as good or better in terms of lighting ? Maybe even link to screenshots.
You’re a complete idiot if you really think the textures are bad. The overall game does look amazing and is one of the best looking games on PC. Do you even own a gaming PC? Are you just a butthurt Sony fanboy?
I don’t see what you talking about. If you mean sharp textures, then even skyrim with mods have better visual than that.
WOW,WOw,Wow…can some honest people tell me if this game is really so good graphically?
i mean seriously,is this game so polished??
i remember that performance analysis was full of bias and very misleading.please tell me.
Too little, too late, Remedy.
wha ? where ? crap textures ? You serious ? The textures here look brilliant close up. The materials look absolutely spot on.
As for post processing, I guess it’s just my preference then, because this look waay better/realistic than ACU. This has a pre-rendered CGI look to it that I simply cannot see in ACU
Did we rail on them for it? Yes we did.
Did they suffer for it? Yes they did.
Did they change their tactics because of the backslash? I suppose we could argue it’s TBD with the upcoming GPU’s, but if nothing else, they did fix their Drivers.
So why exactly shouldn’t we be doing the same to Nvidia? Especially considering how they’re actually trying to follow in AMD’s footsteps, even after seeing what these tactics did to AMD?
It’s fine to point out that AMD did this as well, it’s not fine to say we shouldn’t be railing on Nvidia just because AMD did it too. So what? They suffered, they paid for it, now they’re back on a better track (supposedly). Be wary, be cautious, but move the f*ck on.