At this years Gamescom we learned that Final Fantasy XV will be coming to PC in early 2018, we also learned that it would be featuring 4K textures but even the GTX 1080Ti won’t be able to provide a smooth 60FPS at 4K.
Square Enix and NVIDIA have come together to launch Final Fantasy XV on PC adding a bunch of NVIDIA’s technology to the PC version of the game such as HFTS, VXAO, Turf, Flow and HairWorks. having all these technologies added to the game by NVIDIA is great but is there any hardware available to the consumer market to utilize all these fantastic graphical upgrades at native 4K @ 60FPS?
During an interview with PC Gamer Square Enix Game Director Hajime Tabata said that even the GTX 1080Ti won’t be able to hit 60FPS at native 4K.
Tabata: “Supporting 60fps will be possible, but considering the spec you’d need to get that level-with native 4K, HDR, and a good 60fps-the machine we’ve got here couldn’t do that at the moment. That’s a GTX 1080 Ti, and even with that 60 frames is not possible”.
“So, multiple cards, there’s the loading of the previous frame and you have that little bit of delay. It doesn’t allow for that proper 60 frames. In order to get that really smooth 60 frames, you need a higher capacity base in order to do that. All the physics simulations as well need to be refreshed in every frame-if you have two cards running in tandem there’s that little bit of delay between the sending of data between the two cards and that’s what makes it impossible.”
“If my team were going to be in charge of the next Final Fantasy game, we probably would set up the basis of development on that high-level PC architecture-I think that’s something that we’d do. But looking into the future, you have to consider cloud-based games-the answer might be different depending on how far down the line we’re talking about”.
“I think this is for us a great opportunity in getting the game out to the PC market that the latest Final Fantasy game is serious about the PC market and its players. We’re taking on that challenge with everything we’ve got and it’d just be great to get some kind of feedback on that, players’ reactions and understand what people are expecting towards our game.”
Source: Tweak Town
Hello! My name Jak Connor I’m based in Australia and I picked up PCgaming as child when I was around ten years old. I mostly played RTS games back then, putting many hours into Age of Empires 1/2 and Age of Mythology. My love for PC gaming grew and stayed with me as I now have a passion for gaming and the amazing technology jumps developers show us all the time. I pledge that I will be bringing you fine people of DSOgaming the most unique and interesting news I can find!
No, the Nvidia GameWorks effects are the killer not game itself. Turn those off like they are on consoles and the GTX 1080 Ti couple with a decent CPU will easily achieve 4k/60fps.
You are very much correct! if you lower the settings and turn down graphics 60FPS will be possible but what is being discussed here is that at native 4K with all of NVIDIA’s graphical technologies even the GTX 1080Ti can’t keep a stable 60FPS.
Yes, GTX 1060 will also easily achieve that on the lowest settings and with upscaling, but this is not a point. 4K/60 means something only if it is achieved without compromising. There is no achievement in increasing resolution if settings are downgraded. You increase one essential thing and decrease the other, there is no advancement in that.
I never said you need to set everything to lowest. You can set everything to max except these performance killing GameWorks effects. The game will still look far better than the console versions and not “kill” the GPU in the process.
The performance of the The Witcher 3 at Ultra was literally halved when HairWorks was enabled but without it the game ran so much better and all you were missing out on was Geralt’s and Roach’s hair.
This is complete nonsense what you say about Witcher 3. Hairworks take couple of frames, but halved performance? Maybe if you already had 6 FPS, and gone down to 3 after enabling hairworks. For me at 3440×1440 Ultra it makes about 9 FPS from 97 to 88 in my test place and taking extra few when there are a lot of wolves on the screen, so lets say up to 15%, like a drop from 60 to 51 to give better example. And this is mostly what Hairworks is for in Witcher, not for Roach because difference is small and especially not for Geralt because HW hair looks worse than original, but for hair on creatures, wolves, bears, griffin, bies… And it does a lot because by default they are not looking too good. So what you say is double bs.
99% benchmark sites doesnt even bother with HW in this game because anyone knows that HW in the witcher 3 is performance killer. The last time I have played the witcher 3 HW was indeed very damanding even in 1080p, but now on my new card I think could run HW even at 1440p with solid 60fps.
They don’t use HW for benchmarking because of AMD cards, many people cry when gameworks are used when benchmarking games and comparing cards. How much of a sense it makes is questionable, those kind of features and cooperation with game developers is one of the major arguments when buying GPU and choosing one manufacturer over another will have consequences, namely with Nvidia you get cooperation with developers and extra features, and with AMD you wait 😀
Gameworks is optimized. It’s up to developers to have scaling for it and not just Turn off or On
” HFTS, VXAO, Turf, Flow and HairWorks” are all brutal effects, which add wonderfully to image, but are hugely detrimental to the performance as they are very demanding.
Tbh, don’t see why 60fps would be necessary in game like this.
Preferable for sure but not necessary.
Turn these effects off and 60fps will be more than fine
Quite obvious. 1080 Ti barely does maxed out 3440×1440 at 60 FPS and this is not in all games, so how can it be capable of 4K/60, especially in AAA games and especially with many extra effects enabled. HFTS is especially crazy with performance cost. With all of that at 4K you will be much closer to 30 than 60 FPS on single 1080 Ti at 4K.
“1080Ti won’t be able to provide a smooth 60FPS at 4K.”
why? its not that impressive graphically or technically. maybe turning off half of those meme nvidia feature will be able to do it. or you know, actually optimizing…. brain dead kiddos will still buy this garbage game anyways.
japanese optimization
meaning it will be released locked at 30fps
Complaining about a game you don’t even want to play. Typical…
“1080Ti won’t be able to provide a smooth 60FPS at 4K.”
why?
That’s a good question. A typical PC gamer buys a new GPU about every couple of generations from what I’ve seen and they game on a 1080p monitor. A new GPU today is many times more powerful than a GPU 4 years ago whether you buy entry level, mid-range or high end. Where did all of that performance potential go?
People like to talk about 4K gaming but they won’t spend the money on the monitor and the GPU capable of running it. Sure, there are people saying that 4K is going mainstream in a couple of years but they said that a couple of years ago too and they will say that a couple of years from now too.
4K is a moving target and it will most likely remain that way for years to come. When a typical gamer can buy a mid-range card to drive a 4K monitor in almost all games then we could see 4K adoption rise significantly. And yes, you can turn down the settings to run 4K but that’s, in part, defeating the purpose of going to 4K to begin with imo.
Well if you weren’t so blind you would notice it is kinda graphically impressive
Not really, beside character models and nvidia effects it’s an ugly open world title. draw distance and the detail on distance are horrible.
In your opinion even new tomb raider wasnt graphically impressive, not to mention that story about single digits dips on your 970gtx (it wasnt possible even on my ancient 680gtx and on 1070gtx I could already max out this game even in 1440p). Everyone is entitled to have his opinion, but maaaan, your opinions are really …….. lets say unusual 😉
It wasn’t either (wasn’t possible ok, but atleast i shared pictures with fps on it). but in your opinion everything SE make is somehow the best thing ever. it’s called, well lets say being an unpaid shill.
‘Ugly’? You haven’t played the game have you?
Watched it enough, they are plenty of screens and videos. we are not talking about the gameplay experience, so playing it or watching it doesn’t make any difference.
Yes it does lmao, compression ruins everything. I honestly don’t understand where all this hate is coming from.
Nah, distance quality is pure garbage and this have nothing to do with compression. and i honestly don’t understand where all of these shills coming from.
Hey not everyone has to be sponsored. Some people like the game more than the others and get a bit triggered when someone starts spewing bullshit about it
And everyone says something (god forbid negative things) about the game and triggers those re*arded shills is a hater ? how ?
Not willing to admit something is good sheerly out of spite towards fanboys is hate, after all
Not willing to accept that every criticism doesn’t mean hate is blind fanboism.
I agree tbh, but making up criticisms just to support your hate towards the game is just as bad
Yes, but there wasn’t any hate, distance detail is garbage in this game, character models are great and overall it’s an ok looking game, visually. i like to know which part is hateful ?
I mean, if this doesn’t look visually good enough to you, then I don’t what would
Some part of it are good some are not. draw distance is garbage, i repeat, draw distance and distance details are below average.
No they aren’t, *I’ve played the game*.
Me too, they are awful. also you played the console version, which adds those awful jaggies to the mix.
Lol no, you haven’t
I mean, you just mentioned it a few replies back
Ok, and that’s not hate, just a fact about how bad it (distance details) looks.
Opinion m8, not fact
No, we are talking about technical graphics, opinions doesn’t matter.
And you’re telling me about your opinion about the technical graphics of this game.
No, i just said some facts about it’s awful draw distance and it’s details.
Nah you’re saying your opinion about it’s draw distance and details
“maybe turning off half of those meme nvidia feature will be able to do it.”
And this is the reason why. For the hefty performance cost and how they look or what they do (cheapo physics, hairworks, fire, turf, vxao, blah blah) you can easily deduct that they are just shiny carrots to keep you underperforming and ever aspiring to buy newer cards.
Yeah, I’m an Nvidia owner and I’d turn them off.
What makes you think it’s not optimized? Just because a game doesn’t look as good as some other game doesn’t tell us anything about how optimized it is. But you twiter/forum/committ section posters know all about low level game programming, smh.
So pretty much S/E is not going to have User settings other then On or Off for the SDK Gameworks effects. But then again using hairworks at 4K is a huge performance hit on the GPU.
Keep in mind the original game only runs at 1080P / 30 fps Vanilla on PS4. So To run a game like this at 4K / 60 fps is more of a challenge with all of the added effects on top of the Vanilla game.
Just because something does not run at a 60fps fr at a specific resolution like 4K does not mean it’s not optimized. It just means current GPU’s are just not good enough for it.
Besides the majority of people who complain about a game not being to run at 4K 60 fps with newer games on their highest settings are still on 1080P monitors anyways. Aka Trolls
I’d actually go one further: The game maxed out likely isn’t just running the vanilla game at a higher res and framerate + Gameworks, but likely running it at a higher preset as well (i.e. better texture filtering, shadow resolution, possible draw distance too + higher res + Gameworks effects).
Ok so when we get the game release date you can bet that volta release date will be little before that, since even pascal’s best gpu can’t handle this game maxed out. Nvidia will use the chance and sell us gtx1180 running all maxed out 4k running over 60fps on those new 4k 144fps monitors
It’s funny he is talking about a proper delivery of 60 frames per second when their PS4 version was plagued with improper frame pacing issues no matter what mode you were playing (lite or high). I am not even sure if that’s fixed to this day.
also, also, jaggies, jaggies everywhere.
“the GTX 1080Ti won’t be able to provide a smooth 60FPS at 4K.”
Pc master race problems
I won’t turn on most of those Nvidia effects anyways. Too much loss for too little gain —__—
Your loss. Those hairworks powered eyebrows must be a sight to behold /s
Nvidia GameWorks boys and girls …..
yeah you should be enjoying not having a straight up console port. I mean what is the point of having more expensive hardware if it’s just going to look like the console version.
yep, Nvidia Gameworks, boys and girls – advanced effects that you can’t find in most games, and they’re all optional, so if you’ve got the hardware to push these features then you can enjoy greating lighting, the most detailed shadows in gaming, fluid simulations, physically correct ambient occlusion, and much more.
It would be interesting to see how Vega/HBCC works with this title.
I know certain Gameworks effects get shat on for being unoptimised (heavily situational effects like Hairworks perhaps being the biggest culprit), but some of them offer a significant boost in fidelity and precision such that the performance hit makes sense (I’m thinking of persistent near full-screen coverage effects like VXAO here).
Doesn’t sound it:
“All the physics simulations as well need to be refreshed in every frame-if you have two cards running in tandem there’s that little bit of delay between the sending of data between the two cards and that’s what makes it impossible”
There’s one thing about gaming that has held true all along. The more resources/performance available, the more will be squandered by lazy developers. That holds true for consoles as well to a lesser degree. Next year we will get Volta and that won’t be enough for 4K with some games. Some people say that 4K is mainstream but that’s not true. According to the Steam Hardware Survey less than 1% report using a 4K monitor and we don’t know how many of those might only be needing a 4K monitor for other uses and possibly for work as well. I’m not advocating that the Steam Hardware Survey is a scientific poll but it does give you the general idea about what gamers are using.
“If my team were going to be in charge of the next Final Fantasy game, we probably would set up the basis of development on that high-level PC architecture”
In other words, having to cater to consoles is holding gaming back.
Yee
And your reasoning behind that?
This wouldn’t be the first game that couldn’t do 4k 60 fps with a 1080ti at high or ultra settings. Many games cannot. I picked up Agents of Mayhem last week and no one can get 4k/60 without dropping the settings significantly. In these cases I play at 3k and max everything out for a smooth, constant 60 fps.
I cant run every game in 4K on single 1080ti OC maxed out, but to be fair most of them indeed run in 4K with 60fps, and with few tweaks I can run every game in 4K60fps besides quantum break and ark. 4K is still very damanding resolution and in order to hit 60 fps in every game at this res and max settings, SLI is needed
I guess it depends on how much you mind dropping your graphics settings. I don’t like playing at 4k/60 fps on medium settings. I’d rather play 3k maxed out, but yes, my overclocked 1080ti can technically do most games at 4k/60 if I lower the settings enough.
Hellblade and Agents of Mayhem are 2 recent games I’d rather play maxed out at 1800p than 4k medium settings.
To be honest I dont even played or heard about these two games that you mention. 99% of games (the most popular ones) that I have played runs very well in 4K, and besides ark and quantum break the most problematic games that I have ever tested required simple tweaks (far from medium details). Of course I’m talking about 60 fps, because when it comes to 30fps (console level of performance) you can game in every game maxed out in 4K I suppose.
I think there are plenty of games that GTX 1080ti can’t run at 4K/60fps.
yes, and 10 times this amount of games that it can. The 1080Ti will hit 4k@60fps on like 80% of the titles, while the rest only requires minor tweaks to achieve 60fps. It’s just a monster of card…
I have asus strix 1080ti OC, and there are quite few damanding games already that will not run in 4K60fps, so that final fantasy requirements news is nothing new to me. And btw. Ark survival and quantum break at max settings kill my card even at 1440p, not to mention 4K. For 4K native and solid 60 fps in games you need 1080ti SLI, single 1080ti can provide 60fps in most games, but the most demanding ones require some details tweaks. Some pc fantatics on this site laugh from console users, because they game in lower resolution, but the thing is, you need ultra high end pc (SLI setup) in order to play every game in 4K60fps maxed out.
You can easily max out Quantum Break at 1440p or even 1800p with your 1080ti and get 60 fps. Unless you turn upscaling off.
Yes, I was talking about upscaling in this game. With upscaling off game will run in native resolution, not 50%. If you play QB with upscaling you are far from maxing out this game, simple as that.
Yes but we have no choice. No rig on Earth can play that game with upscaling disabled.
In 1080p I can run QB with 55-60 fps without upscaling, but when it comes to QB and ark, these games are wayyyyyyyyyy more damanding compared with other games. One way or another most games runs much better and 1080ti is very fast card. I’m glad that I have replaced my 1070gtx with it, because with 1070gtx before I could run games in 1440p as my 1080ti runs in 4K now, really amazing jump in performance :).
Typical PC gamers crying about everything. They hate everything. What a group of losers.
And yet you are here commenting?
It’s software we are talking about, optimization is -always- possible, which doesn’t mean it’s worth it. The way things work, there’s a point in which optimizing the code will not get enough performance for the amount of time/work it will take, and that’s when devs stop and call the game done and optimized.
Now, if we had an infinite amount of time, it’s possible that the game would run at max settings on 4k on a GTX1070, even if it required rewriting all of the code of the game’s engine to that end.
But my point is: it makes sense to complain about a game not being optimized enough, specially when talking about a graphics card that is more than capable of delivering (such as the 1080Ti), but there’s a lot of real world considerations that may lead to this optimization not happening, and that’s why it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to call wheter we are getting a properly optimized game or not. We can just guess, and because of that, every opinion is valid.
Correct,VXAO and generally GameWrecks kills the performance on every game.
More Tessellation from GameWrecks kill the performance.
okay, fair point