Need For Speed Payback is the latest part in the NFS series. Like its predecessor, Need for Speed Payback is powered by the Frostbite 3 Engine and the PC version comes with an unlocked framerate. As such, it’s time now to benchmark this new NFS game and see how it performs on the PC platform.
For this PC Performance Analysis, we used an Intel i7 4930K (overclocked at 4.2Ghz) with 8GB RAM, AMD’s Radeon RX580, NVIDIA’s GTX980Ti and GTX690, Windows 10 64-bit and the latest version of the GeForce and Catalyst drivers. Need for Speed Payback does not currently support SLI. While NVIDIA has added a custom SLI profile, its compatibility bits are similar to those for Batman: Arkham Knight and Just Cause 3; games that do not support SLI. As such, the game did not scale on our GTX690.
Ghost Games has added a few graphics settings to tweak. PC gamers can adjust the quality of Textures, Texture Filtering, Post-Process, Shadows, Ambient Occlusion, Effects, Geometry, Anti-Aliasing, Terrain and Vegetation. And that’s it. Moreover, and even though this is a Frostbite 3 game, there is no Render Scale option.
[nextpage title=”GPU, CPU metrics, Graphics & Screenshots”]
Like its predecessor, Need for Speed: Payback suffers from some CPU optimization issues. In order to find out how the game performs on a variety of CPUs, we simulated a dual-core and a quad-core CPU. And it appears that this new NFS game is one of the few that does not benefit at all from Hyper Threading. Even our simulated dual-core system didn’t see any performance improvements with it. This was a bit unexpected as Frostbite 3 is well known for its CPU multi-threading capabilities.
The good news here is that both our six-core and our simulated quad-core systems were able to offer a constant 60fps experience at 1080p on Ultra settings. That wasn’t possible on the previous NFS game – on our test system – so at least Ghost Games has made some improvements to it. Still, the game seems to rely heavily on the CPU and we seriously don’t know why. After all, we’ve seen other open-world games, featuring more vehicles and pedestrians, running significantly faster than it. It’s worth noting that Need for Speed Payback uses the Denuvo anti-tamper tech. Whether this has anything to do with the increased CPU usage is something that only Ghost Games really knows. In short, we don’t know what is eating all the CPU resources, however we are certain that the game would benefit from further optimizations.
On the other hand, Need for Speed Payback can be enjoyed on a variety of graphics cards. Our GTX980Ti had no trouble running the game with constant 60fps at 1080p on Ultra settings. At 1440p, we did notice some slight drops below 60fps, though for the most part the game ran smoothly. In 4K, our GTX980Ti was able to offer a better gaming experience than current-gen consoles. However, the menus were a bit sluggish due to VRAM limitations. As for the Radeon RX580, AMD’s GPU was able to run the game with a minimum of 52fps and an average of 70fps at 1080p on Ultra settings. Last but not least, our GTX690 ran the game with a minimum of 29fps and an average of 35fps. Do note that we had to lower our Textures to Medium on that particular GPU so we could avoid any VRAM limitations.
Need for Speed Payback comes with four presets: Low, Medium, High and Ultra. Now while the game is CPU-bound, there are some options that affect both the CPU and the GPU. These are Geometry, Vegetation and Terrain. As such, we strongly suggest lowering these if you are bottlenecked by your CPU. On Low settings, our GTX980Ti was underused and run the game with a minimum of 94fps and an average of 110fps. So while there are some performance differences between Low and Ultra settings, the game does not scale as good as we’d hoped.
Graphics wise, Need for Speed Payback is great looking racing game. Most of the cars are highly detailed and there are some really cool smoke effects. Players can destroy a number of objects and the game features a dynamic lighting system. Most of the textures are of high quality and resolution, and the reflection effects are great. Unfortunately, though, the game suffers from major pop-in issues, even on Ultra settings. Moreover, it can look a bit unimpressive during specific times of days. Still, Need for Speed Payback packs some truly beautiful visuals.
All in all, Need for Speed Payback looks and runs better than its predecessor. However, the game still suffers from CPU optimization issues. Moreover, the performance increase when lowering its graphics settings is disappointing to say the least, mainly due to its CPU issues. As such, if your CPU is unable to offer an enjoyable experience, there is little you can actually do about it. If we overlook these CPU issues, the game runs fine even on dated graphics cards. After all, a single GTX680 is able to offer a better gaming experience than PS4 or Xbox One, and that says a lot.
Enjoy!
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
A mobile game with mediocre graphics
If it would b a PC only game it would look and run 2x bettet . But its a multiplatform game so thr poopbox and pisstation can run it. Just like the witcher 2 ( pc game ) look almoste as good as witcher 3 ( multiplatform game ) and there are som years bettwene them
Witcher 2 unlike 3 wasnt featuring so huge open world
Thx sherlock . But if ti would be pc only game it would not get a downgrade as every multiplatform game
Even after downgrade witcher 3 was a really damanding game on PC, so they have done it for a reason.
And the reason was: its a multiplatform game .
Im pretty sure you know it would look and run better if it would be a pc only game. And if thats true the. This NFS game would not have sutch a mediocre graphucs if it would be a pc only game .
Ppl are so easy to impress because they got use to all the trash EA and other releasing that they think its the best s*it . And then a mode come and modit to oblivion and it looks like real life becasue PC held back by peasants consoles
“”And the reason was: its a multiplatform game””
That’s just your guesses. Nothing stops developers and they can always utilize extisting PC hardware to it’s fullest if they want. When it comes to The WItcher 3, this game was scaling very well across many CPU threads compared to other PC games on that time.
While i do agree that this NFS is not that good (Graphic related) to say that Witcher 2 looks almost as good as Witcher 3 is a lie.
Have you seen the graphics? They are mediocre.
I want to say it’s odd that the slew of AAA games that have been released the past 3-4 years, have all suffered from CPU related issues, but it’s honestly not that hard to figure out as to why.
Current gen systems are still known for sporting weaker CPU’s, and as such, as AAA games have been going so far, have been developed for those systems first, with PC later on. We can dance around the old excuse of “bu-but they were made for PC first”, but the console CPU limitations, and these AAA games coming out with CPU issues, just makes it more fitting, than to just call it pure coincidence.
It seems that since the games are developed with consoles in mind first that they would not rely as heavily on the weaker console CPUs and then would not have issues using too much CPU on PCs with better CPUs. Especially the Xbox One and PS4 which are pathetic in performance at this point compared to PC. I do think, as usual, that Developers optimize better for consoles and if they put the same level of care into the PC version that they would run better.
They can’t, for the obvious reasons too much and different hardware to optimize for…
The game looks completely GPU bottlenecked to me. I mean, if it was struggling with CPU useage we’d be seeing much lower frame rates. The only time the frame rates go below 60 fps is with older GPUs. The CPU side seems just fine to me here.
Well, not quite. If you look closely, what it’s having issues with isn’t cores, but hyperthreading. The 6 core /6 thread (no hyperthreading) runs faster than the 4 core/4 threads. It’s only when you have more threads than cores that you get a weird dip.
Ah, I’m with you. I think you’re right. Considering the limitations of those consoles, they basically HAVE to use them, or the game will suffer dramatically.
It’s also worth noting that just because a game doens’t use all the cores, that doesn’t mean it should. Some games, like this, really don’t need the additional cores as there isn’t much going on.
Now, if the frame rates weren’t going up with better video cards and lower settings, I would point to the CPU. Honestly though, here, I don’t think it needs more core usage.
Far Cry Primal and Nioh are built upon old-gen engines (the same of Far Cry 3 and Dead or Alive 5), which are heavily customized to run on PS4 and XO, but that customization is fully related to the hardware, I don’t think that they optimized their code on PC. Halo 5 also uses the same engine as Halo 4, just updated. But look at Frostbite 3 or Unreal 4, they are huge improvements upon previous versions (almost rebuilt from the ground-up) and they show it: full DX12 support, full multi-core scaling… I must admit that I don’t know much about the Mario Odyssey engine, but Switch has 3 functional cores, and that’s why games run bad on it.
Console optimisation doesn’t automatically mean stellar PC optimisations.
I’m not going to argue that, but my point was console optimisations do not equal for PC ones.
Devs said that this gen would make it far more easier to port games over and make them work for both platforms, with higher gains. So far not much has happened, and in some cases it’s faired worse than last gen. DX 12 isn’t seeing colossal gains for PC either, it’s still more of a joke compared to DX 11, let alone Vulkan.
As long as current gen systems continue to be weak in multiple areas, the PC versions will likely suffer in others as well. Next gen has to bring the big guns, nothing should be spared, and the arch needs to work for both ends, with devs having a full hang on what is going on for both sides.
“Moreover, the performance increase when lowering its graphics settings is disappointing to say the least”. What? That’s literally how every game ever works. What’s the problem?
And what’s with assuming it’s a CPU issue? You add more cores and it runs better, and only dual cores seem to have issue with the game. That seems fine to me.
I’m simply seeing a high reliance on GPU resources here.
To show a CPU bottleneck you really need a faster GPU in your tests at 1080p anyway to remove that as a factor.
to be honest I don’t get it, if you look at the charts it shows that a i5 is slightly faster than an i7, so 4c/4t > 4c/8t, so it seems that the game has more problems with hyper threading than a general cpu issue.
Heads up my comrades fellows
*****Killer is Dead Nightmare Edition is free for a limited time on Humble Store ****
only 48 hours
Thanks
Optimisation is one thing, but since i5/i7 CPU single core performance is not advancing so fast as it used to be years ago, and that’s the biggest problem.
Optimisation is one thing, but since i5/i7 CPU single core performance is not advancing so fast as it used to be years ago, and that’s the biggest problem.
No payback does not look better than 2015’s reboot.
respect for still using winamp and MPC player no ads no BS
You are absolutly right. Witcher 2 looks better the way better the witcher 3 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63ecf51b06e40e3cc4d9dc90774bf0ad1c89924b696dbbf94dcbadecc73b60b7.jpg
In other words, this game’s optimization sucks but not as much as the previous one!!!