ashecitism
Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-performance-analysis-hitman
more at the link including the vid
more at the link including the vid
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry: Hitman performance analysis (PS4/XB1)
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
The perfect Dark
Banned
90 seconds load time? Is this a fucking joke?
funkystudent
Member
It reminds me a bit of Ground Zeros technically but less polished.
Great they included a 30fps cap though.
Great they included a 30fps cap though.
[Agent]ZeroNine
Member
Somewhat off topic, but i wonder what is causing load time issues in this generation of console games. Is it just hard drive type, is it the quality of the hard drive? Does RAM type or amount factor in? I know those who think they're well knowledgeable will say "Its the low end CPUs" as if it was a reflex.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I appreciate the developer allowing me enough time to make a sandwich or wash my face.
But the levels are huge, right? Compared to Absolution?
Article says reloading a failed mission doesn't take as long. Anyone know the actual time?
Equanimity
Member
Good stuff, I'll be using the 30fps cap. I hope they optimise it further so that it almost never drops below 30fps on either machine.
Reloads are more like 10-15 seconds, I think.
SolidusDave
Member
If it's just the initial load of the big area, I won't mind.
Those kind of load times could be 5 minutes for all I care, I usually don't jump between games (at least not within missions etc.) so thanks to Resume/Suspend mode games start up in an instant.
Those kind of load times could be 5 minutes for all I care, I usually don't jump between games (at least not within missions etc.) so thanks to Resume/Suspend mode games start up in an instant.
That's not bad at all. I can live with that.
The perfect Dark
Banned
But does it also load 90 seconds when you play community contracts?
Kenzodielocke
Banned
The menues seem to be frustrating on consoles. How is the PC version holding up?
Wouldn't a higher speed BD drive eliminate the need for installing to the HDD and improve load times?
DryvBy
Member
I played the first beta. It didn't feel that long.
No because BDs data rate would still be nowhere as close to HDDs - a 12x BD speed is only around 300Mbps while SATA 2 theoretically is 3Gbps (though mechanical drives wont hit that; SSDs would)...
ps3ud0 8)
For me the beta looked like PS3's Hitman with higher res, more NPCs, but really dated overall, felt closer to PS3 than PS4 imo.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
The Paris map looks really good though.
funkystudent
Member
I do think Absolution looks better but that game went out of its way with colour filters and whatnot so it had a much more stylish look.
This looks a bit flat in comparison but maybe it has more impressive tech behind it.
The training missions are tough to judge as they are actually meant to be fake reconstructions of environments within a giant subterranean bunker.
The Paris map, which actually takes place in Paris, is quite beautiful in comparison.
derExperte
Member
[Agent]ZeroNine;198046577 said:
In other games using an SSD doesn't improve load times nearly as much as it should even considering X1PS4 only have SATA2 so it's reasonable to assume that the CPUs are indeed the main culprit. Still doesn't excuse those load times.
Early benchmarks but with very few cards, only highest settings and the DX12 benches are completely unreliable: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitman-Spiel-6333/Specials/DirectX-12-Benchmark-Test-1188758/
JigglesBunny
Banned
Yikes. Variable, unclocked performance? PC version it is.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
if most of the game is running at 30 then why not lock it there or at least allow for it in the options?
meh
meh
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Have you not watched the video ? There is an option to cap the frame rate at 30.
derExperte
Member
WhiskerFrisker
Member
Or even read the OP.
Aceofspades
Banned
Revolutionary
Member
Optional framerate caps in console versions <3
That's how long it takes for The Witcher 3 to load a save file, and that won GOTY, so it doesn't seem like a joke to me.
The FPS issues continuing to be such a problem seems like the joke IMO.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
no, i can't watch the video because im at work but i appreciate the clarification. thanks! Must've missed the 30 cap line in the OP like a fool
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
At the expense of the trademark level design. I'd rather have that, to be honest.
Pjsprojects
Member
On X1 it drop below 30fps, unless you want to lock at 15fps
Let me correct that, on both X1 & PS4 it drops below 30fps.
Is the PC version solid?
dr_rus
Member
First results: Hitman 2016 PC: DirectX 11 vs. DirectX 12 in ersten Benchmarks - mit großen Fragezeichen
As expected, another win for AMD but contrary to a popular believe DX12 has nothing to do with it - AMD's results in DX12 are all over the place and in case of Fury they are lower than in DX11.
Async compute at its best /sarcasm
derExperte
Member
Check again, they are updating the benchmarks after fixing the problem and now AMD does profit from DX12.
First DX12 performance reviews are far from good.
Maybe future "DX12 only" games will be different.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided probably will be a good example.
EDIT: Ok, seems like they have problems with AMD. 15-20% improvement on AMD with DX12, same performance or even worse with Nvidia.
Nvidia at it again, don't believe their lies...Maxwell DX12 compatible, my ass.
Maybe future "DX12 only" games will be different.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided probably will be a good example.
EDIT: Ok, seems like they have problems with AMD. 15-20% improvement on AMD with DX12, same performance or even worse with Nvidia.
Nvidia at it again, don't believe their lies...Maxwell DX12 compatible, my ass.
Dictator93
Member
Come on. You know it is more nuanced than that for all three GPU makers.
edit: in fact (although this thread is not the best for this), I am not really sure what you are referencing.
I am seeing higher mins (75 vs 70, etc.) and higher average for DX12 for 980Ti@ 1080p as well as marginal gains for a 980. The 960 must be seeing a bottleneck other cards are not seeing @ that res. Probably due to its set-up differences (GM206 vs GM204 and GM200) as well as its comparatively aenemic bandwidth.
980 Ti probably is the exception due to its newest revision of Maxwell architecture.
But those "marginal" improvements of the 980 against those 15% performance improvements of the R9 390 (a GPU that competes with the 970), are embarrasing.
Let's face it, Maxwell is a shitty architecture compared to AMD GCN, with expensive GPUs that are not prepared for DX12.
Dictator93
Member
I honestly still have no idea what you are talking about, as DX12 is more than async compute as far as GPU features go. Is it that surprising that an AMD sponsored game seems to use that as its headline optimisation?
I think the answer is obvious.
Imagine another game that has order indepedent transparencies or some voxel structures in it that run an order of magnitude slow on AMD hardware due to their lack of some GPU features. It would be a similar yet reversed situation where a hardware specific feature tips the scale in a cross-vendor comparison.
You are misrepresenting the situation in its entirety and generalising for some reason. I am not sure why.
Primethius
Banned
Woah, really?
Fuck yes. The review thread made it seem like reloads were a minute long.
That plus the improved performance means I'm going to go buy this right now.
Maybe I was too optimistic (going from memory). :\ It's not actually that fast. It's actually more like 35-40 seconds. It's still much faster than the initial load, but not particularly short.
Primethius
Banned
That's still fine by me. I had no issues with the beta reload timing so if it's along the same lines, the timing should be fine.