Support NeoGAF

[Caayn]

Edit: Article is live -> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc

We really enjoyed Quantum Break on Xbox One and the promise of using additional horsepower to smooth out the game's issues and play at 60fps was a huge lure in us fronting up the cash to buy the PC game, but the bottom line is that the PC version is a profound disappointment. The few improvements on offer cannot offset the major performance and image quality issues present in this port. What really stings is that some of these issues could be addressed by the community right now if not for the limitations of the Universal Windows Platform. We've expressed concerns over Microsoft's multi-platform initiative in the past and this situation is a perfect example of why. Until these limitations are removed from UWP, it's really hard to recommend purchasing any game that runs on it.

Videos:
Quantum Break PC Performance: GTX 970 vs R9 390 - What Went Wrong?
Quantum Break: PC vs Xbox One Graphics Comparison

XB1 is mostly equal to the medium preset on the PC.

LOD isn't affected much regardless of your settings.

PC version's most noticeably boosts are increased volumetric lightning quality and shadow resolution.

Freeze time to stop me if old.

 

[dark10x]

Just to note - this video is only comparing the visual differences.

The full article and performance video will dig into the problems with the PC version (which are severe)

 

[Caayn]

Will add a link to the OP when the article goes live.

 

[KainXVIII]

So cutscenes ARE capped to 30 fps after all.

 

[Gurish]

Seems like a pretty disappointing PC release.

 

[Dictator93]

Just to note - this video is only comparing the visual differences.

The full article and performance video will dig into the problems with the PC version (which are severe)

Will add a link to the OP when the article goes live.

Waiting patiently for that full article.
---

The graphical differences at the moment ar epretty surprising in how little there are. Given that 980Ti recommened for ultra I would have imagined much higher resolution SSR, and just much better everything all around. And all with NO RECONSTRUCTION FILTER.

 

[dr_rus]

This looks like a more complex shadow filtering than higher resolution tbh

 

[dark10x]

This looks like a more complex shadow filtering than higher resolution tbh

It is higher resolution for sure but there is also improved filtering. You can see fewer steps in the shadow map on the higher settings regardless of the shadow filtering in use.

 

[Javin98]

Do I just need to get my eyes checked or are the volumetric light shafts on PC rather low res as well? There is a significant improvement over the XB1 version but it seems like you could still see some artifacts. Just me?

 

[dark10x]

Do I just need to get my eyes checked or are the volumetric light shafts on PC rather low res as well? There is a significant improvement over the XB1 version but it seems like you could still see some artifacts. Just me?

It is not just you. The highest setting still looks a bit rough.

That said, this is the most extreme example I could find. During gameplay, it doesn't always look THIS bad.

 

[wapplew]

Xbox one version really close to ultra, outside resolution.

 

[Javin98]

It is not just you. The highest setting still looks a bit rough.

That said, this is the most extreme example I could find. During gameplay, it doesn't always look THIS bad.

Oh, good thing it wasn't just me.

From your estimation, do you think it's running at half res on PC? More or less?

 

[dark10x]

Oh, good thing it wasn't just me.

From your estimation, do you think it's running at half res on PC? More or less?

It's hard to know what is considered half-res when we're dealing with reconstruction. On XO it's clearly well below that point. Possibly half-res at the highest setting on PC (half of 720p)? It's not clear.

 

[Javin98]

It's hard to know what is considered half-res when we're dealing with reconstruction. On XO it's clearly well below that point. Possibly half-res at the highest setting on PC (half of 720p)? It's not clear.

Oh, yeah, good point. We have to take the temporal reconstruction into account as well. Well, on XB1, at least, it seems like the ambient occlusion and GI are rendered at 720p.

 

[Oni Jazar]

Most important thing to me would be the load time difference and framerate stutter.

 

[Dictator93]

Oh, good thing it wasn't just me.

From your estimation, do you think it's running at half res on PC? More or less?

I have no idea, but it definitely still looks too chunky on PC IMO. It does not seem to have the best upscaling ontop of its lower resolution. Being PC it would be nice to have real ultra settings, that put a lot of the buffers up to native or at least real half res.

 

[Javin98]

I have no idea, but it definitely still looks too chunky on PC IMO. It does not seem to have the best upscaling ontop of its lower resolution. Being PC it would be nice to have real ultra settings, that put a lot of the buffers up to native or at least real half res.

Yeah, it's a shame the PC version was rushed. How taxing are full res volumetric light shafts anyway? IIRC, Far Cry Primal and The Divison had full res volumetric lighting on PC.

 

[Dictator93]

Yeah, it's a shame the PC version was rushed. How taxing are full res volumetric light shafts anyway? IIRC, Far Cry Primal and The Divison had full res volumetric lighting on PC.

They are pretty darn expensive at full screen res @ 108p in the games I have ever played that had them, but having the 'choice' is the primary complaint I would have. It being PC, choice is key more than the performance of a setting at times: even if it is visually inefficient to turn somethng up.

Fallout 4 also had full resolution volumetrics on Ultra, which cleared up problems of chunkiness as well, but are notoriously expensive.

 

[BriGuy]

The system requirements are bananas for what you're getting out of it.

 

[Javin98]

They are pretty darn expensive at full screen res @ 108p in the games I have ever played that had them, but having the 'choice' is the primary complaint I would have. It being PC, choice is key more than the performance of a setting at times: even if it is visually inefficient to turn somethng up.

Fallout 4 also had full resolution volumetrics on Ultra, which cleared up problems of chunkiness as well, but are notoriously expensive.

Ah, interesting. Thanks! It's no surprise that the consoles usually run volumetric lighting at half res or sometimes even less, then.

 

[Dictator93]

Ah, interesting. Thanks! It's no surprise that the consoles usually run volumetric lighting at half res or sometimes even less, then.

Yeah, I think the resolution used primarily on console depends... but I have seen more things using quarter resolution than half resolution.
Usually quarter resolution on consoles if Lords of the Fallen, Killzone, Assassins Creed, Fallout 4 or the lastest call of duty are in question. Call of Duty also had some 1/8th resolution ones I believe, according to their documentation they wrote on it (looking for it!), but that targeted 60.

Here is the Fallout4 example, which is kinda cool: http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-god-rays-quality-interactive-comparison-001-ultra-vs-low.html
----

This is honestly a game where I would pump it up to a high enough resolution for great IQ, pump everything up along side it, and run it @ 30 or perhaps 40 fps. Then again, I have yet to play it and see how respoonsive the controls are. If they are responsive, then I would probably target 60 on my rig.

 

[ISee]

How does the reconstruction technique work? Are there any good (and understandable) articles out there?

 

[Javin98]

Yeah, I think the resolution used primarily on console depends... but I have seen more things using quarter resolution than half resolution.
Usually quarter resolution on consoles if Lords of the Fallen, Killzone, Assassins Creed, Fallout 4 or the lastest call of duty are in question. Call of Duty also had some 1/8th resolution ones I believe, according to their documentation they wrote on it (looking for it!), but that targeted 60.

Here is the Fallout4 example, which is kinda cool: http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-god-rays-quality-interactive-comparison-001-ultra-vs-low.html
----

This is honestly a game where I would pump it up to a high enough resolution for great IQ, pump everything up along side it, and run it @ 30 or perhaps 40 fps. Then again, I have yet to play it and see how respoonsive the controls are. If they are responsive, then I would probably target 60 on my rig.

Hmm, interesting to see at what res the volumetric lighting in Uncharted 4's SP will run. The beta had a few volumetric light shafts, hell, even UC3 and TLOU had volumetric lighting.

 

[Dictator93]

Hmm, interesting to see at what res the volumetric lighting in Uncharted 4's SP will run. The beta had a few volumetric light shafts, hell, even UC3 and TLOU had volumetric lighting.

Yeah, I definitely look forward to seeing that! Gonna need some .png captures from you and Roboplato

 

[Javin98]

Yeah, I definitely look forward to seeing that! Gonna need some .png captures from you and Roboplato

Oh, sure. I will be taking tons of screenshots of Uncharted 4 for sure. For reference, I will be taking more shots of the global illumination and volumetric lighting so we can better analyze them.

 

[sertopico]

Thanks for the video, as I expected the improvements over the console version are really few. Anyway, I have a question, do you know or did you notice during your analysis if the internal resolution increases in scenes which are not so demanding? I bought the PC version (playing on ultra at "fake" 2k) and sometimes the image looks sharper than other times, I can notice this especially on the main character model, considering he's the closest object to the camera.

 

[KainXVIII]

Xbox one version really close to ultra, outside resolution.

DF video says close to medium, duh.

 

[chromatic9]

Just like in the candyland video, this so called 720p reconstruction at 1080p looks like significantly better on PC. I can see the difference on a poorly compressed youtube video 10 feet away. This is more than AF.

 

[Dictator93]

Just like in the candyland video, this so called 720p reconstruction at 1080p looks like significantly better on PC. I can see the difference on a poorly compressed youtube video 10 feet away. This is more than AF.

The camera is moving their correct?

If motion blur is scaling with fps, then you could have a much smaller mb gradient in the PC picture, thus making it clearer.

We need full resolution uncompressed stills IMO for a better comparison and to judge. We have so few of those for some reason....

 

[dark10x]

Full article is up! The 5/6th refresh rate bug? Yeah, I've never seen anything like it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc

The camera is moving their correct?

If motion blur is scaling with fps, then you could have a much smaller mb gradient in the PC picture, thus making it clearer.

We need full resolution uncompressed stills IMO for a better comparison and to judge. We have so few of those for some reason....

The XO footage is ever so slightly out of sync so the PC shot is basically still while XO is moving.

The same artefacts appear on PC when in motion. Identical, in fact. It's the same technique.

 

[NeoRaider]

Quantum Break has arrived on the PC and to suggest that the results are disappointing would be a massive understatement. PC gamers are left out in the cold with another high profile release failing to deliver expected levels of performance, features and customisation. As things stand, it simply isn't possible to achieve a smooth frame-rate on any PC hardware configuration and thanks to the profound limitations imposed on gamers by the Universal Windows Platform, there's no way to fix it.

This sounds so bad.

 

[GHG]

Quantum Break has arrived on the PC and to suggest that the results are disappointing would be a massive understatement. PC gamers are left out in the cold with another high profile release failing to deliver expected levels of performance, features and customisation. As things stand, it simply isn't possible to achieve a smooth frame-rate on any PC hardware configuration and thanks to the profound limitations imposed on gamers by the Universal Windows Platform, there's no way to fix it.

Hopefully this will end the bullshit in the other threads where people are saying their game is "smooth" or that their "framerate is good". Of course these things are subjective and it depends on ones ability to perceive such things but come on now...

Now fix the game please Remedy.

 

[Dictator93]

The XO footage is ever so slightly out of sync so the PC shot is basically still while XO is moving.

The same artefacts appear on PC when in motion. Identical, in fact. It's the same technique.

Ah!

Full article is up! The 5/6th refresh rate bug? Yeah, I've never seen anything like it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc

Reading!

 

[NeoRaider]

Wow, performance on Nvidia is shockingly bad on that DF comparison, i am speechless.

 

[dr_rus]

Do I just need to get my eyes checked or are the volumetric light shafts on PC rather low res as well? There is a significant improvement over the XB1 version but it seems like you could still see some artifacts. Just me?

These artifacts are because of the method they're using to render those and it's not realistic to expect them to go away as for that you'd have to voxelise the world space with a per pixel precision which will tank performance below any tangible level on any h/w probably.

 

[chocoedd]

The 50fps cap on 720p with Titan X. Wow.

 

[Dictator93]

Reading and watching the video of John and Richard talking over the game points out how absolutely broken it currently is. 5/6th of your refresh rate is the FPS cap?

WHAT?!

So does that mean... if I ran the game on a 100hz monitor (doable on my rig), it would be capped at 83fps?

What a bizarre... everything.

The 50fps cap on 720p with Titan X. Wow.

Yeah, the behaviour is completely beyond the pale regarding strange things I have seen in PC ports. Like, what?

 

[Gurish]

Can someone explain the reconstruction thing, if the XB1's res is 720P and the PC is 1080P, why do we still get a blurry IQ on PC? it's not post-process stuff but that reconstruction technique, but how can it ruin a native res IQ?

 

[Bedameister]

The shadows really look like ass on Xbox One though.

 

[Son of Flounder]

Full article is up! The 5/6th refresh rate bug? Yeah, I've never seen anything like it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc

Thanks as always for the article and videos. This game has some of the worst frame pacing issues I have ever seen.

Also, thanks for the following warning, this would have annoyed the hell out of me if/when I get my PC key from MS (not that I'll be playing before the frame pacing is fixed):
"Also: bonus points to UWP for overwriting our Xbox One completed game save with fresh PC data instead, eliminating our existing progress completely."

 

[dark10x]

Thanks as always for the article and videos. This game has some of the worst frame pacing issues I have ever seen.

Also, thanks for the following warning, this would have annoyed the hell out of me if/when I get my PC key from MS (not that I'll be playing before the frame pacing is fixed):
"Also: bonus points to UWP for overwriting our Xbox One completed game save with fresh PC data instead, eliminating our existing progress completely."

Yeah, that pissed me off. On the PC, it normally asks you which save data you want to use, but the first time I booted the game, it did nothing of the sort. It was only later when I loaded it on XO that it started me at the same checkpoint as on the PC and I discovered that my save was gone.

Plus, you cannot play on XO and PC at the same time even with two licensees.

 

[Javin98]

Full article is up! The 5/6th refresh rate bug? Yeah, I've never seen anything like it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc


The XO footage is ever so slightly out of sync so the PC shot is basically still while XO is moving.

The same artefacts appear on PC when in motion. Identical, in fact. It's the same technique.

What in the actual fuck? The PC version caps the frame rate at 5/6th of the monitor's refresh rate. What sort of bullshit is this? Never ever heard of such a thing. Even the worst ports of all time never had such an issue. Strange.

These artifacts are because of the method they're using to render those and it's not realistic to expect them to go away as for that you'd have to voxelise the world space with a per pixel precision which will tank performance below any tangible level on any h/w probably.

Wouldn't rendering the volumetric light shafts at full res remove most, if not all of the artifacts? Of course, it's different for this game since it is using the temporal reconstruction technique.

 

[Loris146]

What a huge cluster fuck...

 

[MrCunningham]

Wow at the difference between the 390 and 970. Both are shit, but that gap between these two cards is still pretty big. And the display driver crashes... wow.

Also the eye patch bug... Maybe Digital Foundry's frame capture software is wreaking havoc with UWP?

 

[dark10x]

What in the actual fuck? The PC version caps the frame rate at 5/6th of the monitor's refresh rate. What sort of bullshit is this? Never ever heard of such a thing. Even the worst ports of all time never had such an issue. Strange.

Yup. It's why nobody was reporting a stable 60fps - it isn't possible!

Technically, it should be quite feasible but the game prevents it.

Wow at the difference between the 390 and 970. Both are shit, but that gap between these two cards is still pretty big. And the display driver crashes... wow.

Also the eye patch bug... Maybe Digital Foundry's frame capture software is wreaking havoc with UWP?

No chance. Our software does not interact with the game. We simply output one PC to a second PC and capture the game using a capture card - just like on a console. Then we run the video results through the software.

 

[Conduit]

Quantum Break has arrived on the PC and to suggest that the results are disappointing would be a massive understatement. PC gamers are left out in the cold with another high profile release failing to deliver expected levels of performance, features and customisation. As things stand, it simply isn't possible to achieve a smooth frame-rate on any PC hardware configuration and thanks to the profound limitations imposed on gamers by the Universal Windows Platform, there's no way to fix it.

UWP will fail, man.

 

[MrCunningham]

Yup. It's why nobody was reporting a stable 60fps - it isn't possible!

Technically, it should be quite feasible but the game prevents it.


No chance. Our software does not interact with the game. We simply output one PC to a second PC and capture the game using a capture card - just like on a console. Then we run the video results through the software.

OH OK, that makes sense since you want to get the best performance possible out of these benchmarks without any interference from the frame capture software.

 

[Justinh]

Haven't seen either video yet, but after reading the article I guess I'm not really looking forward for my PC code anymore.

I can't believe they actually sold this.

 

[Javin98]

Yup. It's why nobody was reporting a stable 60fps - it isn't possible!

Technically, it should be quite feasible but the game prevents it.

Well, it explains the funky frame time graph we saw in the PC performance thread. Thanks for the article! I bet most of us wouldn't have known about the issue if it wasn't mentioned here.

 

[Dictator93]

Looking at the screenshots, there are some weird things happening. Some screens on PC, regradless of settings, are missing obmb in comparison to xb1... and here:

The PC is not at all loading the higher car LOD; hence its weird broken decal and polygonal edges.