VFXVeteran
Banned
All,
I had to reflect on the DF review of the Crysis Remastered version for the next-gen consoles and I went and installed it for the PC version with the new DLSS patch. After playing for awhile, it dawned on me what a true power delta means each generation.
My claim is that a reasonable jump in power should manifest itself with a game that has a dated unoptimized graphics engine running on a new platform to see how much the hardware can brute force it's way through rendering all the unoptimized code in the rendering engine.
We know that this company didn't go through optimizing the code for any of the modern graphics hardware. It has the following shortcomings:
1) No PBR materials
2) Very low polygon count
3) No tessellation routines
4) No true volumetric FX
The game however spams high res texture assets and reworked the lighting engine with brute force algorithms. Here is the list of things weighing down on a GPU/CPU:
1) Nearly every object has a hit-box which requires hit detection code (CPU-limited)
2) Lighting engine now uses ray-tracing (hardware accelerated for RTX cards only).
3) Spammed 8k textures (color and normal maps)
4) RT reflections
5) Reworked high res transparency alpha FX.
The mere fact that they had to cut so many graphics features to get the consoles to run at a target 60FPS is jarring to say the least. Even with a RTX 3090 activating all the graphics enhancements that the team implemented, it ran well above 40FPS @ native 4k. It wasn't until the DLSS patch using hardware Tensor cores to approximate the final image that the RTX boards are able to run @ 60FPS with all features available.
My take is that this is a benchmark that shows the gamer a "looking glass" of what the next-gen consoles can brute force raw pixels onto the screen. This benchmark shows to me that the consoles are grossly underpowered. With the latest reviews of games coming down the pike more rapidly, we are looking at last gen all over again. I'm very disappointed in this fact as I feel that MS/Sony needs to shoot for a higher bar, suck up the costs and price the consoles accordingly (~$1k or more). It is quite clear that Nvidia should be the chosen platform for the GPU and I'm dumbfounded that they both continue to rely on AMD for their heart transplant each generation.
FYI , here is a video of a massive fight with explosions and transparency polygons all over the place. Even with DLSS enabled, the framerate drops to mid-high 40s.
I had to reflect on the DF review of the Crysis Remastered version for the next-gen consoles and I went and installed it for the PC version with the new DLSS patch. After playing for awhile, it dawned on me what a true power delta means each generation.
My claim is that a reasonable jump in power should manifest itself with a game that has a dated unoptimized graphics engine running on a new platform to see how much the hardware can brute force it's way through rendering all the unoptimized code in the rendering engine.
We know that this company didn't go through optimizing the code for any of the modern graphics hardware. It has the following shortcomings:
1) No PBR materials
2) Very low polygon count
3) No tessellation routines
4) No true volumetric FX
The game however spams high res texture assets and reworked the lighting engine with brute force algorithms. Here is the list of things weighing down on a GPU/CPU:
1) Nearly every object has a hit-box which requires hit detection code (CPU-limited)
2) Lighting engine now uses ray-tracing (hardware accelerated for RTX cards only).
3) Spammed 8k textures (color and normal maps)
4) RT reflections
5) Reworked high res transparency alpha FX.
The mere fact that they had to cut so many graphics features to get the consoles to run at a target 60FPS is jarring to say the least. Even with a RTX 3090 activating all the graphics enhancements that the team implemented, it ran well above 40FPS @ native 4k. It wasn't until the DLSS patch using hardware Tensor cores to approximate the final image that the RTX boards are able to run @ 60FPS with all features available.
My take is that this is a benchmark that shows the gamer a "looking glass" of what the next-gen consoles can brute force raw pixels onto the screen. This benchmark shows to me that the consoles are grossly underpowered. With the latest reviews of games coming down the pike more rapidly, we are looking at last gen all over again. I'm very disappointed in this fact as I feel that MS/Sony needs to shoot for a higher bar, suck up the costs and price the consoles accordingly (~$1k or more). It is quite clear that Nvidia should be the chosen platform for the GPU and I'm dumbfounded that they both continue to rely on AMD for their heart transplant each generation.
FYI , here is a video of a massive fight with explosions and transparency polygons all over the place. Even with DLSS enabled, the framerate drops to mid-high 40s.