• 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.

Hitman (2016) PC performance thread

SirMossyBloke

Member
Nov 29, 2012
11,310
0
0
Got an i5 4690k, gtx970 OC and 16gb RAM.

Running a smooth 60fps with most things on ultra at all tim.....and I hit the crowd on the yacht. 45fps.
 

holygeesus

Member
Jun 1, 2014
3,020
0
0
How can the CPU be the bottleneck when it's not being used to it's capacity? I'm seeing 95% utilisation tops.
 

broncobuster

Banned
Apr 19, 2014
12,795
0
0
Testing uncapped on a 970, empty to crowded area range from 80s to 40s. Absolution had these sort of drops on my last CPU.
 

Profanity

Member
Dec 21, 2012
319
0
0
6700K @ 4.6
970 GTX 1500/3900
16 GB

Same as others, maxed out at 1080p with SS at 1.00, it runs 60+ outside of the yacht, but meanders from 40-60 around the crowds. Second mission is a solid 65+ though.
 

x3sphere

Member
Sep 24, 2006
4,897
0
1,020
AZ
gamercards.exophase.com
Performance is not great at 3440x1440 on a 980 Ti, seeing around 30-40 FPS in the areas with big crowds.


Also the FPS fluctuations are really apparent (even with a G-Sync monitor).

But it's a beta so I assume it'll improve.
 

holygeesus

Member
Jun 1, 2014
3,020
0
0
Testing uncapped on a 970, empty to crowded area range from 80s to 40s. Absolution had these sort of drops on my last CPU.
I'm using the same CPU and flittering back and forth between this beta and the heavily populated Chinatown mission of Absolution, and the performance is massively different, which points to it being either a problem with the beta, or the fact that you can interact with literally every NPC in this new game, causing more demands on the system.

In the previous game, the crowd is literally just background material, here you can interact with them all I think. That has to be more straining on the hardware - either way, I don't believe the CPU is holding you back on Absolution.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
590
Performance is not great at 3440x1440 on a 980 Ti, seeing around 30-40 FPS in the areas with big crowds.


Also the FPS fluctuations are really apparent (even with a G-Sync monitor).

But it's a beta so I assume it'll improve.
is your gpu usage over 95%?
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,803
6
1,030
Western Australia
*Beta performance thread
I did think about including "beta" in the title for The Division's PC performance thread, but the game is just a matter of weeks away and excluding it means I don't have to bug a mod to change the thread title come release day. The same applies here.
 

etta

my hard graphic balls
Mar 24, 2015
12,712
3
0
How much VRAM do the texture settings use? I was gonna get this on PS4, but after seeing the visuals, I think I can run the game at least on High@1080p/60 on with my 2500K/680, but not sure about the 2GB VRAM I have.
 

TheMoon

Member
Jul 1, 2014
21,766
5
415
from the general beta thread:
i5 2500
GTX560 1GB
4GB RAM

everything on low or turned off. game actually runs and is playable but a bit stuttery (don't have an fps counter on but guesstimating 20-25fps-ish?!?)

overall quite happy considering the min requirements :D
Just for fun I just tried turning up my gfx settings and turning on steam's fps counter. I was actually in the 30-40fps range with my machine lol. And I then tried turning on/up some settings and stayed in the 30fps range with medium settings (only played on Final Test). This all worked out way better than I thought.
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,652
2,129
535
USA
As usual, old and new AMD gpus destroying Nvidia again...

Expensive

Worst GPUs

Deliberated obsolescence

Stupid driver updates with NO performance boost

FUCK YOU Nvidia.
Linus spoke about this on the WAN show, arguing that Nvidia is better off letting AMD take back market share than facing the antitrust issues that would arise if the current trend continues. Obviously, they should work around multiplatform games being optimized for console AMD GPUs or any async compute limitations they might have. Just don't expect them to deliver the kind of annual GPU gains AMD cards typically get.

So the supersampling setting, is that like CDProjekt Red's Ubersampling?
Sort of? I think Ubersampling was basically rendering the game beyond your chosen resolution. Others in this thread suggested Supersampling is choosing whether to render the game at or below your selected resolution, hence why it's upper limit is 1:

That's to be expected. At 0.50 you're essentially rendering the game at half your native resolution, which is why it defaults to 1.00.
 

seph1roth

Member
Jul 1, 2012
600
43
395
Spanish poor guy
Linus spoke about this on the WAN show, arguing that Nvidia is better off letting AMD take back market share than facing the antitrust issues that would arise if the current trend continues. Obviously, they should work around multiplatform games being optimized for console AMD GPUs or any async compute limitations they might have. Just don't expect them to deliver the kind of annual GPU gains AMD cards typically get.
So as usual, worst gpus, more expensive, and people still buys their products?

Wtf, this is stupid and ridiculous, 700$ gpu performing like a 250$ gpu from other company...well done people, you can continue throwing your money to the trash buying Nvidia gpus.
 

The Janitor

Member
Jun 29, 2011
2,393
250
680
As usual, old and new AMD gpus destroying Nvidia again...

Expensive

Worst GPUs

Deliberated obsolescence

Stupid driver updates with NO performance boost

FUCK YOU Nvidia.
I'm confused.. in the first benchmark the Fury X is only getting two more frames in max frame compared to 980 Ti, but 980 Ti has 3 frame advantadge in minimum frames, which matters more when it comes to a smooth experience.
In the rest of the benchmarks they are pretty much equal

How are they destroying Nvidia?
 

Dick Justice

Banned
Jan 1, 2012
10,095
0
0
I'm confused.. in the first benchmark the Fury X is only getting two more frames in max frame compared to 980 Ti, but 980 Ti has 3 frame advantadge in minimum frames, which matters more when it comes to a smooth experience.
In the rest of the benchmarks they are pretty much equal

How are they destroying Nvidia?
It's called being a weird corporate fanboy.
 

seph1roth

Member
Jul 1, 2012
600
43
395
Spanish poor guy
It's called being a weird corporate fanboy.
FYI i don't have an AMD gpu, i have a 970...never again.

So thx for your useful answer, next time try to respond with evidences and facts, not with this kind of "fanboy" shit.

Nvidia thinks we are stupid, their GPUs are aging more quickly than AMD GPUs...

You just have to look the current benchmarks between 280x and GTX 770, or even 290 against the 970. AMD Gpus are performing better in time, meanwhile Nvidia Gpus are performing worse and worse...

Fortunately I do not need to lie anything to prove that what i'm saying is true.

And even more, i didn't mention the 970 4Gb fiasco...

This is worse than the console wars, Nvidia is lying to their costumers but they continue buying their shit.

btw, where are those driver updates that improve the performance of a bunch of games, yeah...that "10-50% performance improvement on XXX game", where are those drivers?
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,652
2,129
535
USA
So as usual, worst gpus, more expensive, and people still buys their products?

Wtf, this is stupid and ridiculous, 700$ gpu performing like a 250$ gpu from other company...well done people, you can continue throwing your money to the trash buying Nvidia gpus.
They're still competitive at the high end and enthusiast tier, with advantages in frame pacing, thermals, and power efficiency. I can understand some people considering that a modest and worthwhile premium. The real problem is their low end and mid tier cards getting left behind on console ports.

I do agree though that we'd be better off if the rampant Nvidia advocates pumped their breaks a bit. All I can say is I'm glad I went for all the R9 290 deals back when GAF was caught up in the GTX 970 hype.
 

holygeesus

Member
Jun 1, 2014
3,020
0
0
Upgraded my CPU (6700k) and RAM today, so as a test, tried the beta and it still chugs during the party on the boat, so it is either going to need some optimising or it runs like a dog considering how ordinary it looks.
 
Sep 30, 2014
2,827
0
0
Cupertino
Upgraded my CPU (6700k) and RAM today, so as a test, tried the beta and it still chugs during the party on the boat, so it is either going to need some optimising or it runs like a dog considering how ordinary it looks.
one can only hope this was quite an old build and that we'll enjoy some solid optimization in the full release

*crosses fingers*
 

QuantumSquid

Member
Sep 25, 2012
5,335
1
0
My next GPU will be AMD. I have had no problems with my 970 but I can't support Nvidia in good conscience anymore. I hope Polaris delivers.
 

Akronis

Member
Aug 20, 2014
4,459
0
0
Chicago, IL
FYI i don't have an AMD gpu, i have a 970...never again.

So thx for your useful answer, next time try to respond with evidences and facts, not with this kind of "fanboy" shit.

Nvidia thinks we are stupid, their GPUs are aging more quickly than AMD GPUs...

You just have to look the current benchmarks between 280x and GTX 770, or even 290 against the 970. AMD Gpus are performing better in time, meanwhile Nvidia Gpus are performing worse and worse...

Fortunately I do not need to lie anything to prove that what i'm saying is true.

And even more, i didn't mention the 970 4Gb fiasco...

This is worse than the console wars, Nvidia is lying to their costumers but they continue buying their shit.

btw, where are those driver updates that improve the performance of a bunch of games, yeah...that "10-50% performance improvement on XXX game", where are those drivers?
Please show me proof that this actually definitely affected multiple games.

You sling shit at other people for calling you out but you offer nothing yourself.
 

VE3TRO

Formerly Gizmowned
May 15, 2012
8,914
0
0
32
UK & Spain
Tried it out on my build.(3930k@4.5ghz/SLI 680) Ran around 40 FPS with a single GPU at medium settings (1920x1080). Dont think SLI was working. Think I'll probably settle for it on console instead.

Edit: Actually the alpha on the Paris level seems to perform better than this and it looked more clearer without that super sampling option.
 

roadrunn3r

Member
Nov 6, 2014
1,150
0
0
Tried it out on my build.(3930k@4.5ghz/SLI 680) Ran around 40 FPS with a single GPU at medium settings (1920x1080). Dont think SLI was working. Think I'll probably settle for it on console instead.
How is a 680 going to perform worse than a console? At least I don't remember a game where it does.
 

dr_rus

Member
May 3, 2007
10,983
0
1,070
Moscow, Russia
its becoming the norm actually, kepler is an awful architecture for todays games. and the lack of fram is another killer
The lack of VRAM is the only killer. Kepler is fine for modern games. Cases where it's actually not fine compared to Maxwell can be counted with fingers on one hand.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,813
4
570
its becoming the norm actually, kepler is an awful architecture for todays games. and the lack of fram is another killer
I do not see this becoming a thing at all beyond VRAM on 670s and 680s. Shading-wise and bandwidth wise kepler in its various forms is not shit-tier. Worse than a console as per the original post? Meh, that is an over-estimation of what console graphic settings and performance is in multiplatform games.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
590
I do not see this becoming a thing at all beyond VRAM on 670s and 680s. Shading-wise and bandwidth wise kepler in its various forms is not shit-tier. Worse than a console as per the original post? Meh, that is an over-estimation of what console graphic settings and performance is in multiplatform games.
a 680 is trending on par with ps4 when it comes to game performance in the latest games(this alone proves its awful, remember all the talk about how much faster a 680 was when the consoles launched? now it struggles to compete with a 7870), add in the lack of vram you end up worse off.
 

roadrunn3r

Member
Nov 6, 2014
1,150
0
0
a 680 is trending on par with ps4 when it comes to game performance in the latest games(this alone proves its awful, remember all the talk about how much faster a 680 was when the consoles launched? now it struggles to compete with a 7870), add in the lack of vram you end up worse off.
It's at worse on par with the 950 which is at least 50% faster than a PS4 and in some games closer to the 960 which again is far from "on par with ps4". This is in the latest games. Vram is the only thing that holds it back but it's something you can live with if you know how to adjust for the lack of.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
590
It's at worse on par with the 950 which is at least 50% faster than a PS4 and in some games closer to the 960 which again is far from "on par with ps4". This is in the latest games. Vram is the only thing that holds it back but it's something you can live with if you know how to adjust for the lack of.
umm no its not. in various games you need a 950 just to match console experience
 

VE3TRO

Formerly Gizmowned
May 15, 2012
8,914
0
0
32
UK & Spain
Here is some shots. This is the PS4 and my pc overclocked 3930k 4.5 GHz, 16 GB ram and two GTX TOP 2GB 680s but I don't believe SLI is working. I clicked the optimize button in the graphics menu.

TBH I've been thinking of getting rid of these cards now for a 4GB/6BG card or something.

Fraps was measuring around 35 FPS throughout this level. I could tell that the FPS on the PS4 was much higher.

No mini-map = PS4
With mini-map = PC

 
N

Noray

Unconfirmed Member
FYI i don't have an AMD gpu, i have a 970...never again.

So thx for your useful answer, next time try to respond with evidences and facts, not with this kind of "fanboy" shit.

Nvidia thinks we are stupid, their GPUs are aging more quickly than AMD GPUs...

You just have to look the current benchmarks between 280x and GTX 770, or even 290 against the 970. AMD Gpus are performing better in time, meanwhile Nvidia Gpus are performing worse and worse...

Fortunately I do not need to lie anything to prove that what i'm saying is true.

And even more, i didn't mention the 970 4Gb fiasco...

This is worse than the console wars, Nvidia is lying to their costumers but they continue buying their shit.

btw, where are those driver updates that improve the performance of a bunch of games, yeah...that "10-50% performance improvement on XXX game", where are those drivers?
lol when Nvidia regularly outperforms AMD on most games (offering better, more consistent performance) and you are basing this on a beta which hasn't been optimised yet?

You making yourself look a little silly dog.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
590
I'm sure in various games a 680 or 950 performs better than a PS4.

From what I gather from this thread, I should stay well the fuck away from this game.
yes, and almost all of them are early launch titles before games started using more compute and more vram

Care to mention these games? I own one in my htpc and that has not been my experience at all. But please go on, I'm curious.
hitman
division
battlefront
black ops 3
SFV
RotTR
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,813
4
570
Here is some shots. This is the PS4 and my pc overclocked 3930k 4.5 GHz, 16 GB ram and two GTX TOP 2GB 680s but I don't believe SLI is working. I clicked the optimize button in the graphics menu.

TBH I've been thinking of getting rid of these cards now for a 4GB/6BG card or something.

Fraps was measuring around 35 FPS throughout this level. I could tell that the FPS on the PS4 was much higher.

No mini-map = PS4
With mini-map = PC
Some of these PC images apparently have no AO in them though.
 

kinggroin

Banned
Sep 4, 2006
14,211
0
0
Some of these PC images apparently have no AO in them though.
Which makes the situation worse.


Thing is, game development focuses on console architecture first and foremost which means that as the intricacies of AMD GPU hardware are leveraged more and more, you'll see dissimilar architecture on nvidia's side begin to fall further and further behind in performance.