Quantum Break PC performance thread

laxu

Member
Jan 10, 2013
2,174
0
345
Finland
Is it confirmed that MSAA x4 is still on when rendering native?
What does the antialiasing on/off setting that was in one of the menu screenshots do then?

Maybe the game will be playable when it eventually drops to a reasonable price. MS is off its cracker trying to push console level prices on PC.
 

Alexious

Member
Nov 5, 2015
858
0
0
Unbelievable. I have more than double the hard drive space needed for the update and yet Windows Store tells me that it can't be downloaded and I need to free space....
 

Collateral22

Member
Jun 5, 2014
4,718
0
0
no one has reported any perf improvement on nvidia gpus, still runs quite poorly
THat's a shame. I want to buy it but only if I can get 60fps on at least X1 settings. Don't want to buy it if I can't then a month down the line have a patch come out allowing that and missing out on better gameplay.


Unbelievable. I have more than double the hard drive space needed for the update and yet Windows Store tells me that it can't be downloaded and I need to free space....
Heh, on my laptop (Windows 10 PRO) it tells me I need Windows 10 to download the game, option to buy is greyed out.
 

FaintDeftone

Junior Member
Oct 1, 2012
4,424
0
0
Did they improve the stuttering on mechanical hard drives or is that still fucked? I'm not going out and buying a larger SSD just for this game. I would be better off just buying the Xbox One version if it came to that.
 

RamaTheVoice

Member
Jun 24, 2015
997
0
245
Paris
Just tried it post-patch (GTX 980, 16Gb RAM, SSD) and the whole
swimming pool
level stutters like CRAZY! I've got almost everything on medium except textures and geometry, and when I'm outside at the start I get 55-60fps, but once I get inside and downstairs I have huge framerate variation depending on where I'm looking (45-60) and 2- to 3-second freezes at regular intervals.

I'm feeling like the game's even less playable now that pre-patch.

Edit: tried again with High textures and High geometry (instead of Ultra, which I should have stated earlier), and realized that ultra textures were probably too much for my "puny" 980's 4Gb of RAM. Now I'm running a fairly smooth 60 with no drops under 55, with upscaling on, AA on, everything on High except for volumetric lighting, screen space reflections and effects quality which are on Medium.

Turning off upscaling does murder performance though...

Second edit: I had Alt-Tabbed out of the game to type the previous edit, and when I went back in the game had dropped from 60 to 45 fps. Turned upscaling on and then off again, and everything went back to 60.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
0
France
Just tried it post-patch (GTX 980, 16Gb RAM, SSD) and the whole
swimming pool
level stutters like CRAZY! I've got almost everything on medium except textures and geometry, and when I'm outside at the start I get 55-60fps, but once I get inside and downstairs I have huge framerate variation depending on where I'm looking (45-60) and 2- to 3-second freezes at regular intervals.

I'm feeling like the game's even less playable now that pre-patch.
The Windows VRAM issue most likely, I did get stutter there too although not as extreme as the docks for instance.

Post-patch performance is noticeably improved with the same settings, but without upscaling it hovers around 30fps. I'll take the IQ hit for 60fps.

Ultra textures, LOD, shadows and volumetric lighting high. Rest maxed (AA on).

Haven't tried upscaling off + AA off.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
590
THat's a shame. I want to buy it but only if I can get 60fps on at least X1 settings. Don't want to buy it if I can't then a month down the line have a patch come out allowing that and missing out on better gameplay.




Heh, on my laptop (Windows 10 PRO) it tells me I need Windows 10 to download the game, option to buy is greyed out.
might be doable on a 980ti/titan x at 100% xbone settings, res included
 

K' Dash

Member
Sep 7, 2006
9,165
3
1,040
THat's a shame. I want to buy it but only if I can get 60fps on at least X1 settings. Don't want to buy it if I can't then a month down the line have a patch come out allowing that and missing out on better gameplay.




Heh, on my laptop (Windows 10 PRO) it tells me I need Windows 10 to download the game, option to buy is greyed out.
I can get 60fps most of the time with default medium settings with my 780ti, which is basically X1 settings.

I guess you could adjust come stuff and still get good performance since you have a newish card.
 

Collateral22

Member
Jun 5, 2014
4,718
0
0
I can get 60fps most of the time with default medium settings with my 780ti, which is basically X1 settings.

I guess you could adjust come stuff and still get good performance since you have a newish card.
That wouldn't be too bad. Anyone know if it supports PS4 controllers through DS4Windows? I know normal games would, not sure on UWA though.
 

sfried

Member
Apr 25, 2009
5,896
0
715
Amd card performance?
Yeah, what gives? Most performance comparisons I've seen given in this thread were for nvidia cards. AMD just released 16.4.2 drivers too with new Crossfire settings, so dunno if there might be some performance improvement there.
 

kaffeekranz

Member
Jul 19, 2015
88
1
0
All these people applauding the "superb reflections" and complaining about ghosting even after the removal of reconstruction.

Dude.

What you're referring to as ghosting is probably the screen space reflections which are on f*king everything.
They aren't even physically correct (inherent to the technique), and obviously when applied to every surface parallel to the player character, then you're going to get weird artifacts.
They aren't reflecting what would be reflected in real life, they are reflecting what the camera can see - so obviously you're going to get artifacts and stuff looking wonky, especially on all those metallic surfaces.
Spend some time in UE4 and you get what I mean.
 

justgames7604

Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,181
0
0
Yeah, what gives? Most performance comparisons I've seen given in this thread were for nvidia cards. AMD just released 16.4.2 drivers too with new Crossfire settings, so dunno if there might be some performance improvement there.
Alot of people saying in the other thread that this game heavily favours amd, but no exact setting or fps which is basically useless to me.
 

Wowfunhappy

Member
Jun 2, 2013
6,837
1
0
The difference in sharpness is negligible, even though it's there. What an endless disaster.
I actually agree that the difference between upscaling and native is surprisingly small, but I think that speaks to how smart Remedy's upscaling technique is!

Would love to see this kind of thing become an option (option, as in optional!) in more games.

I can't see much of a difference honestly - and I'm a stickler for native res. Am I crazy?
Nope.
 

xVodevil

Member
Nov 13, 2015
588
1
260
What's the performance like now? Can I get 60fps yet on a 970 on high/ultra?
Well, 1080p/all maxed out, with upscaling off... well I'm guessing it might be single digit fps, hard to tell without counter though... but definitely performance is utter shit...

But the all medium I used earlier (which is still joke with a 970), seems somewhat smoother.
 

FaintDeftone

Junior Member
Oct 1, 2012
4,424
0
0
Post patch I have everything set to medium and the game seems to be running better. The stuttering and jerkiness from my mechanical hard drive seems gone, but I didn't play it for more than maybe 15min. I was able to get through a couple of areas and two big firefights without stutter. We'll see if that continues.

Turning upscaling off definitely made my framerate take a nose dive. I still have funky ghosting issues too. I need to crank up the settings and see if anything is different.

Again, this is with an i7 4790k, 16GB RAM and a GTX 970 on a 7200RPM HDD with the OS on a 120GB SDD. Latest Nvidia drivers.
 

HeWhoWalks

Member
Aug 15, 2014
691
0
290
I must admit, the more I play, the more I think I may have to hand it to the guy the argued with me about this being the best looking game currently available, especially now that we can turn off that hideous upscaling.
 

Freiya

Member
Mar 5, 2014
891
0
285
It does look great, too bad it runs like poop on pc's that have beast hardware and I doubt it's going to get any better.
 

dreamfall

Member
Sep 27, 2009
11,611
0
710
d.c. baby!
www.neogaf.com
I'm done with it for now. i7 3770K, 16GB RAM, Titan X

I was running it at 1080p, even with upscaling on - turned Global Illumination and Volumetric Lighting to high, even Texture and Geometry to High (rather than UItra) and it still stutters after a bit. I think this will have to be one game I just play on console until some of this gets sorted. It's nice to have an unlocked framerate, but in and out of cutscenes it just dips all over the place- I don't think it's my rig, I could be wrong. I also don't have it installed on an SSD, post patch it certainly is better but it needs a lot of work.
 

NeoRaider

Member
Aug 1, 2015
5,671
248
440
I'm done with it for now. i7 3770K, 16GB RAM, Titan X

I was running it at 1080p, even with upscaling on - turned Global Illumination and Volumetric Lighting to high and it still stutters after a bit. I think this will have to be one game I just play on console until some of this gets sorted. It's nice to have an unlocked framerate, but in and out of cutscenes it just dips all over the place- I don't think it's my rig, I could be wrong. I also don't have it installed on an SSD, post patch it certainly is better but it needs a lot of work.
What are Ultra SR for then? I mean if you can't play it at 1080p who can??
 

NeoRaider

Member
Aug 1, 2015
5,671
248
440
^ I think that SLI doesn't work? Or it works but it does almost nothing. That's what i read somewhere. But i might be wrong.

The word does not end in 2016. It might be too much for now, but hardware never stagnates.
What? This is so wrong.
 

Vuze

Member
Nov 13, 2013
8,099
0
0
Germany
^ I think that SLI doesn't work? Or it works but it does almost nothing. That's what i read somewhere. But i might be wrong.



What? This is so wrong.
While I certainly would not use QB as an example for this since it has major issues that are not even related to this aspect: future proofing.
I.e. there are some "extreme" visual settings in GTAV that bring any current system to its limits right now.

Actually, "OMG the current top card can't max this game out, what a shit port" is the wrong point of view and often pushes developers to make these super demanding settings config-file only or remove them completly.

I often come back to this example but see Dying Light: On launch the LoD slider allowed for an incredible range. What happened? Exactly. People maxed out the slider, got shit performance and ran to the steam/game forums to cry about how badly the game was optimized etc. The next day Techland published a patch and reduced the max value for the slider. "Damn, Techland really did some great optimization with the latest patch!"

Pretty frustrating.
 

NeoRaider

Member
Aug 1, 2015
5,671
248
440
What is wrong with giving games settings that will make them look good on future hardware?

I can't tell you how much I wish I could increase Assassin's Creed II's draw distance...
They recommended 980 or ti if i am not wrong for Ultra. And clearly it doesn't work well even with that GPU. Not on Ultra but even if you lower some settings, you can't get stable 60fps and stutter free experience. You don't see anything wrong here?

We are not talking about game that uses all the hardware as it should. We are talking about bad, Xbox One port. Ppl need to realise the difference between these two.
 

TSM

Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,566
0
0
What? This is so wrong.
Why would you cap a game at the best it can look right now on existing hardware when you can leave room for it to improve in the future when the hardware is available?

People get so angry when they can't crank everything to 11 and have it run at 60+ fps on whatever hardware happens to be in their machine. It's laughable because if the developers just changed medium or high to say ultra most people would be happy and proclaim how fantastically optimized a port is. When maxed out actually requires significant hardware to run it the developers are "lazy" or released an "unoptimized mess."
 
Aug 24, 2009
8,988
0
0
They recommended 980 or ti if i am not wrong for Ultra. And clearly it doesn't work well even with that GPU. Not on Ultra but even if you lower some settings, you can't get stable 60fps and stutter free experience. You don't see anything wrong here?

We are not talking about game that uses all the hardware as it should. We are talking about bad, Xbox One port. Ppl need to realise the difference between these two.
Recommended doesn't meant stable 60fps. You can play at 1080P on ultra at approximately 30fps.
 

dreamfall

Member
Sep 27, 2009
11,611
0
710
d.c. baby!
www.neogaf.com
It's a bad port to me. I think maybe as hardware gets stronger, it'll negate some of the issues. If you'd like to play it at 30fps, with Ultra settings, locked, I'm sure it'll be hassle free experience with a stronger card. But even tweaking settings lower, and trying to maintain 60fps hasn't been great, and I love Remedy and they're probably working on it as much as they can.

The game is great, the PC version not so much so after spending 25+ hours with the console version. There are settings that make it visually much more appealing on the PC like always, and I'm sure performance will improve over time. Right now, it feels like it needs work to maintain a higher than 30fps, stable framerate.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
0
France
How many of you guys went through Crysis as (high end) PC gamers? Haha, I remember that...good times.
Quantum Break is no Crysis though. Not that I think you implied that, QB is a well rounded piece of tech no doubt but it should run a lot better than this (on PC) based on the Xbox One version.
 

Wowfunhappy

Member
Jun 2, 2013
6,837
1
0
We are not talking about game that uses all the hardware as it should. We are talking about bad, Xbox One port. Ppl need to realise the difference between these two.
Quantum Break is a crappy port. However, I think we need to be careful in our criticism. We don't want the reaction to be Remedy (or some other studio) simply removing ultra settings from their next game.

The proper way to evaluate a game's performance is:
1) Find the settings that run well on your computer
2) Compare the graphics on those settings to the graphics in other games THAT HAVE ALSO BEEN SET to settings that run well on your computer.

This will lead to a far more productive discussion than saying "I'm getting a crappy frame-rate in ultra settings on game X".

I already linked to it in this thread, but I feel the need to do so again: Durante's Judging game performance at "max settings" is enormously counterproductive

I will also point out that we still haven't gotten any impressions from AMD users. It may well be that this port is simply not optimized for nVidia cards, rather than PC's in general. Not saying that's the case, but I am saying we just don't know.
 
Apr 20, 2005
3,980
3
1,290
Ok, I just finished Act 1, and the game runs perfectly fine on my system, with the exception of one very weird bug? I'm on a 980 ti, running the game at 1440p, and I've set upscaling to on, everything at medium settings. For the people who insist on playing on ultra, do not do that. Game is just unplayable at those settings, but on medium, it runs perfectly mine, at least on my system anyway. I don't know how to get the game to display the frame rate, but for the entirety of Act 1, from what I can tell, I was easily well north of 60 fps most of the time. I have a pretty good eye for frame rates, so I'm very confident this is accurate.

I'm on 364.72 drivers, using a gsync monitor, and the game is buttery smooth for the most part. The only odd problem I found was that through the entirety of Act 1, when I transitioned from certain scenes to another, the frame rate would tank and the game became super choppy. To fix this, all I had to do was pause the game and un-pause (sometimes, it would take multiple tries), and the frame rate would shoot back up to 60 fps and above again. I don't know if this is a gsync bug or what, but it's very bizarre.

In any case, I'll keep playing and see if my frame rates hold up, but so far, the game is buttery smooth on my system now and I'm enjoying the game so much more now because of that.