Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]

Please retire those engines, they will not be missed.
I would say it's one more nail in the coffin for the pure rasterization engines, they try to push visuals way up but end up with mediocre graphics and bad performance.

This game is performing like a heavy ray traced or path traced title, despite not featuring any of that, and despite looking like nothing special.
 
I would say it's one more nail in the coffin for the pure rasterization engines, they try to push visuals way up but end up with mediocre graphics and bad performance.

This game is performing like a heavy ray traced or path traced title, despite not featuring any of that, and despite looking like nothing special.

It's nothing to do with rasterisation, it's everything to do with the developers.
 
I would say it's one more nail in the coffin for the pure rasterization engines, they try to push visuals way up but end up with mediocre graphics and bad performance.

This game is performing like a heavy ray traced or path traced title, despite not featuring any of that, and despite looking like nothing special.
I would agree, but they aren't even pushing graphics that much, while having disastrous performance.

Still remember being in a desert in the game, looking at nothing, and the game couldn't reach 60 fps. Get out of here ^=^
 
It's nothing to do with rasterisation, it's everything to do with the developers.
I guess it all comes down to devs in the end yes.

Rasterization requires more time and effort from developers to give it a certain look though, so I would argue that having ray tracing would have helped the game (Final Fantasy 16) to have a better visual result in the same current performance profile for potentially less time and effort from the developer.

Seems there might be a bug with the Tesselation setting?


Turning down tesselation from Ultra to Medium shoots the frame rate from 44 to 110 fps lol. Ultra to High is 44 to 57.

Yeah, confirmed by a developer of the game (God Of War Ragnarock).

 
Last edited:
I would argue that having ray tracing would have helped the game (Final Fabrasy 16) to have a better visual result in the same current performance profile for potentially less time and effort from the developer.

FF16 looks pretty good but the weakest area is flat lighting in some areas. A half decent GI solution would make a big difference.
 
Yep, even Sebbi couldn't help himself but to comment on how unreasonably demanding this game is.



Good on him, somebody needs to call out this nonsense.

GPU usage is one of the biggest lies in the industry right now. 100% GPU usage just means the GPU is always doing “something” not that 100% of the GPU is being used. That metric wouldn’t make sense anyway as it’s impossible to use 100% of every unit in a GPU simultaneously. However the problem is that most games don’t come close to using 100% of any unit on the GPU at any time.

I ran a few traces of the FF16 demo on my 3090 at 720, 1080 and 1440 and unsurprisingly utilization is poor. So the game isn’t GPU heavy. It’s just a poor fit for GPUs.
 
The DF comparison will be interesting. The PS5 runs this game in its high performance mode at 1440p with an fps of around 70-90.

Here, the 4070 only averages 82.

performance-2560-1440.png


Obviously, this is ultra vs unknown settings, but performance mode on PS5 is usually around high.
 
The DF comparison will be interesting. The PS5 runs this game in its high performance mode at 1440p with an fps of around 70-90.

Here, the 4070 only averages 82.



Obviously, this is ultra vs unknown settings, but performance mode on PS5 is usually around high.
Unknown settings and different benchmarking scenes.

I'm sure DF will test this though.. it would be the most interesting thing to test tbh.
 
IIRC, the PS5 was nearly identical to the PS4 version outside of resolution so presumably ultra settings will have a similar performance cost as in the first title.
 
Back
Top