Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

[cwjs]

No it's not. Portal RTX consists of small corridors and still needs DLSS3 and heavy upscaling to be playable at decent framerates on a 4090.

Path Tracing in a title like Red Dead Redemption 2 is still far away.

And don't mention Cyberpunk overdrive. It barely looks better than the regular RT implementation, this is not in any way real path tracing like it's done in Quake 2 and Portal RTX.

The state of the art is quite a bit further along than any videogame implementation -- it's definitely in its infancy but I think it is fair to say that realtime path tracing "is here" -- if you're willing to exclusively target 4090s and aren't interested in capturing videogame use cases you can absolutely achieve a real realtime pathtracer

 

[davis.anthony]

Portal RTX consists of small corridors and still needs DLSS3 and heavy upscaling to be playable at decent framerates on a 4090.

I can run Portal at Ultra settings using DLSS balanced mode at a locked 60fps (40fps with no DLSS) on a RTX4070ti, so a RTX4090 would easily have playable frame rates without the need for upscaling so I strongly disagree with your comment.

 

[davis.anthony]

With all this DX12 vs DX11 talk I decided to try turning DX12 on in Kena, now I started playing it on my old RTX3060ti and I had it capped to 60fps so my CPU was never a problem.

However, with my RTX4070ti I run the game at 120fps and in DX11 mode the game in large open areas is CPU limited.

In the this area of the game (and many others like it) I get a locked 120fps when running around it in DX12 mode, in DX11 mode I'm 80-120fps depending on where I'm looking.

Please also note the memory being used in each.





I've finished it this afternoon and it's a fun little game and at times can be so CGI like.

 

[DavidGraham]

In the this area of the game (and many others like it) I get a locked 120fps when running around it in DX12 mode, in DX11 mode I'm 80-120fps depending on where I'm looking.

Kena is definitely one of the most skillfully optimized games in DX12, despite coming from a much smaller studio.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

With all this DX12 vs DX11 talk I decided to try turning DX12 on in Kena, now I started playing it on my old RTX3060ti and I had it capped to 60fps so my CPU was never a problem.

However, with my RTX4070ti I run the game at 120fps and in DX11 mode the game in large open areas is CPU limited.

In the this area of the game (and many others like it) I get a locked 120fps when running around it in DX12 mode, in DX11 mode I'm 80-120fps depending on where I'm looking.

Please also note the memory being used in each.

Been my experience in other games with both DX11/12 support as well. DX11 is slightly easier on the GPU in % used and vram, but much worse on the CPU. DX12 needs more vram + the possibility of more advanced shader stuttering, but much lighter on the CPU.

Last time I checked our Kena btw there was still quite a bit of shader compilation stutter, did they ever add in a pre-gameplay compilation stage with a patch?

 

[davis.anthony]

Been my experience in other games with both DX11/12 support as well. DX11 is slightly easier on the GPU in % used and vram, but much worse on the CPU. DX12 needs more vram + the possibility of more advanced shader stuttering, but much lighter on the CPU.

Last time I checked our Kena btw there was still quite a bit of shader compilation stutter, did they ever add in a pre-gameplay compilation stage with a patch?

It still stutters on occasion but is much better than it was and it actually stutters more in DX11 than it does in DX12.

I wonder with the DX12 mode using more RAM does it mean it has to load from storage or system RAM less often which reduces the stutters?

 

[trinibwoy]

This shift from DX11 model API to a DX12 model was always going to have to come at some point. There's growing pains for developers, but it's a necessary step, and it's better we do it now than later.

I agree but it’s been painful so far. Many years ago a handful of elite developers claimed they could work magic if only they weren’t shackled by bloated, heavy handed apis. The reality is that on PC this promise hasn’t materialized in a significant way. We have vastly more powerful hardware yet PC games are still unoptimized messes where the visuals don’t justify the cost.

 

[DavidGraham]

Many years ago a handful of elite developers claimed they could work magic if only they weren’t shackled by bloated, heavy handed apis.

I remember DICE being among those elite, only to release all of their several Battlefield games afterwards with a very bad DX12 mode, most players play BF1 and BFV in DX11 mode, and disregard DX12 mode completely.

 

[Remij]

I agree but it’s been painful so far. Many years ago a handful of elite developers claimed they could work magic if only they weren’t shackled by bloated, heavy handed apis. The reality is that on PC this promise hasn’t materialized in a significant way. We have vastly more powerful hardware yet PC games are still unoptimized messes where the visuals don’t justify the cost.

Yeah. To be fair, a few of them have, and probably could work even more magic if they weren't constrained in other ways.

We have a mixture of issues. I think that despite DX12 having been out for a long time now, forward looking development has been hindered by:

• Needing to support multiple generations of hardware with different levels of spec support even within the same API (last generation devices, older generation GPUs)
• Old engines not specifically built to take advantage of the new hardware capabilities the API exposes (engine updates take time, as well as integration)
• Developer experience with new API model and pipelines (, Lack of knowledge, too much past dependency on the drivers for optimization, having to train employees)

DX12 was created with great intentions. On paper, is sounded great, but in hindsight perhaps going from the DX11 model to the DX12 model was too much of a jump to take all at once and things would have been better if taken in smaller steps. However, outside of shader compilation, I feel like most of the AA and AAA studios out there have respectable DX12 renderers now. It's taken some of them a while to get there, but you have ones like Capcom and the RE Engine which are just frankly sublime. Most studios are now switched over and really beginning to put out new games with DX12 only.

Regarding potential, you can almost draw parallels between the "PC + SSD" dilemma where for the longest time we've had hardware far exceeding the potential that the current APIs and code could take advantage of, regardless of the amount of hardware power (CPU) you threw at it. The design of the old APIs just wasn't able to take advantage of the new hardware. For as long as SSDs have been out, were really just now seeing them beginning to make a difference in how games are designed and conceived from the ground up. That's an important thing to remember.

Otherwise, the real biggest issue, as I've stated multiple times, has more to do with QA than anything else. That's what I truly believe at this point. I'm not so much worried about micro optimization as I am performance in general.. which is to say that a game should perform reasonably. Not freezing, hitching, massively dropping frames for no apparent reason.

In the end, it's MUCH better that the onus is on the developers to be in control of.... and accountable for.... their apps performance. I believe what we're seeing right now, with issues of optimization, VRAM requirements, and shader compilation stuttering... is needed, to get things to a better place. People are no longer accepting these issues and are calling them out now.. far more than ever. It almost feels like PC gamers are FINALLY beginning to demand better... so if anything else, changing the mindset of PC gamers to expect better is a positive direction for the industry.

Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you get the motivation to improve.. I honestly think that's where we are now.

 

[yamaci17]

I remember DICE being among those elite, only to release all of their several Battlefield games afterwards with a very bad DX12 mode, most players play BF1 and BFV in DX11 mode, and disregard DX12 mode completely.

BF5 at least somewhat functions on DX12 mode. Battlefront 2 on the other hand... is a disaster. It uses all memory and video memory you have, tanks your framerate, elaborates nothing, lol.

Yeah. To be fair, a few of them have, and probably could work even more magic if they weren't constrained in other ways.

We have a mixture of issues. I think that despite DX12 having been out for a long time now, forward looking development has been hindered by:

• Needing to support multiple generations of hardware with different levels of spec support even within the same API (last generation devices, older generation GPUs)
• Old engines not specifically built to take advantage of the new hardware capabilities the API exposes (engine updates take time, as well as integration)
• Developer experience with new API model and pipelines (, Lack of knowledge, too much past dependency on the drivers for optimization, having to train employees)

DX12 was created with great intentions. On paper, is sounded great, but in hindsight perhaps going from the DX11 model to the DX12 model was too much of a jump to take all at once and things would have been better if taken in smaller steps. However, outside of shader compilation, I feel like most of the AA and AAA studios out there have respectable DX12 renderers now. It's taken some of them a while to get there, but you have ones like Capcom and the RE Engine which are just frankly sublime. Most studios are now switched over and really beginning to put out new games with DX12 only.

Regarding potential, you can almost draw parallels between the "PC + SSD" dilemma where for the longest time we've had hardware far exceeding the potential that the current APIs and code could take advantage of, regardless of the amount of hardware power (CPU) you threw at it. The design of the old APIs just wasn't able to take advantage of the new hardware. For as long as SSDs have been out, were really just now seeing them beginning to make a difference in how games are designed and conceived from the ground up. That's an important thing to remember.

Otherwise, the real biggest issue, as I've stated multiple times, has more to do with QA than anything else. That's what I truly believe at this point. I'm not so much worried about micro optimization as I am performance in general.. which is to say that a game should perform reasonably. Not freezing, hitching, massively dropping frames for no apparent reason.

In the end, it's MUCH better that the onus is on the developers to be in control of.... and accountable for.... their apps performance. I believe what we're seeing right now, with issues of optimization, VRAM requirements, and shader compilation stuttering... is needed, to get things to a better place. People are no longer accepting these issues and are calling them out now.. far more than ever. It almost feels like PC gamers are FINALLY beginning to demand better... so if anything else, changing the mindset of PC gamers to expect better is a positive direction for the industry.

Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you get the motivation to improve.. I honestly think that's where we are now.

Do you think NVIDIA contributes to the problem by releasing newly designed GPU architectures every 2 year? Wouldn't it be better if they iterated on existing architectures like AMD does with GCN and RDNA?

 

[Remij]

BF5 at least somewhat functions on DX12 mode. Battlefront 2 on the other hand... is a disaster. It uses all memory and video memory you have, tanks your framerate, elaborates nothing, lol.


Do you think NVIDIA contributes to the problem by releasing newly designed GPU architectures every 2 year? Wouldn't it be better if they iterated on existing architectures like AMD does with GCN and RDNA?

Do I think Nvidia contributes to the problem? Yes.. but not because they design a new architecture every 2 years. Ultimately they have to adhere to standards the various consortiums agree upon like anyone else, and they are responsible for how suitable their hardware is, and to ensure it creates value for the consumer. What I see as the problem is that they use their market power and influence to help drive the industry in the direction they want, which I admit doesn't always align with what's best for the gaming industry overall and potentially hinders advancement in other areas.

And to be fair, that's a power they earned. When you're a big leading company like Nvidia.. and with technology being the way it is.. you have to make bets, pushing one way ultimately takes away from the other ways. They know and understand this, and that's how technology has evolved since the beginning.

Personally, I prefer Nvidia to keep doing what they are doing.. which is pushing the industry forward.. in whichever direction it will go.. because quite frankly I don't see AMD pushing anything new in the PC only space. They essentially follow Nvidia's lead and the reason why they iterate instead of building brand new.. is because they don't have the ability to put all that R&D into development every 2 years like Nvidia does. AMD have to be smarter in every way with how they advance. Nvidia leads.. because Nvidia has more invested in the well being of the PC gaming industry. AMD is far more invested in consoles. I feel like if AMD tried to lead the PC industry, you'd only have any type of real improvement to architecture about once a console generations worth of time..

 

[DavidGraham]

DX12 was created with great intentions.

Problem is, the envisioned paradise is no longer there, game development is a lot different now than ever before, it's harder and much more expensive, so studios rely on interns and temporary people to keep costs down, studios are also quite often mismanaged, exposed to crunching and over crunching, lack of focus, wrong decisions, distraction by monetization schemes, and a desire to add the minimum amount of work and features, in an effort to maximize profits and minimize costs. Studios are also exposed to layoffs and the constant change of employees. Many times we have documented people being hired to work on an engine they have never seen before or have no prior experience with.

In short, the presence of experienced people that can write code skilfully in any given studio is less than ever before. So the task became harder. That's why you see many studios switching to UE5, as it's easier to work with, it's also properly documented and troubleshooted, and many more people have experience with it.

For the matter at hands, you can always track down the cause of the problem with recent PC versions to the inexperience of the developer, Forspoken is the first ever DX12 title on Luminous engine, as a result the developer can't manage VRAM well and the game has several rendering features that don't work properly on PC.

Hogwarts is also the first DX12 title ever for Avalanche, it's also their first UE4 title, all of their past games were DX11 on other custom engines. So we get hit by CPU limitations, VRAM mismanagement and stuttering problems.

Dead Space Remake came from a support studio who has no experience with DX12 titles as well (they only assisted DICE with Battlefront 2), so we get a game plagued with stutters, traversal stutters, VRAM mismanagement and some weired rendering choices (forced VRS).

The Callisto Protocol is no different as well, they only had experience with Dead Space and DX11 engines, and the Callisto was their first ever DX12 title, so we also got hit by stutters and CPU limitations.

Gotham Knights is also the first DX12 title for it's studio, so we get major stuttering and CPU limitations in the PC version.

All of this is no coincidence, so I guess it's going to take time till the whole industry is transitioned and "experienced" enough, it's been long, and it's going to be longer, I am hoping we get there eventually.

 

[BRiT]

Experience should arrive just in time for DX13 or whatever API revisions are up next... New cycle same as the last.

 

[Remij]

I think more than anything else, it currently has to do with a lack of priority than knowledge. PC often doesn't get priority, and I strongly believe that is has a lot to do with the PC community's tendency to accept utter trash. For SO long PC users have attributed performance issues to other things, such as their bad drivers, or an OS related issue, or some type of user error. They also typically delude themselves into believing that there is some magic fix, which would 99.9% of the time turn out to be entirely placebo.

When you have an audience like that, which accepts that issues are their fault, and believes than entirely absurd "fixes" work.. you tend to just push whatever out to them. They've done it for so long it's become second nature.

Now I feel like PC gamers are calling out this stuff a lot more, and are at least putting the blame towards the correct entities when it comes to a lot of this stuff. They're starting to ask questions like "why is it releasing like this?" and demanding fixes. It's gotten bad enough now to the point where it's undeniable that developers are releasing these products knowing full well that they have issues..

I've preferred PC gaming for quite some time now over consoles, and the way I see it is this.. Before, developers could push out trash optimization, and in that case the PC versions of the past they could still be noticeably superior to their console counterparts... but now, you've got high res, you've got 60fps+ framerates and for the most part visual parity on consoles... So now when people look at a PC version that is complete trash and then look over and see a $500 console version running mostly without issue and no hassle... they start asking the question of why they're bothering with PC gaming anymore? Now of course I know that there's plenty of reasons to game on PC and prefer it... but admittedly when you don't have the performance or massively improved visuals... to many people it can become more hassle than it's worth... and I think it's in the best interest of ALL the players involved (AMD, Intel, Nvidia, MS, and developers) to start doing more to improve things.. and thus PC gamers are starting to demand it.

I don't think DX13 will be a massive departure from DX12, at least in principle. I think any transition from DX12 to a potential DX13 will be a natural extension of the model that is already there.

 

[Jay]

and I strongly believe that is has a lot to do with the PC community's tendency to accept utter trash.

And the PC community mock console community to except trash IQ.
So balance

The problems are things that can't be resolved by more powerful hardware or lower settings.
Gone from can it run crysis, to can it run at all.

 

[davis.anthony]

I blame Microsoft, they've allowed Windows and DirectX to become too fragmented over the years and they missed the opportunity to fix that problem with Windows 11.

Windows 11's minimum system requirements should have double what they are (so 4 physical cores and 8GB of system RAM) a SATA III SSD at the minimum and a GPU with 6-8GB VRAM.

That would have been a good baseline going forward and would have allowed developers to ditch people using 10 year old 'DX12' capable GPU's and dual core CPU's from 13 years ago.

It would meant an OS that would truly be SSD aware and forced developers to finally ditch DX1.

 

[troyan]

No it's not. Portal RTX consists of small corridors and still needs DLSS3 and heavy upscaling to be playable at decent framerates on a 4090.

Path Tracing in a title like Red Dead Redemption 2 is still far away.

There is nothing "small" in Portal RTX. Just these maps are designed in this way. The renderer doesnt care about the size. Here are examples from custom maps:
#1


#2


This is something i did with the Hammer editor in a few minutes:


Dead Space Remake has small rooms, too. No RTGI, no RT shadows, no RT reflections and barely RT AO. Pathtracing and Rasterizing have crossed their ways => The iphone effect.

 

[Jupiter]

Dead Space looks high-end due to the many volumetric effects but an RTX 3090 should still easily reach over 60 fps in UHD instead of 40 fps.

Would large and dynamic space games like Star Citizen also work with pathtracing?
It would also be good if stars would be area lights instead of point lights.

 

[trinibwoy]

I blame Microsoft, they've allowed Windows and DirectX to become too fragmented over the years and they missed the opportunity to fix that problem with Windows 11.

Windows 11's minimum system requirements should have double what they are (so 4 physical cores and 8GB of system RAM) a SATA III SSD at the minimum and a GPU with 6-8GB VRAM.

That would have been a good baseline going forward and would have allowed developers to ditch people using 10 year old 'DX12' capable GPU's and dual core CPU's from 13 years ago.

It would meant an OS that would truly be SSD aware and forced developers to finally ditch DX1.

Most people are likely smart enough to know that an OS doesn’t “need” an SSD. It makes perfect sense that an OS needs less powerful hardware than a 3D game. There’s nothing stopping game developers though from requiring an SSD, 16GB RAM and 4 core CPU as a minimum requirement.

So now when people look at a PC version that is complete trash and then look over and see a $500 console version running mostly without issue and no hassle... they start asking the question of why they're bothering.

Yep, it’s pretty wild that a 4090 and 13900K in many cases doesn’t provide a materially better experience than a console. Not only do games run poorly at console settings on much more powerful hardware but they’re not much more visually impressive when everything is cranked up.

 

[cwjs]

Stop thinking backwards and think forwards.

Windows is not intended primarily for gamers, most windows machines are like... atms. I agree the various pieces of the pc platform (api designers, hardware manufacturers, and OS designers) should take architecture for gaming way more seriously (and have to for the complaints on forums like these to ever be addressed) but there's no way that's going to come in the form of a min spec bump for a windows release.

Also, beating a dead horse here, but... Consoles have had "dx12 like" apis with direct scheduling and memory control for years. There's not a lack of skilled developers, PC is a very complicated platform both in terms of business and engineering.