Rise of the Tomb Raider, sketchy benchmarks

[Deleted member 13524]

And right after all performance comparisons were released, here are the Crimson 16.1.1 drivers for Tomb Raider:

http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-art...mson-Edition-16.1.1-Hotfix-Release-Notes.aspx

 

[AlNom]

They should sponsor a Ruby-themed costume or hair-do just to say they were fashionably late.

 

[Kaotik]

And right after all performance comparisons were released, here are the Crimson 16.1.1 drivers for Tomb Raider:

http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-art...mson-Edition-16.1.1-Hotfix-Release-Notes.aspx

Both ComputerBase & PC Games & Hardware have udated their benches with the new drivers, nothing dramatic, Fury X gains 1 - 7 % depending on resolution, 390 less.
And still there's the mystery of why 3 sites gets results where NVIDIA absolutely dominates AMD, and 3 sites get results where the performance is around what to be expected

 

[Deleted member 13524]

And still there's the mystery of why 3 sites gets results where NVIDIA absolutely dominates AMD, and 3 sites get results where the performance is around what to be expected

At least the pcgameshardware.de comparison is using ridiculous overclocks on almost all nVidia cards and default clocks on all AMD cards.

By ridiculous I mean they took some of the highest factory-overclocked cards and did an extra overclock on top.
For example the GTX 980 Ti is rated at 1000MHz base / 1075MHz boost. For their 980 Ti result they took a triple-slot behemoth model of a 980Ti factory-overclocked at 1150-1240MHz (found at 750€ in Euroland, ~120€ more than most 980 Ti models) and overclocked it towards 1330MHz.
All while the Fury X gets tested at its default 1050MHz.

 

[Kaotik]

At least the pcgameshardware.de comparison is using ridiculous overclocks on almost all nVidia cards and default clocks on all AMD cards.

By ridiculous I mean they took some of the highest factory-overclocked cards and did an extra overclock on top.
For example the GTX 980 Ti is rated at 1000MHz base / 1075MHz boost. For their 980 Ti result they took a triple-slot behemoth model of a 980Ti factory-overclocked at 1150-1240MHz (found at 750€ in Euroland, ~120€ more than most 980 Ti models) and overclocked it towards 1330MHz.
All while the Fury X gets tested at its default 1050MHz.

I don't think they have actually OC'd them themselves, but instead report the usual clocks they work at.
They've also chosen factory OC'd models for all AMD cards, except for Fury X, from which there actually isn't any factory OC'd model to choose from

 

[Albuquerque]

At least the pcgameshardware.de comparison is using ridiculous overclocks on almost all nVidia cards and default clocks on all AMD cards.

By ridiculous I mean they took some of the highest factory-overclocked cards and did an extra overclock on top.
For example the GTX 980 Ti is rated at 1000MHz base / 1075MHz boost. For their 980 Ti result they took a triple-slot behemoth model of a 980Ti factory-overclocked at 1150-1240MHz (found at 750€ in Euroland, ~120€ more than most 980 Ti models) and overclocked it towards 1330MHz.
All while the Fury X gets tested at its default 1050MHz.

Yeah, I think the confusion here is how NVIDIA "rates" their clocks vs boost; the 1150MHz is a "base" frequency where the boost can move it further up. My Gigabyte 980Ti G1 "base clock" is something like 1300MHz due to my tinkering, but boost takes it to just shy of 1500MHz on a regular basis. If the factory bumps it to 1150 base, the boost speeds should indeed be around 1300...

When there's a factory OC'd Fury, it will show up in benchmarks too.

 

[Clukos]

I am curious to see what sort of bump the Dx12 patch will bring out in this game. Apparently when maxed out even a 980ti can't hold a steady 60 fps in the most taxing areas (Soviet Camp/Geothermal Valley). I've locked the framerate to 30 on my 970 and bumped the res to 1440p and it seems to remain very stable (average GPU usage around 80%).

 

[Davros]

Is the game like the last one a collapsible walkway simulator ?

 

[Clukos]

Is the game like the last one a collapsible walkway simulator ?

It is more of the same, with some bits actually being worse than the reboot and some better. If you didn't like the previous game, RotTR doesn't deviate at all.

 

[Rodéric]

It is more of the same, with some bits actually being worse than the reboot and some better. If you didn't like the previous game, RotTR doesn't deviate at all.

And if I haven't played the previous game which one should I pick up to get the best experience ? (or are they too different to tell ?)

 

[Clukos]

And if I haven't played the previous game which one should I pick up to get the best experience ? (or are they too different to tell ?)

Reboot

• Better story
• Better characters
• Worse dialogue
• Better enemy encounters

RotTR

• Better environments to explore
• More and better tombs to solve
• Nonsensical story and forgettable characters
• Worse gun combat but bow is more fun to use

It depends on what you like most, you can find the reboot for cheap play it and if you like it play RotTR as well.