Tomb Raider

[pjbliverpool]

actually I am trying to argue that 57 fps avg with a 670M claim, unless tresssfx is not on. And what I am getting is only in benchmark, real gameplay dips much lower with tressfx and the frame rate fluctuate much more down to sub 30 fps. So tressfx pretty much has to be off all the time.

He benchmarked at normal, not maximum - hence the framerate difference.

I've literally never had a dip into sub 30fps territory. Gameplay averages between 40 and 60 fps all the times, I can knock it into the high 30's though in the most intensive areas but only when standing in specific places to ensure the maximum view distance is on camera.

I'll post a GF experience video later to demonstrate.

has been that way since PS2 era, games like Jak 2 and 3, GOW 1 and 2 etc. fluidity is the key, there are games on PC I play that runs at 100+ fps then it stutter like shit, thats basically no good to me. The new call of Juarez is one of them, such an awesome game but ruins by the random stutter.

I don't know where people get this idea from. A 60hz locked games is a 60hz locked game full stop. I've got plenty of games I can lock at 60fps on the PC with no drops below and it's a perfect arcade level experience. No pauses, no judder, nothing. You're probably just getting confused with 60 to 30fps frame drops with vsync on.

 

[DieH@rd]

Digital Foundry - Performance analysis: Tomb Raider Definitive Edition

CUTSCENES
Xbone
Lowest Frame-Rate 27fps
Highest Frame-Rate 30fps
Average Frame-Rate 29.98fps

PS4
Lowest Frame-Rate 32fps
Highest Frame-Rate 60fps
Average Frame-Rate 53.36fps


GAMEPLAY
Xbone
Lowest Frame-Rate 24fps
Highest Frame-Rate 30fps
Average Frame-Rate 29.84fps

PS4
Lowest Frame-Rate 33fps
Highest Frame-Rate 60fps
Average Frame-Rate 50.98fps


DF reports that Xbone "drivers" are still hard to work with.

 

[almighty]

My single 7970 Ghz edition

Ultra settings at 1080p - 66fps

Ultra settings, Tessellation turned off at 1080p - 72fps ( 9% increase )

 

[pjbliverpool]

I understand it now, it doesn't matter if you are playing at 40fps most of the time, it's still considered a 60fps game on console. Maybe Tomb Raider will prove me wrong, but I've always been very cynical of "60fps console game" having played many and seeing very few that actually are.

Nope, digital foundry just proved you 100% correct

 

[Gitaroo]

He benchmarked at normal, not maximum - hence the framerate difference.

I've literally never had a dip into sub 30fps territory. Gameplay averages between 40 and 60 fps all the times, I can knock it into the high 30's though in the most intensive areas but only when standing in specific places to ensure the maximum view distance is on camera.

I'll post a GF experience video later to demonstrate.



I don't know where people get this idea from. A 60hz locked games is a 60hz locked game full stop. I've got plenty of games I can lock at 60fps on the PC with no drops below and it's a perfect arcade level experience. No pauses, no judder, nothing. You're probably just getting confused with 60 to 30fps frame drops with vsync on.

well many people do but many never said 60Hz locked either. Just a game that basicaly unlock to run as high as possible up to 60fps on tv. I use nVidia adoptive v sync, which is probably one of the best thing ever for PC imo except for 1 or 2 games.

 

[joker454]

Nope, digital foundry just proved you 100% correct

Lol, the timing was funny on that, go figure

has been that way since PS2 era, games like Jak 2 and 3, GOW 1 and 2 etc. fluidity is the key, there are games on PC I play that runs at 100+ fps then it stutter like shit, thats basically no good to me. The new call of Juarez is one of them, such an awesome game but ruins by the random stutter.

I agree with stutter being bad, but it's never counted as bad on console versions. Case in point from the DF article linked above:

PS4 frame-rates can vary significantly depending on the effects work at play, resulting in variable controller latency and some on-screen judder

...which if applied to the pc version would make it deemed unplayable whereas for the console version it's disregarded and still considered a 60fps smooth title. Incidentally that article will add fuel to the fire by being flawed in that you can't compare average frame rates between a locked frame rate game and an unlocked frame rate game, it's meaningless. But nonetheless now it will be written in stone how there's a 20fps average difference between versions, even though that's totally wrong. So it goes...

 

[-tkf-]

Installed it on my Laptop, i7 with a 670MX at 1920, "normal" i avg 56 with the benchmark.

Ultra at 1920, avg 30 fps.

 

[-tkf-]

[
Xbone
Lowest Frame-Rate 27fps
Highest Frame-Rate 30fps
Average Frame-Rate 29.98fps

Lowest Frame-Rate 24fps
Highest Frame-Rate 30fps
Average Frame-Rate 29.84fps

So the XB1 is locked at 30, didn't they say something else.. seems weird?

 

[-tkf-]

Can't think of a single game that doesn't run on an 8800 GTX in some form or another..

And tell me, how much do I care about Uncharted, TLOU and RDR? Answer, Nothing.

It'll be funny seeing how you console boys go around touting exclusives as they'll be a lot less of them this time around.

PC like architecture and high production costs will lead to many many more games getting a PC release... I.E Superior version.

And as for keeping the same hardware for 7 years? With how far behind consoles are this time around you could probably get away with keeping PC hardware for 7 years now as it's so far ahead.

Just to repeat myself, i wonder what your motive is posting in the console forums.. oh well.. i wont notice anymore.

 

[-tkf-]

Unless you own every console and a PC you're always going to miss out on exclusives. Here's the kicker though, it doesn't matter. If you've got enough great games to play on your platform of choice then it doesn't matter a jot if you don't get to play [insert platform specific exclusive here] just because some guy on a forum tells you you're missing out.

If almighty really wanted to play those games you listed I'm sure he'd just go and buy a console. Since he hasn't we can conclude that he doesn't really care about those games regardless of how great they are.

Personally back in 2006 I really wanted to play Gears of War and Dead or Alive 3 so I bought a 360. I've not really felt the need to the same so far this generation. If I do I might pick up a console but for now I've a list of PC games as long as my arm that I still need to get through. If I start losing sleep about not getting to play the last of us though I promise I'll buy a PS3

I am aware of that, but some of the best games ever only appeared on consoles. RDR is a good example, it wasn't console specific, just console specific.

As for this generation, there is nothing spectacular for most people, as of know that is

 

[DieH@rd]

So the XB1 is locked at 30, didn't they say something else.. seems weird?

Report about unlocked framerate came during the recent journalist event where they got the chance to play the game. Maybe then devs talked about uncapped framerate. Retail version obviously has cap.

BTW, DF forgot to mention this framerate

 

[function]

Report about unlocked framerate came during the recent journalist event where they got the chance to play the game. Maybe then devs talked about uncapped framerate. Retail version obviously has cap.

BTW, DF forgot to mention this framerate

No they didn't. Look at the graph.

A trailing average calculated from x refresh samples (at say 60hz) can make variation between 20 and 30 hz look like less than 20. It all depends on when you start and end the period you use to calculate the figure.

I predict there will be awful lot of people who shouldn't even be talking about frame rates.

 

[-tkf-]

Looking at the videos from DF it seems obvious that this game would easily get a higher avg fps on the XB1, there are several moments where the PS4 drops the framerate by 2 digits and the XB1 just holds at 30.

 

[djskribbles]

But the PS4 version is also capped at 60fps, and there are quite a few moments where it would probably go higher. My guess is the gap would be ~18fps on average if both weren't capped.

 

[joker454]

But the PS4 version is also capped at 60fps, and there are quite a few moments where it would probably go higher. My guess is the gap would be ~18fps on average if both weren't capped.

The graph has the xb1 version usually at 30fps so one would expect it's average to be affected somewhat more in an unlocked comparison because it's losing numbers on almsot every frame. They really should have not even listed average frame rate, it's deceptive at worst, meaningless at best.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They really should have not even listed average frame rate, it's deceptive at worst, meaningless at best.

Stop using math. It's akin to witchcraft in some parts.

 

[DieH@rd]

[Update 19:52 GMT: and as the more eagle-eyed have noticed, we also have a registered dip to 18fps, where the game seems to momentarily freeze for 12 frames at 4:12 in the video - though this isn't indicative of general performance. For those interested, this post explains the confusion - in effect, the frame-rate counter is updating across a trailing sample of frames - as you can see, the graph itself is registering 24fps.]
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-performance-analysis

Leadbetter linked this thread.

 

[djskribbles]

The graph has the xb1 version usually at 30fps so one would expect it's average to be affected somewhat more in an unlocked comparison because it's losing numbers on almsot every frame. They really should have not even listed average frame rate, it's deceptive at worst, meaningless at best.

Ya I know the X1 version is probably affected more... just saying that you can't mention one thing and ignore the other. I would guess that the X1's avg framerate would be ~35fps if unlocked and the PS4's would be ~53fps, which is how I reached my 18fps guess. That article that was posted earlier said that the X1 version peaked at 45fps with not much was going on, but mostly ran around 30fps, and averaged around 35fps. They probably got their numbers from an insider source that knew how it performed without a cap. Ultimately they probably capped it because it ran closer to 30fps most of the time

 

[-tkf-]

The graph has the xb1 version usually at 30fps so one would expect it's average to be affected somewhat more in an unlocked comparison because it's losing numbers on almsot every frame. They really should have not even listed average frame rate, it's deceptive at worst, meaningless at best.

Yeah, and when you see the PS go from 60 to 40 and the XB1 staying at 30 it's easy to imagine it hitting higher numbers..

It's when the framerate goes below 30 on the XB1 that you can "really" compare

Next round graphic quality, should be interesting, just by looking at the video i think i saw a few things, but hey, compressed YT video is not really worth for anything but guessing

 

[-tkf-]

Installed it on my Laptop, i7 with a 670MX at 1920, "normal" i avg 56 with the benchmark.

Ultra at 1920, avg 30 fps.

GTX680

Normal and Ultra avg 60

Everything maxed avg 47