Ghost Recon: Wildlands Benchmarks (some really atrocious performance)

Malabooga

well, you need 1200$ GPU to run 60 FPS @ 1080p lol This is standard NVidia Gameworks title (just remember Witcher 3 that also needed (then) 1000$ Titanc X to run 60 FPS @ 1080p, also tech demo for NVidia Gameworks (most known as gimpworks)

i guess its now clear why NVidia offers this game only with 1070/1080 as anything lower than that cant really run it at acceptable framerate in....1080p lol

oh yeah, teh game launches in less than a month, i guess Ubisoft and NVidia wont dissapoint with atrociously performing games this time either ha ha

just for reference:

Doom runs ~140 FPS on RX480 and ~120 FPS on 1060
BF1 runs ~ 90 FPS on both RX480 and 1060
Titanfall 2 runs ~ 95 FPS on 480 and ~90 FPS on 1060
COD: IW runs ~100 FPS on 480 and  ~85 FPS on 1060
RE 7 runs ~120 FPS on 480 and ~100 FPS on 1060
Hitman runs ~75 FPS on 480 and ~65 FPS on 1060
...
...
...

filmoret

Honestly though.  The game hasn't launched yet.  Maybe wait till that happens first?

cheyane

Good to see I'm getting the 1060 for my son's new computer.

Ridelynn

Thread title: Ghost Recon benchmark

So, naturally, someone links a GTAV benchmark to prove... I don't know what they are trying to prove. 

What is this world coming to?

filmoret

Crusadecrusher said:

filmoret said:

[mod edit]

[mod edit]

Look at that gtx 1060 making all the AMD cards broken and tired.

LeFantome

It is a shity game. Its a copy of Just cause 3..

Let it sink.

Vrika

That's some shitty performance, but they still have 1 month to delay the launch.

Malabooga

filmoret said:

Crusadecrusher said:

filmoret said:

Look at the GTX 1060 running circles around the RX 480

The internet is an amazing thing...

in this link you will see the rx480 running circles around gtx 1060 

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/115/rx-480-dominates-gtx-1060-dx12-battlefield/index.html

Look at that gtx 1060 making all the AMD cards broken and tired.

You better buy 1200$ GPU to play @ 1080p 60 FPS. Thats NVidias new plan, gimp the games so much on PC that youll WANT 1200$ GPU even for 1080p. All the while 400$ console does 4k for 400$ rofl. But hey its NVidia, so alls forgiven RIGHT!

And yeah, games is copy/pase Just Cause 3 with mechanics traight copy/paste from The Division, just like Far Cry Primal vs Far Cry 4. Ubisoft has really done some super creative thinking about how to just recycle games with different names! its REVOLUTIONARY i tell ya!

So copy/paste game that needs 1200$ GPU for playing in 1080p. Its GOTY as far as filmoret goes rofl

Malabooga

cheyane said:

Good to see I'm getting the 1060 for my son's new computer.

You better get Titan X unless you intend to play in 540p, its new standard for 1080p....as far as NVidia is concerned

But good thing is that were lucky enough most of games avoid nvidias gimpworks clutches and they perform as they SHOULD

Doom runs ~140 FPS on RX480 and ~120 FPS on 1060
BF1 runs ~ 90 FPS on both RX480 and 1060
Titanfall 2 runs ~ 95 FPS on 480 and ~90 FPS on 1060
COD: IW runs ~100 FPS on 480 and  ~85 FPS on 1060
RE 7 runs ~120 FPS on 480 and ~100 FPS on 1060
Hitman runs ~75 FPS on 480 and ~65 FPS on 1060
...
...
...

filmoret

Malabooga said:

filmoret said:

Crusadecrusher said:

filmoret said:

Look at the GTX 1060 running circles around the RX 480

The internet is an amazing thing...

in this link you will see the rx480 running circles around gtx 1060 

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/115/rx-480-dominates-gtx-1060-dx12-battlefield/index.html

Look at that gtx 1060 making all the AMD cards broken and tired.

You better buy 1200$ GPU to play @ 1080p 60 FPS. Thats NVidias new plan, gimp the games so much on PC that youll WANT 1200$ GPU even for 1080p. All the while 400$ console does 4k for 400$ rofl. But hey its NVidia, so alls forgiven RIGHT!

And yeah, games is copy/pase Just Cause 3 with mechanics traight copy/paste from The Division, just like Far Cry Primal vs Far Cry 4. Ubisoft has really done some super creative thinking about how to just recycle games with different names! its REVOLUTIONARY i tell ya!

So copy/paste game that needs 1200$ GPU for playing in 1080p. Its GOTY as far as filmoret goes rofl

You do know that the gtx 1080's are starting at $570 right?   That $1200 price is for the top notch overclocked watercooled versions.

Phry

Until the game is actually released, beta benchmarks are entirely speculative, by the time they release the game they should have it properly optimised, once that has happened, run the benchmarks again and then get all judgemental on it, this thread is just silly, its more about bashing AMD or Nvidia

Ridelynn

Malabooga said:

cheyane said:

Good to see I'm getting the 1060 for my son's new computer.

You better get Titan X unless you intend to play in 540p, its new standard for 1080p....as far as NVidia is concerned

But good thing is that were lucky enough most of games avoid nvidias gimpworks clutches and they perform as they SHOULD

Doom runs ~140 FPS on RX480 and ~120 FPS on 1060
BF1 runs ~ 90 FPS on both RX480 and 1060
Titanfall 2 runs ~ 95 FPS on 480 and ~90 FPS on 1060
COD: IW runs ~100 FPS on 480 and  ~85 FPS on 1060
RE 7 runs ~120 FPS on 480 and ~100 FPS on 1060
Hitman runs ~75 FPS on 480 and ~65 FPS on 1060
...
...
...

Well, I haven't cared enough to look up any videos or screen shots, but if the graphics look ~amazing~ and push the bar, I'd forgive a game for pushing hardware like this. In fact, I encourage developers to do this - Quake did a lot for gaming hardware by pushing the envelope so hard, and it wasn't really until Crysis that we saw another title do it again, whereas most developers take the Blizzard approach and cater to the lowest common denominator.

That being said, I really haven't seen GameWorks do much for games, other than run like crap.

Malabooga

Ghost Recon aint pushing anything. It just performs badly less than a month before launch. They let reviewers test the performance, NVidia is giving away that game ONLY with 1070/1080, its really telling.

But i guess it will be just another Ubisoft game that sold very poorly on PC and well see people testing "fixes" year from now, somewhat regular practice for Ubisoft+NVidia games lol

Its a vicious cirlcle: games doenst sell well on PC, pubisher stop caring which produces more bad ports which reduce sales which makes publishers care even less which reduces sales evem more.... .... ...

filmoret

So if they fix the performance when the game launches then what will we do with this thread?

Crusadecrusher

Clearly whoever did this "benchmark" needs to learn a few things.  The game runs great and looks amazing hey those are just facts and apparently this site and the OP try silence those who bring facts to a discussion. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/GhostRecon/comments/5szdvv/pc_4k_maxed_out_no_hud_footage_from_the_closed/

13lake

Due to the nature of the game, and some other factors ultra settings performance is not gonna be "fixed".

However if you swallow your ego and tune down some settings to medium or off you will have a slightly worse looking game with much higher performance.

For instance tuning down or turning off shadows seems to do wonders

Ridelynn

Isn't that 13lake said:

Due to the nature of the game, and some other factors ultra settings performance is not gonna be "fixed".

However if you swallow your ego and tune down some settings to medium or off you will have a slightly worse looking game with much higher performance.

For instance tuning down or turning off shadows seems to do wonders

Isn't that pretty much true for most games on most computers?

Malabooga

Crusadecrusher said:

Clearly whoever did this "benchmark" needs to learn a few things.  The game runs great and looks amazing hey those are just facts and apparently this site and the OP try silence those who bring facts to a discussion. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/GhostRecon/comments/5szdvv/pc_4k_maxed_out_no_hud_footage_from_the_closed/

You showed trailer for the game, in fact its YOU who wants to silence those who bring facts and actual benchamrks as your PR video unfortunately doesnt show anything but PR material lol

[mod edit]







and these arent even max settings lol

13lake

Malabooga said:

[mod edit]

Why wouldn't I ? screen tearing aliasing, jagged edges, ground blurring, all imaginary concepts for me
Heck 99% of the time i don't care  what quality shadows are (even if there are any at all) and  all of that even considering immersion for a single player slow paced adventure or rpg game, ...

Unless someone pointed it out and made a powerpoint presentation i wouldn't notice (or to be more specific i guess it wouldn't bother me enough to care if i did notice it)

And sure sometimes it can be problematic due to the way a specific engine implementation works, but in general people are way overreacting and have a way too perfectionist state of mind when it comes to this and similar things.

I'm sure there's a middle ground between my point of view and a point of view of the perfectionist obsessed OCD like, remorseful about price/strength of bought product person who has to have everything maxed out to possible psychologically justify the bought product
And possible considers any time spent gaming as a waste of time, but plays anyway (possible due to not being consciously aware of this)

You'd be surprised how many people variously categorically fit in some of these various categories. 

13lake

Ridelynn said:

 13lake said:

Due to the nature of the game, and some other factors ultra settings performance is not gonna be "fixed".

However if you swallow your ego and tune down some settings to medium or off you will have a slightly worse looking game with much higher performance.

For instance tuning down or turning off shadows seems to do wonders

Isn't that pretty much true for most games on most computers?

Exactly You can't put the burden of solution on the devs in this case.

Malabooga

13lake said:

Malabooga said:

[mod edit]

Why wouldn't I ? screen tearing aliasing, jagged edges, ground blurring, all imaginary concepts for me
Heck 99% of the time i don't care  what quality shadows are (even if there are any at all) and  all of that even considering immersion for a single player slow paced adventure or rpg game, ...

Unless someone pointed it out and made a powerpoint presentation i wouldn't notice (or to be more specific i guess it wouldn't bother me enough to care if i did notice it)

And sure sometimes it can be problematic due to the way a specific engine implementation works, but in general people are way overreacting and have a way too perfectionist state of mind when it comes to this and similar things.

I'm sure there's a middle ground between my point of view and a point of view of the perfectionist obsessed OCD like, remorseful about price/strength of bought product person who has to have everything maxed out to possible psychologically justify the bought product
And possible considers any time spent gaming as a waste of time, but plays anyway (possible due to not being consciously aware of this)

You'd be surprised how many people variously categorically fit in some of these various categories. 

Not really matter of "lowering details" per se but other similar games performing 3-4x better. Oh yeah, this is devs and nvidias fault. If you had no reference, you might even have some kind of point, but theres 0 reason for this game to perform so badly.

theres absolutely nothing special about this game to warrant such atrocious performance. Just look at reviews - empty world, nothing really going on, mechanics copy/pasted from The Division etc. etc. etc

laserit

Sounds like a usual case of developers falling behind schedule and a game not quite ready for primetime before it's scheduled release date. 

Hmm...

Nothing new to see here. 

And you know...

When a job goes bad at my shop, it's...

s

fault.