Feb 5th Patch and Multi-GPU Testing
Update February 5th, 2016: Rise of the Tomb Raider was patched to version 1.0.610.1_64, and along with it come some significant changes.
Startup issues (Steam Only):
- Fixed C++ runtime error showing up on startup preventing some users from running the game.
- Provided work-around for issue where the VC++ redist would not properly get installed, stopping the game from starting at all.
- Solved problem where the game would crash on startup when tools like Bins Taskbar organizer or Spacedesk are installed.
Updated options screen with among other things:
- Independent mouse sensitivity control for aim and regular navigation.
- Mouse and Gamepad X axis inversion
- Option to disable keyboard button prompts.
- Option to disable mouse smoothing (very light mouse smoothing is present otherwise)
Other fixes included in this patch:
- A variety of fixes and improvements to UI including map, basecamps, and Remnant Resistance mode.
- New graphics option 'Specular Reflection Quality' to enhance resolution and reduce aliasing of specular reflections, at some performance cost.
- New graphics option to disable film-grain independently from 'Screen Effects'.
- Improved HBAO+ quality, including better occlusion for distant objects.
- Improved NVIDIA SLI performance. (Steam only)
- Fixed SLI glitches during water/snow effects. (Steam only)
- Resolution Modifier option that allows you to use a lower rendering resolution independent from window size when running in windowed mode.
- Performance optimization for situations where Razer Chroma features are enabled. (Steam Only)
- Improvements to Razer Chroma effects. (Steam Only)
- Fixed an issue that could rarely lead to an error on machines with 16 hardware threads or more.
- Fixed mouse cursor not always being hidden when using gamepad.
- Fixed major stuttering in Endurance mode.
- Fixes for Endurance leaderboards.
- Fixed Remnant Resistance missions occasionally not starting.
- Fixed rendering glitches on some objects on NVIDIA 6×0 and 7×0 hardware. Some issue do still happen and we are working with NVIDIA to resolve those in future patches or drivers.
- Warning messages for users turning textures to Very High or enabling SSAA to indicate high-end hardware is required.
- A variety of other smaller optimizations, bug-fixes, and tweaks.
All the emphasis above is mine. Clearly this is more than just a couple of bug fixes as the team at Nixxes has some significant performance and feature changes added. In fact, the options menus are changed, with a new option called Specular Reflections with an On/Off setting.
After some comments from readers that I should try the updated AMD driver released with Rise of the Tomb Raider fixes (16.1.1), I started to boot up the game again this morning to find the patch basically changes all of our previous results. (Nice!) So, in order to get some idea of what this new patch changes, and how multi-GPU scales from both AMD and NVIDIA on RoTR, I spent a few hours testing and compiling results.
I am only retesting one GPU from each brand here: the GeForce GTX 980 Ti and the Radeon R9 Nano. (Note that I wanted to retest with the Fury X, but since I only have a single GPU of that card, and I wanted to test CrossFire, I went with the R9 Nano.)
In the results below, you'll see two tests for each card. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti results are both using the 361.75 driver while the new results for the Radeon R9 Nano update from the 16.1 hotfix to the 16.1.1 hotfix driver. Both of the new results are on the updated revision of Rise of the Tomb Raider. Please keep in mind that I am not directly comparing the GTX 980 Ti to the R9 Nano, they are in very different price segments, but I did want to see how high end GPUs from both vendors behaved with the updated patch (and latest AMD driver).
First, the GeForce GTX 980 Ti results show a slight increase in performance, going from 67 FPS to 68 FPS or so, with no discernable change in frame time smoothness. All good there. The R9 Nano sees no performance improvements if you look only at the average frame rate, but the number of high frame times and hitches in the game is reduced greatly, lowering our 95th percentile frame time from ~2.5ms to 1.0ms.
At 4K the results look very similar – performance for both the GTX 980 Ti and the R9 Nano are unchanged from the day one version to the February 5th update. The only significant change is the loss of the hitches in the R9 Nano results, bringing the 95th percentile frame time down to 1.5ms from ~4ms.
Let's quickly dive in and see results from the R9 Nano in CrossFire and the GTX 980 Ti in SLI. All results from this set of graphs comes from the new version of the game.
Both AMD and NVIDIA hardware see some decent scaling. The pair of Radeon R9 Nano cards in CrossFire scale up by 89%, going from 58 FPS to 110 FPS. On the NVIDIA side, performance jumps from 67 FPS to 110 FPS, a scaling rate of about 65%. The R9 Nano has a better average frame rate scaling percentage, but looking at the frame time graph there are clearly more frame time consistency concerns. Starting at the 34s mark you can see some added stutter and hitching to the game play that definitely shows up while playing the game.
When we jump up to the 4K resolution testing, scaling shifts. The GTX 980 Ti goes from an average of 35 FPS to 60 FPS, a 71% improvement! The R9 Nanos in CrossFire hit 55 FPS on average, up from 30 FPS with a single card, a difference of 83%. But again, the R9 Nano cards in CrossFire are showing significant smoothness issues, consistently, in the second half of our testing scenario.
So there you have it, a quick update with the new version of Rise of the Tomb Raider, a new AMD driver and some added multi-GPU testing. While I am glad to see some new options being tossed into the mix for RoTR to improve image quality, it doesn't look like performance on the NVIDIA side of things shifts much. For AMD users, you'll be glad to see that most of the hitching in frame times has been reduced, either due to the driver, updated game, or both. Multi-GPU scaling works for both NVIDIA and AMD and even though the scaling percentage is higher on the AMD platform, it's clear that NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti offers a significantly better dual-GPU experience.
There is this rumor that you
There is this rumor that you can buy it at $20 in russia,and play it elsewhere via family sharing.Really?
Nixxes have stated on the
Nixxes have stated on the steam forums:
“Also note that textures at Very High requires over 4GB of VRAM, and using this on cards with 4GB or less can cause extreme stuttering during gameplay or cinematics.”
http://steamcommunity.com/app/391220/discussions/0/451852225134000777/
This may explain the frame time spikes that were seen.
Ah….Maybe I will try it on
Ah….Maybe I will try it on high instead of Very High. If this fixes it I will be happy. But a little sad because of the 4GB limit issue. Oh well…bring on the 8GB HBM2 cards in the summer…or there abouts. 🙂
Running the game great in 4k
Running the game great in 4k with the sli hack for my twin 980 tis. Finally a game that actually uses them fully! Well, Far Cry 4 did a good job too, but the lack of sli support recently was getting me salty.
Is PCPer not going to do
Is PCPer not going to do 1080P benchmarks anymore? Few people have 1440 and even fewer have 4K (1.28% and 0.7% according to the last Steam Survey).
While beautiful, this is the
While beautiful, this is the most VRAM hungry title I have every used! I cranked everything up, setting-by-setting, just to see what would happen. No complaints on performance. I never saw a dip below 60 fps last for more than a split second, and it only went down to 57 fps (only saw this twice during an hour of play).
But what was surprising was 8.2 GB of VRAM usage at 1080p – that’s nutty! I can’t say I’m entirely surprised given how amazing the game looks, but I’m surprised that my Titan X is essentially necessary to max out this game.
Funny. I think that it would
Funny. I think that it would be better if the game used the whole 12GB of VRAM. What is the benefit of unused VRAM to you?
Hi Ryan.AMD Crismon 16.1.1
Hi Ryan.AMD Crismon 16.1.1 is Out.Please Rerun Benchmark.Thanks
Re-Run it NOW
Re-Run it NOW !!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
please..
Test Geothermal Valley /
Test Geothermal Valley / Soviet Installation or gtfo.
So for the updated article,
So for the updated article, you decided to showcase Nvidia’s best performing card, and AMD’s weirdest performing card and nothing else? Are you serious? You should’ve thrown in the 970 and 390 as well.
Yea, WTF Ryan? Your lil Miss
Yea, WTF Ryan? Your lil Miss will cry shame. She will NOT be proud of daddy on this one.
If the 980 Ti (non-SLI) was tested, then surely your single Fury X should have been – if only to see the difference, if any. Its understandable that they cant all be re-tested (work load, time constraints, etc), but we’re not talking about Peggle Nights here; this is a huge title that challenges the top tier cards. So those should be the focus.
The difference between Nano
The difference between Nano and Fury X is so small that it should not be a factor when choosing between AMD and Nvidia for dual cards setup. You can easily add those 5-10% and calculate Fury X perf if you want. And there are not too many Nano benchmarks out there – I always love to see them 🙂
The nano could be throttling
The nano could be throttling in some cases due to the strict thermal limitations. I would have preferred that they use the Fury or Fury X instead, but if they don’t have dual Fury/X cards available, then that just wasn’t an option.
Are you running reference
Are you running reference 980ti? Because my GIGABYTE G1 Gaming card is getting better results, just curious.
Since you favor AMD over Nvidia I figured you would run a reference card with a pink chart color,so it doesn’t make AMD Fury X look so bad….hahahah just playing, but seriously my card kicks ass!!!
Yes, the pink line is hard to see on some phones. 😛
I keep forgetting that any
I keep forgetting that any review that is not an immediately glowingly perfectly admiringly wonderfully perfect review of an Nvidia product IMMEDIATELY MEANS THE REVIEWER IS AN AMD FANBOY.
Jesus. Some of you Nvidia people are pathetic.
I think holyneo was
I think holyneo was joking…..:)
I was, glad you get
I was, glad you get it.
😉
Sorry for those that didn’t, well not really. Take a deep breath, slowly walk away from the computer, ponder my reply till a smile forms onto your face.
Can you please run the frame
Can you please run the frame time test with R9 280 or 280x? That would help figure out if it is GCN 1.2 or 4gb vram that is causing the spikes with fury x and nano. I know 980 doesn’t have them but that doesn’t mean much because of so many different variable such as drivers.
Sorry I meant 290 or 290x
Sorry I meant 290 or 290x
Can you confirm that R9 Nano
Can you confirm that R9 Nano was not throttling during the testing?
I own nano crossfire and I
I own nano crossfire and I under clock to 900mhz to keep the top card from throttling. Left at stock the spikes are a bit worse/often. Overclocking is out of the question. There are still spikes at a steady 900mhz. I would really like to see benchmarks with r9 290x crossfire vs r9 390x crossfire to test if the spikes are based on the ram. Obviously drivers could improve the nano/fury crossfire either way because 980 sli does not have the same spikes.
The comments are too funny!
I
The comments are too funny!
I feel like this is a two party system, NVidia or AMD! So I’m going to vote Intel Integrated Graphics are better than both combined. Yea for independents!
Would be great to see this
Would be great to see this revisited now that patch 1.0.668.1 (Patch #7) is out with improved async compute support. The addition of Polaris benches would be valuable too.