Quantum Break PC Performance Review
1080p testing with the GTX 980Ti and R9 Fury X
Published: 7th April 2016 | Source: OC3D | Price: |
1080p testing with the GTX 980Ti and R9 Fury X
One thing that we need to remember with UWP app is that V-Sync is enabled by default, meaning that V-Sync is always turned on, which results in the minimum results here typically sitting at around 30FPS.
With V-Sync turned on the game will usually run at 60FPS or 30FPS, with lower framerates playing at some stranger framerates, but at 1080p both the GTX 980 Ti and the R9 Fury X are able to play the game with playable framerates that are at 60FPS in most situations.
Sadly when going above Ultra setting Quantum Break hits the AMD R9 Fury X hard, resulting in much lower performance than in the Nvidia GTX 980Ti, but with the lack of visual difference between medium and Max settings there is not much of a loss for the AMD R9 Fury X.
When it comes to minimum framerates we look at two different results, first the 1% minimum framerate and the 0.1% minimum framerate. These are percentile data that are based on the frametimes we achieved during our benchmarking session, meaning that 99% of the time the framerate is above the 1% minimum framerate and that 99.9% of the time it is above the 0.1% minimum framerate.
With V-Sync being forced on this can leave a huge difference between the 1% and the 0.1% minimum framerates, meaning that the game can have some highly significant micro-shutters that can occur sometimes during gameplay.
We can see here that even with the AMD R9 Fury X and the GTX 980Ti we are unable to get this game to play at 60FPS consistently, even at 1080p, which is a real shame for us PC gamers that are used to playing with a high framerate. It seems that forcing a game to run at 720p on a Xbox One results on quite a demanding PC release, which is something that we have expected ever since the Xbox One version's resolution was announced.
Most Recent Comments
I'm convinced this is a game with a couple of purposes. Firstly, to get Xbone users to try it on their computers as well, to either convince them that PC's are crap or to show them what's better on the PC. They failed at the latter.
Secondly, it's an experiment with UWP on the masses, to see if we will swallow this ****.
You have an important typo on the third page that gave me a glimmer of hope, but alas it's not true - ".. which is a shame since this game has now SLI or Crossfire support".Quote
|
Originally Posted by Mysterae
Nice write up.
I'm convinced this is a game with a couple of purposes. Firstly, to get Xbone users to try it on their computers as well, to either convince them that PC's are crap or to show them what's better on the PC. They failed at the latter. Secondly, it's an experiment with UWP on the masses, to see if we will swallow this ****. You have an important typo on the third page that gave me a glimmer of hope, but alas it's not true - ".. which is a shame since this game has now SLI or Crossfire support". |
A lot of extra work went into this one, especially when it came to getting benchmarking data. I like the idea of percentile based framerate data, which is something that I will be looking more into for the future.Quote
|
While there has been a lot of talk on the internet about the "terrible" PC performance of Quantum Break I can say that these reports have been exaggerated (...) Sadly on my system I was unable to get the game to run at a solid 60FPS, regardless of the GPU that I used (...) which is a very strange prospect given that I was playing Quantum Break from an SSD on a system with an overclocked i7 6700K CPU and 16GB of 3200MHz DDR4 memory. |
This game runs terribly, period.
Not being able to sustain 60fps at the lowest graphical settings at 1080p (reprojected 720p) on a fastest possible CPU, memory and GPU means, that the talk on the internet about the "terrible" PC performance is accurate, not exaggerated. What is the last AAA game that run that badly?Quote
CSS Valid