Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition PC Performance Review

Scaling to lower-end GPUs - GTX 960 VS R9 380

Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition PC Demo Performance Review

Scaling to lower-end GPUs - GTX 960 VS R9 380  

When scaling down to our older GTX 960 and R9 380 GPUs, it is clear that the game's highest settings at 1080p are just too much for these cards, especially when considering their small 2GB frame buffer.

In our benchmarking scene, moving down to Average Settings at 1080p got us to around the 30FPS mark, though not enough for a constant 30+ in our demanding test area near Wiz Chocobo Post, so we lowered the game to a 900p resolution and got a notable increase in performance. Now the game runs at over 30FPS in all areas. This resolution is what the standard PS4 targets in most cases, with dips below on occasion with its dynamic resolution scaler.


Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition PC Performance Review  

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next»

Most Recent Comments

08-03-2018, 15:43:39

Gambit2K
We already know this game is heavily promoted by nVidia and they have helped alot in it's developement. So for me personally this test isn't that interesting with the very limited GPU selection available. RX580 4 and 8 GB, Vega 64 and 56 is a must, otherwise I see no point in even looking.Quote

08-03-2018, 15:52:17

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambit2K View Post
We already know this game is heavily promoted by nVidia and they have helped alot in it's developement. So for me personally this test isn't that interesting with the very limited GPU selection available. RX580 4 and 8 GB, Vega 64 and 56 is a must, otherwise I see no point in even looking.
We are working to get a Vega 56 on site for games test, big problem here is Denuvo, which will lock people out after a certain number of hardware changes, which is a real pain. This is why not many places do CPU testing as well as GPU testing.

The RX 580 is basically a higher clocked 480, the perf gap is relatively small there, as our RX 480 is a factory overclocked Strix model. As is the difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions, only VRM capacity and in some cases VRAM clocks are changes, so differences only occur when capacity limited or bandwidth limited.

Thanks for the input.Quote

08-03-2018, 16:17:30

Dicehunter
The game is pretty but from the few hours I've played so far I don't think it should command such a performance hit, A few optimisation patches are needed me thinks.Quote

08-03-2018, 17:22:58

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
The game is pretty but from the few hours I've played so far I don't think it should command such a performance hit, A few optimisation patches are needed me thinks.
In densely forested areas the game can look phenomenal, though I do agree that some areas could have looked a lot better.Quote

08-03-2018, 19:31:58

RedSymphony
On page 4 in the (High vs Highest) comparison, it says 'Average Preset' in the top left and 'High Preset' in the top right of the slider image. Had me confused for a bit.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.