# Control Benchmark Test & RTX Performance Analysis



## W1zzard (Sep 4, 2019)

Control by Remedy Games is an open-world third-person shooter set in a building. Besides the interesting setting, graphics are great, and the game has support for multiple NVIDIA RTX raytracing technologies, probably making this the first game where RTX is really worth it.

*Show full review*


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 4, 2019)

The game looks great, too bad we're still 2 gpu gens behind tech wise to run it at full blast. But hey, that's the price of progress.

@W1zzard have you checked ram usage with RT on?


----------



## Aldain (Sep 4, 2019)

My God, RTX is an outright failure.


----------



## Wyverex (Sep 4, 2019)

Am I the only one who thinks the game looks underwhelming (especially once you consider how demanding it is)?

But I hope it plays better than it looks


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Sep 4, 2019)

Played this game a bit, the graphics are not that impressive for me taking in consideration how demanding this game is...but that is just me. RTX is nice you can actually see the difference from the screenshots but in the game it is quite difficult to spot unless you take the time to, which is not what I would do...


----------



## Rahnak (Sep 4, 2019)

Aldain said:


> My God, RTX is an outright failure.


As in, the nvidia graphics cards? Someone had to do it first, and as the company with the most funds available, it had to be nvidia.
Ray tracing, particularly in this game, is next level amazing. The hardware just needs to get (much) better now so we can all take advantage of it.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 4, 2019)

2060S performing better than 1080ti? How is that even possible?


----------



## Xuper (Sep 4, 2019)

I prefer not to use RTX cause It's damn Dark , like Doom ! I like to see everything objects in scene.


----------



## bug (Sep 4, 2019)

Wyverex said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the game looks underwhelming (especially once you consider how demanding it is)?
> 
> But I hope it plays better than it looks


RTRT looks a lot better in action than it does in screenshots


----------



## B-Real (Sep 4, 2019)

Rahnak said:


> As in, the nvidia graphics cards? Someone had to do it first, and as the company with the most funds available, it had to be nvidia.
> Ray tracing, particularly in this game, is next level amazing. The hardware just needs to get (much) better now so we can all take advantage of it.


The problem with RTX is something you see in the last screenshot. With RTX, you see the character's reflection in the glass but you see nothing when it's turned off? Really? I bet there are plenty of games that show reflections in glass without RTX. Yes, it's not real time, but you see it... this is the same bullshit NV hid in Physx and Gameworks. Physx: destroyable objects in Metro for example. How was it possible to do that in Red Faction nearly 9 years earlier without Physx?


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Sep 4, 2019)

As someone who owns a 2080 the game is very playable at 1080p with everything dialled upto the max (including Ray Tracing)....but the problem is it just looks absolutely terrible in motion.

..settled on 4K Display (1440p rendering) with all settings maxed out but all Ray-Tracing turned off, which results in 50-60fps.

Maybe I'll play through it again on my 5080.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 4, 2019)

GeorgeMan said:


> 2060S performing better than 1080ti? How is that even possible?


Turing architecture improvements, like concurrent int+float, or fp16


----------



## Rahnak (Sep 4, 2019)

B-Real said:


> The problem with RTX is something you see in the last screenshot. With RTX, you see the character's reflection in the glass but you see nothing when it's turned off? Really? I bet there are plenty of games that show reflections in glass without RTX. Yes, it's not real time, but you see it... this is the same bullshit NV hid in Physx and Gameworks. Physx: destroyable objects in Metro for example. How was it possible to do that in Red Faction nearly 9 years earlier without Physx?


This is just me speculating, but while yes, you certainly already had reflections in games before, maybe those require much more effort from developers compared to ray tracing reflections?
But I see what you mean. Maybe we're going to get a good couple of not so great looking games without ray tracing in this transition period, especially from smaller studios.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 4, 2019)

B-Real said:


> The problem with RTX is something you see in the last screenshot. With RTX, you see the character's reflection in the glass but you see nothing when it's turned off? Really? I bet there are plenty of games that show reflections in glass without RTX. Yes, it's not real time, but you see it... this is the same bullshit NV hid in Physx and Gameworks. Physx: destroyable objects in Metro for example. How was it possible to do that in Red Faction nearly 9 years earlier without Physx?


First understand how "real time reflections" were made ingame without having to rely on RTX. Maybe then you'll realize why Remedy went the RTX route.


----------



## holyprof (Sep 4, 2019)

So, 50% performance hit for a minor improvement in image with RTX on. One needs $1000+ graphics card to play at (now obsolete) 1920x1080 resolution. Congratulations to Nvidia for pioneering the tech, but it's useless right now.


----------



## swirl09 (Sep 4, 2019)

RTX looks very nice in this title. But the performance cost, as ever, is too great for what you get.

Im still glad its there, and that with a nice amount of options you can get it to run at your desired fps. I would much rather devs put in this amount of detail and options so that the user can pick what they like, or when using future tech can enjoy the game at the highest quality.


----------



## B-Real (Sep 4, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> First understand how "real time reflections" were made ingame without having to rely on RTX. Maybe then you'll realize why Remedy went the RTX route.


As Rahnak wrote, "maybe those require much more effort from developers compared to ray tracing reflections?". And do you see those freed efforts put in other aspects in the game like AI or anything else? No, you don't. Add the halved fps to it and voila, it's a PoS right now.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 4, 2019)

B-Real said:


> As Rahnak wrote, "maybe those require much more effort from developers compared to ray tracing reflections?". And do you see those freed efforts put in other aspects in the game like AI or anything else? No, you don't. Add the halved fps to it and voila, it's a PoS right now.


That's the price you pay for progress in graphics. Nobody's forcing you to play with RTX on. Game still looks good with conventional graphics, without RTX enabled.


----------



## Wavetrex (Sep 4, 2019)

One more reason to forget the 2000 series exist.


----------



## kings (Sep 4, 2019)

Funny that the majority of people against Ray Tracing are AMD users... I wonder why they are so bothered!

But we know, the moment AMD release a card with hardware support, it will become the best thing!

I'm not saying the performance is ideal at the moment, but this constant bashing just because our favorite brand doesn't support it, starts to be old.


----------



## Dragonsmonk (Sep 4, 2019)

kings said:


> Funny that the majority of people against Ray Tracing are AMD users... I wonder why they are so bothered!
> 
> But we know, the moment AMD release a card with hardware support, it will become the best thing!
> 
> I'm not saying the performance is ideal at the moment, but this constant bashing just because our favorite brand doesn't support it, starts to be old.



Ah.. funny stuff - I am currently sitting on a 1080 and would not turn it on with a 2080 either. Graphics wise I don't see the benefits for the pain of missing FPS.

PS: my sys specs are not up to date anymore


----------



## r.h.p (Sep 4, 2019)

holyprof said:


> So, 50% performance hit for a minor improvement in image with RTX on. One needs $1000+ graphics card to play at (now obsolete) 1920x1080 resolution. Congratulations to Nvidia for pioneering the tech, but it's useless right now.



I reckon this a good view off how RTX is progressing , Friken 2 grand for a rtx 2800 nvidia card in AUS is way to much for  and 15 frames and RTX in my opinion. Control looks awesome yet ITs like BF5 , when im playing i cant see the difference ( dx 12  ) enough to pay . Good review W1zzard


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2019)

GeorgeMan said:


> 2060S performing better than 1080ti? How is that even possible?


Fine Wine doesn't apply to Nvidia. Polaris and Vega perform better than Pascal in this Nvidia's sponsored game. Maybe because it's a DX12 game.


----------



## bug (Sep 4, 2019)

kings said:


> Funny that the majority of people against Ray Tracing are AMD users... I wonder why they are so bothered!
> 
> But we know, the moment AMD release a card with hardware support, it will become the best thing!
> 
> I'm not saying the performance is ideal at the moment, but this constant bashing just because our favorite brand doesn't support it, starts to be old.


You need look no further than tesselation: ATI came up with that back in 8500 series days. To this day it's hard to use it without a hefty performance impact.
RTRT will see a gradual uptake, it's a bit like the electric car. You can't go full-electric, so for a while we're stuck with hybrids (ICE+electric/rasterization+RT) which are pretty much the worse of both worlds. Unlike the electric car, RTRT only needs more HP and an installed base which will both occur naturally in 5 years or so.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2019)

kings said:


> Funny that the majority of people against Ray Tracing are AMD users... I wonder why they are so bothered!
> 
> But we know, the moment AMD release a card with hardware support, it will become the best thing!
> 
> I'm not saying the performance is ideal at the moment, but this constant bashing just because our favorite brand doesn't support it, starts to be old.



Minecraft Ray Tracing runs on AMD GPUs.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 4, 2019)

This is an example of awful RTX performance and terrible graphical quality without RTX.

Remedy were presumably paid and assisted by Nvidia to work on the RTX implementation. You can tell because they haven't even bothered with proper non-RTX reflections and shadowmaps. The "RTX-off" screenshots in the comparison look bad because some really obvious shadows are *simply missing* and shiny surfaces with RTX reflections are *non-reflective* with RTX disabled.

C'mon Remedy/Nvidia - we're not stupid.

*High-quality static shadowmapping and screen-space reflection mapping are DX9 and DX11features that we've been seeing in games for well over a decade. 
You can't just not use them and then compare to RTX raytraced shadows and reflections. That is BS of the highest magnitude!*


----------



## kings (Sep 4, 2019)

Gin said:


> Minecraft Ray Tracing runs on AMD GPUs.



Any card is capable of running Ray Tracing, either Nvidia or AMD. In this case, we are talking about cards with dedicated hardware, which increases performance exponentially and for now only exists in Nvidia products.



Dragonsmonk said:


> Ah.. funny stuff - I am currently sitting on a 1080 and would not turn it on with a 2080 either. Graphics wise I don't see the benefits for the pain of missing FPS.
> 
> PS: my sys specs are not up to date anymore



And I agree, Ray Tracing still has a long way to go, so I haven't upgraded yet!

But this is the same problem as the egg and the chicken, if there is no hardware, there will be no software, and so things never evolve.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 4, 2019)

kings said:


> Funny that the majority of people against Ray Tracing are AMD users... I wonder why they are so bothered!
> 
> But we know, the moment AMD release a card with hardware support, it will become the best thing!
> 
> I'm not saying the performance is ideal at the moment, but this constant bashing just because our favorite brand doesn't support it, starts to be old.




AMD fanboiz failed logic: As long as it is something that their beloved brand does not support, it is baaaaaaaaaad


Also question to the mighty Wizard: Why testing on 1809? I would assume Win10 1903 has more under the hood performance improvement no?


----------



## metalfiber (Sep 4, 2019)

I'm running everything on ultra at 1440p with no hiccups and it's just smooth as silk. The raytracing effects truly add to the experience.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 4, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> The game looks great, too bad we're still 2 gpu gens behind tech wise to run it at full blast. But hey, that's the price of progress.





Wyverex said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the game looks underwhelming (especially once you consider how demanding it is)?





Liviu Cojocaru said:


> the graphics are not that impressive for me taking in consideration how demanding this game is..


I’m generally baffled at all the comments about how high the system requirements are. I’m on an ancient system not counting the GPU.  

I don’t find the system requirements very steep. It certainly does not tax my system very much and performs very well.  Appearance wise though, it is not as good looking as some other recent titles.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Sep 4, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> I don’t find the system requirements very steep. It certainly does not tax my system very much and performs very well. Appearance wise though, it is not as good looking as some other recent titles.



It is definitely more demanding than Battlefield V but it does not look anyway close to that  imo


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 4, 2019)

@W1zzard is this with the Flow Control fix applied?  There is a guide all over online that says this apparently fixes any stutters/improves performance...









						Here is how you can completely fix the annoying DX12 stutters, even with Ray Tracing, in Control
					

PC gamers can use Exploit Protection in order to eliminate all stuttering issues in Control, and we can confirm that this solution actually works.




					www.dsogaming.com
				




original source:








						Possible Solution For DX12 Stutter In Individual Games->EG:Metro Exodus/BF5
					

1.Search and Open Exploit Protection 2.Click On the Program Settings Tab 3.Click On The + Add Programs To Customise 4.Click On Choose Exact File Path...




					forums.guru3d.com
				




apparently works for FC5 and Metro Exodus as well?


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 4, 2019)

The SSR implementations are straight up amazing and so is the standard GI solution. That's the real enemy RT is facing, other techniques which rival them in terms of quality. 

It would have been more interesting, though also much more time consuming, to see each DXR setting being tested independently.


----------



## bug (Sep 4, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> @W1zzard is this with the Flow Control fix applied?  There is a guide all over online that says this apparently fixes any stutters/improves performance...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as the article is concerned, it probably doesn't matter. Stuttering will not affect VRAM usage and will have a minimal impact on the average frame rate. It will matter a lot to players, though.


----------



## john_ (Sep 4, 2019)

Polaris architecture looks to be doing great here, if we compare with GTX 1000 series cards. RDNA not so great. I am not sure about Vega.


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 4, 2019)

Mot important question, does Jessie's chin become more or less terrifying with RTX rendering?


----------



## 64K (Sep 4, 2019)

This game does require a lot of GPU performance.


----------



## Vya Domus (Sep 4, 2019)

64K said:


> This game does require a lot of GPU performance.



Meh, DF has a good video on this, turns out you can dial down a lot of things.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Sep 4, 2019)

metalfiber said:


> I'm running everything on ultra at 1440p with no hiccups and it's just smooth as silk. The raytracing effects truly add to the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 130995



...Bulls***

Why do people feel the need to lie through their teeth about this kind of stuff?


----------



## metalfiber (Sep 4, 2019)

The Quim Reaper said:


> ...Bulls***
> 
> Why do people feel the need to lie through their teeth about this kind of stuff?



I'm not lying and if you think i am that's your problem not mine.


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 4, 2019)

RTX looks alright, but the performance penelty for it. Does not make up for it. Even if i had a RTX card, i would run it with out RTX as i prefer higher FPS.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Sep 4, 2019)

metalfiber said:


> I'm not lying and if you think i am that's your problem not mine.



If my rig can't do what you say yours can, then you are clearly lying. Even with a 2080Ti, you will only be getting an extra 5-10fps over my 2080, and at those settings you claim, my rig sits in the 20-30fps at times.

So your system will only be in the mid 30's at best, mid 30's fps is nobody's definition of 'smooth as silk'.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 4, 2019)

I've seen better work in the late 90s. Devs need to get a new day job.


----------



## PrEzi (Sep 4, 2019)




----------



## renz496 (Sep 4, 2019)

bug said:


> You need look no further than tesselation: ATI came up with that back in 8500 series days. To this day it's hard to use it without a hefty performance impact.
> RTRT will see a gradual uptake, it's a bit like the electric car. You can't go full-electric, so for a while we're stuck with hybrids (ICE+electric/rasterization+RT) which are pretty much the worse of both worlds. Unlike the electric car, RTRT only needs more HP and an installed base which will both occur naturally in 5 years or so.



you know what's funny about tessellation? no one says the feature are "just another garbage that punish your frame rate" when it first comes out. the amount of trashing we heard now with RT, i don't see the same rage with tessellation.


----------



## Mistral (Sep 4, 2019)

May I suggest you add the "RTX ON" data to the performance chart? Otherwise some readers will simply assume nVidia can pull out those numbers with the ray-tracing effects enabled.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 4, 2019)

The Quim Reaper said:


> ...Bulls***
> 
> Why do people feel the need to lie through their teeth about this kind of stuff?


It’s not BS. I’m not running RTX, but I can say at 1440p my game is running extremely well, and definitely not as low as W1zz’s experience.  That’s why I said earlier, the requirements just are not that steep in reality.  My system is barely breaking a sweat.

It’s actually not all that special looking. That’s not a reason to play though, for me.  For me, the story and fairly innovative themes and gameplay are why I am playing.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Sep 4, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> First understand how "real time reflections" were made ingame without having to rely on RTX. Maybe then you'll realize why Remedy went the RTX route.


Considering duke nukem 3d managed this back in the 90s, it cant be the hardest thing in the world.

I'll echo what other people are saying, much like how red faction had particle physics long before PhysX existed, just because RT cores are a thing now doesnt mean they are the best method of doing so. Hell, Red Faction Guerilla has amazing physics actions and has 0 physx integration at all. RT seems to do lighting effects, we've had those for ages now, lense flare and shadows dont need RT cores to work properly, and the games devs put hte effort into actually looking good pull these effects off without running the game like a 660ti trying to do 4k.



rtwjunkie said:


> It’s not BS. I’m not running RTX, but I can say at 1440p my game is running extremely well, and definitely not as low as W1zz’s experience.  That’s why I said earlier, the requirements just are not that steep in reality.  My system is barely breaking a sweat.
> 
> It’s actually not all that special looking. That’s not a reason to play though, for me.  For me, the story and fairly innovative themes and gameplay are why I am playing.


I'm fascinated that you are able to do this. mind posting some screenshots, or FRAPS data, or something showing your performance? W1zzard would love to know if his system is screwed up, especially given the wide range of hardware he tests on the regular.


----------



## wrathchild_67 (Sep 4, 2019)

renz496 said:


> you know what's funny about tessellation? no one says the feature are "just another garbage that punish your frame rate" when it first comes out. the amount of trashing we heard now with RT, i don't see the same rage with tessellation.



Tessellation (aka TruForm) was not the original selling point of the Radeon 8500 unlike raytracing with RTX cards. It was one of a half dozen or so features that were touted for that generation of Radeons. Truform is only mentioned once in the entire Anandtech review for the 8500 for example. Enabling TruForm did not cut performance by 40-50% like RTRT does. Read the very last line of this Anandtech article about the feature. The Radeon 8500 also didn't cost 50-100% more than the Radeon 7200 when it was released unlike RTX vs. the counterpart Pascal cards.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 4, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> I'm fascinated that you are able to do this. mind posting some screenshots, or FRAPS data, or something showing your performance? W1zzard would love to know if his system is screwed up, especially given the wide range of hardware he tests on the regular.


It will have to wait till this evening after I get home from work.


----------



## metalfiber (Sep 4, 2019)

The Quim Reaper said:


> If my rig can't do what you say yours can, then you are clearly lying. Even with a 2080Ti, you will only be getting an extra 5-10fps over my 2080, and at those settings you claim, my rig sits in the 20-30fps at times.
> 
> So your system will only be in the mid 30's at best, mid 30's fps is nobody's definition of 'smooth as silk'.



I've got my GPU set at +100 and the only thing i have set back is msaa at x2  and i'm getting 49 to 60 fps with no studder and that looks good to me and that's all that matters.

note the fps counter.....


----------



## Xuper (Sep 4, 2019)

PrEzi said:


>



Oh BOY ! I'm jusy like /Facepalm !!


----------



## notb (Sep 4, 2019)

Is there any chance that AMD fanboys on this forum finally learn how RT works and what it affects?
It's been months. For how long will we be tortured with "mirror reflections worked in the 90s"?
:-(


----------



## moob (Sep 4, 2019)

This game seems to be badly optimised across the board (for both AMD and Nvidia), especially for the visuals that you get.  

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wizz's numbers. Other reviewers are seeing similar performance (taking into consideration the settings being used when testing).

OC3D: https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/control_pc_performance_review_optimisation_guide/10
PCGamer: https://www.pcgamer.com/control-system-requirements-settings-benchmarks-and-performance-analysis/


----------



## Xuper (Sep 4, 2019)

notb said:


> Is there any chance that AMD fanboys on this forum finally learn how RT works and what it affects?
> It's been months. For how long will we be tortured with "mirror reflections worked in the 90s"?
> :-(


Mirror reflection on blood is awesome


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 4, 2019)

moob said:


> This game seems to be badly optimised across the board (for both AMD and Nvidia), especially for the visuals that you get.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wizz's numbers. Other reviewers are seeing similar performance (taking into consideration the settings being used when testing).
> 
> ...



Apparently it's even worse on consoles LOL.


----------



## Rahnak (Sep 4, 2019)

Xuper said:


> Mirror reflection on blood is awesome


That's down to a poor decision from the devs to treat blood as water, it doesn't detract anything from RTRT. It's a new technology in games, everyone is learning.
I for one am pretty eager to see what the 2nd generation of nvidia RTX cards, AMD's first RT-enabled cards and next-gen consoles can do.


----------



## danbert2000 (Sep 4, 2019)

I'm playing this game with the following settings on my RTX 2070 Super at 1080p render with DLSS up to 4k:
- RTX: High
- Far Object Detail: High
- Global Reflections: Off
- SSR: verify off
- Shadow Resolution: High
- Shadow Filtering: Medium
- SSAO: Off
- Texture Filtering: High
- Texture Resolution:  High
- Volumetric Lighting: Medium

I am able to get 40-60 fps, which is completely acceptable to me. The DLSS does a pretty good job of cleaning up the image. It is definitely much sharper than 1080p native. I think the effects are great. There's something really cool about seeing a reflection of a light on the ceiling in a puddle, or catching a glimpse of glass on a picture reflecting what is in front of you. It truly is something that you have to see in motion to realize how realistic it makes the graphics feel. I had trained myself to ignore shadow and lighting errors in other games. When I started playing Control, it was very impressive to see the correct reflections and shadows everywhere.

I know I would still enjoy it at 1440p or 4k with the RT off, but it is truly a sight to see and I'm more than happy to deal with some lower framerates and resolution to see something so clearly transformative. The motion blur does a good job of keeping things fluid even below 60 fps in my opinion. For those who say they don't see much of a difference, I'm guessing they're just looking at photos. It is truly a sight to see in person when you can explore the angles of the reflections and see how it all works exactly as you would expect it in real life.

Without all the reflective surfaces, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I think that's why Battlefield was a bit of a joke. So it's not a be-all, end-all technology. But I'm definitely not turning any of the RT features off because it's truly the first time I've felt like graphics have obviously improved in the last 10 years.

Also: LOL at the 5700 XT vs 2070 Super. We're looking at 14% better frames at 1080p, 17% better at 4k and 1440p. That should shut up the fanboys who insist the 5700 XT is just as fast as the 2070 Super.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 4, 2019)

Having RTX make this game next level visual actually. I'm fighting across a hallway full of destructible glass panels, shooting through glass and see the reflections of the enemy on the remaining glasses just make me feel giggity. Playing at 3440x1440 everything max with DLSS i'm getting 70fps with 2080Ti, quite smooth actually and I have no problem with aiming, the game probably has built in low latency mode.


----------



## danbert2000 (Sep 4, 2019)

nguyen said:


> Having RTX make this game next level visual actually. I'm fighting across a hallway full of destructible glass panels, shooting through glass and see the reflections of the enemy on the remaining glasses just make me feel giggity. Playing at 3440x1440 everything max with DLSS i'm getting 70fps with 2080Ti, quite smooth actually and I have no problem with aiming, the game probably has built in low latency mode.



I actually turned on the driver-level low latency mode and it felt a bit better. "On," not "Ultra." I was initially running at 1440p render resolution and at 30 fps, the low latency mode made a difference.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 4, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> I actually turned on the driver-level low latency mode and it felt a bit better. "On," not "Ultra." I was initially running at 1440p render resolution and at 30 fps, the low latency mode made a difference.



Ultra low latency mode only works in DX11, I'm using DX12 but it feel really responsive despite FPS is lower than what I'm accustomed to.


----------



## danbert2000 (Sep 5, 2019)

nguyen said:


> Ultra low latency mode only works in DX11, I'm using DX12 but it feel really responsive despite FPS is lower than what I'm accustomed to.



Huh, I forgot about that. Guess I fooled myself! I agree though, the game feels responsive and I think the motion blur helps reduce the feeling of judder or high input latency.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 5, 2019)

For those interested, I've gathered lowest FPS screenshots and highest, as well as my settings.  The only setting not on is film grain.  Everything else is as high as it will go.  You can see by OSD that usage is not really all that extreme on anything.


Spoiler: Control Screenshots & Settings


----------



## Totally (Sep 5, 2019)

Rahnak said:


> As in, the nvidia graphics cards? Someone had to do it first, and as the company with the most funds available, it had to be nvidia.
> Ray tracing, particularly in this game, is next level amazing. The hardware just needs to get (much) better now so we can all take advantage of it.



I don't think it looks good at all. Everything looks a bit washed in the background and in the foreground just odd can't put words to it yet all I that comes to mind right now is uncanny valley but not in the good sense. Referencing Metalfiber's screens from above those reflections are just wrong in intensity, and in direction(not following z perspective of the cameras position nor character) but I feel like this was deliberate since the camera is in the third person rendering from camera perspective would be wrong, and rendering from character perspective would probably be awkward. Then there's the carpet reflecting light.


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Sep 5, 2019)

Rahnak said:


> As in, the nvidia graphics cards? Someone had to do it first, and as the company with the most funds available, it had to be nvidia.
> Ray tracing, particularly in this game, is next level amazing. The hardware just needs to get (much) better now so we can all take advantage of it.




Thing is, doing it this generation before they had a dieshrink meant they had to choose:  sacrifice 4k/high framerate gains or sacrifice limited-use-case RTX.  They chose poorly.  I'd have preferred they waited one more generation for the upcoming dieshrink, solidified their 4k/high framerate performance across their product stack for the 20 series, used the dieshrink to make plenty of room for new RTX, and then differentiate the 30 series (or whatever) by varying levels of RTX performance in the next gen.  Waiting one generation isn't really asking for much if it improves everyone's performance in EVERYTHING up to baseline levels to set the stage for RTX.

Instead, we have the majority of the stack can't hit 4k/highframerates and RTX is bringing everyone down to 1080p, forcing people to consider upscaling as their only recourse.  I hope nvidia fixes this with their next GPU.


----------



## Rahnak (Sep 5, 2019)

Totally said:


> I don't think it looks good at all. Everything looks a bit washed in the background and in the foreground just odd can't put words to it yet all I that comes to mind right now is uncanny valley but not in the good sense. Referencing Metalfiber's screens from above those reflections are just wrong in intensity, and in direction(not following z perspective of the cameras position nor character) but I feel like this was deliberate since the camera is in the third person rendering from camera perspective would be wrong, and rendering from character perspective would probably be awkward. Then there's the carpet reflecting light.


Some of it comes down to artistic vision, some of it comes down to getting carried away (and it sort of being a showcase game for RTX/RTRT), like the ultra-reflective blood. Haven't really felt anything out of perspective myself, but it could be down to the camera (3rd person).



HisDivineOrder said:


> Thing is, doing it this generation before they had a dieshrink meant they had to choose:  sacrifice 4k/high framerate gains or sacrifice limited-use-case RTX.  They chose poorly.  I'd have preferred they waited one more generation for the upcoming dieshrink, solidified their 4k/high framerate performance across their product stack for the 20 series, used the dieshrink to make plenty of room for new RTX, and then differentiate the 30 series (or whatever) by varying levels of RTX performance in the next gen.  Waiting one generation isn't really asking for much if it improves everyone's performance in EVERYTHING up to baseline levels to set the stage for RTX.
> 
> Instead, we have the majority of the stack can't hit 4k/highframerates and RTX is bringing everyone down to 1080p, forcing people to consider upscaling as their only recourse.  I hope nvidia fixes this with their next GPU.


That's the early adopter's fee (besides the obvious monetary fee as well). And this way, when the next cards come out, you already have some games available to try it out, some devs already have some experience with it and many others are developing games with it. So it's not all bad.


----------



## Badelhas (Sep 5, 2019)

metalfiber said:


> I'm running everything on ultra at 1440p with no hiccups and it's just smooth as silk. The raytracing effects truly add to the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not everyone wants/can spend 1200 euros on a GPU alone.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 5, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> Also: LOL at the 5700 XT vs 2070 Super. We're looking at 14% better frames at 1080p, 17% better at 4k and 1440p. That should shut up the fanboys who insist the 5700 XT is just as fast as the 2070 Super.


Who is claiming that? They clearly have no idea of specs or pricing if they are claiming that!


5700 at $350 was aimed as direct competition for the (original) $350 RTX2060; 
Nvidia haven't replaced the RTX2060 at the $350 price point, so that comparison still stands.


5700XT at $400 was aimed at the (original) $529 RTX2070, and it's a close match; 
Nvidia damn-near rebranded the RTX 2070 into a 2060 Super to compete with the 5700XT.

The 2070 Super comes from *2080 silicon* and almost *double the price point*. There is no fair comparison and anyone making the comparison without understanding that it's an unfair $400 vs $700 matchup is an idiot. The fact that 17% more performance than a 5700XT costs an extra $300 is laughable, but that' always the case at the high-end because of diminishing returns and other bottlenecks.


----------



## metalfiber (Sep 5, 2019)

Badelhas said:


> Not everyone wants/can spend 1200 euros on a GPU alone.



Yep, some people have a life outside of gaming. Some people have a mate, some kids, some house payments, some car payments, etc,etc....I don't, how is that my problem?


----------



## Badelhas (Sep 5, 2019)

metalfiber said:


> Yep, some people have a life outside of gaming. Some people have a mate, some kids, some house payments, some car payments, etc,etc....I don't, how is that my problem?


The arrogance...in my case is more want since I have the money. But it´s not cost effective, meaning, it´s not well spent money, in my humble opinion. But everyone has their own opinion, of course.


----------



## danbert2000 (Sep 5, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Who is claiming that? They clearly have no idea of specs or pricing if they are claiming that!
> 
> 
> 5700 at $350 was aimed as direct competition for the (original) $350 RTX2060;
> ...



Your whole argument is that we can't compare the $400 5700 XT to the $500 2070 Super because the discontinued 2080 where the TU104 debuted is/was $700? Not much of an argument there. Actually it's pretty deceitful to say "double the pricepoint." Were you saying it wasn't fair to compare the 980 Ti to the Fury X because it "came from the Titan X" and therefore was a $1000 card? Places like r/amd, techspot, guru3d all were selling the story that the 2070 Super was just 5% ahead. It's clearly another rung on the power ladder.


----------



## notb (Sep 5, 2019)

HisDivineOrder said:


> Thing is, doing it this generation before they had a dieshrink meant they had to choose:  sacrifice 4k/high framerate gains or sacrifice limited-use-case RTX.  They chose poorly.


No. The goal was to popularize RTRT among clients and game studios. It clearly worked.

Most big technological changes work that way.
The first gen product is usually worse than what it's trying to replace, as the old technology is always well controlled and polished.

There are a few excellent examples, but lets go for the automotive analogy - like we usually do here.
The first cars sold to general public were slower, weaker, more difficult to operate and less safe than horse carriages.
But they stimulated changes in law and infrastructure. And in society as well: people learned to drive and slowly got used to cars.
This was crucial for the next generations to become as successful as they were.

One day RTRT can become as ubiquitous as anti-aliasing.
But for that to happen, we'll have to tolerate the products that we can get today. Even worse: we'll have to buy and use them.


----------



## metalfiber (Sep 5, 2019)

Badelhas said:


> The arrogance...in my case is more want since I have the money. But it´s not cost effective, meaning, it´s not well spent money, in my humble opinion. But everyone has their own opinion, of course.


yep, having no life is real arrogant...wanna keep trying to get my goat or is that it?


----------



## Badelhas (Sep 5, 2019)

metalfiber said:


> yep, having no life is real arrogant...wanna keep trying to get my goat or is that it?


Sorry, it sounded that way. My bad.


----------



## metalfiber (Sep 5, 2019)

Badelhas said:


> Sorry, it sounded that way. My bad.



No problem man. I got left in the dust in early 2000s when the graphics slots changed from AGP to PCIe. All i had to fall back on is Consoles for over 10 years. So i try to future proof my system just in case that time comes again...and it will at some point.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 5, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> Your whole argument is that we can't compare the $400 5700 XT to the $500 2070 Super because the discontinued 2080 where the TU104 debuted is/was $700? Not much of an argument there. Actually it's pretty deceitful to say "double the pricepoint." Were you saying it wasn't fair to compare the 980 Ti to the Fury X because it "came from the Titan X" and therefore was a $1000 card? Places like r/amd, techspot, guru3d all were selling the story that the 2070 Super was just 5% ahead. It's clearly another rung on the power ladder.



Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else or suffering from a reading comprehension failure. 

I'm not presenting any kind of argument whatsoever. I'm asking "*who are these people you talk of that claim a 2070S and 5700XT are a match*", because they're obviously not. 
You've now kind of answered that with r/amd, techspot, guru3d. 

I've got to admit, techspot and guru reviews are eye-opening but do not really explain their weird results. Most of the reputable reviews put the 5700XT at 2060S or vanilla 2070 level. I guess the fewer games a site uses for testing, the more invalid the results are because there is some huge variance between Navi and Turing performance, depending on the game in question. With only a small sample of games, you're going to see results that don't accurately represent the average across all games.

Like pretty much every review has mentioned so far, the performance differences between Navi and Turing have enough variance that you should pick the card that performs best on the games you actually play right now. Just because a 5700XT can match a 2070S in a couple of titles doesn't make it a match for the 2070S in every title. What about the titles where a 6GB vanilla 2060 beats it, for example?

That's the variance. If people don't get that, then I can't help them and I'm not going to engage in their frothing-at-the-mouth arguments over on r/amd


----------



## danbert2000 (Sep 5, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else or suffering from a reading comprehension failure.
> 
> I'm not presenting any kind of argument whatsoever. I'm asking "*who are these people you talk of that claim a 2070S and 5700XT are a match*", because they're obviously not.
> You've now kind of answered that with r/amd, techspot, guru3d.
> ...



You very clearly said it was unfair to compare a $400 5700 XT to a $700 graphics card. Except I can't find a 2070 Super that is that expensive.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 5, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> You very clearly said it was unfair to compare a $400 5700 XT to a $700 graphics card. Except I can't find a 2070 Super that is that expensive.


That's MSRP of the 2080, at $700
The 2070S has an MSRP of $500

The silicon is the same TU104 and even if the configuration isn't identical, the 2070s exists in the market solely because Navi upset the entire RTX product stack when it launched.

For the record, my idea of a fair comparison is a $400 card against a $400 card. If you want to keep labouring against that point I'm just going to have to conclude that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'fair'.


----------



## Xuper (Sep 5, 2019)

Perhaps Nvidia Physx is applied to Jesse hair when game detects AMD cards.I checked CPU utilization , barely above 40%,


----------



## danbert2000 (Sep 6, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> That's MSRP of the 2080, at $700
> The 2070S has an MSRP of $500
> 
> The silicon is the same TU104 and even if the configuration isn't identical, the 2070s exists in the market solely because Navi upset the entire RTX product stack when it launched.
> ...



The RTX 2070 Super was a refresh card that was always coming because AMD was very clear when Navi was coming out. It's not like Nvidia wasn't planning the Super series for months. I just said that this game was an example of the gulf in performance between the 5700 XT and the 2070 Super. You're the one that responded to that with indignation. I think the word you're looking for is "belaboring" by the way. And I think you're the one that is belaboring the point, and also bringing odd things into the discussion like underlying silicon choices between products.

You seem to want to compare the 5700 XT to the 2070 or 2080, both discontinued cards at this point. Go ahead. Not sure why you even responded to my comment in the first place.

"The fact that 17% more performance than a 5700XT costs an extra $300 is laughable, but that' always the case at the high-end because of diminishing returns and other bottlenecks. "

This was the part of your initial comment that I took issue with, by the way. The 17% performance costs 25% more ($100) than the 5700 XT, which is a pretty reasonable rung on the power ladder, especially considering that's the best that AMD has to offer and the Nvidia option lets us play with raytracing and better driver support.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 6, 2019)

Again, massive reading comprehension failure on your part.
If you go waaaaay back to this post that kicked off this thread, I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was asking the question of who DID disagree with you. For some asinine reason you have made things far more complicated than they need to be,

The reason the 2070 and 2080 are discontinued is Navi. At the old prices of $500 and $700 respectively they were outclassed in the market and Nvidia retired them to produce the Super models at the price points to compete with Navi.

Again, I never disagreed with you. on that point. Re-read my post(s) - you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't a fight to be had because everything I said then is what you're also arguing.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 16, 2019)

I don't know about other people but I bought my RTX despite knowing that I'd never actually turn on RTX raytracing (because unless you have a graphics card that is wastefully overkill for your monitor, it utterly destroys your framerate and/or detail and/or resolution)

I bought an RTX card _*in spite of RTX*_ because it was just better performance/$ and better performance/Watt than anything AMD had on sale at the time.

Amusingly I've actually been given a Titan RTX for testing (having previously had a Quadro RTX 6000) and my own Geforce is sitting on a shelf gathering dust at the moment. Even with GPU horsepower to spare, I don't bother turning on RTX features because seamless 4K75Hz via DSR just looks nicer than native 1440p with RTX and the occasional framerate drop to under 50fps.


----------

