Alan Wake 2 Performance Benchmark

[W1zzard]

What's reason that 5700XT is slower than 1660 Ti at 1080p? Does 1660ti support DX 12_2?

Mesh shaders, see today's news story

 

[wolf]

Man Native with no fancy tech looks nice but PT+DLSS+RR+FG sure elevate Alan Wake II to another level in term visual/performance

4K Native vs 4K DLSS.B+PT+FG+RR

Well maybe there are people who just refuse to acknowledge something that are so obvious to others

Looks fantastic, clearly better in multiple ways. People are finding more and more creative ways to either downplay the difference, or better yet, claim it's worse.

 

[Rean]

AW1 is a reskin of an old game, this will come to steam as it makes business sense. Will be 9.99 on epic store in a year, will be 39.99 on steam when its released. No brainer.

That's like expecting Valve to release HL2 on EGS. It simply won't happen.

Also the AW1 remaster is already a year old and hasn't released on Steam.

I updated the conclusion, thanks

Thanks for making great content. Glad I could be of help.

 

[AusWolf]

That's like expecting Valve to release HL2 on EGS. It simply won't happen.

Also the AW1 remaster is already a year old and hasn't released on Steam.

Unfortunately, you're right. Games release on Steam after a year or so when the publisher wants it so and the exclusivity contract expires.

But in Alan Wake's case, the publisher is Epic Games themselves, so yeah. No chance.

 

[Vayra86]

Although I agree with you that PT in this game is not a transformative experience, we are still just looking at screenshots. I think the main issue RT is trying to solve isn't better image quality, cause that can be achieved with tradiniotal raster as well. What RT can do is not have reflections and shadows disappear right in front of you while you are walking around or just moving the camera, which is a huge issue with raster.

It doesn't help the discussion that both parties, but let's not kid ourselves usually it's the people with amd cards, just poop on everything with nvidia logo on it. They dislike both dlss and rt - even when their implementation is great. A little bit more impartiality would go a long way I think. M

Strong argument. Im really quite impartial; a graphical improvement though must pay off; I simply place RT along the same principles I have for any graphical improvement. Ive seen PT in motion too; the point about shadows is a real one, and I also notice how raster fails in situations much the same. So yeah, agreed. This is really the strongest advantage to mention of PT.

But the next question is whether it is worth the perf hit - even with all available tech on top, we barely arrive at 60 FPS on top end gear. That just disqualifies this tech for this game to me, given what it offers.

And then there are other niggles on top. Reflective surfaces tend to draw way too much attention in scenes. This is true in Cyberpunk, (but there, even in raster) and in Alan wake this effect is caused by adding PT. It doesnt always add to realism that way, but can also detract from it. This is really an uncanny valley problem: it feels artificial because it tries to mimic the perfect lighting; but in real life, tables arent spotless, windows arent clean. There is dust in the air, typically highlighted when looking at light in an angle. Etc.

Nvidia card owners on their end should stop acting like they are the only ones that can experience this tech. RDNA can do it too. Statements can be double checked, there is no magic sauce here, despite what Nvidia likes us to think.

 

[JustBenching]

Strong argument. Im really quite impartial; a graphical improvement though must pay off; I simply place RT along the same principles I have for any graphical improvement. Ive seen PT in motion too; the point about shadows is a real one, and I also notice how raster fails in situations much the same. So yeah, agreed. This is really the strongest advantage to mention of PT.

But the next question is whether it is worth the perf hit - even with all available tech on top, we barely arrive at 60 FPS on top end gear. That just disqualifies this tech for this game to me, given what it offers.

And then there are other niggles on top. Reflective surfaces tend to draw way too much attention in scenes. This is true in Cyberpunk, (but there, even in raster) and in Alan wake this effect is caused by adding PT. It doesnt always add to realism that way, but can also detract from it. This is really an uncanny valley problem: it feels artificial because it tries to mimic the perfect lighting; but in real life, tables arent spotless, windows arent clean. There is dust in the air, typically highlighted when looking at light in an angle. Etc.

Nvidia card owners on their end should stop acting like they are the only ones that can experience this tech. RDNA can do it too. Statements can be double checked, there is no magic sauce here, despite what Nvidia likes us to think.

Whether it's worth the performance hit is mainly based on whether you are fine with running dlss vs native. Personally, I have no issues. In fact I would run dlss regardless cause again - personally - dlss usually looks at least on par if not better than native TAA, so I see it as a free fps boost with lower power draw on top.

PT on cyberpunk is jaw dropping. I can understand people not liking the fact that everything is shiny, but that's just personal preference and after all just an artistic choice.

 

[AusWolf]

Although I agree with you that PT in this game is not a transformative experience, we are still just looking at screenshots. I think the main issue RT is trying to solve isn't better image quality, cause that can be achieved with tradiniotal raster as well. What RT can do is not have reflections and shadows disappear right in front of you while you are walking around or just moving the camera, which is a huge issue with raster.

It doesn't help the discussion that both parties, but let's not kid ourselves usually it's the people with amd cards, just poop on everything with nvidia logo on it. They dislike both dlss and rt - even when their implementation is great. A little bit more impartiality would go a long way I think. M

Stating what AMD users (or Nvidia users) do is quite far from impartiality. It's rather the opposite, actually.

Shouldn't we just be glad that new technologies exist, and we have an option to use them if we can or want to, or not to use them if we don't like them or don't have the necessary hardware? Stating opinions as facts (X technology is better for everyone) and calling out specific groups for disagreeing is just oil to the already huge internet fire.

Back when we played Oblivion, some of us played on Medium graphics, some on Low, and some others modded the game to make it run on an FX 5200. We didn't argue about HDR lighting. Why now?

 

[Vayra86]

Looks fantastic, clearly better in multiple ways. People are finding more and more creative ways to either downplay the difference, or better yet, claim it's worse.

Its hit/miss, is what Im saying.

 

[evernessince]

Added a note in front of every chart. Not sure why people have such a hard time understanding

Thank you very much!

 

[Tech Ninja]

Absolutely pathetic showing from AMD. On top of CTX losing to 3080 and 4070 it looks much much worse on AMD with FSR.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

3060 is entry level and those who bought it should understand that. Reviews aren't conducted on the lowest common denominator and I hope that doesn't become the norm. However, I have stumbled across a few reviewers who focus on entry level hardware on YouTube.

So you think all games should be reviewed for the top 1% only?

Ok, that's not going to pan out well IMHO, for this market,website, and hobby.

So this is a game performance review, Not a game review.

What I am saying is that the conclusion alone had the BIAS of an owner who never uses less than a 4090, so the performance to him is fine WTA F surprise.

But what I am also saying is that if he played with that card for an hour.
A mid-end card for an hour as an owner would
and an entry-level card for an hour again with settings such as an owner would use.


IM sure his conclusion would gain nuance about how it plays.
I was striving for constructive criticism no hurt intended.

 

[AvrageGamr]

The path tracing in this game is fantastic, without it, it looks average. The characters however are not the greatest looking. Sara's face looks plastic as hell at times.

 

[Heiro78]

They

Probably the effect of VRAM being saturated, and the 3D cache factor.

"Alan Wake forces you to enable either DLSS or FSR. A native rendering option is not available!"

Automatically, it forces me to not want to play.

In case no one else has said it and you didn't re-read the conclusion, you can manually change it to native by adjusting the ini file. Terrible to do this, but it's a work around. But even then, they say that it seems their may be an upscaler at work

Buddy. At least try to do the bare minimum of research before. Epic funded the entire game. Its the publisher. The entire reason the game exists is because Epic made it to exist. This is not a moneyhated Epic release coming to steam after a year. This is an Epic only game, for all eternity, because they paid for the entirety of the project

You got the author to include this in the conclusion paragraph that you quoted.

@W1zzard Correction to the conclusion: Alan Wake 2 is published by Epic Games themselves, meaning that it won't ever arrive to Steam (same as the remastered version of AW1).

This sucks to learn

I missed the 16GB 4060Ti. Fair point.

That's very big of you to acknowledge like this. Just wanted to give you kudos for it

 

[3d_space_pinball]

Given the performance of the 5700xt, it would be interesting to see how the Radeon VII fares. Just out of sheer curiosity.

 

[izy]

O man this game is scary when you play it at night with the sound turned up
The game is playable with a 2060 super on 1080p with dlss quality , everything almost to max without RT ofc. I am getting 45 fps in the worst scenarios , 55 - 65 fps in the forest and it goes up 100 + fps in places, i dont notice anything wrong while playing , quality is not the best but is decent/ok.

Spoiler: Settings in the ini file

"objectType": "rend::UserRendererSettings",
"objectVersion": 42,
"m_iOutputResolutionX": 1920,
"m_iOutputResolutionY": 1080,
"m_iRenderResolutionX": 1280,
"m_iRenderResolutionY": 720,
"m_iLastWindowSizeX": 0,
"m_iLastWindowSizeY": 0,
"m_eWindowMode": 1,
"m_eVSync": 0,
"m_bFilmGrain": false,
"m_bVignette": false,
"m_bDepthOfField": false,
"m_bLensDistortion": false,
"m_bUnlockAspectRatio": false,
"m_bPreferScRGBHdr": false,
"m_fFieldOfViewMultiplier": 1.0,
"m_eVolumeLightQuality": 0,
"m_eVolumetricSpotLightQuality": 1,
"m_eShadowResolutionQuality": 1,
"m_eShadowFilteringQuality": 1,
"m_eShadowDetailQuality": 1,
"m_eTextureResolution": 3,
"m_eTextureFilteringQuality": 2,
"m_eLodDetail": 0,
"m_eSSAOQuality": 1,
"m_eSSRQuality": 1,
"m_eEffectQuality": 1,
"m_eScatteredEntityQuantity": 1,
"m_eHeightfieldQuality": 1,
"m_eMotionBlur": 0,
"m_eGIQuality": 2,
"m_eRTReflectionQuality": 0,
"m_eRTTransparentQuality": 0,
"m_eRTIndirectDiffuseQuality": 0,
"m_eRTReSTIRQuality": 0,
"m_eRTDirectLightDenoisingQuality": 0,
"m_eRTDebrisQuality": 0,
"m_ePTQuality": 0,
"m_ePTDenoisingQuality": 0,
"m_eSDFQuality": 2,
"m_eHdrQuality": 1,
"m_fHDRPaperWhite": 2.5,
"m_fHDRUIBrightness": 2.5,
"m_fHDRMaxOutputNitsOverride": -1.0,
"m_fSDRCustomGamma": -1.0,
"m_eSSAAMethod": 2,
"m_fSSAASharpening": 0.0,
"m_eHighQualityPost": 0,
"m_eFogQuality": 1,
"m_DLSSRR": false,
"m_DLSSFG": false,
"m_eLODDetail": 0

 

[Tuvok]

4090 going from 32 to 63 fps in PT 4K DLAA to DLSS Quality seems wrong? also not what I've seen elsewhere

 

[alwayssts]

Ah the old 10GB debate rears it's head, and it's not like the card has good performance [relative to all tested cards] at resolutions and settings it would get playable framerates at anyway... oh wait, it does...

Personally I think it acquits itself very well for a 3 year old card that was half the price of the big brother GPU, in perhaps 2023's best looking game, with literally the most advanced rendering features available, what's on show here is massively respectable, even downright impressive, again, a 3 year old card playing with the most advanced visual features on offer.

Tell you what, I'd rather play on a 10GB card that has DLSS and RR to lean on, than a 12-16GB card and be forced to use the FSR code path and lack the muscle to even try PT, sub 30fps at 1080p...

We all made our choices, and I hate to disappoint the internet, but I'm still happy with mine, I'm getting out of it exactly what I want and expect.

I'm not saying it's a bad card at all, but at some point we must all make out peace with our 1080p future bc VRAM is simply a thing. It's absolutely not a bad card at ~$400 at this very moment, but at some point it just makes sense to spring for 16GB.

In the grand calculus of the universe, it's getting dangerously close to looking at a card and thinking "12GB, 1080p in demanding game. 16GB, 1440p and maybe higher."

If you don't agree, that's fine. You're wrong, but it's fine.

Also, look at this photograph, every time I do it makes me laugh. Again, they're products from two different times...but one has perpetually been $100 or more cheaper, which is a lot when that's 1/3 of the price and missing a pretty important gigabyte. The funny thing is 2080Ti's stock position on a chart. I think if you kick a 2080 Ti in the ass it's pretty much similar to a decent 12GB card. Did I cherry pick these results? I absolutely did. Is the maximum spread much different? It really isn't. There's your full disclosure.

The feature debate will be one that outlives us all (I actually think until Navi 5, but that sounded better). I get your perspective, I truly do. I want to play games at 4k 'balanced' +, and when everything else stabalizes I will appreciate those other things. I think the compute of 7900xt and the buffer advantage of 7800xt over 4070ti will outlive the usefulness of anything under a 4080 in RT/PT. That's just my opinion and perspective. You're absolutely right though, we should live with what we have in perspetive of when we bought it and appreciate what it CAN do. I just think if you're buying something currently you look at what it WILL do for it's potential lifetime. Make no mistake, nVIDIA will make AD104 look like crap with GB205 by boosting what games at that time do wrt RT/PT. That is their M.O. I don't know if the same will be true of a 16GB 4070Ti, a Navi 4, or even Battlemage wrt raster/buffer. Jury is still out, but they appear the most interesting to me.

Please don't take this post too seriously, I'm mostly joking around. I understand there are niche situations where nVIDIA's feature-set makes sense wrt price/perf or a premium experience, and that's very cool. I'm happy for when those things work out, or those that go outside the price/perf band. That is the point of the hobby, or indeed being an enthusiast.

I hope nVIDIA's 16GB card is a banger value not only in raw performance and vram, but use of those features. I also hope Navi 4 is cheap/good-enough for most; 7800xt get cheaper. Then everyone wins.

I haven't read through the rest of this thread yet, that's how far I've gotten (literally one post after my last one). I'm sure there are many interesting and valid perspectives for different configurations wrt RT/PT/Upscaling.

 

[VictorLGC]

O man this game is scary when you play it at night with the sound turned up
The game is playable with a 2060 super on 1080p with dlss quality , everything almost to max without RT ofc. I am getting 45 fps in the worst scenarios , 55 - 65 fps in the forest and it goes up 100 + fps in places, i dont notice anything wrong while playing , quality is not the best but is decent/ok.

Sounds like a relief for me... I hope my 3070 holds up as well!

I really don't wanna buy a 4090 just to play the game!! LOL

My plan is to wait for the next generation... In hopes nVidia figures out a way of path/ray tracing doesn't eat half the FPS. Maybe a 5070 that can keep up with a current 4090???

 

[jark]

Re: the "commentary" on EGS in the conclusion:

It's suggesting a cart-before-the-horse situation, in which customers are eschewing the EGS version bc Epic excluded Steam. It's a non-issue, folks.

First off, you don't need to have the game now. Second, there's no real buy-in, unlike consoles. Third, even the worst storefronts were quite alright (and the best features of Steam could be perceived as overvalued; other features as underappreciated, anyway; and still others as crap shoots, historically, like the old Greenlight program).

But we've said all that before. The real takeaway I got here is that YOU are eschewing the game when it actually ISN'T the game eschewing you. If the game doesn't perform well, it really is because of you, and not that Epic excluded you. Hence, the cart leads the horse.

Do I want it on Steam? I WOULD'VE RATHER THERE NEVER HAVE BEEN DRM + PROPRIETARY STOREFRONTS TO BEGIN WITH. THE ARGUMENTS FROM 2004 NEVER RESOLVED.

 

[Ryrynz]

Why does everything have to be so fucking dark with raytracing.. the road.. dark for no good reason, sunlight directly on it but nah.. dark af. WTF.

 

[VictorLGC]

Just reporting... My rig: rtx 3070@2100mhz core, i9 9900k, 64gb of RAM, SSD.

Game runs FINE, with everything on HIGH settings, except path tracing, and DLSS on quality mode. Some rare areas with 35fps and most of the time the game runs at steady 50-65 fps.

For a slow paced game like this, it's fine... I guess upgrade can wait...

Played for about 2 and a half hours, great 90's horror movies and TV shows vibes... The game feels quite engaging!

 

[arni-gx]

No, RTX 4090 serie(s) is(are) required for 24GB VRAM!

not like that.....

nvidia need refresh all rtx 4000 series, especially to add more VRAM for all rtx 4000 super series, if there is rtx 4000 super series ....

 

[StingingVelvet]

Man Native with no fancy tech looks nice but PT+DLSS+RR+FG sure elevate Alan Wake II to another level in term visual/performance

4K Native vs 4K DLSS.B+PT+FG+RR

I feel like a weirdo because I genuinely prefer the native screenshot here.

RT high is surprisingly performative on low resolutions so I'll play around with it more, but going back and forth myself in-game I think 1440p with 90fps with RT off is my favorite way to play.

 

[nguyen]

I feel like a weirdo because I genuinely prefer the native screenshot here.

RT high is surprisingly performative on low resolutions so I'll play around with it more, but going back and forth myself in-game I think 1440p with 90fps with RT off is my favorite way to play.

Having your own preference is not weird . Kinda like there are people like depth of field or motion blur...

Anyways game feel good for me even at 70-80fps with Frame Generation, due to the slow nature of the game, so I'm gonna enjoy the game with PT+DLSS+FG

 

[AusWolf]

Re: the "commentary" on EGS in the conclusion:

It's suggesting a cart-before-the-horse situation, in which customers are eschewing the EGS version bc Epic excluded Steam. It's a non-issue, folks.

First off, you don't need to have the game now. Second, there's no real buy-in, unlike consoles. Third, even the worst storefronts were quite alright (and the best features of Steam could be perceived as overvalued; other features as underappreciated, anyway; and still others as crap shoots, historically, like the old Greenlight program).

But we've said all that before. The real takeaway I got here is that YOU are eschewing the game when it actually ISN'T the game eschewing you. If the game doesn't perform well, it really is because of you, and not that Epic excluded you. Hence, the cart leads the horse.

Do I want it on Steam? I WOULD'VE RATHER THERE NEVER HAVE BEEN DRM + PROPRIETARY STOREFRONTS TO BEGIN WITH. THE ARGUMENTS FROM 2004 NEVER RESOLVED.

Are you an Epic games rep? Let me give you my two cents:

1. The game is NOT coming for Steam because it is published by Epic directly. There is no 1-year exclusivity contract here.
2. EGS is pure garbage. I just bought the game on it because I see that I don't have any other choice, and while it was installing, my monitor wouldn't go to sleep. This is some ludicrous level of software writing bollocks. Not to mention, there is nothing graphical in the storefront, it's a plain dark grey canvas with a web-based UI. There is no reason to keep my screen awake, especially when the app is minimised.
3. There is zero customisability. I can't even set up the app to show my games on startup instead of the store! Not to mention, the store is just a basic web page with no relation to my library whatsoever. It is still offering me to buy Alan Wake 2, despite the fact that I already have it.
4. There is ZERO other feature in the app. It literally has no reason to exist other than to launch your games, which you could do by clicking on the .exe or the desktop icon.

All in all, Epic is a pure steaming pile of horse manure that wouldn't survive a single second against Steam and GOG if not for the shady as F exclusivity deals and occasional free games.

Sorry to shatter your illusions. The next time you register for a forum, maybe start with something other than telling people what to like.