Black Myth Wukong In-Game Performance Benchmark

[ViperXZ]

I know what you will say, they can put it on medium and turn FSR/DLSS but we also know some people will go and buy a new GPU to have a "premium experience", that's the whole idea behind these tactics.

The simple fact of companies like Nvidia and a lot of others is, they need to push for new benchmarks, as traditional raster became "easy" for Nvidia, at least after the 1080 Ti, they started pushing for something else - ray tracing. So this is about "relevance" and much more than selling stuff, they need a reason to keep on moving, motivation is part of life and existence. They're not Intel to stop moving and give you 0-5% more performance on the same quad cores every gen. We all know what happened to Intel. Intel is what happens when you only care about money and the thing your company was built on, becomes nearly irrelevant to you. The loss of motivation is the end of the company.

Yes the whole scene is fake for sure but you know what I meant they are not rendered and can have bad artifacts the actually rendered frames do not have and break the immersion for me. I could probably live with the latency if there was 0 artifacts but not doing both if a game has them.

You're simply a guy who cares a lot about negative things, is overly critical and concentrates on irrelevant things instead of enjoying the game for example. That's unfortunate, for you, however doesn't change the fact that FG is highly usable if someone isn't concentrated on irrelevant things. Oh I saw the graphic glitches too, the difference is, that I don't concentrate and waste myself on those little things, if it's 98% fine. It's a sign of flawed character if you concentrate on 2% negative things instead of concentrating on 98% positive things.

---

So seeing the new benchmarks with PT + FG, it's highly playable at 4K with the highest settings, using a 4080 (probably even 4070 S-TI) and higher. No problems here. That's with the ludicrous "cinema" setting as well.

 

[redeye]

i love eyecandy, but have realized that as soon as you have to “get it done” one does not care about visuals, only that is above 60fps. and higher (a tough realization, for me, but an everyday thing for others, as in cs:go, COD where as long as i can see the pixels of the target, why do i care about the environment?.
i think in “war games” reality should be paramount, but if it , i believe PTSD would set it (like in real life). then gaming become unfun. and because it is escapism, Raytracing takes a back seat to self-esteem. (you know no PTSD)

so fps vs reality. and escapism is more important than reality. (although i wish on cheaters, PTSD…)
in any case, have fun, no cheating…

 

[chrcoluk]

I think the over sharpening in the game is to try and hide the underwhelming texture quality. Increasing sharpening to a degree will compensate texture issues.

Interesting as to why we only see dynamic resolution in PS5 games and never on PC platform, same with dynamic frame rate as an example many RPGs on console will give you cinematic 30fps in the field of game play, and then bump to a nice 60fps for menus, whilst on PC you pick a FPS target and it applies to the entire game (with maybe exception of FMVs).

Reading about the frame gen issues on PS5 with lower frame rates such as 30 to 60, it seems like they should have offered non FG options on the PS5. So if I understand right even with FG on performance mode it doesnt sustain 60fps, in one boss fight DF showed it drops to 40fps, that would mean input latency the same as 20fps and increased artefacts as they get worse the lower the frame rate. Quality should be sustained 30fps no FG, performance sustained 60 no FG, or optional 120 with FG (automatically enabled if using 120hz display, otherwise FG off), and balance should have been the only mode with variable frame rate, which would pretty much require VRR for a good experience.

For this game console looks a disaster (turns out PS5 doesnt support LFC on VRR either) , for once PC looks like the prime dev platform for a big title.

 

[HOkay]

Again I like the technology but I don't like the increased latency the whole point for me of wanting to play at higher framerates is to lower latency not increase it.

It's a very subjective thing but it isn't real perfomance it's a bunch of fake frames sandwiched between real ones that have artifacts I notice the artifacts even at high framerates maybe for others it won't be as obvious. I didn't notice them as much on my 48-65 inch oleds probably due to sitting distance of 6-8 feet back but they are obviously on my G8 oled.

If you think its actual performance good for you though happy for you man.

I also can only stomach it on a controller it feels horrible on a mouse to me at any framerate.

Just wanted to say I agree completely with your opinions on frame gen. If the base frame rate is less than somewhere around 60ish then the input latency just feels too bad & I just won't play whatever game it is because it's a bad experience, it stops it being enjoyable for me. Even 60fps base feels bad, you just feel a bit disconnected from the character & it ruins the experience. I generally fiddle with settings until I've got 90ish fps or higher before I'll play a game, which sometimes means DLSS has to be deployed, even with a 4090.

My overall opinion on frame gen is that it's only useful to me when the base frame rate is high enough that I don't need it anyway. So yes, if I'm getting 90fps then maybe I'll turn it on since I won't notice the latency increase at that point, but equally 90fps is already visually smooth enough that I'd rather have guaranteed artifact free 90fps, than a potentially artifacty 180fps.

 

[pk67]

2 important stats are still missing in this benchmark I think - fpW and fp$.
The first one is less variable over time cos depend on drivers set, so I think is more important than the later.

An fpW stat would allow us to compare many games set against each other in many categories based on resolutions, quality, effects and cards used.

This way we could find what games are most energy efficient for AMD cards and what for nVidia or Intel.

Conclusions based on performance just for one game could be really missleading in wider games spectrum context.

 

[HOkay]

2 important stats are still missing in this benchmark I think - fpW and fp$.
The first one is less variable over time cos depend on drivers set, so I think is more important than the later.

An fpW stat would allow us to compare many games set against each other in many categories based on resolutions, quality, effects and cards used.

This way we could find what games are most energy efficient for AMD cards and what for nVidia or Intel.

Conclusions based on performance just for one game could be really missleading in wider games spectrum context.

Performance/Watt charts are interesting, but you probably only need a couple of cards from each gen from each manufacturer to get enough of a picture of how the rest will lie. Then again, I guess you could say that for the raw performance as well! I'd be happy enough with the best performance, current gen GPU per manufacturer just for a little insight though.

 

[Marcus L]

Was thinking to myself I don't see what the big deal is, my 6800/5700x are benching it on Vhigh/Cinematic at around 60fps 1080p no RT and 100% scaling then when I looked closer at the settings I seen FG was on

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Performance/Watt charts are interesting, but you probably only need a couple of cards from each gen from each manufacturer to get enough of a picture of how the rest will lie. Then again, I guess you could say that for the raw performance as well! I'd be happy enough with the best performance, current gen GPU per manufacturer just for a little insight though.

It would also highly depend on what settings are used at a min you'd need to use very high with no upscaling that kinda sells the rtx gpus short especially the two best ones becuase they obliterate the 7900xtx with RT.....

People can just divide price by fps at settings they want to use.

 

[masterfox]

First of all hi to all I just registered and this is my first comment.

Regarding this benchmarks are kinda interesting cause for a rtx 3070 it seems about 37 plus fps at 1440p, but interesting enough my gaming rig specs are i7 12700k, 32 GB DDR4 , M2 SSD Gen 4 , windows 10 pro, latest Nvidia drivers, all this paired with a 3070 rtx 8 GB, and my FPS are between 90 to 100 plus FPS at 1440p, settings 75 % scaling and high / very high settings, I think I can go even more very high settings and maintain a good fps, also FSR FG is on, if I enable RT my FPS will drop to 45 to 50 ish FPS alongside those same graphics settings high / very high.

 

[Heiro78]

the first and second images had me audibly saying holy shit!. The second seems strange. I do trust that it's the same time of day in the second image. The path tracing just makes it look like the sun is out and manages to penetrate the vegetation while the regular cinematic settings it's barely able to penetrate the dense vegetation.

 

[pk67]

Performance/Watt charts are interesting, but you probably only need a couple of cards from each gen from each manufacturer to get enough of a picture of how the rest will lie. Then again, I guess you could say that for the raw performance as well! I'd be happy enough with the best performance, current gen GPU per manufacturer just for a little insight though.

I would like to see many ( for given resolution, settings combination ) Performace/W charts @30fps, @60fps, @maxfps and incremental performace/W in range 30->60 fps , and 60 -> max fps.
This way we could see if given cards family is more energy efficient at lower settings and lower fps or at higher fps for the sake of high iddle power.
Low tier cards could be benchmarked only at max fps if max is less than 30 fps for given settings/resolution.

 

[AusWolf]

Sshhhh... Upscaling is the Devil in the house of AusWolf!!!!!

All joking aside people should be able to play how they want, still this is a gpu benchmark with settings I'd consider reasonable for that purpose not an image quality review or optimization guide.

Right, I did some benchmarking of my own (kudos to the devs for providing a free benchmark tool).

1440 UW, Cinematic + FSR 50% + FG gives me 48 FPS, but...
- The shimmering and ghosting around objects is something absurd,
- Fur and water look like I painted them in watercolour back in primary school,
- FG introduces some microstutter that my eyes can't pick up, but my monitor's LFC can (being on the low limit of its VRR), resulting in blakclight flicker.
All in all, it's complete trash.

1440 UW, Low + no FSR gives me 52 FPS, but...
- Vegetation detail is lacking,
- There seems to be no anisotropic filtering, or the distance of detail "curtain" seems to be too close to the camera.
All in all, it's meh, but usable.

1440 UW, Medium + no FSR gives me 36-40 FPS, but...
- Detail seems to be closer to "low", with the exception of the distance of detail 'curtain" effect, which is nice,
- But the performance is around the low mark of what I consider acceptable, so I don't know how it'd work in game.

I think I'm gonna wait with playing this game until my next GPU upgrade. I wasn't planning on giving 50 quid for it anyway.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Right, I did some benchmarking of my own (kudos to the devs for providing a free benchmark tool).

1440 UW, Cinematic + FSR 50% + FG gives me 48 FPS, but...
- The shimmering and ghosting around objects is something absurd,
- Fur and water look like I painted them in watercolour back in primary school,
- FG introduces some microstutter that my eyes can't pick up, but my monitor's LFC can (being on the low limit of its VRR), resulting in blakclight flicker.
All in all, it's complete trash.

1440 UW, Low + no FSR gives me 52 FPS, but...
- Vegetation detail is lacking,
- There seems to be no anisotropic filtering, or the distance of detail "curtain" seems to be too close to the camera.
All in all, it's meh, but usable.

1440 UW, Medium + no FSR gives me 36-40 FPS, but...
- Detail seems to be closer to "low", with the exception of the distance of detail 'curtain" effect, which is nice,
- But the performance is around the low mark of what I consider acceptable, so I don't know how it'd work in game.

I think I'm gonna wait with playing this game until my next GPU upgrade. I wasn't planning on giving 50 quid for it anyway.

Did you try the hub recommended settings? They looked pretty good to me... oh wait your on the 6700XT again right might be a tall ask as the PS5 which is ballpark performance is pretty gimped in this game.

My 3080ti struggles in it pretty bad.

All the upscaling is broken in this game and TAA sucks also it's the only visual issues I have with this game.

I even tried 3.7 which usually fantastic but it still doesn't look good to me at least at 1440p UW.

4k is probably ok....

 

[AusWolf]

oh wait your on the 6700XT again

Yep. The 7800 XT found a new home in a friend's machine. Maybe I'll get an 8800 XT or 5070 next year, we'll see. It'll also give the game enough time to reduce in price, and my backlog to shorten.

 

[chrcoluk]

Right, I did some benchmarking of my own (kudos to the devs for providing a free benchmark tool).

1440 UW, Cinematic + FSR 50% + FG gives me 48 FPS, but...
- The shimmering and ghosting around objects is something absurd,
- Fur and water look like I painted them in watercolour back in primary school,
- FG introduces some microstutter that my eyes can't pick up, but my monitor's LFC can (being on the low limit of its VRR), resulting in blakclight flicker.
All in all, it's complete trash.

1440 UW, Low + no FSR gives me 52 FPS, but...
- Vegetation detail is lacking,
- There seems to be no anisotropic filtering, or the distance of detail "curtain" seems to be too close to the camera.
All in all, it's meh, but usable.

1440 UW, Medium + no FSR gives me 36-40 FPS, but...
- Detail seems to be closer to "low", with the exception of the distance of detail 'curtain" effect, which is nice,
- But the performance is around the low mark of what I consider acceptable, so I don't know how it'd work in game.

I think I'm gonna wait with playing this game until my next GPU upgrade. I wasn't planning on giving 50 quid for it anyway.

Interestingly when I tested I observed how little shimmering there was, it seems DLAA and DLSS are good at managing that, when I do my FG tests, I will try out FSR as well to see if I notice the same as you.

You can of course mix and match settings, so not relying on the presets. Shadows, lighting, are two of the big 3 impactful one's to performance, I cannot remember what the 3rd one was. But you can see now why people are using the upscaling, you would have managed 60fps in low with some upscaling. Probably also manageable with a higher levels of FSR and mixing medium/high settings together. HUB had 3 recommendations for different levels of hardware grunt, not just HUB quality.

 

[HOkay]

I would like to see many ( for given resolution, settings combination ) Performace/W charts @30fps, @60fps, @maxfps and incremental performace/W in range 30->60 fps , and 60 -> max fps.
This way we could see if given cards family is more energy efficient at lower settings and lower fps or at higher fps for the sake of high iddle power.
Low tier cards could be benchmarked only at max fps if max is less than 30 fps for given settings/resolution.

That'd all be interesting, but it probably wouldn't change what I'd buy. I guess some people would care more about efficiency, but the efficiency gap would need to be quite large to sway me away from the raw fps or fps/$ metrics.

 

[AusWolf]

Interestingly when I tested I observed how little shimmering there was, it seems DLAA and DLSS are good at managing that, when I do my FG tests, I will try out FSR as well to see if I notice the same as you.

By shimmering, I mean a bright aura kind of thing around objects (I'm not sure what things that the gaming community dubs things actually mean half the time).

But you can see now why people are using the upscaling, you would have managed 60fps in low with some upscaling.

Nah, I'd rather go low all the way with no FSR. 50 FPS is fine for me. My conclusion was that even low looks better with no upscaling than cinematic with 50% FSR, artefacts are just that bad in this game. I'd rather have last gen looks than a general blur, ghosting, mushy water, and other oddities that never existed in gaming until recently (and I never needed, to be honest).

 

[chrcoluk]

Came across this video, I am not going to claim its accurate, I have no idea, but I felt it was an interesting watch and perhaps highlights the perils of a inefficient engine becoming dominant in the gaming industry.

 

[Amrael]

Would you guys care to try these settings? No FG hack, used FSR with FG native to the game/Downloaded 560.94 driver and these are my results. Doesn't seem too intimidating as most people say, I think with these settings the game is more than playable with barely a compromise. For RTX 3070(Ti) and 2080 ti and vanilla just drop all settings all settings one step and you should be fine. Also it's weird that the on the VRAM usage test, the amount o9f memory used is immense compared to my runs. It should probably be the more powerful GPUs are allowing for more memory to be used but it still seems high to me.

I just tried these settings on my 3080 and not too shabby. Anyone care to test and confirm. For 3070/Ti/2080/Ti Just drop everything one notch on every setting (keep the FSR around 65 and frame gen on) and you should be fine.

 

[Marcus L]

Mostly high settings 100% scale, NO FG, NO RT, Cinematic textures

 

[Amrael]

Nice, solid

Pushed the 3080 a little bit and got this

 

[vacsati]

With newer titles, amd cards are just look worse and worse.

 

[neatfeatguy]

So with the settings. There is low, medium, high, more shading and foliage, extra shading and foliage, extra shading and foliage + PT.

I think the game looks good on high settings. I don't need extra foliage to drag the performance down because they think it makes the game look better.

 

[Ruru]

Is this just so badly optimized? Looks pretty bad when even a 4090 can't run this at 60fps even with scaling.

edit: I meant 4K since that card is meant for that resolution.

 

[ViperXZ]

Came across this video, I am not going to claim its accurate, I have no idea, but I felt it was an interesting watch and perhaps highlights the perils of a inefficient engine becoming dominant in the gaming industry.

No, it's simply the most advanced engine and i can totally see why it eats so much (the details are simply something else), but then again performance could be better on Radeon cards, it's a typical Unreal engine seemingly optimised for Nvidia, which is kinda dumb. Now we are dependant on upscalers, and as long as those are good quality it doesn't matter.

I think the game looks good on high settings. I don't need extra foliage to drag the performance down because they think it makes the game look better.

As always "Ultra settings" are just extreme and not necessarily "better". Everything is a matter of taste.