Immortals of Aveum Benchmark Test and Performance Analysis

[Lightofhonor]

ok but what about 1080p 60fps for RTX 3080? Does the performance of the hardware drop that much in 3 years? If there is such a disgraceful situation, it is the fault of the developer.

lol 59.1 FPS not close enough for you? Dropping one setting, pretty much any setting, would do it for you. As would overclocking.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I've been playing with the integrated Performance Budget Tool, which is found in the graphics menu. The game assesses your graphics card's and processor's performance on first launch, presents the benchmark results as your total GPU and CPU "budgets", and sets the detail options accordingly. Every graphics setting is assigned two values reflecting its impact on GPU and CPU performance. Here's a detailed breakdown of the costs from their minimum to maximum value:

		GPU cost	CPU cost		GPU cost	CPU cost
Texture quality	low	30	10	ultra	50	10
Visual effects quality	low	10	10	ultra	30	10
Shadow quality	low	30	10	ultra	50	10
Post processing quality	low	20	10	ultra	40	30
Volumetric fog resolution	low	20	10	ultra	60	30
Global illumination quality	low	30	20	ultra	90	20
Reflection quality	low	40	0	high	60	0
Anisotropic filtering	off	0	0	16x	100	100
Ambient occlusion quality	low	10	10	ultra	50	30
Atmosphere quality	low	10	10	ultra	50	10
Cinematics depth of field quality	low	20	10	ultra	60	30
Foliage quality	low	10	10	ultra	10	10
Mesh quality	low	30	10	ultra	90	10
Cinematics motion blur quality	low	30	10	ultra	50	10
Particle quality	low	40	10	ultra	60	10
Shadow mesh quality	low	10	20	ultra	70	20
Shadow resolution quality	low	20	20	ultra	20	40
Subsurface scattering quality	low	20	10	ultra	80	10
total cost		380	190		1020	390

There are also two toggles -- Lights shafts and Local exposure -- without allotted numerical costs.

While the whole idea sounds very practical in theory, the values chosen by the developers to represent each cost make one wonder. While global illumination and mesh quality certainly burden the GPU, why is anisotropic filtering supposed to be the most demanding setting? Also, the tool seems to miscalculate the total CPU budget. In the developers' own words:

View attachment 310398

My 5800X3D was evaluated at 230, whereas the 13900K gets 290. The Performance Budget Tool could become really helpful eventually, but it needs further polishing. Also, the game would benefit greatly from textual descriptions of each setting, with the corresponding visual benefit/tradeoff. That could help less experienced gamers make more informed choices in quality vs. performance.

And just for reference, those are the total budgets assigned by the tool to various GPUs:

7900XTX	1750
4090	1450
4080	1100
3080Ti	800
4070	700
3080	700
3060Ti	500
2060	300
1650	100
Steam Deck	60

I was watching a video about that earlier it seems whatever system they came up with to generate numbers is full of shite.

 

[W1zzard]

They should have stuck with Frostbite engine. At least some devs there will know how to use it

Frostbite is a huge POS that's extremely complicated to work with. UE on the other hand makes it REALLY easy to produce a game world and make it work .. with UE5 you can now play with a lot of things in the editor in real-time, while previously you had to bake lighting just to get a preview, and on other engines most of these things aren't even possible. there is a reason why everybody is using UE

 

[Dristun]

lol 59.1 FPS not close enough for you? Dropping one setting, pretty much any setting, would do it for you. As would overclocking.

IMHO this is kinda missing the point - the game just doesn't look good, lol. There are games that both look better on a technical level and run better too so surely this is a fail. Who is to blame is another topic altogether but the fact is performance here is abysmal.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Frostbite is a huge POS that's extremely complicated to work with. UE on the other hand makes it REALLY easy to produce a game world and make it work .. with UE5 you can now play with a lot of things in the editor in real-time, while previously you had to bake lighting just to get a preview, and on other engines most of these things aren't even possible. there is a reason why everybody is using UE

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple years at least 30-40% of major releases use this engine a lot of major studios that used engines I liked have made the switch which I think is unfortunate. Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic and it all works out but the engine hasn't gotten off to a good start for consumers regardless of how much easier it makes it for the developer.

Remnant 2 did seem to sell well regardless of it's performance though.

 

[W1zzard]

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple years at least 30-40% of major releases use this engine a lot of major studios that used engines I liked have made the switch which I think is unfortunate. Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic and it all works out but the engine hasn't gotten off to a good start for consumers regardless of how much easier it makes it for the developer.

Agree 100%

 

[ZoneDymo]

Frostbite is a huge POS that's extremely complicated to work with. UE on the other hand makes it REALLY easy to produce a game world and make it work .. with UE5 you can now play with a lot of things in the editor in real-time, while previously you had to bake lighting just to get a preview, and on other engines most of these things aren't even possible. there is a reason why everybody is using UE

yeah well there is a reason everyone here drives a Volkswagen as well, and that reason is that...everyone is driving a volkswagen, so there are a lot of parts available for cheap and expertise is also everywhere to find, good luck fixing a Lexus at your local dealership.
That does not mean a volkswagen is a better car then a lexus though....

 

[W1zzard]

yeah well there is a reason everyone here drivers a Volkswagen as well, and that reason is that...everyone is driving a volkswagen, so there are a lot of parts available for cheap and expertese is also everywhere to find, good luck fixing a Lexus at your local dealership.

You are making a good point, too, there's A LOT of talent out there that knows how to work with UE.

The underlying reason is that it's actually nice to work with UE. Like 2 years ago I wanted to write my own benchmark for in-house testing at customizable workloads .. with very little experience .. UE was by far the best learning experience, and it's free, and they give you all the source code

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Frostbite is a huge POS that's extremely complicated to work with. UE on the other hand makes it REALLY easy to produce a game world and make it work .. with UE5 you can now play with a lot of things in the editor in real-time, while previously you had to bake lighting just to get a preview, and on other engines most of these things aren't even possible. there is a reason why everybody is using UE

In that case why is the game so badly optimised? Unless its just teething issues with UE-5 being more or less new? But yeah, I know about Frostbite being complicated and hard to work with because nobody really knows how to use it properly, but EA was trying to get all the studios on board with it at one point.

Hindsight being 20/20, they should have tried harder to keep the original team that built the engine around for longer so they could maybe train more people but I guess the staff turnover has been pretty catastrophic the last few years.

 

[mouacyk]

In that case why is the game so badly optimised? Unless its just teething issues with UE-5 being more or less new? But yeah, I know about Frostbite being complicated and hard to work with because nobody really knows how to use it properly, but EA was trying to get all the studios on board with it at one point.

Hindsight being 20/20, they should have tried harder to keep the original team that built the engine around for longer so they could maybe train more people but I guess the staff turnover has been pretty high catastrophic the last few years.

In general, heavily-modularized software is harder to optimize -- so many moving parts, and keeping maximum compatibility/flexibility eats up the potential. UE being design-heavy (think no-code, plugins, extensions), rather than code-heavy is eating into the performance budget.

Also nanite replaces old static LOD meshes, which could be hand-tuned for best loading and residential load on the GPU. Nanite is an additional load on the CPU to dynamically "generate" these LOD's. Lumen is basically software global illumination which is really heavy, which used to require several tricks to run fast.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I've been playing with the integrated Performance Budget Tool, which is found in the graphics menu. The game assesses your graphics card's and processor's performance on first launch, presents the benchmark results as your total GPU and CPU "budgets", and (supposedly) sets the optimal detail level. Every graphics setting is assigned two values reflecting its impact on GPU and CPU performance. Here's a detailed breakdown of the costs from their minimum to maximum value:

		GPU cost	CPU cost		GPU cost	CPU cost
Texture quality	low	30	10	ultra	50	10
Visual effects quality	low	10	10	ultra	30	10
Shadow quality	low	30	10	ultra	50	10
Post processing quality	low	20	10	ultra	40	30
Volumetric fog resolution	low	20	10	ultra	60	30
Global illumination quality	low	30	20	ultra	90	20
Reflection quality	low	40	0	high	60	0
Anisotropic filtering	off	0	0	16x	100	100
Ambient occlusion quality	low	10	10	ultra	50	30
Atmosphere quality	low	10	10	ultra	50	10
Cinematics depth of field quality	low	20	10	ultra	60	30
Foliage quality	low	10	10	ultra	10	10
Mesh quality	low	30	10	ultra	90	10
Cinematics motion blur quality	low	30	10	ultra	50	10
Particle quality	low	40	10	ultra	60	10
Shadow mesh quality	low	10	20	ultra	70	20
Shadow resolution quality	low	20	20	ultra	20	40
Subsurface scattering quality	low	20	10	ultra	80	10
total cost		380	190		1020	390

There are also two toggles -- Lights shafts and Local exposure -- without allotted numerical costs.

While the whole idea sounds very practical, the values chosen by the developers to represent each cost make one wonder. While global illumination and mesh quality certainly burden the GPU, why is anisotropic filtering supposed to be the most demanding setting of all? Also, the tool seems to miscalculate the total CPU budget. According to the developers (the resolutions below assume upscaling in quality mode):

View attachment 310398

My 5800X3D was evaluated at 230, whereas the 13900K gets 290 -- both of which seem way off. The Performance Budget Tool could become really helpful eventually, but it needs further polishing. Also, the game would benefit greatly from textual descriptions of each setting, with the corresponding visual benefit/tradeoff. That could help less experienced gamers make more informed choices in quality vs. performance.

And just for reference, those are the total budgets assigned by the tool to various GPUs:

7900XTX	1750
4090	1450
4080	1100
3080Ti	800
4070	700
3080	700
3060Ti	500
2060	300
1650	100
Steam Deck	60

Haha wow, I can't even. This budgeting tool is hilarious. The 7900 XTX outweighing the 4090 by that much just proves it.

They can keep their game, the engine, and maybe partner with AMD to shift some extra copies for Red Team fans to benchmark and claim their GPU wins at something on the wccftech comment section. It's about all it's good for unless this game gets major patching to the point all Nvidia GPUs top to bottom get their budget score doubled at the very least

In general, heavily-modularized software is harder to optimize -- so many moving parts, and keeping maximum compatibility/flexibility eats up the potential. UE being design-heavy (think no-code, plugins, extensions), rather than code-heavy is eating into the performance budget.

Also nanite replaces old static LOD meshes, which could be hand-tuned for best loading and residential load on the GPU. Nanite is an additional load on the CPU to dynamically "generate" these LOD's. Lumen is basically software global illumination which is really heavy, which used to require several tricks to run fast.

I can understand the tech behind it, but the implementation is subpar and hilariously biased towards one type of hardware architecture. That's no way to ship a game.

There's just no possible way that a game that struggles like this on a rig of W1zz's caliber that gets a pass. No matter the reason.

I'm really interested in seeing if the devs will chime in and explain the situation or if this is just ashes of the benchmark 2.0.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Haha wow, I can't even. This budgeting tool is hilarious. The 7900 XTX outweighing the 4090 by that much just proves it.

They can keep their game, the engine, and maybe partner with AMD to shift some extra copies for Red Team fans to benchmark and claim their GPU wins at something on the wccftech comment section. It's about all it's good for unless this game gets major patching to the point all Nvidia GPUs top to bottom get their budget score doubled at the very least

This has more to do with the engine than the Developer I think.... I think in an interview they said some crazy stuff about using AI to make it more accurate but I could be wrong lol...

 

[Dr. Dro]

This has more to do with the engine than the Developer I think.... I think in an interview they said some crazy stuff about using AI to make it more accurate but I could be wrong lol...

Sure, AMD has the XDNA instructions on RDNA 3. Nvidia has had an entire dedicated AI engine available to developers since Turing going back 5 years?

 

[Easo]

Yeah, this isn't exactly UE5, it's the "modern" game development yet again. I am not going to buy this even after I upgrade my GPU.
I know screenshots are never true representation of a game, but common, where is the WOW factor in one of the first "groundbreakers"? It really does look dated as W1zzard said, yet eats resources like there is no tomorrow.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yeah, this isn't exactly UE5, it's the "modern" game development yet again. I am not going to buy this even after I upgrade my GPU.
I know screenshots are never true representation of a game, but common, where is the WOW factor in one of the first "groundbreakers"? It really does look dated as W1zzard said, yet eats resources like there is no tomorrow.

Not to mention how it looks like the dev team had the time to develop and test it against one architecture and they picked just the one that's outsold 8 to 1 by its competition

The simple fact that this is attributing a much higher performance grade to the 7900 XTX tells you all you need to know.

I get UE5 being AMD friendly, Remnant II seemed a little AMD biased but nothing too outrageous but here? This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[watzupken]

I've hated it in every game I've tried it in it almost ruins FF16 although it's so bad in that it's got to be FSR1

If you like it good for you though.

I think you have to look back at the original intend of the technology. FSR 1 was release to make it simple to apply such that any GPUs, including older ones, have some sort of upscaling tech so that you don't have to sacrifice on resolution. Sure, it is known to be inferior to DLSS, but I don't see Nvidia doing a GPU agnostic solution like Intel and AMD.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I think you have to look back at the original intend of the technology. FSR 1 was release to make it simple to apply such that any GPUs, including older ones, have some sort of upscaling tech so that you don't have to sacrifice on resolution. Sure, it is known to be inferior to DLSS, but I don't see Nvidia doing a GPU agnostic solution like Intel and AMD.

The question that needs to be asked is whether AMD would make FSR completely hardware agnostic of the following conditions were met:

1. They had a market leader position
2. Their hardware had matrix multiplication capabilities
3. By leveraging their own hardware's feature set, they could achieve a better result

Intel opted to make XeSS usable on more than just Arc by enabling an alternative, less efficient code path. Nvidia could probably do the same if it really wanted to, except that the three conditions above are currently met by their product line, while Intel's probably been selling Arc at cost or even subsidized to get by this debut generation.

 

[ViperXTR]

from what i see so far, all UE5 seems to have this grainy feel to the textures and not just because of the film grain, i thought it was lumen at first with the denoising but even remnant 2 seems to have it as it doesn't use lumen

 

[oxrufiioxo]

from what i see so far, all UE5 seems to have this grainy feel to the textures and not just because of the film grain, i thought it was lumen at first with the denoising but even remnant 2 seems to have it as it doesn't use lumen

Yeah, something just looks off to me as well maybe it's the way textures are compressed in this engine. The one thing epic doesn't seem to have solved is texture quality in general though it's pretty bad in some spots in both this and remnant not sure how much that is the engine or the developer though.

 

[KrazyT]

Given the 3 comparative images, the games far from being ugly in "low" preset ... (compared to max settings)
but still, the numbers are pretty low :/

 

[Zubasa]

Yeah, this isn't exactly UE5, it's the "modern" game development yet again. I am not going to buy this even after I upgrade my GPU.
I know screenshots are never true representation of a game, but common, where is the WOW factor in one of the first "groundbreakers"? It really does look dated as W1zzard said, yet eats resources like there is no tomorrow.

Yup the "fault" of UE5 is that it is so easy to use.
This even less competent devs like this can make games that look good on trailers and screenshots.
Once they got the money most people don't bother refunding their games even if it runs like garbage.
At most they complain on social media and forgets about it after a while.
So in the end the incentive is to skimp out on optimization which is time consuming and expensive in man-hours.

 

[xploder270]

Great to see RDNA doing well in this game. I would've thought the VRAM requirements would be much worse after seeing the recommended specs.

 

[Space Lynx]

Elden Ring maker comes out with armored core vi today, @W1zzard i hope we get performance review for this one, it scored really well on pcgamer review yesterday.

 

[big_glasses]

Not to mention how it looks like the dev team had the time to develop and test it against one architecture and they picked just the one that's outsold 8 to 1 by its competition

That's not really true. I know this is a PC forum, but if you're talking about "architecture" and outselling (in gaming), you'd need to count the consoles too

 

[W1zzard]

Elden Ring maker comes out with armored core vi today, @W1zzard i hope we get performance review for this one, it scored really well on pcgamer review yesterday.

Yeah, definitely. Any idea if it's 60 FPS locked again?