Jump to content

Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Digital Foundry Analysis


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yea, well when your consoles misses out on tons of games and has no exclusives... you basically have nothing left other than that tiny bit of resolution

I must say, if you don't engage him directly - which I am loathe to do; he's entertaining as fuck. The circles he runs in to defend things, and the corners he boxes himself into are fantastic.  

Here you go again, butthurt and running to alternative sources.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

We'll see but I'm banking on you're 100% wrong, those framerate dips are not indicative of something scaling. 

I think those fps drops are accurate... taking into account the scaling to 3200x1800 and judging by the PC benchmarks.... that's why I said it explains things :shrug: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Remij_ said:

I think those fps drops are accurate... taking into account the scaling to 3200x1800 and judging by the PC benchmarks.... that's why I said it explains things :shrug: 

But doesn't this defeat the logic of your other post?

 

"I even specifically said that they were using an old driver in those benchmarks too.." 

 

According to you those PC's are using old unoptimized drivers whereas the X would be running basically metal to metal, so which is it? How can something which is metal to metal bear indicative representation of something running old and unoptimized drivers?

 

checkmate.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

But doesn't this defeat the logic of your other post?

 

"I even specifically said that they were using an old driver in those benchmarks too.." 

 

According to you those PC's are using old unoptimized drivers whereas the X would be running basically metal to metal, so which is it? How can something which is metal to metal bear indicative representation of something running old and unoptimized drivers?

 

 

No..

 

Uh...because it can? Judging from the theoretical performance of the part :cosby2:   PC ALWAYS has overhead that isn't there on consoles... this is a constant...

 

Given the INFORMATION WE HAVE... It's very indicative... and explains exactly why I think the way I do..

 

And what the developers do in their patches and what Nvidia does in their drivers are two different things....  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jon2B said:

Lol remij should be banned from DF threads since he doesn't think they are credible anymore .

 

Dumb cuck lol

You even have Dynamite right at the top of this page say that "they shouldn't be analyzing pre-release code"  lmao... 

 

I'm fine with DF... but they make mistakes sometimes.  I can admit when they do because I don't have a fucking dog in this fight lmao... The lemmings are the ONLY motherfuckers who get butthurt about stuff like this.  Just deal with it idiots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

Maybe nx gamer made the mistake 

 

You can't admit that tho . Not even with fc5 

 

You won't LOL

You're right... I wont... because it's LESS likely...  What you idiots don't grasp is that NXG's findings fall in line with what I myself suggested before I even KNEW his video existed...  If you understand the bottlenecks of the given platforms and gpus.. it explains why we're seeing what we're seeing.

 

All you come to the table with is "bu bu DF said so.. X1X is a super console" :grimaceleft:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aza Team 2019 said:

lol people zoom in 30x to stare at the screen point blank and can't even get the pixel count right, and you retards are arguing about resolutions sitting 9 feet away from the screen.

 

 

Pro was a mistake 

The difference is clear in the video posted it 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aza Team 2019 said:

lol people zoom in 30x and can't even get the pixel count right, and you retards are arguing about resolutions sitting 9 feet away from the scren.

You're being just as stupid... anyway I'm not arguing that one resolution is vastly better or worse than the other... what I AM saying is that this EXPLAINS the performance.. especially when you compare to the PC... which they did.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aza Team 2019 said:

Yes it's clear, Pro doesn't have screen tearing, and doesn't drop to 23fps at a scene that 30 on Pro.

:D

 

if you're playing at that low resolution may as well play at 108060 , which is vastly superior on X 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carlos Vela said:

GTX 1060

Lowest Setting

No AA

1080p

 

Can’t hit  50 FPS

 

6EBE46A6-EF2B-4164-8019-C55DD033663E.MOV

LMFAO... did you see that AA setting you fucking retard?  He changes it part way through... it was at SMAA4X... ROFL... he changed it after to OFF and the fps jumped to 90... then turned the settings to Ultra and the fps was at 50...

 

X1X = somewhere between a 1060 and 1070...  With horrible tearing, input lag, and fps drops :hehe: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jon2B said:

:D

 

if you're playing at that low resolution may as well play at 108060 , which is vastly superior on X 

Which NEVER hits a steady 60fps.. .has juddering and screen tearing galore... and terrible input lag :tom: 

 

No... we're good. :mjgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...