You won't get a response back from this. I said it earlier, and of course it got disregarded. These guys think hardware optimization is still a secret sauce on consoles, especially as architecture has completely changed since ps2 and xbox og days, not to mention everything after 360 and cell days.
They can think what they want, the reality however isn't kind to them.
Or, hear me out, could also show how good PC games could run on AMD if they weren't all made around Nvidia.
Both our statements can be right or wrong. No way to tell, no way to disprove either theory. Valhalla's great performance on AMD isn't simply a gift from the Nordic gods. The hardware is doing the work.
Good optimisation for nvidia = dlss and 5700xt being around the 1080ti level or a bit below the 2070 super ( without dlss active ) with dlss active 5700xt is nowhere to be found.
Good optimisation for amd = 5700xt performs around 1080ti and 2070 super level
Bad optimisation for AMD = when 5700xt sits around the 2060 levels ( no dlss )
Bad optimisation for nvidia = where the 5700xt sits around 2080ti levels.
The game does not support DLSS, has a AMD splash screen logo on it and is performing lackbusting on all NVIDIA hardware of every generation but great on AMD hardware on all its generations
What does that tell you?
Here's borderlands 3 for example: Exactly what u get in pretty much 95% of any other title.
here's a nvidia sponsored title that does seem to be solid optimised also for AMD hardware but features DLSS, as u can see it at the performance it pushes.
That's without DLSS by the way.
This is with DLSS, the higher the fps the worse quality setting of dlss
It's not hard man.
Sometimes gpu's always spike up in one or the other game
This is simply not true, using the game itself and not the built-in benchmark:
It includes a hefty overclock on the GPU (2.15 TFLOPs vs the PS4 1.85 TFLOPs). Average framerate of 22 vs 30 FPS with a 16% faster GPU plus far faster CPU does point to the PS4 performing more optimally with the hardware it has.
Or use this:
Not english, but if you look at the FPS counter you get the idea.
Completely useless to even do this and the reasons for this is
1) horizon zero dawn was a absolute disastrous release of a completely butchered game performance wise and every single player that bought it / outlet slammed them for it. It was the first real title that was interesting to see how ps4 software from first devs would relate towards pc's specs but god they butchered it hard.
2) The pc port is such a mess they are ducktaping problem and patching new systems they create in order to make the game perform stable ( just read there updates its a joke ) which all tank performance at the end, its not remotely like the PS4 game or a straight well optimised port at it. It's laughable bad how it performs for the visuals it pushes out.
3) it has higher base settings also something they advertised, now if those base settings can be disabled or not i wouldn't know. maybe they can. they are not clear about this at all.
4) 7000 series cards are no longer supported or optimized for, even pulling one forwards without having amd specifically optimize for those games or games for those architectures is going to yield in worse performance as pc moves forwards after a while and doesn't stay stuck for a decade on hardware that wasn't even relevant anymore at the release of the PS4. This is why people compared it towards a 750ti and not a some 7000 series gpu.
It's completely and utterly useless what this guy is doing really in his video's really.
And then lets look at what horizon really is doing.
Just look at at the city in the game, and that's them advertising the game with by the way.
like is this some bootleg final fantasy 14 looking game.
I runned the benchmark a while ago and god the game cuts corners everywhere. I am sure it has some good looking area's but city's aint part of it.
AC origin absolutely dumpsters it even on the PS4.
DonJuanSchlong it was DF, not me with that 2080S/3060 Ti statement:
.
