PC version of Last of Us for PC.
PC version of Last of Us for PC.
Sure thing! The 2080ti delivers strong performance. Right now, the game is experiencing some shader loading delays, but it shouldn’t impact speed—just a bit longer to start up. I tested it on Medium and it still looks amazing when compared to the PS4 Remaster, which I’ve played over 30 times. Plus, I managed to get two tattoos from the game D:
I'll share the results with you tomorrow about its performance on a 5800x with an RX 570 4 GB. I attempted to start it but noticed my outdated video card drivers (seems AMD hasn't updated Polaris much) and it's already 1 am, so I'm not feeling up to updating them now.
You received the error and executed it regardless, no issues detected. It would be great to get your feedback on performance.
Great, I noticed you referenced DLSS and were concerned about having one of the smaller 8GB Nvidia cards such as the 3060 Ti, 3070, or 3070 Ti. The benchmark video by @Hinjima showed the game crashing twice on his 8GB 3060 Ti but ran smoothly at 1440p on the 12GB RX 6700 XT, which is a similar GPU without the VRAM gap. The 2080 Ti performs comparably to the 6750 XT at 1440p, and I think the extra 1GB of VRAM won’t be a major issue compared to how the 4GB difference affects the 3070 models. You likely won’t need DLSS for 60 fps at high resolution; aggressive settings might be necessary for 90 fps, but you’ll probably hit CPU limits afterward.
Take a look at the steam reviews—they’re really bad because of the terrible performance problems. I ran the game at high settings with DLSS at 1440p and only got about 53 FPS. Naughty Dog seems to know what they're doing and is working on improvements, though they outsourced the port to a company that didn’t do a good job. They keep us informed via Twitter. I’m considering either getting a refund or just playing it.
On an i5-12400F paired with an RX 6700 XT, I was frustrated because my frame rate hovered between 48-55 fps at 1440p, while others achieved 60-65 fps under identical conditions. Reducing the resolution to 1080p helped but only lowered the FPS to 33-45 when revisiting the same scene. It was quite surprising how much performance dropped. Compiling shaders at launch took over an hour and my initial game load time felt like 6 to 7 minutes, even with a fast PCIe-4x4 SSD. Comparing it to launching Arkham Knight makes sense, especially since Iron Galaxy had a similar port issue that was removed from Steam for months, leading to refunds.
Wow, it was impossible to match Daniel Owen's results on my 6700 XT. Such a disappointing experience!
I got back home, updated the graphics driver, launched the game... I'm tweaking the settings and checking the second monitor for the AMD control panel. Shaders are compiling behind the scenes, and the card runs smoothly at 100% most of the time. The menus show 33 FPS, which is low even with a resolution of 1280x800. It warns that the video card will use over 4 GB of VRAM. I need to experiment to reduce usage, but after about ten minutes it still takes longer than expected—shaders keep compiling. After thirty-six minutes, only about 28% is done. I'm going to take a risk and play at least the intro.