The story of the plague demands a solemn reflection—what could have been avoided?
The story of the plague demands a solemn reflection—what could have been avoided?
I noticed several YouTube videos that made me feel uncomfortable... It seems NVIDIA has a collaboration so the title is tuned for their hardware, but that’s completely acceptable. AMD also offers titles that are better suited for their GPUs. According to the suggested specs: Nvidia GPU: RTX 3070 AMD GPU: RX 6800 XT. The game actually needs you to turn on DLSS to achieve smooth performance. (No FSR) and it probably pushes RayTracing. A 6600 XT with ULTRA settings at 1920x1080 will yield around 45 fps using a 5900X and 32GB at 3200Mhz. I wonder if this reflects the current direction in the gaming world? Shouldn’t everyone be able to run the title at full settings, especially with a card like the 6600 XT? The game looks impressive, but I hope developers consider the needs of gamers more than just showcasing high-end GPUs. The Nvidia 4090 team is using this title to demonstrate its capabilities, suggesting AAA games are increasingly focused on FPS metrics achievable with older GPUs rather than true playability across all hardware. Some comments even mention that even a 3080 with DLSS disabled experiences stuttering, dropping from 100fps to 60fps. This indicates that not even an RTX 3070 feels comfortable enough for smooth play.
This is a confusing post. Partner games are normal. Hilariously, some have even performed worse on partner cards than the competition. Nvidia certainly has had more partner titles though, but they're the ones willing to throw money and AFAIK engineer support at developers, AMD hasn't done so as often. Has been. Have you not heard the "can it run crysis" memes? And weren't around for Rise of the Tomb Raider, it was a similarly tough game to run at max settings with the current hardware when it released. Just drop settings if you can't run the game. I use high/medium/low very often as I usually run stuff at 4K with just a 2060 Super, it looks fine. Currently I'm playing things at all low 1080p with a GTX 780, stuff like Fallout 76 looks rather potato but other older AAA titles (Destiny 2 in my case) run fine, look fine. The insistence that you need to run high/ultra settings to enjoy a game is pretty goofy.
Running smoothly on my 7900x/3090 setup at high settings with DLSS enabled (3440x1440). I plan to add it to my 5800x/RX6600 rig and experiment. If FSR isn't compatible, I'll stick with RSR and see what works. My RSR experience has been excellent. (2560x1600)
Watched my friend run it with 5900x + 3080 on 1920x1080. Everything was running at high settings. It was amusing. FPS fluctuated a lot—sometimes it spiked, other times it dropped to 35-45 while GPU utilization stayed low at 30-40%. If he opened the menu, utilization jumped to 70-80%. There were no rats around. CPU usage hovered between 20-30% most of the time. The thermal readings were normal, with the GPU holding around 70°C max and CPU at 60-70°C. Many people on Steam discuss similar issues. I think the engine might be problematic. It’s unclear if there are any hidden issues involving Nvidia. I just hope this doesn’t cause the developers to lose interest, since I really liked their first title. I’ll wait for more updates before playing the second version.
It's unusual, my FPS stayed around 90 to 110 at 3440x1440 using DLSS on Quality. However, testing on my 5800x/RX6600 showed performance dropped significantly at 2560x1600 without RSR, which is expected since it isn't a high-end GPU with 20+ FPS. Turning RSR on to upscale to 2560x1600 at medium settings allowed smoother play at 45 to 55 FPS. This performance is manageable on a reasonably affordable GPU, especially when using a controller for games like this.
You mention it's debated whether the claim about optimization for Nvidia holds true, especially for newer cards. It might vary depending on the specific GPU and setup. However, the GTX 1060 6GB remains the most popular gaming GPU. Let's examine its performance: we'll compare it with the RX 570, which is generally more affordable than the GTX 1060 6GB. If newer AMD cards are lagging, this situation requires careful consideration—should performance improvements come from patches or better support in Windows? A: I haven't tested Windows directly, but I'm using a range of settings and drawing distances. Performance can be affected significantly.
The results you see on VKD3D with that hardware are impressive. A side-by-side comparison with Windows would provide more clarity.
Maybe it's a tough game to handle (and it does seem to have some performance and optimization challenges)? Would you really need to turn on DLSS in the settings? Are ray tracing options being forced? Is this just a criticism aimed at games that perform best with DLSS? DLSS and RTX marked a clear turning point, making older GPUs quickly outdated. That’s normal. The guidelines suggest a specific hardware setup for 60 FPS Ultra—like a 6 8 00 XT instead of a 6600 XT—and even 45 FPS is doable. Usually, this makes sense because graphics settings reflect the intended capabilities. If high-end hardware can run at maximum settings with smooth 60 FPS, there’s little reason to push for more. For mid-range cards, you’d expect similar performance. It’s hard to say exactly what’s best, as preferences vary: some want higher FPS, others prioritize visuals, and others seek balance. Different games have different goals. If older or lower-end GPUs could still handle top FPS, there’d be less incentive to improve them. Without better options, developers wouldn’t feel compelled to raise the bar. 45 FPS is achievable.