Almost a year wait until an inevitable PS4, looks incredible nonetheless

Really really sweet!

This just goes to show how much of a good job they did on the xbox one as well.

I cringed a bit with the part talking about the anisotropic filter.

Even with G-Sync onboard?

I know what you mean but idk if it occurs with g-sync monitors.

I'm waiting for PS4 version with all incoming DLCs. ;)

I already have the pc version pretty much. DF today did the comparison as well,
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2...

As anyone would pretty much guess the PC version gets multiple options + 60fps, however the XB1 version still holds up surprisingly well none the less.

XB1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/0...
PC Ultra
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/0...

XB1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/0...
PC Ultra
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/0...
XB1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/0...
PC Ultra
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/0...


Another interesting read - "First and foremost, the venerable DF budget PC with an i3 processor and GTX 750 Ti finally met its match with Rise of the Tomb Raider. Running with settings similar to Xbox One, we found that testing areas saw the game turn in frame-rates between 13 and 25fps."

GTX750 Ti is a 1.7 Tflops GPU btw.


Other than that in a year from now the XB1/PC versions will be dirt cheap with all content anyways, but that's If you're willing to wait that long. If you buy an Nvidia GPU right now you get the game bundled for free as an incentive. I would recommend that to anyone who's into PC gaming.

Another interesting read, AMD R9 370 (PS4 equivalent GPU, slightly stronger at 1.89Tflops) dips below 30fps at 1080p + FXAA. dipping as low as 23.8fps for second test - "Test Scene "Soviet installation"
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de...

So it's pretty much a given that PS4 will have to optimize for 1080p with 900p cut scenes, or reduce some other features and make it a constant 1080p.

I am not sure about the PC optimization but since the Xbone version did well and 360 looks even more impressive I think PS4 version should be fine. I expect them to release all DLC on same time for Xbone and PS4, may be even PC later this year for 40$.

"Nixxes" in particular handles the ports of both pc and ps4. so we will eventually see how well they do for the ps4. for now pc rigs with current gen configs are the only things at hand to gauge. there will be trade-offs of course, if you look at it from pc's perspective. what the trade-offs are is anyone's guess.

In the same graph i posted the GTX770 is 20fps struggling at 1080p + FXAA for this game, and its a 3.2 Tflops card. Either way, currently all higher-end gaming rigs are using FXAA for this game. So it comes down to features and pixels, or a balance of both. Me thinks the devs will chose XB1 configuration with a stable performance of 30fps. considering stronger setups are experiencing harsh dips when pushing more features.

Thanks a lot for the Digital Foundry link, had bookmarked the article for later reading, but forgot. Just finished reading it all now.

Nixxes did an excellent job on the PC version - just like they did with the Xbox 360 version. Nixxes is an incredible Port developer, even better than Bluepoint Games in my humble opinion.

Here's a gif example from one of the comments on the Digital Foundry's article: http://i.imgur.com/mccZrLw.gif

Nixxes' work on the Xbox 360 version not only excellent graphically, but even delivered a better gameplay experience than the Xbox One version developed by Crystal Dynamics itself.

As for the PC version, the extremely fast input response plus the higher framerate make for a much more smoother and pleasant gameplay experience, specially during combat.

It's really great to see all the praise and love Rise of the Tomb Raider is receiving now that most of the "timed exclusivity" debate is gone and it doesn't have to compete with Fallout 4, Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, Fifa 16 and Star Wars: Battlefront.

It's a brilliant game that's definitely worth playing.

PS. For those waiting for the PS4 version, if you have a good PC or plan to buy one later in the year, it might be interesting to consider the PC version since by then it will be much cheaper and will give the best experience possible. Plus you won't need to wait till November, can play it in April-July when the price will have dropped considerably or even wait for a Steam Summer Sale in June.

It's probably using Triple buffering. but lets also not forget XB1 is pushing hair Technology + subsurface scattering and other features. The minimum system requirements of the PC version is a "AMD HD 7770" and has hair technology "turned off" + tessellation "turned off".

yet these settings are present in the XB1 version. (according to DF)
So the XB1 version has it's own custom attention with of course some trade-offs.

Now, What i think is that Nixxes will use a custom preset of the PC version for PS4. PC version has quite a few advantages but performance isn't one of them exactly, not unless a really high-end GPU is used. Another benchmark article was posted today - the lowest tested AMD card (R9 370) which is 2.3Tflops (stronger than PS4) is reaching 22 fps @ 1080p + FXAA.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/rise-of-the-t...

It isn't until the R9 380 (3.4Tflops GPU) is used where 30fps is stable at 1080p + FXAA. The R9 370 in particular can reach a stable 30fps at 1600x900 in high quality cinemas, or 1080p 30fps with toned down settings.In my opinion, anyone could wait for the PS4 version if that's all they got, naturally. But clearly PC version is the one to get, or XB1 if you can't afford a high-end gaming rig to meet the demanding standers. either one is out right now and will be cheaper if you're willing to wait that long.

I imagine very high details, pure hair on and hbao+ on can be quite the performance hog. Tone down settings to high, turn off AO, take the level of tesselation down to x8 or maybe disable the pure hair altogether and you'll probably push 30fps out of the 370.

AMD optimized drivers will probably help as well.

I am not sure comparing it directly to PC specs is the right way to judge a console performance. Titan X cannot play this game at 1080P max settings with FXAA. I had be disappointed if had such a rig TBH lol.

I would say that something in that Titan X PC build is severely affecting performance if it can't reach 1080p@60fps with max settings and FXAA.

Digital Foundry's Face-Off on the PC version states:

"With frame-rates unlocked and settings maxed at 1080p, the Nvidia card provides a 47.5fps average, matched up against 48.8fps on AMD - but it doesn't tell the full story. Some sections of gameplay see the GTX 970 pull ahead by up to 5fps, while interior scenes, cut-scenes and close-ups see the R9 390 dominant."

And

"So what about locked frame-rate gameplay at 1080p30 and 1080p60? For the former, GTX 960 with a 30fps cap provides an absolutely rock-solid experience, giving us improved levels of consistency over the Xbox One version in terms of performance plus no reduction in resolution on cut-scenes (where the Microsoft console renders at 1440x1080). It even offers some overhead for boosting settings, where we can start by bumping anisotropic filtering up to 16x. The pursuit of 1080p60 at these same settings takes a little more grunt of course, something we can achieve using a GTX 970. Even with tessellation enabled it sits at a solid 60fps, with only The Village level causing frame-drops below. This is a one-off problem area, and the simple solution is to switch this option off - though alternatively, the issue can be mitigated to a degree via overclocking."

While I'm not saying you're wrong and that it isn't true, I find it hard to believe that a Titan X won't do 1080p@60fps at max settings, when a GTX 970 achieves 47.5fps average at 1080p with max settings. Even a GTX 780 achieves a locked 30fps experience at 1440p with mostly very high settings - which the Digital Foundry article also mentions.

I believe even a GTX 980 is enough to reach 1080p@60fps with everything maxed, let alone a GTX 980 Ti. A Titan X is just overkill, and is meant to be used at 1440p or 4k resolution with everything maxed.

Maybe there's a different benchmark that proves it, but it's very hard to believe.

TBH I am not into PC but at geforce.com when I saw these numbers I was surprised:
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/rise-of-the-tomb-raider/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-nvidia-geforce-gtx-900-series-performance.png

They have a full article on their site but I did not bother to read the whole article. Just saw some stats. I should think GTX 970 should run like a butter since it is itself 350$ gfx card. Having said that for me 30fps is fine and game looks beautiful already in medium, high settings which I guess is used in Xbone version ?

Total Biscuit, very experienced pc gamer plays the game with a Titan X and as you can see from the video goes well above 60fps for the whole duration of the video even pushing well over 100fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3PuclVyK4