Good to see the alpha progressing nicely. Can't wait to play the game when it officially launches next year But hey atleast it's not cyberpunk 2077 who released 3 years too early and only now is getting it's 1.0 release. Last of Us is mild by comparison looking back.
It's gotten to the point where when a game ships without major stuttering issues or glitches it's outside the norm. This is ridiculous. I hope they continue to work on this game and not throw their hands up and abandon it.
I get what you mean but at the same time this game has been released like on 3 different occasions, if they abandon it it’s not like we’re missing out on anything new lol
@@mrniceguy7168 pc players would be missing out, there has been no port to pc previously. Also, yes it was on 3 platforms but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue. The ps4 one was a completely reasonable release, as the ps4 isn't backwards compatible with ps3 so naturally they would give you a way to play one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time on their current system, and for the ps5 it made sense to give us a more up to date version to give people who just saw the show the chance to experience the game in its best form. The problem was the ps5 version didn't add much and was overpriced.
Honestly the game is completely fucked up as a pc port, but if there's a game developer team which has always delivered the most polished games ever at release is Naughty Dog, they sure fucked up here but I'm sure if they were to release The Last of Us 3 would be as polished as the first two were at release for the first time.
@@respectpartii6302 Completely agree that this game is a shitshow on pc, but it wasn't naughty dog who did this port, it was Iron galaxy. Naughty Dog still deserves some of the blame, but the biggest issue here is iron galaxy.
Seriously. That’s a huge factor that users should have access to. Especially if someone has a build right on the cusp between two texture quality settings. Let people decide between the better image quality with slower texture loading or a more stable image with lower texture quality.
@@gozutheDJ nah, this crap now has shaders stutters while still loading worse than the console versions, a crap port is just a crap port my friend. Is great that you have an awesome non-potato pc as I do, but I will not be defending this shit… when we will play it 100% fine probably by 2024 (if they actually manage to fix everything lol).
Neat trick Naughty Dog/Iron Galaxy, you improve the initial shader compilation time by not compiling some shaders. It's like you missed the point and introduced shader compilation stutter that did not exist previously. "Hey doctor my arm hurts when I move it." "Well then don't move your arm." "Thanks doctor."
Massive improvements on the Texture side of things, but the shader compilation stutter which is a result of the newest patches is definitely a bummer. I really hope they manage to sort it out for the future Naughty Dog releases on PC, including Part 2 and the multiplayer game which is supposedly going to be released alongside the PS5 version.
I think the amount of people that want to see part 2 on PC can be counted with one hand. I think the amount of people that like part two in general to can be counted on one to two hands
It would be fun to have a counter of the amount of times shader compilation stutter is mentioned in each video. Mainly to also highlight how big of a problem it is due to how frequently it is found.
@@mbsfaridi It's FOMO propaganda all these game developers love to push (but Apple is the true master of FOMO) .... You don't want to miss out or you won't get to be one of the Kewl Kids .... Which is even more ridiculous with any Sony title on a PC since they are all 3 or more years old anyway so you already missed out .... We waited 10 years already for this game what's a few more months?
@@longjohn526 Where’s fomo with AAA games? Cause you get a fully patched and most times extra included with the GOTY edition or get a cheaper game after few months.
This is proof enough 8 GB is not obsolete. All you have to do is optimize the game. Obviously more VRAM will allow for even better textures, more details and ray tracing, but PC gaming is all about scalability. Having blurry textures on 8 GB is completely unjustified. The same thing happened at the beginning of the previous console generation. Watch_Dogs is a great example, where you were forced to use the lowest texture setting on 2 GB cards and they looked horrible. Far Cry 4 had terrible streaming stutter on anything but the lowest texture setting.
this is just inexcusable perforamnche for a game with this kind of graphics. i own a 2080 super and i can run The Resident evil 4 remake with most settings on high and 60 -70 fps. Even that game drops frames because of some bad optimisation in the REengine that capcom uses. But it is nowhere near as bad as The Last of us pc port. even the camera stutter when using a mouse (wich was supposedly fixed in a patch) is still not fixed. Why are some people (not you) defemding the game by stating that waiting a few month is not that bad. Maybe people should stop defending this kind of horrible practices of releasing a game in this state.
I don't know why VRAM has become such an issue. 8GB of VRAM textures don't have to look worse than what they did 5 years ago. 16GB textures should look better, but a lot of the time they just look like how 8GB textures looked like before 16GB of VRAM was really a thing and we aren't actually scaling the textures to actually use the VRAM. Instead developers just treat it as a buffer to not optimize at all.
@ 12:58 it looks like there’s still some weird z-fighting or sorting issues with the texture layers on the ground. Really fantastic coverage and research on this, Alex. Keep up the amazing work.
This is exactly the kind of in-depth post-release coverage that we need. I don't see any other outlet doing this (hello PCGamer). Joining the DF Supporter Program now!
Most don't, most go on first impression, which if a game is a bad port, most will still think it is years after release. I remember that with Batman Arkham Knight, the port was so bad that years after, I don't recall seeing if there were any re-review on it to see if it got better, so most of us are going off first impression, and that has got to hurt their sales. Anyway, in the case of Batman Arkham Knight, if it wasn't for getting the game for free on the Epic store, I doubt I would ever have played that game, and to my surprise, the game ran like a dream on my PC, but you can only go on first impression, because hardly any review sites re-review games after release, and that basically means publishers and developers are likely leaving a lot of money on the table when it comes to PC gamers and bad ports, because I know of many people that rarely buy games on release and wait for a deep sale, after all, it makes sense, the game is a lot cheaper, it's patched up and driver ready, you're basically paying a lot less for a better product.
At the end of the year, I'd like to see a video discussing the terrible ports and their improvements and the effect on VRAM. A lot of hoopla has been made about the 8 Gbs and while the 40 series does have too little VRAM for the price I'm more interested in people's situation with 30 and older. I think VRAM will be used as a scapegoat from devs for terrible porting and optimization.
5:26 Shots fired! We shouldn't blindly assert certain VRAM sizes are obsolete when there are clear performance and optimization problems with these poor PC ports.
Some PC games are absolutely phenomenal. God of War, Uncharted all run without a hiccup at 200+fps. Then you get games like jedi survivor, hogwarts legacy, etc that are a stuttery mess even with the highest spec PC possible. Some game engines and some developers just don't know how to make games run smooth. And that's it 🤷♂️
I bought this last week and I can say that all of these issues have been fixed. They also added a bunch of options in the graphics menu. So far, I'm running this in 4k120hz HDR maxed out settings on a rtx 4080 super with an i7 13700. Using 10 gb vram out of 16
It's ironic that the people who are the biggest fans (paying $70) for these bad PC port launches are getting screwed the most, meanwhile folks who buy the game at a discount a year or two down the road will be getting a better experience for a lower price.
Outstanding overview. I praise the work you put into this. Worth every second. My PC was working its butt off when I played this opening weekend. So glad to see that people with a modest PC have a better chance (I have Gen4 M.2 drive, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5/6000MHz, and AMD 7900X). Without my build, I would have returned this title. Which would have been 6/6 recent release title returns!
Hopefully Steam makes its trial version feature available to every new release the way it did for Dead Space. This will eliminate the need to refund the game as you don't need to buy the game to trial it. This will fuck up the preorders of all the big companies unless they get their shit together and release a proper PC port
Return the title? Really? I'm playing it on a pirated version I think patch 1.0.4 or something like that with a GTX 970 and i7-4790k. I was surprised by how well it looked and ran. Around 30-40fps depending on the area with FSR on Quality it's great. Had only ONE crash after playing multiple hours. For an old ass PC I think it's fine...
on a 5900x and RX 6600 i had barely any problems with the launch version lol people simply found out about their atrocious cooling configs because they had never truly stress tested their system before
I'll give this game the same treatment I gave Arkham Knight, I avoided it for about a year and half, then I bought at a discounted price and had an amazing experience with it...
@@conyo985 I remember i bought Arkham Knight after it was fixed because they were giving everyone who bought AK until some point other games with DLCs for free xd.
Interestingly enough, I'm finishing the game with only one crash, on an 8 year old system... You can pretty much play the game right now, there's no need at all to wait that much lol
Will you revisit Jedi Survivor as well? Dead Space Remake seems to have been abandoned patch wise, and the stutters were not fixed so would be nice to call them out for it.
It's insane that they've just seemingly decided to be completely done with Dead Space, I guess because there wasn't as much uproar as with Jedi they figured it was fine and not to bother.
many people wrote to Dead Space devs about traversal stutters , but the answer was that devs team couldnt reproduce the problem (or just dont give a shit) , so we can simply forget about Dead Space fixes which is sad
Thanks for the update on this, Alex. Massive VRAM utilization improvements, but those CPU bottlenecks are a bummer. Looks like they're much closer to a 'final' version of this port than they were before though. I played the original several times, so I can wait a few more months for this remaster. I hope we get a 'final state' update video on 'TeeLouP1' when all patching concludes. :)
I’m playing this on my 3080 12GB , 32GB ram, i7 9700K and it runs perfect 90-120 FPS all ultra 1440p. I get some stutters when there’s a lot of enemies but turning vsync on and off seems to fix it
Love that you guys are doing videos like these. I have so many AAA games on my Steam Wishlist just waiting to see if they get working properly before I buy. I’m still waiting on this one until it hits $20, but good to know they’re making progress.
They work really hard at Hardware Unboxed, but their VRAM argument is flawed. They say Nvidia should put more VRAM on their cards, whilst this may make PC game development cheaper, it will make the hardware more expensive. Triple A PC games with excellent optimisation are released at the same price as games like TLOU so why should the consumer have to pay more for their hardware!? Even to the layman seeing Red Dead's high texture setting requires ~4GB, you could tell TLOU medium texture setting had not been worked on considering the reported usage in the settings menu.
They are incompetent at best and down right dishonest at worst. When FSR 1.0 came out they were saying that DLSS was not clearly better than FSR 1.0 and they mostly traded blows. Before that they were hawking sharpening filters. When the 20 series came out they were telling people to save 100 dollars and buy a 1080ti over a 2080 because the raytracing performance on the 2080 useless and the cards were the same in every other way. Two years later when RDNA2 came out they werent calling RDNA2’s raytracing useless even though it does raytracing slower than the 20 series released two years earlier. Now their deal is telling people that FSR 2.0 and DLSS are more or less the same (like they did was FSR 1.0 and sharpening filters before), where if you actually matched the visual quality of both DLSS would be running twice as fast. At 4K, DLSS ultra performance visual quality is comparable to FSR 2.0 performance but is half the internal resolution which equates to an almost doubling in performance. Also look at the games that HUB decides to cover and the games they do not cover. Every time a broken PC port comes out, they need to quickly do a video saying the VRAM in Nvidia cards is too low and is obsolete before a patch can come out and cut the vram requirements in half. It’s like they are the busted PC port channel. The future of real time rendering is light transport simulation not unoptimized texture budgeting. In their 4070 vs 6950 video did they show any pathtraced games? No because they wanted to highlight the 10% faster raster performance of the 6950 without highlighting that the 6950 does raytracing slower than a 2080. And the 10% raster performance gets crushed into negative numbers when you factor DLSS vs FSR with like for like visual quality.
@@mstewart248 hub literally misinforming many viewers to just go last gen when last gen has so much power consumption.... even though they bragged that last geb Nvidia cards were power hungry now that narrative dies immediately
@@mstewart248 On the other hand, Digital Foundry has admitted that they are sponsored by Nvidia, they even put it in the video tittles sometimes. On their 4070 video they compare Nvidia and AMD card performance on path tracing on the first game they test, misleading their viewers, since there is only one modern game from 2020 with Path tracing and it barely runs on 4070. Path tracing is a nice feature for old games, but for the next 5 years on a 4070, it's Lumen and UE5.
Thank you Alex! Your work is greatly appreciated! Updating us on the progress of those game is a great idea. It feels good also to hear some sane observations regarding expected performance for a specific hardware. Since those half assed game launched a lot of techtubers jumped onboard of the ''8gb vram is dead'' train. And a few patches later, 8gb vram gpu can match ps5 textures, what a surprise... Ultimately, PC gaming should be scalable and pc hardware running great at the begining compared to ps5 should still perform as such with equivalent settings.
I wonder if these issues would have been addressed to such an extent, or at all, if it weren't for the fact that DF addressed them in their previous video.
Nope. That's why channels like DF are important to keep the video games industry in check. The shenanigans they'll pull will go out of control if no one calls them out.
They definitely wouldn’t. Just like Resident Evil 4’s and Dead Spaces issues wouldn’t have been addressed. Warner Bros with Hogwarts Legacy though obviously don’t GAS about the Series X version.
Probably, eventually. But DF makes it easy to pinpoint issues, and they break everything down so well. Most publications would just describe things as "unstable" or choppy and a lot of the much harder to see things would fall by the wayside. Like the frame stutter for example. I don't even notice it in this clip they show, until they slow it down. Something most people would probably miss as well
@@TheHAMMER91 I still can’t fathom how some people say they don’t see frame stutters or wildly variable framerates. Especially those who claim they can’t tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I’d get my eyes checked if that were the case.
Just bought this game earlier this week, and it has already hard crashed 6 times in seven hours. It’s become unplayable in the financial district. I’m playing with a 12700k and 3080 10gb (with up to date drivers). It’s genuinely a case of buyers remorse as I really hate that by buying the game in this state, I’m reinforcing these publishers corrupt behavior. Shameful handling of a classic game.
There are two kind of CPU usage in 2023: Max out all cores/threads or use only 2 cores and left the others sleep... the sweat spot would be around 50% on every core/thread on a 6c/12t CPU.
@@PeterPauls 6c/12t is low end these days, even lowest tier i5, 13400 offers 10c/16t config. 6c/12t config has been in mainstream since zen 1 and intel 8th gen, that was ~6 years ago.
Thank you for another break down on how hardware can affect fps. I mean that part with HT on and off comparison is so cool to see. You've done enormous work!
There are 2 more bugs, turning on FSR no matter the quality shows checkerboard all over the screen and if the fps is not locked at 60 in game, vsync stops working after every cutscene or game load again. You have to change aspect ratio to some other then back to default to get it work.
@@SWOTHDRA the only advantage the consoles have is the I/O and now with direct storage 1.2 being released that advantage is way less, and pcs still have way better CPU and GPU performance and a better feature set with DLSS
@@bradhaines3142 No. A console is faster. PS5 costs $500 dollars and can run games at 4k. No PC costing $500 can run games at 4K. Its coz of two reasons. First the optimisation, second is that consoles are sold at loss. So, no similar priced pc can outperform a console.
When comparing the High textures from 5:30 and up. The launch version had better textures. The right side looks less detailed and blurry compared to the left side
@@DigitalFoundry There was no mention of DLSS during the high texture comparison, so it was assumed that its native. 1) if that is using DLSS, then how do the High textures compare between the launch version and the newest patch at native +Taa? Are they the same? Or is there also a decrease in sharpness like in the comparison in this video? 2) Now with DLSS, is there a way to get the game to look like the launch version. Is it just a case of increasing the DLSS sharpness? But, you recomended setting it at 0. So for now, while using DLSS, the launch version will look better and more detailed. 3) I remember in 1 of your tweets, the PS5 version having better textures and lightning and reflections than the launch version in some scenes. Even at high settings. Is that fixed? Or is the PC version still behind and tied with PS5 versions in some scenes?
What is sad is that these companies are not held accountable for not finishing their games. What Steam and Epic needs to do is take any game off of their store IF the game is obviously not optimized and or not finished. The only downside to this is that companies will retaliate by not releasing their games on Steam or Epic.
Why is shader compilation not simply a part of the installation process at this point? Game could have an installer exe that Steam runs on install, that precompiles everything yet does not launch the game.
So the narrative about 8GB not being enough for high settings was horseshit? Developers just didnt optimize this game, thank god i was not tricked into buying a new GPU.
On the plus side, people now know what it was like to own a Commodore 64, pressing play on a cassette tape and waiting ten minutes for the game to load. Experience that only 2½ times now!
Hello Alex, would it be possible for you to elaborate a little bit on "texture cache controls" that you mentioned? Sounded very interesting, but I don't believe I managed to catch exactly what you were referring to. Thanks!
It's nice to see follow up post like this on released games that needs performance fixing through patches. It's sad that it is a norm in gaming now. But this is helpful If I want to decide to get the game later on once it is "fixed".
I don’t understand why companies don’t check with digital foundry before they release games. I feel like they would be able to fix a lot of these issues early on in development if they let them review this stuff. Basically digital foundry should have a game qc process where big gaming companies pay them to provide important feedback. Digital foundry would get a nice pay check and consumers would get much better products.
I got stable 60 FPS with solid and stable frame times except when entering new location then there is little stutter. But even when I got everything uncapped with 80+ FPS or capped with stable 60 FPS and 16.6ms game just feels sluggish in my opinion. Tried turning on / off mouse raw input with little to nothing different. Any tips anyone? Thanks
I was looking for this, but not 3 months ago! It's on 1.1.1 and I would still not consider it "fixed yet", specially after around patch 1.0.7 it failed to go in-game giving an "unknown string" error, same thing happened when the game attempted to load shaders from scratch again. I would say 1.1.1 is the most stable yet, but not perfect. Vram requirements are definitely lower, but the environments in the game are small, so the amount of ram it uses is still obscene I think. Only 4080s and 4090s run it "decently". A 3080 already chugs at 1440p at anything above 60fps.
That’s what I was wondering. Got a 10gb 3080 and was hoping for 60fps @4K with DLSS quality or performance mode. Guess the PS5 version will have to do.. :/
Great to have an update on this one but pity though as I didn't hear any mention of whether the effects/ lighting engine fumbles were correlated in this one😢
This video isn't going to get nearly as much traction as the videos and posts online about 8 GB being obsolete. That's the unfortunate reality of too many terrible PC ports being released back to back, and then being patched much later on when nobody's really talking about it.
This is one of the games where I feel they should have tried or went with direct storage. At lest it would have helped with loading times reduction. I won't pretend to understand direct storage fully but considering it was supposed to improve gaming on SSD systems, it's disappointing that no modern game is giving it a go (except Forsaken)
Direct storage is an excellent feature but sadly it relies on the developer to put that in. Hope I am wrong but I bet in a few years time you could count on both hands how many games use direct storage on PC. That will be a sad thing.
forspoken didn't even utilize the full feature set, but even just the loading was impressive. from the menu screen you clicked load and you were instantly in the game world. I"m used to games loading fast, Cyberpunk's loading screen last s only a couple seconds. but Forspoken didn't even have a loading screen. it was instantaneous
in my personal experience playing on the latest update, a 3070, i7-9700k, 32gb of ram and a mix of high and medium settings resulted in a 60 fps highly enjoyable experience.
the best part about The Last of Us' graphics settings is its "um, Actually" moment when it comes to ultrawide monitors. when manually setting the aspect ratio of the display to 21:9, at 1440p you will get a horizontal res of 3360p.
Much has been made out of the story that 8gb Vram isnt enough nowadays, would love a revisit to this subject with all the worst offending games being retested now to see if that narative holds up after patching.
Because 8GB isn't enough for new gpu's being released and I can appreciate the many TH-camr's pointing this out trying to pressure Nvidia especially to stop releasing 8GB cards in 2023. An entry level card, fine but TLOU being more optimized doesn't prove anything because it was so broken to begin with. We have evidence with new games that cards like the 3070 even though perfectly capable computationally are handicapped by their low vram buffer. I don't understand how anyone can defend this.
TLOU has no excuse, but games with heavy use of RTX need more Vram. And Nvidia keeps advertising these Vram hungry features while failing to increase the Vram on their cards.
Returnal PC was a traversal stuttering paradise and never was fixed, just mitigated through the use of frame generation and then the port was completely abandoned. Such a lazy job.
I had it soft lock on this patch version when I picked up the ladder that snaps away after Ellie releases it and it drops from the wall and you need to get across the water. I dropped the ladder and it wouldn't let me pick it up again and I had to restart the stage.
Why is everyone acting like a 20+ MINUTE SHADER COMPILATION is acceptable and normal? This is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE bigger than any other game which normally take 2-3 minutes tops. Reinstall or update drivers and you have to do it again. Why is this necessary? That is insane.
@@JimBobeStill run like crap. I had to upgrade to 32gb ram in order for the game to not crash every 15 minutes but framerate is still all over the place, not to mention the awful CPU and GPU usage and temp. This is exactly the same situation as Arkham Knight PC on launch. People with strong hardware will be able to brute force it but it doesn't make it any better for low to mid-end users.
Played 50 Hours on PC, 2 Crashes and a few stutters on traverse sections but not every time. Had a great experience after all with a 2080Ti and 13700k.
In my original play through, I only had one massive stutter (it was so bad, I thought the game froze). Other than that, I only had micro stutters when entering a new area. My set up it a Ryzen 7 5800X 3D, a 7900 XT, 32GB of RAM running at 3600 MHz, a 1TB NVME (gen 4) WD black as the boot drive and a 16TB HDD running a 7200 RPM as the storage drive. UPDATE: I played through the Left Behind DLC this past Sunday and didn’t notice any stuttering.
My config is nearly the same as yours but with a 7900 XTX, game on a 2TB GEN 4 ADATA gammix S70, running 4k native cause FSR looks bad, I'm not even getting stable 60fps, even with "high" settings, A plague tale requiem looks way better and ran way better. I'm also getting some stutters, shader comp I think.
I‘m more about near future games. About what‘s happen the latest games, I got the feeling 8GB isn‘t quite enough, but at the same time the developers are shitty at optimizing their games. I‘m just worrying about my 12GB Card and set me up for buying a new one just already next year. I want that 1440p/Ultra/stabil 60fps😅
Because the hardware is not a variable for consoles. For PC, there are a lot of possibilities for the target hardware. A bulk of these stutters come from shader compilation which is unique to each combination of hardware. This is a non issue on consoles because devs can just precompile the shaders and ship it with the game. Another problem is that PS5 has custom solution for extremely fast SSD data streaming and asset decompression. High end PCs can brute force this via PCIE 4.0 SSDs and a beefy CPU (with more cores), but mid range CPU and PCIE 3.0 SSDs will not be able to keep up. PS5 has custom hardware for this. Alex also mentions here that DirectStorage (MS version of fast data streaming on the Xbox) would be highly effective in this case. Tldr, this is a console game first (duh), designed to utilise the custom hardware on the PS5 to the fullest. This doesn’t necessarily translate 1-1 to a PS5 equivalent PC that Alex is using in this video. Which is why a PS5 equivalent PC is struggling here.
The textures look far better, but I wouldn't say they needed new authoring. Maybe they had to batch resample them, which is trivial, but more likely there was a mipmap/LoD bug where better textures were still in VRAM but not being used.
Good to see the alpha progressing nicely. Can't wait to play the game when it officially launches next year
But hey atleast it's not cyberpunk 2077 who released 3 years too early and only now is getting it's 1.0 release. Last of Us is mild by comparison looking back.
A shout out for the beta testers out there
Yeah these improvements are nice but it's still unacceptable. I guess we still wait.
yeah and pay full price for beta testing and we get really cheap working game.
And It'll be in a humble bundle probably as well
At a discount price too!
It's gotten to the point where when a game ships without major stuttering issues or glitches it's outside the norm. This is ridiculous. I hope they continue to work on this game and not throw their hands up and abandon it.
I get what you mean but at the same time this game has been released like on 3 different occasions, if they abandon it it’s not like we’re missing out on anything new lol
@@mrniceguy7168 pc players would be missing out, there has been no port to pc previously. Also, yes it was on 3 platforms but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue. The ps4 one was a completely reasonable release, as the ps4 isn't backwards compatible with ps3 so naturally they would give you a way to play one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time on their current system, and for the ps5 it made sense to give us a more up to date version to give people who just saw the show the chance to experience the game in its best form. The problem was the ps5 version didn't add much and was overpriced.
Until the general public stops paying for these broken games, it will never change
Honestly the game is completely fucked up as a pc port, but if there's a game developer team which has always delivered the most polished games ever at release is Naughty Dog, they sure fucked up here but I'm sure if they were to release The Last of Us 3 would be as polished as the first two were at release for the first time.
@@respectpartii6302 Completely agree that this game is a shitshow on pc, but it wasn't naughty dog who did this port, it was Iron galaxy. Naughty Dog still deserves some of the blame, but the biggest issue here is iron galaxy.
That texture streaming option would be useful as a regular option in games in general.
I believe that's how some games' texture option works already.
Yeah most games have it but somewhat hidden when you use lower texture settings. I do hope all games expose this setting in future titles.
Seriously. That’s a huge factor that users should have access to. Especially if someone has a build right on the cusp between two texture quality settings. Let people decide between the better image quality with slower texture loading or a more stable image with lower texture quality.
Any idea if I can enforce this in NvInspector or something?
I really like seeing these update videos for games with bad ports, and I would love to see it become a semi-regular thing moving forward.
don't worry, they're gonna milk this for all its worth
@@gozutheDJ they should, since the port is very… questionable on quality.
@@Siul_987right, a port is only “quality” if it can play at 100fps ultra on a fossilized potato PC
@@gozutheDJ nah, this crap now has shaders stutters while still loading worse than the console versions, a crap port is just a crap port my friend.
Is great that you have an awesome non-potato pc as I do, but I will not be defending this shit… when we will play it 100% fine probably by 2024 (if they actually manage to fix everything lol).
@@gozutheDJ are you trying to say this games port was good at launch?
Neat trick Naughty Dog/Iron Galaxy, you improve the initial shader compilation time by not compiling some shaders. It's like you missed the point and introduced shader compilation stutter that did not exist previously.
"Hey doctor my arm hurts when I move it."
"Well then don't move your arm." "Thanks doctor."
This video perfectly sums up my experience with playing this latest 1.5 patch:
It runs "better" but it still isn't "good"
Just get a ps5 to play it
Runs just fine on an RX 6800. 1440p/Ultra - 70-120FPS.
@@TheBrightjay already own it on PS5, and yes unfortunately at this stage it is the vastly superior option to a 3 thousand dollar PC. Bit silly.
@@sammyflinders just crazy
Runs worst for me.
Massive improvements on the Texture side of things, but the shader compilation stutter which is a result of the newest patches is definitely a bummer. I really hope they manage to sort it out for the future Naughty Dog releases on PC, including Part 2 and the multiplayer game which is supposedly going to be released alongside the PS5 version.
Hopefully they use one of their good PC conversion support teams this time.
Supposedly according to who? The game hasn't even been formally unveiled yet you turd
I think the amount of people that want to see part 2 on PC can be counted with one hand. I think the amount of people that like part two in general to can be counted on one to two hands
@@g33xzi11a 505 have been really good so far
Is multiplayer on pc actually confirmed ?
It would be fun to have a counter of the amount of times shader compilation stutter is mentioned in each video. Mainly to also highlight how big of a problem it is due to how frequently it is found.
Really appreciate the CPU analysis you did here, in particular the HT on/off performance cores on/off tests. Thanks for the outstanding update!
I guess I'm SOL with a 9700k with no HT.
@@Hixbot Well, you got what you payed for. Playing AAA games on or or near launch on PC is always a gamble.
@@mbsfaridi It's FOMO propaganda all these game developers love to push (but Apple is the true master of FOMO) .... You don't want to miss out or you won't get to be one of the Kewl Kids .... Which is even more ridiculous with any Sony title on a PC since they are all 3 or more years old anyway so you already missed out .... We waited 10 years already for this game what's a few more months?
@@longjohn526 Where’s fomo with AAA games? Cause you get a fully patched and most times extra included with the GOTY edition or get a cheaper game after few months.
This is proof enough 8 GB is not obsolete. All you have to do is optimize the game.
Obviously more VRAM will allow for even better textures, more details and ray tracing, but PC gaming is all about scalability. Having blurry textures on 8 GB is completely unjustified.
The same thing happened at the beginning of the previous console generation. Watch_Dogs is a great example, where you were forced to use the lowest texture setting on 2 GB cards and they looked horrible. Far Cry 4 had terrible streaming stutter on anything but the lowest texture setting.
Agree. Now the game is totally playable with Ultra settings 2650x1440 on rtx 3070ti (i5 10600k)
too bad everyone has locked themselves into beleiveing they need 16gb of vram at 1080p
this is just inexcusable perforamnche for a game with this kind of graphics. i own a 2080 super and i can run The Resident evil 4 remake with most settings on high and 60 -70 fps. Even that game drops frames because of some bad optimisation in the REengine that capcom uses. But it is nowhere near as bad as The Last of us pc port. even the camera stutter when using a mouse (wich was supposedly fixed in a patch) is still not fixed. Why are some people (not you) defemding the game by stating that waiting a few month is not that bad. Maybe people should stop defending this kind of horrible practices of releasing a game in this state.
@@caleasthetic I am not sure how far 2080 is from 3070ti. But I can play Ultra setting on 2560x1440 with 60 fps.
I don't know why VRAM has become such an issue. 8GB of VRAM textures don't have to look worse than what they did 5 years ago. 16GB textures should look better, but a lot of the time they just look like how 8GB textures looked like before 16GB of VRAM was really a thing and we aren't actually scaling the textures to actually use the VRAM. Instead developers just treat it as a buffer to not optimize at all.
@ 12:58 it looks like there’s still some weird z-fighting or sorting issues with the texture layers on the ground. Really fantastic coverage and research on this, Alex. Keep up the amazing work.
Really hope they may fix the z-fighting issues
@@SuperOtakuKyo I thought that was poorly pixelated DLSS reconstruction...
This is exactly the kind of in-depth post-release coverage that we need. I don't see any other outlet doing this (hello PCGamer). Joining the DF Supporter Program now!
Most don't, most go on first impression, which if a game is a bad port, most will still think it is years after release.
I remember that with Batman Arkham Knight, the port was so bad that years after, I don't recall seeing if there were any re-review on it to see if it got better, so most of us are going off first impression, and that has got to hurt their sales.
Anyway, in the case of Batman Arkham Knight, if it wasn't for getting the game for free on the Epic store, I doubt I would ever have played that game, and to my surprise, the game ran like a dream on my PC, but you can only go on first impression, because hardly any review sites re-review games after release, and that basically means publishers and developers are likely leaving a lot of money on the table when it comes to PC gamers and bad ports, because I know of many people that rarely buy games on release and wait for a deep sale, after all, it makes sense, the game is a lot cheaper, it's patched up and driver ready, you're basically paying a lot less for a better product.
At the end of the year, I'd like to see a video discussing the terrible ports and their improvements and the effect on VRAM. A lot of hoopla has been made about the 8 Gbs and while the 40 series does have too little VRAM for the price I'm more interested in people's situation with 30 and older. I think VRAM will be used as a scapegoat from devs for terrible porting and optimization.
huh? the only isssue that exists is cards that SHOULD be 1440p capable being crippled with low vram. cards intended for 1080p are just fine with 8gb.
I have a 3060 12gb and every setting is maxed out on ultra and It’s at 70 fps
@@thegreenmind464 Now I'm sure that will be my next GPU. :D
5:26 Shots fired! We shouldn't blindly assert certain VRAM sizes are obsolete when there are clear performance and optimization problems with these poor PC ports.
HUB gonna backtrack fast
@@lakersrams7761 LOL no, HUB has shown problems in many other games like A plague tail and Hogwarts. Keep dreaming.
Some PC games are absolutely phenomenal. God of War, Uncharted all run without a hiccup at 200+fps.
Then you get games like jedi survivor, hogwarts legacy, etc that are a stuttery mess even with the highest spec PC possible.
Some game engines and some developers just don't know how to make games run smooth.
And that's it 🤷♂️
I bought this last week and I can say that all of these issues have been fixed. They also added a bunch of options in the graphics menu. So far, I'm running this in 4k120hz HDR maxed out settings on a rtx 4080 super with an i7 13700. Using 10 gb vram out of 16
It's ironic that the people who are the biggest fans (paying $70) for these bad PC port launches are getting screwed the most, meanwhile folks who buy the game at a discount a year or two down the road will be getting a better experience for a lower price.
I really like how gleefully Alex says "Und auf wiedersehen!" at the end of his videos. 😄
Idk if this VRAM optimization deserves high praise. I think it just goes to show how half assed the game was when it was released.
Thank you for giving us an update. Also, I like your methodology. Testing this extensively is incredibly time consuming, so it's much appreciated.
Great testing, as usual. Also, the Alleyway of Mediocrity got nothing on the Corridor of Doom, still a cool name though, I like it.
Outstanding overview. I praise the work you put into this. Worth every second. My PC was working its butt off when I played this opening weekend. So glad to see that people with a modest PC have a better chance (I have Gen4 M.2 drive, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5/6000MHz, and AMD 7900X). Without my build, I would have returned this title. Which would have been 6/6 recent release title returns!
Hopefully Steam makes its trial version feature available to every new release the way it did for Dead Space. This will eliminate the need to refund the game as you don't need to buy the game to trial it. This will fuck up the preorders of all the big companies unless they get their shit together and release a proper PC port
Return the title? Really? I'm playing it on a pirated version I think patch 1.0.4 or something like that with a GTX 970 and i7-4790k. I was surprised by how well it looked and ran. Around 30-40fps depending on the area with FSR on Quality it's great. Had only ONE crash after playing multiple hours. For an old ass PC I think it's fine...
on a 5900x and RX 6600 i had barely any problems with the launch version lol
people simply found out about their atrocious cooling configs because they had never truly stress tested their system before
How the hell stuff like this happens is beyond me
Is the 'stuff' you commenting on the results of a 15 minute video that came out 5 minutes ago?
PC gaming happened
because people pre order games like fucking idiots.
@@CaravelClerihew what do you mean?
Inexperienced developers. Same with CD Projekt Red, BioWare, DICE, Respawn, etc.
I'll give this game the same treatment I gave Arkham Knight, I avoided it for about a year and half, then I bought at a discounted price and had an amazing experience with it...
Same here except I got it for free.
Actually, both games were ported by the same developer. What were Sony thinking hiring them...
@@conyo985 I remember i bought Arkham Knight after it was fixed because they were giving everyone who bought AK until some point other games with DLCs for free xd.
Interestingly enough, I'm finishing the game with only one crash, on an 8 year old system... You can pretty much play the game right now, there's no need at all to wait that much lol
@@gamzillio Yeah I remember that... They only two companies I trust when it comes to high quality ports are QLOC and NIXXES.
Will you revisit Jedi Survivor as well? Dead Space Remake seems to have been abandoned patch wise, and the stutters were not fixed so would be nice to call them out for it.
Criminal how dead space was just abandoned after the March patch. Survivor is still rough as hell too.
It's insane that they've just seemingly decided to be completely done with Dead Space, I guess because there wasn't as much uproar as with Jedi they figured it was fine and not to bother.
Alex talks about it near the end of the video. Yes.
many people wrote to Dead Space devs about traversal stutters , but the answer was that devs team couldnt reproduce the problem (or just dont give a shit) , so we can simply forget about Dead Space fixes which is sad
Thanks Alex! Your continued coverage of these bad PC launches is invaluable 🙏
Thanks for the update on this, Alex. Massive VRAM utilization improvements, but those CPU bottlenecks are a bummer. Looks like they're much closer to a 'final' version of this port than they were before though. I played the original several times, so I can wait a few more months for this remaster.
I hope we get a 'final state' update video on 'TeeLouP1' when all patching concludes. :)
I can confirm there is no shader compilation stutter any more.
I’m playing this on my 3080 12GB , 32GB ram, i7 9700K and it runs perfect 90-120 FPS all ultra 1440p. I get some stutters when there’s a lot of enemies but turning vsync on and off seems to fix it
2:57 Love how you make sure it’s shader compilation stutter.
Love that you guys are doing videos like these. I have so many AAA games on my Steam Wishlist just waiting to see if they get working properly before I buy. I’m still waiting on this one until it hits $20, but good to know they’re making progress.
Are you waiting for a price drop or the game to be fixed.. Maybe it's time to put up your pirate hat instead of still buying broken games
search good and you can download for free... saves you also the 20
I get the sense that Alex isn't a big fan of Hardware Unboxed.
They work really hard at Hardware Unboxed, but their VRAM argument is flawed. They say Nvidia should put more VRAM on their cards, whilst this may make PC game development cheaper, it will make the hardware more expensive. Triple A PC games with excellent optimisation are released at the same price as games like TLOU so why should the consumer have to pay more for their hardware!? Even to the layman seeing Red Dead's high texture setting requires ~4GB, you could tell TLOU medium texture setting had not been worked on considering the reported usage in the settings menu.
They are incompetent at best and down right dishonest at worst. When FSR 1.0 came out they were saying that DLSS was not clearly better than FSR 1.0 and they mostly traded blows. Before that they were hawking sharpening filters. When the 20 series came out they were telling people to save 100 dollars and buy a 1080ti over a 2080 because the raytracing performance on the 2080 useless and the cards were the same in every other way. Two years later when RDNA2 came out they werent calling RDNA2’s raytracing useless even though it does raytracing slower than the 20 series released two years earlier. Now their deal is telling people that FSR 2.0 and DLSS are more or less the same (like they did was FSR 1.0 and sharpening filters before), where if you actually matched the visual quality of both DLSS would be running twice as fast. At 4K, DLSS ultra performance visual quality is comparable to FSR 2.0 performance but is half the internal resolution which equates to an almost doubling in performance.
Also look at the games that HUB decides to cover and the games they do not cover. Every time a broken PC port comes out, they need to quickly do a video saying the VRAM in Nvidia cards is too low and is obsolete before a patch can come out and cut the vram requirements in half. It’s like they are the busted PC port channel. The future of real time rendering is light transport simulation not unoptimized texture budgeting. In their 4070 vs 6950 video did they show any pathtraced games? No because they wanted to highlight the 10% faster raster performance of the 6950 without highlighting that the 6950 does raytracing slower than a 2080. And the 10% raster performance gets crushed into negative numbers when you factor DLSS vs FSR with like for like visual quality.
@@mstewart248 hub literally misinforming many viewers to just go last gen when last gen has so much power consumption.... even though they bragged that last geb Nvidia cards were power hungry now that narrative dies immediately
@@modelcitizen9279 Digital Foundry has said in a recent podcast that Nvidia should put more VRAM on their cards
@@mstewart248 On the other hand, Digital Foundry has admitted that they are sponsored by Nvidia, they even put it in the video tittles sometimes. On their 4070 video they compare Nvidia and AMD card performance on path tracing on the first game they test, misleading their viewers, since there is only one modern game from 2020 with Path tracing and it barely runs on 4070. Path tracing is a nice feature for old games, but for the next 5 years on a 4070, it's Lumen and UE5.
Thank you Alex! Your work is greatly appreciated!
Updating us on the progress of those game is a great idea.
It feels good also to hear some sane observations regarding expected performance for a specific hardware.
Since those half assed game launched a lot of techtubers jumped onboard of the ''8gb vram is dead'' train.
And a few patches later, 8gb vram gpu can match ps5 textures, what a surprise...
Ultimately, PC gaming should be scalable and pc hardware running great at the begining compared to ps5 should still perform as such with equivalent settings.
I wonder if these issues would have been addressed to such an extent, or at all, if it weren't for the fact that DF addressed them in their previous video.
Nope. That's why channels like DF are important to keep the video games industry in check. The shenanigans they'll pull will go out of control if no one calls them out.
They definitely wouldn’t. Just like Resident Evil 4’s and Dead Spaces issues wouldn’t have been addressed. Warner Bros with Hogwarts Legacy though obviously don’t GAS about the Series X version.
Probably, eventually. But DF makes it easy to pinpoint issues, and they break everything down so well. Most publications would just describe things as "unstable" or choppy and a lot of the much harder to see things would fall by the wayside. Like the frame stutter for example. I don't even notice it in this clip they show, until they slow it down. Something most people would probably miss as well
@@TheHAMMER91 I still can’t fathom how some people say they don’t see frame stutters or wildly variable framerates. Especially those who claim they can’t tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I’d get my eyes checked if that were the case.
of course they would, this is just stupidity thinking
Just bought this game earlier this week, and it has already hard crashed 6 times in seven hours. It’s become unplayable in the financial district. I’m playing with a 12700k and 3080 10gb (with up to date drivers). It’s genuinely a case of buyers remorse as I really hate that by buying the game in this state, I’m reinforcing these publishers corrupt behavior. Shameful handling of a classic game.
Alex: I wish PC ports took advantage of more CPU threads
TLOU1: Be careful what you wish for
There are two kind of CPU usage in 2023: Max out all cores/threads or use only 2 cores and left the others sleep... the sweat spot would be around 50% on every core/thread on a 6c/12t CPU.
@@PeterPauls 6c/12t is low end these days, even lowest tier i5, 13400 offers 10c/16t config. 6c/12t config has been in mainstream since zen 1 and intel 8th gen, that was ~6 years ago.
@@h1tzzYT Whatever, it didn’t’t change what was the meaning of what I said.
Thank you for another break down on how hardware can affect fps. I mean that part with HT on and off comparison is so cool to see. You've done enormous work!
There are 2 more bugs, turning on FSR no matter the quality shows checkerboard all over the screen and if the fps is not locked at 60 in game, vsync stops working after every cutscene or game load again. You have to change aspect ratio to some other then back to default to get it work.
It's truly mind blowing to me how much they've managed to improve it while still failing to climb out of the realm of hot garbage.
Blame the limitations of the PC platform, console are to fast now to brute force and keep up. PC will keep getting cucmed by Nvidia and intel.....sad
@@SWOTHDRA tell me you know Jack shit about pcs without telling me you know Jack shit about pcs
@@SWOTHDRA the only advantage the consoles have is the I/O and now with direct storage 1.2 being released that advantage is way less, and pcs still have way better CPU and GPU performance and a better feature set with DLSS
@@SWOTHDRA you're hilarious. you realize a pc the same price is faster than any console now right?
@@bradhaines3142 No. A console is faster. PS5 costs $500 dollars and can run games at 4k. No PC costing $500 can run games at 4K.
Its coz of two reasons. First the optimisation, second is that consoles are sold at loss.
So, no similar priced pc can outperform a console.
Love the follow up video! This information is fun to listen to while working, I enjoy all the gritty details Alex gets into.
When comparing the High textures from 5:30 and up. The launch version had better textures. The right side looks less detailed and blurry compared to the left side
The game's base DLSS sharpening changed - mention it later in the Video
- Alex
@@DigitalFoundry
There was no mention of DLSS during the high texture comparison, so it was assumed that its native.
1) if that is using DLSS, then how do the High textures compare between the launch version and the newest patch at native +Taa? Are they the same? Or is there also a decrease in sharpness like in the comparison in this video?
2) Now with DLSS, is there a way to get the game to look like the launch version. Is it just a case of increasing the DLSS sharpness? But, you recomended setting it at 0. So for now, while using DLSS, the launch version will look better and more detailed.
3) I remember in 1 of your tweets, the PS5 version having better textures and lightning and reflections than the launch version in some scenes. Even at high settings. Is that fixed? Or is the PC version still behind and tied with PS5 versions in some scenes?
25 minutes shader compilation still.... WTF!
not only its still 25 minutes , also now there are shader compilation stutters in cut scenes and in gameplay lol
5 months later. it’s still there. barely starting the story cuz how shit it plays still
What is sad is that these companies are not held accountable for not finishing their games. What Steam and Epic needs to do is take any game off of their store IF the game is obviously not optimized and or not finished.
The only downside to this is that companies will retaliate by not releasing their games on Steam or Epic.
took around 10 minutes to compile on my 12600K and a further 5 minutes for the DLC on patch 1.1.2
Why is shader compilation not simply a part of the installation process at this point? Game could have an installer exe that Steam runs on install, that precompiles everything yet does not launch the game.
Because you install a game only once, but need to recompile everytime you updzte your drivers.
So the narrative about 8GB not being enough for high settings was horseshit? Developers just didnt optimize this game, thank god i was not tricked into buying a new GPU.
Good thing this game has finally hit beta development stages on PC!
On the plus side, people now know what it was like to own a Commodore 64, pressing play on a cassette tape and waiting ten minutes for the game to load. Experience that only 2½ times now!
Why can the ps5 fly through it but high end pcs struggle more?
Optimization
From my testing, performance has been generally improved, except for CPU performance, which is the main limiting factor right now.
I love the pc Performance Reviews. And thank you for analyzing the pc version with your frame anylyser tool. So we can see the frame times so nicely.
Hello Alex, would it be possible for you to elaborate a little bit on "texture cache controls" that you mentioned?
Sounded very interesting, but I don't believe I managed to catch exactly what you were referring to. Thanks!
It's nice to see follow up post like this on released games that needs performance fixing through patches. It's sad that it is a norm in gaming now. But this is helpful If I want to decide to get the game later on once it is "fixed".
I don’t understand why companies don’t check with digital foundry before they release games. I feel like they would be able to fix a lot of these issues early on in development if they let them review this stuff. Basically digital foundry should have a game qc process where big gaming companies pay them to provide important feedback. Digital foundry would get a nice pay check and consumers would get much better products.
I swear they had the traversal stutter fixed in 1.04 but it came back in 1.05. More work to do for sure.
I got stable 60 FPS with solid and stable frame times except when entering new location then there is little stutter. But even when I got everything uncapped with 80+ FPS or capped with stable 60 FPS and 16.6ms game just feels sluggish in my opinion. Tried turning on / off mouse raw input with little to nothing different. Any tips anyone? Thanks
I was looking for this, but not 3 months ago! It's on 1.1.1 and I would still not consider it "fixed yet", specially after around patch 1.0.7 it failed to go in-game giving an "unknown string" error, same thing happened when the game attempted to load shaders from scratch again.
I would say 1.1.1 is the most stable yet, but not perfect. Vram requirements are definitely lower, but the environments in the game are small, so the amount of ram it uses is still obscene I think. Only 4080s and 4090s run it "decently". A 3080 already chugs at 1440p at anything above 60fps.
That’s what I was wondering.
Got a 10gb 3080 and was hoping for 60fps @4K with DLSS quality or performance mode.
Guess the PS5 version will have to do.. :/
Great to have an update on this one but pity though as I didn't hear any mention of whether the effects/ lighting engine fumbles were correlated in this one😢
So now can everyone agree that 8GB of VRAM wasn't the problem?
Not from AMD fans
This video isn't going to get nearly as much traction as the videos and posts online about 8 GB being obsolete. That's the unfortunate reality of too many terrible PC ports being released back to back, and then being patched much later on when nobody's really talking about it.
It is a problem because of poor optimization that won't stop after this video
@@my40789 Most AMD users have 8GB cards, while 3060 12GB is one of the most popular GPUs on steam.
Nothing like having the public beta test your game before launch
This is one of the games where I feel they should have tried or went with direct storage. At lest it would have helped with loading times reduction. I won't pretend to understand direct storage fully but considering it was supposed to improve gaming on SSD systems, it's disappointing that no modern game is giving it a go (except Forsaken)
Direct storage is an excellent feature but sadly it relies on the developer to put that in. Hope I am wrong but I bet in a few years time you could count on both hands how many games use direct storage on PC. That will be a sad thing.
forspoken didn't even utilize the full feature set, but even just the loading was impressive. from the menu screen you clicked load and you were instantly in the game world. I"m used to games loading fast, Cyberpunk's loading screen last s only a couple seconds. but Forspoken didn't even have a loading screen. it was instantaneous
in my personal experience playing on the latest update, a 3070, i7-9700k, 32gb of ram and a mix of high and medium settings resulted in a 60 fps highly enjoyable experience.
$700 gpu only 60fps lol
@@Conner06 if you payed 700 for your 3070 you got FLEECED lol
The best channel for PC-releases, period. Keep doing what you're doing.
the best part about The Last of Us' graphics settings is its "um, Actually" moment when it comes to ultrawide monitors. when manually setting the aspect ratio of the display to 21:9, at 1440p you will get a horizontal res of 3360p.
Much has been made out of the story that 8gb Vram isnt enough nowadays, would love a revisit to this subject with all the worst offending games being retested now to see if that narative holds up after patching.
Because 8GB isn't enough for new gpu's being released and I can appreciate the many TH-camr's pointing this out trying to pressure Nvidia especially to stop releasing 8GB cards in 2023. An entry level card, fine but TLOU being more optimized doesn't prove anything because it was so broken to begin with. We have evidence with new games that cards like the 3070 even though perfectly capable computationally are handicapped by their low vram buffer. I don't understand how anyone can defend this.
TLOU has no excuse, but games with heavy use of RTX need more Vram. And Nvidia keeps advertising these Vram hungry features while failing to increase the Vram on their cards.
I started playing this week and noticed the shader compilation stutter too, usually on cutscenes.
25 mins is still unacceptable. RETURNAL FIGUERED ALL THESE ISSUES OUT
I mean somewhat? Returnal is still very stuttery
@@ImGonnaFudgeThatFish DLSS 3 helps a bit
Returnal PC was a traversal stuttering paradise and never was fixed, just mitigated through the use of frame generation and then the port was completely abandoned. Such a lazy job.
I had it soft lock on this patch version when I picked up the ladder that snaps away after Ellie releases it and it drops from the wall and you need to get across the water. I dropped the ladder and it wouldn't let me pick it up again and I had to restart the stage.
Finally I can play with high settings on a cheap 3060/5600h laptop :D
Love your detailed vids. Love your BGM even more!
What a shame. Still unacceptable, shoddy pc ports dont deserve to be profitable.
What's your optimized settings, Alex?
id like to know as well lol. I have an rtx 4070 ti
So it's still a mess.
Good video! Looking forward to see more video's like this one. Maybe next time The Callisto Protocol?
This video needs a remake
Appreciate the update! It seems there was more time taken in this re-review than the patch.
looking forward to like ten of these in the near future 👍
I also noticed the shader compilation stutter when I tried the game yesterday. Also it crashed multiple times in the first hour. Sigh.
Companys releasing games in such a state should be sued an banned from steam etc.
Finished playing on 1.0.5.runs great now.
Why is everyone acting like a 20+ MINUTE SHADER COMPILATION is acceptable and normal? This is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE bigger than any other game which normally take 2-3 minutes tops. Reinstall or update drivers and you have to do it again. Why is this necessary? That is insane.
Seems to be a thing with the engine itself, Uncharted 4 takes long too.
It's still a stuttery broken mess on my PC. I7 9700k, 32gb RAM, RTX 4070ti.
Short answer: nope.
Still?
@@JimBobeStill run like crap. I had to upgrade to 32gb ram in order for the game to not crash every 15 minutes but framerate is still all over the place, not to mention the awful CPU and GPU usage and temp.
This is exactly the same situation as Arkham Knight PC on launch. People with strong hardware will be able to brute force it but it doesn't make it any better for low to mid-end users.
@@PLYTATN sad
at 2:56 why is there ghosting of Joel's hand/elbow there?
How does this look in march 2024 vs buying it on the PS5?
Any word on how this game runs now? Been a while.
Don't say the magic word "Direct Storage".
It makes developers run and hide behind the first rock they find.
??
Wow, excellent work! Great deep-dive Alex.
Still messed up in April 2024
I had zero issues other than high CPU usage. Played and finished in May 2024
@@Radek494 yeah its just the high cpu usuage that worrys me, doesnt it ruin the cpu
will they ever fix it?
Played 50 Hours on PC, 2 Crashes and a few stutters on traverse sections but not every time. Had a great experience after all with a 2080Ti and 13700k.
In my original play through, I only had one massive stutter (it was so bad, I thought the game froze). Other than that, I only had micro stutters when entering a new area. My set up it a Ryzen 7 5800X 3D, a 7900 XT, 32GB of RAM running at 3600 MHz, a 1TB NVME (gen 4) WD black as the boot drive and a 16TB HDD running a 7200 RPM as the storage drive.
UPDATE: I played through the Left Behind DLC this past Sunday and didn’t notice any stuttering.
imagine having that pc and getting stutters lol
Meanwhile I have an 8 year old system and got almost no stutters lol
@@marturomano sureeeeee lol
My config is nearly the same as yours but with a 7900 XTX, game on a 2TB GEN 4 ADATA gammix S70, running 4k native cause FSR looks bad, I'm not even getting stable 60fps, even with "high" settings, A plague tale requiem looks way better and ran way better. I'm also getting some stutters, shader comp I think.
So, do you think 1080p gaming is with 8GB of VRAM still possible on well optimized AAA games in the future?
You can play 1440p, just not max setting
I‘m more about near future games. About what‘s happen the latest games, I got the feeling 8GB isn‘t quite enough, but at the same time the developers are shitty at optimizing their games. I‘m just worrying about my 12GB Card and set me up for buying a new one just already next year. I want that 1440p/Ultra/stabil 60fps😅
A reason I find PC gaming annoying. I just want to play a game without judder or issues. Why console games are less stressful.
Because the hardware is not a variable for consoles. For PC, there are a lot of possibilities for the target hardware. A bulk of these stutters come from shader compilation which is unique to each combination of hardware. This is a non issue on consoles because devs can just precompile the shaders and ship it with the game.
Another problem is that PS5 has custom solution for extremely fast SSD data streaming and asset decompression. High end PCs can brute force this via PCIE 4.0 SSDs and a beefy CPU (with more cores), but mid range CPU and PCIE 3.0 SSDs will not be able to keep up. PS5 has custom hardware for this. Alex also mentions here that DirectStorage (MS version of fast data streaming on the Xbox) would be highly effective in this case.
Tldr, this is a console game first (duh), designed to utilise the custom hardware on the PS5 to the fullest. This doesn’t necessarily translate 1-1 to a PS5 equivalent PC that Alex is using in this video. Which is why a PS5 equivalent PC is struggling here.
Game still load about 2-3 minutes on NVME + Ryzen 5800X. Plus there is this spikes, and grainy shadows. 2560 x 1440 Ultra. No FSR.
Ps3 still king
king of a 3rd world country maybe
Have you see uncharted2???
that's why theres like 3 or 4 bench videos for the ps3 framerate like traversal fps and random shit like that on this channel
Great work as always, Alex. It's nice to see you keep up with the updates when most move on to the next hot new thing
1 hour shader compilation and you still see stutters in game... woooow what an awesome improvement!
It's 24 mins. What are you talking about?
@@conyo985 sorry im here to attack multi-million dollar companies that release trash ports not defend them
The textures look far better, but I wouldn't say they needed new authoring. Maybe they had to batch resample them, which is trivial, but more likely there was a mipmap/LoD bug where better textures were still in VRAM but not being used.
People are still buying it, studios will keep pushing unfinished games as long as people keep buying them only to then complain... Don't buy this!
I still dont understand. So the game didn't have textures and shaders streaming?.