Shadow of the Tomb Raider unable to maintain 60fps on a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

[Matrix]

SOTTR developers assure us full RTX implementation is coming sometime after launch

 

What just happened? Video of a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti running Shadow of the Tomb Raider shows that the card struggles to maintain a steady frame rate with ray tracing enabled. However, developers say this is because the demo is based on a "work-in-progress" version of the game. A "post-launch" patch will fully integrate Nvidia's RTX technology.

It is always nice to see games running on the latest hardware. It was one of the biggest attractions at Nvidia’s unveiling of its GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. However, hardware manufacturers only want to show their products in the best possible light. Many, including myself, were curious as to how well the card performed outside of the highly controlled environment of an Nvidia keynote.

Thanks to a video from German website PC Games Hardware, we actually get to see a glimpse of a 2080 Ti running a demo of Shadow of the Tomb Raider with RTX enabled in 1080p. The results were surprisingly unimpressive.

A FRAPS overlay displayed the frames per second which fluctuated widely between 30 and 70 fps. The frame rate would increase significantly when the card did not have to render environments, like when looking at a wall. However, the average rate while running around in the world was only 30-45fps.

Tomb Raider

 

✔ @tombraider

 · 12h

 

The Nvidia Ray Tracing technology currently being shown in Shadow of the Tomb Raider is an early work in progress version. As a result, different areas of the game have received different levels of polish while we work toward complete implementation of this new technology.

Tomb Raider

 

✔ @tombraider

 

The final Nvidia Ray Tracing integration will be released as a

post-launch update, and we are excited for our fans to experience it first-hand.

 

This low performance is especially surprising considering Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang bragged about the card’s ability to run at a “silky smooth” 60fps in 4K. This might be achievable with fully-optimized code, but it does not appear to be the case with this early demo.

Indeed, after PC Games Hardware published the video, Tomb Raider developers took to Twitter to explain the low frame rate.

“The Nvidia Ray Tracing technology currently being shown in Shadow of the Tomb Raider is an early work in progress version,” the tweet says. “As a result, different areas of the game have received different levels of polish while we work toward complete implementation of this new technology. The final Nvidia Ray Tracing integration will be released as a post-launch update, and we are excited for our fans to experience it first-hand.”

The devs did not mention how far “post-launch” the update would be. However, since some parts are already implementing RTX, including the portion Huang showed at the keynote, the patch will probably be close to follow.

Of course, Lara Croft’s next chapter hits shelves on September 14 — six days before Nvidia’s 20-series cards arrive on the 20th. So the optimizations might already be available by the time you’re plugging in your shiny new GPU.

 

source

[Rekkio]

My gut tells me Denuvo, VMProtect and their 100.000 DRM calls per second may be to blame for this 

 

Have they tried to benchmark it without the DRM ? 

 

[mp68terr]

Not a gamer, so just wondering: how many fps do gamers need to be comfortable with a game?

[DKT27]

7 hours ago, mp68terr said:

Not a gamer, so just wondering: how many fps do gamers need to be comfortable with a game?

 

The 60FPS is the most minimum. Anything smaller than that is unacceptable for PC gaming. While console gamers do have to manage with 30FPS, PC gamers need 60FPS minimum. This also comes from false information going on from decades that humans cannot see more than 24FPS, which is completely false. Anyway, 60FPS comes from the fact that most display monitors sold have a cap of 60FPS in them. If given the chance, gamers will prefer even more than just 60FPS, given the fact that 120FPS and even more famous 144FPS monitors exist and are highly liked by gamers - some of them even prefer more FPS over more pixels - like 4K and such. The max FPS monitors currently go till even 240FPS. But anything above 60FPS currently requires powerful hardware, more importantly, powerful graphics card and display monitors which support it, so not everyone can do that though.

[mp68terr]

I suppose that the important point here is... the human side. Why investing for FPS higher than what humans can see? 

Not speaking about hardware and technology, what is/would be our limit?

 

[DKT27]

1 hour ago, mp68terr said:

I suppose that the important point here is... the human side. Why investing for FPS higher than what humans can see? 

Not speaking about hardware and technology, what is/would be our limit?

 

 

All is not being invested only to increase FPS, a lot of it is being invested to make it look better - whether it's 4K or make it look real - whether it's other new graphical technologies. All this while trying to keep minimum 60FPS intact.

 

As for the abilities of humans, a person has given an answer about it here. It basically says research has shown that humans have been able to see at about 255FPS. Then there are also articles like this which say it can reach even 500FPS or more. Some researchers have mentioned its way above 1000FPS.

 

In fact, I have seen a big number of posts made where people mentioned that once they switched from 60FPS to 144FPS monitor, they would actually see the slowness when trying the 60FPS thing again.

 

Also, here is a site dedicated to check one's monitor's FPS rate. Notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS on it.

[mp68terr]

Interesting stuff DKT27.

Will check the references, at least those that are not paywalled...