Final Fantasy XV (DX11)

Upon arriving to PC earlier this, Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition was given a graphical overhaul as it was ported over from console, fruits of their successful partnership with NVIDIA, with hardly any hint of the troubles during Final Fantasy XV's original production and development.

In preparation for the launch, Square Enix opted to release a standalone benchmark that they have since updated. Using the Final Fantasy XV standalone benchmark gives us a lengthy standardized sequence to utilize OCAT. Upon release, the standalone benchmark received criticism for performance issues and general bugginess, as well as confusing graphical presets and performance measurement by 'score'. In its original iteration, the graphical settings could not be adjusted, leaving the user to the presets that were tied to resolution and hidden settings such as GameWorks features.

Since then, Square Enix has patched the benchmark with custom graphics settings and bugfixes to be much more accurate in profiling in-game performance and graphical options, though leaving the 'score' measurement. For our testing, we enable or adjust settings to the highest except for NVIDIA-specific features and 'Model LOD', the latter of which is left at standard. Final Fantasy XV also supports HDR, and it will support DLSS at some date.

Final Fantasy XV 1920x1080 2560x1440 3840x2160
Average FPS
99th Percentile

NVIDIA, of course, is working closely with Square Enix, and the game is naturally expected to run well on NVIDIA cards in general, but the 1080 Ti truly lives up to its gaming flagship reputation in matching the RTX 2080. With Final Fantasy XV, the Founders Edition power and clocks again prove highly useful in the 2080 FE pipping the 1080 Ti, while the 2080 Ti FE makes it across the psychological 60fps mark at 4K.

Wolfenstein II Grand Theft Auto V
Comments Locked

337 Comments

View All Comments

  • Midwayman - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    You *should* want ray tracing. Its freaking awesome. I think the question really is if it is worth the trade-off yet.
  • Fritzkier - Saturday, September 22, 2018 - link

    I agree with you. Even though Nvidia shouldn't have priced RTX that high, we still want ray tracing.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - link

    I couldn't give a hoot either way, I just want games that make sense and are believable, that's far more important than how a game looks. If an object cannot be used or behave in a manner that corresponds to its appearance, then what's the point? Everyone went mental about the puddle in the PS4 game, but did anyone stop to ask whether the water on the ground was wet? Likewise, th RTX demo of that fire effect (which looked grud awful anyway), is the fire hot? Can it melt the glass if fired close enough? Can I break the glass? Use a shard as a weapon? Would an enemy reveal their position by walking on the fragments, or do the pieces just fade away because they're nothing more than a fancy PhysX visual? Can I throw a grenade into the cabin to make the glass explode and harm passing enemies?

    World interactivity, object function and unexpected complexity & behaviour makes for a far more immersive game than any amount of ray tracing can ever provide. A glazed china teapot can look glorious with complex reflections & suchlike, but if I can't use it to make tea than it's not a teapot. If I can't open a door, close it, lock it, break it down, etc., then it's not a door. People are obsessed with visuals in games atm because they've been told to be. The sheep behaviour of consumers with all this is utterly mind boggling.

    That aside, these Turing cards are simply not fast enough for doing RT effects anyway. NVIDIA has spent the last five yers hyping people up for high frequency gaming, 4K and VR, all things which need strong fill rates (rasterisation performance). Those who've gotten used to high frequency monitors physically cannot go back, the brain's vision system adapts, standard 60Hz sudden looks terrible to such users. Now all of a sudden NVIDIA is trying to tell the very crowd with money to spend, who've largely jumped onto the HF/4K/VR bandwagon, that they should take a huge step backwards to sub-60Hz 1080p, at prices which make no sense at all. That's absolutely crazy, doubly so when dual-GPU is dead below the 2080, a card which is not usefully faster than a 1080 Ti, costs more and has less RAM.
  • Gastec - Thursday, September 27, 2018 - link

    1000 thumbs-ups sensei! :)
  • Writer's Block - Monday, October 1, 2018 - link

    +1
    I'm an occasional gamer; I'd be more than an occasional gamer if games did what your suggest
  • Gastec - Thursday, September 27, 2018 - link

    Like that freak said: "How much of your life do you not want to be Ray traced?" or some similar abomination.
  • webdoctors - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    ?? I knew about ray tracing before it was announced. Ray tracing isn't a new technology, its been around for more than 25 years, the idea might predate computers.

    Who DOESN"T want ray tracing?!

    You can argue you don't want to pay a premium for it, but that's not the same thing.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - link

    I just want better games, I don't care whether they're ray traced or not. This is why I like Subnautica so much, functionally it's a far more interesting and engaging game than most I've seen recently, even though the visuals are not as sophisticated. I had been spending much time playing Elite Dangerous, but that game has become very wide with no depth, it lacks the interactivitity and depth that Subnautica captures nicely. And re my comments above, see:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/reflections.txt
  • sonny73n - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    @V900

    Are you gonna reply to every comment to justify Nvidia’s rip-offs? lol
  • BurntMyBacon - Thursday, September 20, 2018 - link

    @V900: "If you look at AMDs Vega and compare it with the previous AMD flagship: Fury, you see a similar 30-40% increase in performance.

    In other words: This isn’t Nvidia wanting to rip gamers off, it’s just a consequence of GPU makers pushing up against the end of Moore’s law."

    Point of consideration: Though VEGA did see a lesser performance increase (not sure how accurate 30%-40% is), the MSRP of Vega64 ($500) was less than the MSRP of the FuryX ($650) and even the Fury ($550).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_300_se...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_RX_Vega_series

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now