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 for better accuracy 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 later date.

Final Fantasy XV - 3840x2160 - Ultra QualityFinal Fantasy XV - 2560x1440 - Ultra QualityFinal Fantasy XV - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

At 1080p and 1440p, the RTX 2060 (6GB) returns to its place between the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 Ti. Final Fantasy is less favorable to the Vega cards so the RTX 2060 (6GB) is already faster than the RX Vega 64. With the relative drop in 4K performance, there are more hints of 6GB being potentially insufficient.

Final Fantasy XV - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra QualityFinal Fantasy XV - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Ultra QualityFinal Fantasy XV - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

 

Wolfenstein II Grand Theft Auto V
POST A COMMENT

133 Comments

View All Comments

  • JRW - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    2060 is considerably faster than a 580 tho, I recently upgraded from an R9 290X to EVGA RTX 2060 XC Black and love it, the 290X served me very well tho great card even with todays games @ 1080P but struggled a bit trying to hit my monitors 144hz refresh. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    Turing's MSRP makes the benchmark performance meaningless. Reply
  • jrs77 - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    Midrange card for 350 bucks... :facepalm:

    I don't care if it's as fast as a 1070ti. A xx60 series card should never cost more than 250 and the 1060 was allready overpriced for most of the time, due to all that bitcoin-fuckery.
    Reply
  • Manch - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    The Vegas are a good bit cheaper than what the scale shows. Not just on sale but regular price reductions. Even mentioned in the article so why tye discrepancy? Also I thoight Vega was a bit slower than the vanilla1080. Its showing to be faster than the FE? Reply
  • sing_electric - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    I'm not sure what you're referring to, since the best deal I've heard of on the Vega 56 was ~$320 on Black Friday, and today, I can't find a card for less than $370 (at NewEgg on one model, all others are $400+). I like AMD but given today's prices, the only price category where I think AMD wins right now is with the ~$200 580. The ~$280 RX 590 is most of the way to the 2060's MSRP but offers significantly less performance. Reply
  • Manch - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    Per the article, ". In the mix are concurrent events like AMD-partner Sapphire’s just-announced RX Vega price cuts, which will see the RX Vega 64 Nitro Plus moved to $379 and the RX Vega 56 Pulse to $329, and both with an attached 3-game bundle" Thats even better than what Ive seen.

    I just bought a MSI vega 64 from amazon for $399 with the 3 game bundle in Dec. Ive seen on avg 400-450 for Vega 64 and a good bit lower for Vega 56.

    The chart has Vega 56 at 499 which isnt the case.
    Reply
  • Manch - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    Vega 64 $399, Vega 56 $368 new egg. Plus 3 games. Reply
  • Manch - Monday, January 07, 2019 - link

    vega 64 $399 on amazon as well. There are higher pri ed cards but who cares is theyre readily available at these prices? Reply
  • Vayra - Wednesday, January 09, 2019 - link

    They also take twice as much power at the wall. *poof* there go the savings. And you get free extra noise and heat in the case to boot. Reply
  • Manch - Friday, January 11, 2019 - link

    Double?! LOL

    Compared to a 2060? The avg diff according to Anand's Bench is 130watts.

    Avg price of electricity in the US is 12 cents a kilowatt hour. That means it would cost you 1.2 cents per 100watts an hour. It would cost you on average 1.668 cents more an hour to run a VEGA 64 at full bore balls out compared to the 2060. If we then calculate the difference for an entire year @ 100% power draw for 365 days or 8760hrs the total comes out to $146.12 Here in Germany it would be about double that.

    Lets be real no one does that. (Miners?)

    Avg is 12hrs a week! Highly doubtful the card is running 100% for 12hrs a week but if it were.
    52 weeks in a year, 12 hrs a week for 624hrs for a soul crushing total of $10.41

    So yes it cost more to run a higher power card....duh, but it's not double. Stop the FUD.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now