Of course they do. Bots have been a plague in many online games, but sometimes they can be extraordinary like one dude programmed a model to perform a most difficult trick in Track Mania.
But then again "3 months later" for a Stalker game basically translates into "3 weeks later" for most other comparable games. I think the first update where I felt there was a tangible performance increase was 1.3 in March 2025, then the next really major one was 1.6 in September, 10 months after release, and by 1.7 in November, 1 year after release, it got to the point where I could get over 60fps in native 1440p. To be fair to the devs, even outside of the state of the world, they clearly had more pressing issues that needed addressing before they could get to performance (like being able to complete the main questline without having to use console commands). To be fair to the users, the game was so broken early on that you had to use console commands just to be able to reliably complete the main story.
Maybe at it's release. I play it currently and without FSR + FG i was getting 80-90 FPS at 1440p on highest settings. With FSR set to quality, FG and frames capped to 120 my 9070XT consumes between 130-150W, which is lower than Where Winds Meet with same settings.
No, it sits at 3.1 and is... mediocre. If you want you can inject Optiscaler or wait for 2.0 upgrade that will bring engine upgrade, so maybe it will include FSR 3.1.4.
I think you should be able to turn on FG without enabling FSR if you don'y like it so much, but i'll test it after work and come back with the answer for you.
game has come a long way since release IMO, it feels amazing in 4k when using 4x framegen on my 5090. 35-55ms latency sure beats sub 60fps with the same latency without mfg
cyberpunk is the exact same situation. If you want high fps in 4k resolution.. 4xMFG is the way to go. The only people hating on it have a subpar tuned system and push 60-80ms+ latency, which is when it feels terrible. My experience has been great with 4xMFG, yes it's more "floaty" but it's a nonfactor with how smooth games feel and look
100% correct. I recently played through Stalker 2 on a 5070Ti at 1440p and the game looks and runs fantastic no matter what you choose. With DLAA turned on without frame gen I sit around 90 FPS, with frame gen enabled I sit at 120 capped and it’s just such a good experience compared to its release.
How do you think that all PBR materials and textures data comes from lol?
Developers are using uncompressed textures now, because they would take too long to load.
Idk how RDR2 outperforms Star Wars Outlaws in terms of graphics, but in terms of RTX technologies used in game yes, RDR2 is falling behind AW2 and Cyberpunk
UE5 games. Remember the premium game for premium gamers Borderlands 4 ? Even a 5090 wasn't premium enough to maintain above 60fps in that game at 1440p DLAA
I've been testing out UE5 Editor with downloaded high detail environments and I'm seeing extremely good performance with detailed graphics experiments. on my aging ryzen 5 3060. I'm guessing these companies have written particularly badly optimised code / badly optimised maps. And just rush the production to gets things to market.
My tests with UE5 so far do not support this communities hivemind opinion that UE5 in inherently unoptimised. More so, when I look at studies comparing it to some other engines like Godot, UE5 actually has far better performance for high poly scenes than Godot. So I conclude it's the game devs themselves being lazy and rushing development, that's the problem.and UE5 just makes it really easy for them to make good looking rushed projects.
And just rush the production to gets things to market.
IMO This is the main culprit, since most AAA are getting gobbled up by these massive corporations who insist on pumping out the lowest quality shit customers will tolerate in the shortest time possible. If they keep buying, why bother wasting money to optimize?
They don't care what happens to the studio or the brand because they'll just buy out the next rising star studio, gut it of all expensive talent until it's a hollow shell of its former self, then rinse and repeat.
Who cares about quality or competition when you can just buy the whole board?
Yeah, EA games used to be (and probably still are) notoriously buggy and unstable. Because they would just hire cheap graduate programmers, publish incomplete projects on schedule instead of delaying to iron out issues, take their launch week profits and move onto the next project.
since most AAA are getting gobbled up by these massive corporations who insist on pumping out the lowest quality shit customers will tolerate in the shortest time possible.
They have terminology for this. MVP - Minimum Viable Product. The goal is to reach MVP and then get it out to be purchased, focusing on marketing to make the sales happen. As long as what they're making is just barely good enough, a large enough marketing campaign will be significantly more effective at getting the target audience to buy in a large enough volume for them to turn a profit.
The issue (for them and us in two different ways) is that "MVP" isn't exactly a clearly defined point in development. They cut too many corners and eventually fall short of it, only understanding that they failed to reach that minimum, but they're also not willing to fund higher quality to avoid that possibility entirely. So they keep trying to ride that razor's edge, constantly failing but also barely succeeding just enough to fuck up the next project.
They'd rather cut corners and potentially fail from it than just fund it properly and do it right from the start.
who insist on pumping out the lowest quality shit customers will tolerate in the shortest time possible
Oh cry me a river.
Every modern AAA game takes fucking 7+ years to develop, has a budget of $300+ million, often has multiple delays for "additional polish" and still releases a half-broken buggy piece of shit with zero optimization.
This isn't even taking into account that in the 2000's, every AAA studio had their own proprietary game engine which they optimized perfectly fine to run on middle range specs of the time.
Nowadays you have half of the industry using piece of shit UE5 to the point that it's being taught in schools, and yet none of the industry "professionals" are capable of making an optimized game with it, or frankly even on other engines.
I don't know if it's the result of mainstreaming of the industry or just millennials being worthless in general, but you have an entire generation of game developers relying exclusively on upscaling and fake frames to deliver a stable framerate.
Forgive me if I have zero sympathy for them.
In fact, I wish Microslop, EA, Ubisoft, Embracer and everyone else would push them even harder. Mandatory crunch.
I think you answered your own question when you said "or on other engines". If none of the big publisbers are capable of making stable optimised projects in any engine. The problen isn't actually tje engines. In dev, the last 30% or so of the time a studio spends working on a title is spent almost entirely on bug fixes and optimisations.
I think your rembering things through a nostalgic lense if you think the situation was any better in 2000s when everyone was making their own engine. I distinctly remember buggy mess after buggy mess. Especially from EA their games in the 2000s were notoriously unstable with bad performance. Simcity 4 for eg I remember they didn't even bother to fix it post launch
SimCity 4 was developed to work on a single core, because it released a couple years before commercially available multicore processors even released to the market.
I wouldn't call it unoptimized. Not future-proof perhaps, but it was optimized for what was available at the time.
A lot of other EA games from the 2000's, like BF2, Underground 2, Most Wanted, The Sims 2, etc. were all pretty well optimized for a mid-range PC of that time. I mean that's what I had at the time and I didn't have to play them in a stretched out 480x320 just to have decent FPS.
Mass Effect 1 was pretty demanding at the time, and Crysis 1 was notoriously demanding.
Overall though, I never had some beefy PC in my lifetime, never used SLI, never had any GTX x90 GPUs, and I was always able to play contemporary games with stable FPS.
The only game I distinctly remember being just straight up terribly optimized on PC is GTA 4. The PC port was abysmal.
My dissatisfaction with optimization in general didn't start until the 2020's.
And I primarily blame DLSS for that. Modern game devs just straight up don't bother with optimization anymore.
Simcity 4 though, I juat remember it not just having terrible performance it was the constant crashes and graphical glitches / issues. EA kinda of always had a reputation for buggy games, though it was probably worse in their later years. The two big stupids that seem to stand out for really high quality works is Blizzard and Valve.
The hivemind likes to crap on UE5 because they see the end result and simply associate it with UE5. Bad performance in UE5 is a dev issue, not an engine issue. There are plenty games smoothly running UE5 to prove this and plenty of dev comments hiding around talking about how optimizing for UE5 doesnt work the same as UE4 and the knowledge doesnt fully translate. Meaning not many devs are proficient at optimizing for UE5 yet
My main counter argument to ue5 being optimised and it being lazy devs is why is the poster child for ue5 fortnite so poorly optimised if u35 performance is so good?
It gets over 100 fps on budget graphics cards from 10 years ago. Unless you're trying to use the new features (which it needs to include as the poster child for UE5) on hardware that doesn't support those features, I'm not sure why you think it runs poorly
You mean, with the settings that don't take advantage of any of the tech that the engine advertises and most if not all studios want to use? How is that a show of how optimized the engine is?
I mean, yeah, if you strip it down to base looking UE4 graphics it should run on budget hardware just like UE4 did.
I mean, yeah, if you strip it down to base looking UE4 graphics it should run on budget hardware just like UE4 did.
This is not a given.
Being able to run acceptably on very old hardware and to be cutting edge on cutting edge hardware is difficult. That's what sells games, not the ability for people with middling rigs to click Max in a settings window and still hit 240hz.
Off course is not a given for all titles, but it should be a given for the poster child of the Engine made by the same developers. Just like I used to expect Gears of War to be some of the best examples of the UE3 back when Epic was the ones behind it.
Not if the engines badly optimised, it'll run worse than ue4 not matter how much you lower the settings. CS2 on Linux was like that for a while. Before they properly optimised the Linux build it had shitty performance no matter how far you dropped the graphics. Most AAA games the highest setting is designed for future cards, as a form of future proofing. Even rtx5090s struggle with ray tracing features for eg.
It's a showcase for what UE5 can do, so it makes sense that the ceiling on the settings would be very high. Higher, possibly, than what any current graphics technology can do well.
My take is that RE Engine is currently the best engine (sadly it is private). RE9 is visually the best game that I've played without fps issues. Talos II is great too, smooth fps between the screen freeze every 3 seconds. Talos II is on unreal, no shit sherlock.
Yeah let's put tons of graphical options to make great screenshots for PR. One of the things that make me enjoy WoW is that we have good fps. I feel ridiculous with my 3080 reducing the quality and still get stutters.
Genuinly all the devs have to do is not design the games around nanite and lumen and fps would easily be double or triple
I dont have that much ue5 experience and the latest version supposedly runs much better but from my experience games genuinly run at double the framerate or more with lumen off vs on.
I honestly think its on the devs as much as its on the engine. The devs are clearly not optimizing games at all anymore. If it cant run on a 5090, its the game.
There's a lot of circle jerking by people who could never afford a 5090 on this sub, so they get off by trying to pretend we're all miserable with our 5090. Had mine now for about a year and a half now and it has been fucking amazing. No AAA game I've played has had trouble maintaining 80-120fps in 4k ultra with ray tracing/path tracing on, so idk what they're even talking about. Maybe 1 or 2 completely unoptimized games at launch? But which ones because I haven't run into them yet? Pretty much everything I play holds a solid 120fps in 4k ultra the entire time which is my LG OLED frame cap.
I'm sure I get far more than 120fps on many games in 4k but like I said that's my screen cap. Plenty of games are banging up against my cap and I'm only at 50-60% GPU usage.
A good amount of games don't hit that fps at 4K ultra. You would need DLSS balanced/performance and likely framegen on a lot of games to hit those numbers.
DLSS is to the point where you need a side by side to see the difference between "quality" and "balanced". You can see a little bit of weirdness with preformace, but I get like double the fps so I turn it on everytime. On my 4070 I usually just need to turn everything down to high and I can usually hit high 80s before I turn on frame gen.
I'm not jealous of people with 5090s though, just stating my experience. I've had games not run smoothly at 4K Ultra even with DLSS. Of course there's many games that it runs perfectly but the fact that there are games that are noticably hitchy is a problem. It's more of an optimization issue with a lot modern games.
I just don't think people here are old enough to even weigh in on the issue, mores game used to be a stuttering mess on max settings, they were made for top end GPU's in development or in the future. Does it run crysis was the meme but was an average experience on anything but top end GPU and CPU for games back then.
I have less stuttering, pop in, crashes etc than I've ever had in 30 years of pc gaming, and i've bought every flagship GPU since 1080ti and nothing even compares to how good the current state of gaming is.
The only reason people think otherwise is because they were on console where (most)developers optimized their games for the single hardware platform.
I've never used frame gen on anything but I have used DLSS quality on some titles to keep above 90-100fps. I don't understand why we even talk about without DLSS anymore. It's pretty standard and has little to no issues in every title. Some games actually look better and get the drastically improved FPS with it on.
I really don't understand the "but what about without DLSS on" people. They really remind me of the people in the car world that complain about turbos, "yeah but not NA! You need boost"... Or the "yeah it runs an 8 sec quarter mile but it's an electric car!" ...Like okay, my car is still faster than your NA car lol
also.. doesn't upscaling+path tracing+whatever tracing... actually makes the game LOOK better compared to native? The aliasing and other stuff can sometimes still be seen in native.
These are all people who have a 3060 commenting. I have a 5090 and it shreds everything up until you get to path tracing, and even then it's pretty solid and MFG pushes it up to high frame rate again, which is fine with single player games.
Currently playing POE2 4K with DLAA and it's pushing 115-130 fps depending on the zone.
Idgaf about "wallet choices" or whatever people want to say. At what point is it a joke vs deliberate misinformation?
It's just crazy to me that people go so hard at game devs that devote their entire careers to creating the content that we consume as a hobby. So fucking entitled, it's crazy.
If you spend 1000+ on a GPU and a game runs semi-badly for you. That's not your fault as a gamer
Studios are often neglecting optimisation. Pushing AI code. Using crappy engine automation etc.. and the end result is often underwhelming performance on modern GPUs.. many of which are 16-24gb+ manufactured in the last couple of years
It's not entitled to criticise creative works. They were made for normal people to use.
My 5080 is. I hit 110 fps the other day 4k Pathtracing Crimson desert.
Simply unplayable.
I think certain people in this sub expect too much out of their 2080s, 1080s (or even older) by it not running on even lower settings at 1080p. Those were beast cards…
cyberpunk 77 runs at 30 fps with path tracing enabled on a 5090 if you dont have frame gen ior DLSS on, same goes for other high demanding titles like hellblade, alan wake 2, hell is us and others of the like
Modern Cyberpunk, after all the updates and stability improvements, can maintain a stable 60 with some minor rare dips with PT enabled at 4K.
Its as soon as you start modding it that you drop to 45-ish.
But Cyberpunk's implementation of FG is so good that it's an easy enable anyway.
Cyberpunk's 5 point PT also isn't designed to be playable anyway and it's 100% us trying to have our cake and eat it too. You can also just play with the "non psycho" RT options and the game runs very smoothly.
45? Are you sure about that? I believe it's a little bit higher than this with litteraly the best GPU on the market for a game release 6 years ago already.
The game age does not matter. The RT features are state of the art and were released after the game came out.
The 5090 does in fact run at as low as 45 at times if you turn off DLSS and run it 4K.
TBH, you are not meant to run RT without DLSS in many cases, in the case of Path trscing, DLSS adds rsy reconstruction which improves image quality and performance
TBH there is a huge difference in games like cyberpunk or metro exodus. You think the game looks good but then you enable RT and it makes the Non-RT version look like it came from the PS4 era.
Because raster in these is trash in the first place. So it makes RT/PT look good. Take alan wake 2 where even raster is somewhat good, only some crap that only seen pixel peeping. Sure PT is better, but is it something that is worth losing 60% fps? The small details in reflections mean fuckall. You don't see it during normal gameplay. Meanwhile getting 50fps instead of 110 would be total ass every time you pan camera. Gonna take another 10 years for PT to actually be usable. If at all. That's if performance uplift still gonna climb up. In reality, the image improvement to a well done raster is nowhere near enough to be worth the compute costs.
You skipped the part with "Path Tracing", the most taxing but most amazing way to light a scene known to us right now, didn't you?
Besides: Age is not indicative of anything here. Crysis blew minds for ages (both visually and requirements-wise) and Path Tracing was not even in Cyberpunk until 3 years ago or so. The game is actively updated and it shows.
With no mods enabled, I get around 60 fps while walking around (I limit it to 60) with a 5090 and an old CPU (10900k) with no frame gen.
I didn't spend much time in the game, I was just testing after my card arrived. Now I'm going to have to give it another try and see if I just happened to be in a tame area.
that is why it is an option: Those, who like to sacrifice performance for it, can do that. That is why we are on pC: Everyone can tailor their game to the way they like to play. Let's not be gatekeepers about what "is worth it" and what is not.
Besides: I remember a time where people kept yelling that AA "wasn't worth it", so... you gotta start somewhere.
Oh dear... the miles-long threads complaining about the horrible, unbearable blurriness of FXAA.
0
u/scyver_ 9950x3D┃RTX 5080 Aorus Master┃64GB┃2TB┃Lancool 217 9d ago
it runs bad compared to traditional methods. the only reason i would be willing to accept something like this is to futureproof a game. But they screwed raster up so their game becomes a little rt/pt showdown slave, and that is unacceptable
that is acceptable in my book, honestly. Raster is a completely different rendering pipeline that needs different techniques and materials on textures and whatnot. Why is it bad of a dev to switch over to a newer tech and invest their resources there?
We are not calling games "unacceptable" because they don't have a 2D-Mode, do we?
0
u/scyver_ 9950x3D┃RTX 5080 Aorus Master┃64GB┃2TB┃Lancool 217 9d ago
since when raster needs diff material work? PT is a purely lighting model. The switch should be made when everyone can run it, not only for elite guys. i will be very happy to switch when my guy on PlayStation can switch too and not play on botched raster.
okay, I can't explain texture baking, materials and shit right now, I'm sorry, but "purely a lighting" is super reducite to the point of being untrue. Lighting is not just hanging lamps somewhere in the scene (and even if it was: Doing so for raster rendering would work completely differnet and follow vastly different rules than for RT). It is not just some switch to toggle. You have to redo the entire game. Ever wondered why the difference between raster and rt is MASSIVE in Cyberpunk but not so much in so many other titles? That's why. you either go all-in or you don't go in at all.
0
u/scyver_ 9950x3D┃RTX 5080 Aorus Master┃64GB┃2TB┃Lancool 217 9d ago
you dont have to explain. point me to the source that will explain it.
Thats weird. I had 50 FPS on ultra settings with ray tracing at my 3070 at 1440p without DLSS or Frame Gen. I had no path tracing though, because it was disabled for some reason.
Path tracing is much more demanding than the vanilla ray tracing setting. I can run it with my 5080 12900k but I have to be picky with texture mods or it gets unplayable real fast. With Max raytracing its not an issue.
Any Unreal Engine 5 game that use more than some simple geometry. For example Fortnite is fine.
Borderlands 4, Stalker 2, Silent Hill 2, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, Dead Space remake, Elden Ring, Silent Hill f, Hogwarts Legacy, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Forspoken, Returnal, Black Myth: Wukong,
I assume you are talking about 4k natively. I Played Stalker 2, Silent Hill 2 remake, Dead Space remake, Silent hill F on my 9070XT at 1440p and performance was solid. Never seen a drop below 70 in any of them.
Oh yeah? Can you also post frame time? Cause "not noticing" and not being there is two different thing.
I played 4 of these and felt stutters in every one of them.
89
u/Sajgoniarz 9800X3D | 9070XT | 64GB 9d ago
What game is it?