Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rise of the Tomb Raider Launching Tomorrow For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Would love to know if Feral tested it against GCN cards!? I've got a R9-290X and would love to play this game.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
      Let's hope the game works with unsupported 2nd-gen GCN AMD GPUs such as R9 290/390.
      Originally posted by DanglingPointer View Post
      Would love to know if Feral tested it against GCN cards!?!? I've got a R9-290x
      Rise of the Tomb Raider isn't supported but like with other Feral developed Vulkan games this is because AMD 200 and 300 series graphics cards based on the 1st or 2nd generation Graphics Core Next micro-architecture use the radeon kernel driver by default. Rise of the Tomb Raider uses the Vulkan graphics API, which requires the amdgpu kernel driver. You can force your graphics card to use the amdgpu kernel driver but may experience system instability.

      Here's an example of the "at your own risk" FAQ point we had for F1 2017 which was also a Vulkan only title.

      http://support.feralinteractive.com/...rnel_blacklist

      Just to be super clear this is entirely at your own risk due to the experimental nature of the drivers required but if you're technically minded and understand all the risks the game should run.
      Last edited by edddeduck_feral; 04-18-2018, 10:22 AM. Reason: Added second quote to post

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Brisse View Post
        Uh? I played this on Windows back when it was released and I had a R9 290X when I started out but upgraded to an R9 Fury before I finished the game, and performance was fine, especially with the Fury.
        I played it on a R9 390 and GTX 1070, and at some places in the game (e.g. Geothermal Valley at night + rain), the 1070 was almost twice as fast in 1440p.
        16x anisotropic filterig roughly costs ~40% performance on the 390 while it's 20% on the 1070.
        When the game was released with DX11 only, it also showed nasty stuttering in geothermal valley with the 390, but this seems to be fixed since Adrenalin drivers (overhead optimization?).

        Comment


        • #14
          I'm very happy to buying this long awaited game. Unfortunately it took very long to arrive on Linux.

          Comment


          • #15
            I've got a Radeon R9 280 and will be trying ROTR tomorrow and will post if anything doesn't work. Performance was acceptable under wine but there were several graphic artefacts that made the game "unrewarding" to play.
            I've been wanting to play this title again and the fact that it was "coming along" in wine kept me from fooling with Windows.
            Thanks Feral.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by DanglingPointer View Post
              Would love to know if Feral tested it against GCN cards!?!
              Their minimum requirement do mention R9 285 so they have tested that at least. But the recommended spec mentions gtx 980ti without mentioning the equivalent AMD card. Which is pretty shocking TBH, especially if they have not equipped themselves in-house with sufficient variety of modern gcn cards...

              Comment


              • #17
                Deleted
                Last edited by humbug; 04-18-2018, 10:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Anyone else notice that the game requires you to run the latest 396 beta driver if you have Nvidia hardware. I am holding back on getting this until that driver goes stable.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Ordered a Samsung Odyssey for X-Plane but hope for RoTR also.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by aufkrawall View Post
                      16x anisotropic filterig roughly costs ~40% performance on the 390 while it's 20% on the 1070
                      Well, I usually always go for 8x anisotropic no matter what because I did a test a few years ago where I tried to spot the visual difference in a couple of games and I found it impossible to see the difference going from 8x -> 16x but I could see the improvement from 4x -> 8x. I don't usually see much performance difference messing around with anisotropic filtering though, but there's really no need to go for the placebo setting.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X