23-Way Graphics Card Comparison With Shadow of the Tomb Raider On Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: 23-Way Graphics Card Comparison With Shadow of the Tomb Raider On Linux

Earlier this month Feral Interactive released the Linux port of Shadow of the Tomb Raider. For those wondering about the AMD Radeon vs. NVIDIA GeForce performance for this Vulkan-powered Linux game port, here are benchmark results on 23 different graphics cards.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28503

[schmidtbag]

I take it minimum detail level doesn't look much different from max? Because the performance differences (regardless of GPU) from each graphics setting seems pretty minimal.

[skeevy420]

I wonder if the lower-end cards become more useful with the higher graphics settings when things like Shadows & Pure Hair are lowered and other crappier settings like Motion Sickness (Blur) & Depth of Field are off....Y'all know -- Gamer Optimized Ultra Settings

I has a 580

[eydee]

I take it minimum detail level doesn't look much different from max? Because the performance differences (regardless of GPU) from each graphics setting seems pretty minimal.

That's how games designed for consoles usually work. In the PC version you get some settings to change some details/effects, but nothing major affecting performance other than screen resolution. It isn't really designed to run on a wide variety of hardware, only to give some flexibility.

As a piece of counter-example, think of HL2 of that time. It could be scaled down to run flawlessly on a pocket calculator, while also torturing the best computers available at the time, when higher settings were being used. You can barely see such things anymore.

[Girolamo_Cavazzoni]

skeevy420 I have a RX 470 8GB and these motion sickness settings turned off but TXAA enabled. Plays buttery smooth in Full HD resolution with super non-flickery image quality (i. e. no aliasing effects). I might even say it runs better than its predecessor, but this may be caused by newer drivers, didn't check yet.

[skeevy420]

skeevy420 I have a RX 470 8GB and these motion sickness settings turned off but TXAA enabled. Plays buttery smooth in Full HD resolution with super non-flickery image quality (i. e. no aliasing effects). I might even say it runs better than its predecessor, but this may be caused by newer drivers, didn't check yet.

Thanks. That's usually been my experience as well, native and otherwise. Great cards for 1080p gaming.

[pinguinpc]

Good test Michael and with various quality settings at 1080p

[skeevy420]

The results in the article are different from what I expected. I am getting 84 FPS at the "low" preset with RX 570, while the article is getting only 64.6 FPS. The RX 580 in the article achieved 77.4 FPS, which is still slower than 84 FPS.

Tweaks on my side:

• The RX 570 is overclocked to RX 580 shader/memory clocks (RX 570 has the same chip as RX 580 (with 256 shaders disabled (mainly because of market segmentation (which is artificial))))
• Kernel 5.3 with bulk moves patch from kernel 5.4
• Runtime and compile-time CPU mitigations are disabled
• Mesa 19.3.0-rc3 (article: Mesa 20.0.0-devel)

I do similar tweaks and get slightly higher results than what's posted here from time to time.

I also run with some undervolts that really assist in mitigating thermal throttling. I think it's worth mentioning that because quite a few MSI RX 580s like mine have negative reviews and almost all mention thermal issues...and I'd have the same negative review if I didn't tweak my settings and just to get the thermals under control.

[Haxk20]

Im getting 35fps on medium-high settings on RX560X which is little more then the article. But thats because of linux-next kernel. 5.5 has some nice optimizations coming in and it can really be seen in games.

[Imout0]

I must be doing something wrong:

i7 4790K Stock
Manjaro Linux
Linux 5.4 rc7
16 GB RAM
RX 580X 8GB
mesa-aco 19.3 devel

1080p High Preset no AA:

Phoronix: 59.4 FPS
Me: 75 FPS

1080p Highest Preset no AA:

Phoronix: 54.9 FPS
Me: 69 FPS