The AMD Radeon RX 590 Review, feat. XFX & PowerColor: Polaris Returns (Again)
by Nate Oh on November 15, 2018 9:00 AM ESTWolfenstein II: The New Colossus (Vulkan)
id Software is popularly known for a few games involving shooting stuff until it dies, just with different 'stuff' for each one: Nazis, demons, or other players while scorning the laws of physics. Wolfenstein II is the latest of the first, the sequel of a modern reboot series developed by MachineGames and built on id Tech 6. While the tone is significantly less pulpy nowadays, the game is still a frenetic FPS at heart, succeeding DOOM as a modern Vulkan flagship title and arriving as a pure Vullkan implementation rather than the originally OpenGL DOOM.
Featuring a Nazi-occupied America of 1961, Wolfenstein II is lushly designed yet not oppressively intensive on the hardware, something that goes well with its pace of action that emerge suddenly from a level design flush with alternate historical details.
The highest quality preset, "Mein leben!", was used. Wolfenstein II also features Vega-centric GPU Culling and Rapid Packed Math, as well as Radeon-centric Deferred Rendering; in accordance with the preset, neither GPU Culling nor Deferred Rendering was enabled.
For a game that scales well and enables high framerates with minimal CPU bottleneck, Wolfenstein II has the tradeoff of needing more than 4GB at highest quality settings. This even applies to 1080p! Limited VRAM truly bottlenecks the GPU here, where a card like the enthusiast-grade GTX 980 (4GB) would typically hold its own against the mainstream-grade GTX 1060 6GB.
And so NVIDIA's historical stinginess with video memory hurts them hard here, hammering Maxwell 2 performance as only the GTX 980 Ti and above have more than 4GB of VRAM. The 2GB GTX 960 is reduced to a stuttering fit. Meanwhile, the Hawaii refresh R9 390, whose 8GB memory configuration upgrade was laughed at in 2015, has the last laugh in Wolfenstein II.
Usually, games that devour excessive VRAM have no real reason to do so other than being poor console ports. But the way Wolfenstein II runs on Vulkan has continually impressed me on many levels. It removes so much of the CPU bottleneck and truly enables usage of ultra high refresh rates at any resolution and for a bonafide AA/AAA title. The equally high 99th percentiles are perfect for VR purposes or silky-smooth 'just works' gaming, because regardless Wolfenstein II is a good-looking game. The game and engine also takes a liking to Turing, Vega, and Polaris based cards. If the VRAM consumption is not merely a correlation or coincidence, then that's a perfectly acceptable tradeoff to me.
The spare performance leaves multiple opportunities, too, and as a naive example I wonder if it'd be possible to implement something like DXR accelerated real-time raytracing at 4Kp60.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
136 Comments
View All Comments
El Sama - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
To be honest I believe that the GTX 1070/Vega 56 is not that far away in price and should be considered as the minimum investment for a gamer in 2019.Dragonstongue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
over $600 for a single GPU V56, no thank you..even this 590 is likely to be ~440 or so in CAD, screw that noise.minimum for a gamer with deep pockets, maybe, but that is like the price of good cpu and motherboard (such as Ryzen 2700)
Cooe - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Lol it's not really the rest of the world's fault the Canadian Dollar absolutely freaking sucks right now. Or AMD's for that matter.Hrel - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Man, I still have a hard 200 dollar cap on any single component. Kinda insane to imagine doubling that!I also don't give a shit about 3d, virtual anything or resolutions beyond 1080p. I mean ffs the human eye can't even tell the difference between 4k and 1080, why is ANYONE willing to pay for that?!
In any case, 150 is my budget for my next GPU. Considering how old 1080p is that should be plenty.
igavus - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
4k and 1080p look pretty different. No offence, but if you can't tell the difference, perhaps it's time to schedule a visit with an optometrist? Nevermind 4K, the rest of the world will look a lot better also if your eyes are okay :)Great_Scott - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
My eyes are fine. The sole advantage of 4K is not needing to run AA. That's about it.Anyone buying a card just so they can push a solid framerate on a 4K monitor is throwing money in the trash. Doubly so if they aren't 4->1 interpolating to play at 1K on a 4K monitor they needed for work (not gaming, since you don't need to game at 4K in the first place).
StevoLincolnite - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
There is a big difference between 1080P and 4k... But that is entirely depending on how large the display is and how far you sit away from said display.Otherwise known as "Perceived Pixels Per Inch".
With that in mind... I would opt for a 1440P panel with a higher refresh rate than 4k every day of the week.
wumpus - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
Depends on the monitor. I'd agree with you when people claim "the sweet spot of 4k monitors is 28 inches". Maybe the price is good, but my old eyes will never see it. I'm wondering if a 40" 4k TV will make more sense (the dot pitch will be lower than my 1080P, but I'd still likely notice lack of AA).Gaming (once you step up to the high end GPUs) should be more immersive, but the 2d benefits are probably bigger.
Targon - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
There are people who notice the differences, and those who do not. Back in the days of CRT monitors, most people would notice flicker with a 60Hz monitor, but wouldn't notice with 72Hz. I always found that 85Hz produced less eye strain.There is a huge difference between 1080p and 2160p in terms of quality, but many games are so focused on action that the developers don't bother putting in the effort to provide good quality textures in the first place. It isn't just about not needing AA as much as about a higher pixel density and quality with 4k. For non-gaming, being able to fit twice as much on the screen really helps.
PeachNCream - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
I reached diminishing returns at 1366x768. The increase to 1080p offered an improvement in image quality mainly by reducing jagged lines, but it wasn't anything to get astonished about. Agreed that the difference between 1080p and 4K is marginal on smaller screens and certainly not worth the added demand on graphics power to push the additional pixels.