By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fatslob-:O on 21 May 2016
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:


It all comes down to the API's they used and how well threaded the game is.


There is also a threading bug where the game will overload a CPU core and become bottlenecked... And the solution is to restrict the game to one CPU core, obviously impossible on console, but the game has a bug where it will even bring down a $1000 CPU to it's knee's.

With that said... All 8 Jaguar cores are equivalent to a Core i3 @ 3ghz, which is more than capable of running the game if used right as the benches have shown.

On the PC the game is using Direct X 11, not Direct X 12 which has some advantages in regards to CPU performance, would be hilarious if it was also using Direct X 11 on the Xbox One and OpenGL on the Playstation 4, would explain allot.

An old stock 2500K can manage a minimum of 60FPS provided lower graphical settings ... 

A stock 980 Ti can't even manage 60FPS minimum at 1080p on the highest setting, maybe a 1080 can do it but not a stock 980 Ti ... 

I am more than willing to believe that the developers were mindful about the consoles limitations when making the game. I don't even think the bottlenecks are on the API/CPU side when AMD GPUs perform relatively fine to their Nvidia counterparts despite having a far more mediocre command processor ... 

I wouldn't be surprised if consoles were using a customized version of DX11 or GMNX ... 

Just because the game was built on PC using DX11 doesn't mean that there's no way to lower CPU overhead without sacrifices in game design. There exists driver extensions that all IHVs offer ...