Tomb Raider Tested, Benchmarked

By on March 12, 2013, 3:24 AM

Although this year's Tomb Raider reboot made our latest list of most anticipated PC games, I must admit that it was one of the games I was least looking forward to from a performance perspective. Previous titles in the franchise have received mixed to positive reviews, but gameplay aside, their visuals weren't exactly mind-blowing so we've never bothered doing a performance review on one -- until now, anyway.

Those concerns were at least partially alleviated when we learned that the PC port was being worked on by Nixxes Software BV, the same folks who handled the PC versions of Hitman: Absolution and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, both of which were great examples of what we expect from decent ports in terms of graphical quality and customization. Hitman in particular really stressed our higher-end hardware.

We were also relieved to learn that Tomb Raider supports DirectX 11, which brings access to rendering technologies such as depth of field, high definition ambient occlusion, hardware tessellation, super-sample anti-aliasing and contact-hardening shadows. Additionally, compared to the diluted console versions, the PC build offers better textures as well as AMD's TressFX real-time hair physics system.

Read the complete review.




User Comments: 107

Got something to say? Post a comment
Mike st Mike st said:

WOW ! it looks like my MSI 680 Lightining is slower than a 7870 in this game?? its either a wrong benchmarks here or a VERY ''made for AMD'' kinda game!....

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

As usual I'll wait for the game to go on special. By that time nVidia should've released new drivers which theoretically should increase the performance.

Qrox Qrox said:

WOW ! it looks like my MSI 680 Lightining is slower than a 7870 in this game?? its either a wrong benchmarks here or a VERY ''made for AMD'' kinda game!....

As far as I've been able to gather the game wasn't optimized for any Nvidia products prior to launch. They brought out a patch yesterday which seems to have helped slightly but I think we will only be getting proper performance from Nvidia products once a new Nvidia driver comes out.

I have the same problem as a lot of people, with the game crashing every few minutes on Nvidia cards when tessellation in on. Hoping for a new patch of driver to come out soon so I can enjoy the game.

Guest said:

TOMB RAIDER is among TOP 5 rated games of all times...

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/tomb-raider

(wholeheartedly appreciate the bench ON TR )

thanks Steve....

Puiu Puiu said:

Putting aside the bugs on nvidia cards which will be fixed in future updates, the game is really good. Play it guys.

2 people like this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

As far as I've been able to gather the game wasn't optimized for any Nvidia products prior to launch. They brought out a patch yesterday which seems to have helped slightly but I think we will only be getting proper performance from Nvidia products once a new Nvidia driver comes out.

An Nvidia driver release won't fix (all) the issues. Game patch required:

Unfortunately, NVIDIA didn't receive final game code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided. We are working closely with Crystal Dynamics to address and resolve all game issues as quickly as possible.

Please be advised that these issues cannot be completely resolved by an NVIDIA driver. The developer will need to make code changes on their end to fix the issues on GeForce GPUs as well...

You can read the full announcement at Tech Report.

Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

Of all the games released in 2013, this is my favorite so far. And from the art direction stand point, it also has the most beautiful graphics I've ever seen. When the game was released, I was playing with the same driver used for this benchmark and I crashed to desktop every 5 minutes. Then I decided to roll back to 310.90 and I've been playing happily ever after, the DOF issue still persists though.

Sunny87 said:

Anyone know how this plays on an Nvidia 690 graphics card? I have the 4GBGDDR5 one.

Chazz said:

I've been playing this on an AMD 6970 and it's been running fine for me. I can't play with tresFX on, so I think it's time for a new card soon(once next gen comes out) but I've only experienced one CTD with 90% of the game complete. Hope Nvidia/CD fixes the issues soon because I was not expecting this game to be so fun and I feel people need to play this asap.

Mictlantecuhtli Mictlantecuhtli said:

Hmm, the first page list shows 17 graphics cards, the results 27, and of those 17 at least the 4 GB 680 is missing from results.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Guessing this won't run very well on High with my GTX285 at 1080p

compact said:

The test is wrong

with the new driver 314,14 and the new patch ... I 680 ultimate sttings 1200p 55fps

fail.........test

1 person liked this | Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

The test is wrong

with the new driver 314,14 and the new patch ... I 680 ultimate sttings 1200p 55fps

fail.........test

That Driver is from March 4th?

The game hadn't even been released then? and in the release notes it has not a single mention of Tomb Raider?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a liar but I am intrigued, do you have a screenshot to backup your claim?

1 person liked this | Chazz said:

The test is wrong

with the new driver 314,14 and the new patch ... I 680 ultimate sttings 1200p 55fps

fail.........test

Except you're wrong.

Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition (3.30GHz)

x4 4GB G.Skill DDR3-1600 (CAS 8-8-8-20)

Gigabyte G1.Assassin2 (Intel X79)

OCZ ZX Series 1250w

Crucial m4 512GB (SATA 6Gb/s)

Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 64-bit

Nvidia Forceware 314.07

AMD Catalyst 13.2 (Beta 6)

Is the settings used, they used the latest for the time that they were conducting these tests. If you'd want to request them to do a updated one, that'd make sense. But calling this review fail because the drivers/game code wasn't up to snuff in time is only fail on your part.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

The test is wrong

with the new driver 314,14 and the new patch ... I 680 ultimate sttings 1200p 55fps

fail.........test

Although that is a silly comment to make you did spot a typo, we did test with the 314.14 drivers. As for the comment about yesterdays patch get real please.

1 person liked this | Blkfx1 Blkfx1 said:

Great review and great game! Thanks, Steve.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Great review and great game! Thanks, Steve.

You guys are all very welcome thank you.

1 person liked this | Geforcepat Geforcepat said:

Have Been waiting on this review thanks techspot!

btw it runs at about 45 fps ultimate on mine 7870 xt tahiti@1200

1 person liked this | LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

Looks awesome, graphically and game play-wise.

Cueto_99 said:

Great review Steve, nice to see AMD taking the lead by far, for a change

I haven't still decided between getting Far Cry 3 or Tomb Raider... both seem to be great titles!

Guest said:

@cueto,

if you ppl look closely,then you will find amd leading in most cases with much lower price tag and way better value for money-

[link]

also,

both TR and fc3 are among top guns-so it's your personal choice which way you go....but rating wise TR is among top 5 of all-time

EmirSc EmirSc said:

WOW ! it looks like my MSI 680 Lightining is slower than a 7870 in this game?? its either a wrong benchmarks here or a VERY ''made for AMD'' kinda game!....

as you can read at the end of the article, yes the game suffer more on the nvidia cards, mainly because DOF

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

The Radeons obviously have the advantage here but even so no GPU is really all that impressive, from either side.

And one thing that bugs me are the names they apply to the settings....there is no low-medium-high-ultra now, its very high, ultra, extreme, godlike, redunkulous, etc etc.

Geforcepat Geforcepat said:

Great review Steve, nice to see AMD taking the lead by far, for a change

I haven't still decided between getting Far Cry 3 or Tomb Raider... both seem to be great titles!

Trust me on this. you gotta get both.

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Really enjoying the game so far and actually quite surprised at the excellent day 1 AMD support - Crossfire scaling is good (60-80%) and there's no microstutter. TressFX is just way too much of a performance hit though, hard to justify for just the hair.

Btw if anyone is having problems with CF not working, make sure Exclusive Fullscreen is turned on, because turning it off makes it run in windowed mode I think (and CF doesn't work in windowed mode).

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

That is REALLY disappointing for GTX Titan. Maybe the next gen can deliver what this one can not at any level.

JC713 JC713 said:

I think the 6GB of GDDR5 is the saving grace for the Titan haha. The drivers arent mature yet, but that extra memory allows it to perform to the AMD level despite badly optimized drivers.

@slh, I can image that it will be a performance hit, but some people seem to like nice hair haha.

As for the CPU benchmark, surprising to see that the game doesnt improve with a higher clock speed. It seems to be very GPU intensive.

nzdave said:

Has anyone tried this game with a GTX690 please? (I'm wavering between upgrading to the 690 or the new Titan)

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

The test is wrong

with the new driver 314,14 and the new patch ... I 680 ultimate sttings 1200p 55fps

fail.........test

Although that is a silly comment to make you did spot a typo, we did test with the 314.14 drivers. As for the comment about yesterdays patch get real please.

Would it be possible to update a few of the Nvidia benchmarks since the game was patched only yesterday? I had a friend that bought this game and couldn't even run it with his 560ti and I assured him it would work after the patch, but I have absolutely no idea what the patch has done for framerates. I didn't buy the game but I'd be able to run it with 680s in sli anyway.

Has anyone tried this game with a GTX690 please? (I'm wavering between upgrading to the 690 or the new Titan)

Multiply the 680 by about 1.8 and you'll get the 690's framerate pending the scaling is complete garbage.

compact said:

Sorry the test is wrong

[image link]

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

"For now, those wanting to play Tomb Raider are far better off with an AMD solution as the HD 7970 GHz Edition was able to deliver more consistent performance than the GTX Titan and it offered substantially better results than the GTX 680, which ranked lower than the HD 7870."

Not so fast...

[link]

2 people like this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

Sorry the test is wrong

Sorry no it isn't. It looks like those results are with the new patch which just came out so obviously we have not had a chance to re-test just yet.

Also don't forget we are testing a different part of the game which is very different to the built in benchmark.

"For now, those wanting to play Tomb Raider are far better off with an AMD solution as the HD 7970 GHz Edition was able to deliver more consistent performance than the GTX Titan and it offered substantially better results than the GTX 680, which ranked lower than the HD 7870."

Not so fast...

[link]

Not so fast? You understand what "For now..." means right because that is how we started that paragraph.

RobsChatter said:

Intel Q9300 @ 3 GHz

Windows 7 x64

Sapphire Radeon 7870 XT

Tomb Raider build 1.0.718.4 built-in benchmark

1680x1050

Quality,Min,Max,Avg

Normal,102.0,160.0,139.2

High,80.0,114.0,98.2

Ultra,54.0,78.0,67.3

Ultimate,33.9,56.0,45.3

5 people like this | St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

TS should do a review on how people need to learn to read and not jump to conclusions so hastily.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

In saying the above though, I'd like to clarify.. On the screenshots showing graphical presets, Ultra has tressFX to normal, while Ultimate has it set to On. If we look at the % difference in performance on the two presets, the NVIDIA cards get absolutely demolished on Ultimate.

I was under the impression that TressFX is AMD only at this stage? Also, if we look at CPU performance, there is no difference when OCing using Ultimate, therefore the physics isn't being processed on the CPU.

I'd gather that the TressFX doesn't work on NVIDIA properly, and this is having a large impact on performance. I don't know what other presets for hair there is, apart from normal/on, so I can't confirm this as much as I'd like.

JC713 JC713 said:

In saying the above though, I'd like to clarify.. On the screenshots showing graphical presets, Ultra has tressFX to normal, while Ultimate has it set to On. If we look at the % difference in performance on the two presets, the NVIDIA cards get absolutely demolished on Ultimate.

I was under the impression that TressFX is AMD only at this stage? Also, if we look at CPU performance, there is no difference when OCing using Ultimate, therefore the physics isn't being processed on the CPU.

I'd gather that the TressFX doesn't work on NVIDIA properly, and this is having a large impact on performance. I don't know what other presets for hair there is, apart from normal/on, so I can't confirm this as much as I'd like.

knowing nvidia, they will go after tressfx and bring those features to CUDA. They already have hair that can be computed with CUDA, but it isnt implemented in games, but more in animated films

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

Is it possible for me to get a considerable framerate while TressFX is enabled? I have the Radeon 7770, but in Normal settings.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Is it possible for me to get a considerable framerate while TressFX is enabled? I have the Radeon 7770, but in Normal settings.

No I do not believe so.

1 person liked this | Chazz said:

Is it possible for me to get a considerable framerate while TressFX is enabled? I have the Radeon 7770, but in Normal settings.

I doubt it. TressFX is very graphics intensive. I can play maxed out with TressFX off and have a enjoyable experience. But if I turn everything to normal and 8xAF w/ TressFX on it gets extremely choppy. Granted I'm only using a 6970 and on a massive resolution but the impact is just so great. It's more like StressFX atm.

DAOWAce DAOWAce said:

The game is not performing as well as it should on NVIDIA cards, mostly in regards to TressFX (which halves framerates).

Still waiting for new drivers.. NVIDIA really slipped with the 313+ releases, so many problems we've never experienced before.

RobsChatter said:

For those wishing to compare built-in benchmark results, the custom benchmark in this article at 1680x1050 is similar to the built-in benchmark results at 1680x1050 of my system. (post 33)

JC713 JC713 said:

Is it possible for me to get a considerable framerate while TressFX is enabled? I have the Radeon 7770, but in Normal settings.

It is just hair. I bet this will be integrated into DX12, but less strenuous.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Sorry no it isn't. It looks like those results are with the new patch which just came out so obviously we have not had a chance to re-test just yet.

Also don't forget we are testing a different part of the game which is very different to the built in benchmark.

Not so fast? You understand what "For now..." means right because that is how we started that paragraph.

Not so fast...

You obviously heard the story then... oh wait... you didn't:

"And it's worth noting that TressFX isn't the reason for Nvidia's poor showing -- that seems largely due to depth of field (DOF), which we discovered after a lengthy session of trial and error."

*tsk tsk*

So, "for now", you're telling your readers to forget about nVIDIA, and buy AMD instead? That's cool, if you don't think your readers deserve the full story.

Chazz said:

Sorry no it isn't. It looks like those results are with the new patch which just came out so obviously we have not had a chance to re-test just yet.

Also don't forget we are testing a different part of the game which is very different to the built in benchmark.

Not so fast? You understand what "For now..." means right because that is how we started that paragraph.

Not so fast...

You obviously heard the story then... oh wait... you didn't:

"And it's worth noting that TressFX isn't the reason for Nvidia's poor showing -- that seems largely due to depth of field (DOF), which we discovered after a lengthy session of trial and error."

*tsk tsk*

So, "for now", you're telling your readers to forget about nVIDIA, and buy AMD instead? That's cool, if you don't think your readers deserve the full story.

Go read their previous game tests. You'll see that they recommend Nvidia a lot, I think farcry 3 was one that I recently remember. Should you expect them to not have a conclusion page?

If you go back and read the comments in these reviews, it's rather funny. When they say AMD is best you get Steve defending himself vs Nvidia fanboys and when he says Nvidia is best out comes the AMD attackers. You can see who is who.

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

No I do not believe so.

I doubt it. TressFX is very graphics intensive.

That's a shame. I thought I could try this hair tech on a mainstream card.

Chazz said:

That's a shame. I thought I could try this hair tech on a mainstream card.

I think they'll improve it. It looks very nice but is a bit overdone like the early ragdoll effect in fps games years ago(Halo comes to mine), where your guy would just bounce all over the place when you died. It's a good first attempt but they should optimize it. I'd definitely rather have it turned on. It looks better than normal by far.

4 people like this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

Not so fast...

You obviously heard the story then... oh wait... you didn't:

"And it's worth noting that TressFX isn't the reason for Nvidia's poor showing -- that seems largely due to depth of field (DOF), which we discovered after a lengthy session of trial and error."

*tsk tsk*

So, "for now", you're telling your readers to forget about nVIDIA, and buy AMD instead? That's cool, if you don't think your readers deserve the full story.

I wish I knew what you were on about half the time :S

1 person liked this | Blkfx1 Blkfx1 said:

Surely TressFx wasn't intended to be so taxing on hardware? Hell, it really takes away the appeal when the hair just glitches and drags down performance. I remember on several occasions when playing TR my Lara would loose her hair completely lmao. A bald Lara doesn't look very sexy haha.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Well TressFX is still very new and it will take some time for efficiency to improve. That said the results right now are amazing, its a very cool effect. Given how much is involved in rendering hair in this kind of detail I don't imagine it was a technology designed for anything less than the most extreme GPUs.

Guest said:

First dig and then justify -for some above rushed complainers....lol

and Steve is right on money

tressfx requires massive compute parralel power and only designed for this gen top model cards,even previous gen top models may struggle to deliver good framerates with tressfx on

[link]

and this words came directly from the mouth of TR development team member-

[image link]

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.