Alan Wake 2 performance thread

[Bozz Collin]

RTX 3080 ti here. Intro area I get 15-18fps maxed out at 1920p, RT/PT on max with DLSS on Quality. 20fps on Balanced. 1440p I get 25-30fps on Quality. With RT/PT off, I get ~35-40fps at 1920p. 1440p (my native resolution) gets me ~50fps. All using Quality DLSS except where I specified using Balanced. Don't even think about running anything at a native resolution. 1440p is extremely blurry and foliage is pixelated with DLSS, even on Quality. 1920p was the best middle ground for picture clarity and performance. Don't even think about 2160p.

All that said, the game looks incredible with or without RT/PT. Of course it looks better WITH, but it still looks like a very top-tier game without. It's just a shame that performance is very poor, despite what settings you use. At best, I was able to get 60-65fps with everything on low-medium and RT/PT disabled.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by bRice153:

People who complain about frame generation and dlss, can't use it. Tbis game is the new graphics benchmark and with that title it will be demanding doe current hardware. If you don't have at least a 4080 you will have a not great time with this one.

Uh, there's nothing special about those things. You're acting like people with ANY 40 series card couldn't use it? In fact, only FG is limited to 40 series, with even 30 and 20 series cards supporting DLSS. The point is that no one WANTS to have to rely on those things just to achieve acceptable frames. You know why being able to play with SSAA on 2x or 4x was a "flex" a couple of years back? Because that meant you were actually playing at 2 or 4 times your current resolution.

In this case, a 1080P screen was being rendered at 1440P and 4K respectively. So still getting good frames with THOSE resolutions was actually IMPRESSIVE with a good GPU. Even now, it's still an option whenever a game offers a resolution scale slider. And quite frankly, maybe they should do THAT instead of forcing DLSS. Let ME lower the resolution scale as necessary to decide how much graphical fidelity I want to sacrifice for a higher framerate. I'm sure even at 90 or 75%, at 720P, it would STILL look better than being upscaled from 540P to 1080P.

[bRice153]

Performance of PT+RT on vs. off both at 4k (dlss quality with FG) ultra settings.

https://youtu.be/U_A128gD5eo?si=SKOR2nxUwXq2IeID
https://youtu.be/5nVlUZiKXcc?si=7ZN7DxjZWT0X9OU2
Seems around a 60fps difference in the town area. Nvidia did claim that it can run around 120fps maxed at 4k with dlss+frame gen with RT/PT on, Seems they were accurate. The town area seems a little less heavy than the starting forest area as expected given the mass amount of foliage.

[bRice153]

Fact is dlss quality at 4k looks better than native as proven by digital foundry, stop acting like it makes games look worse when it's already proven it enhances image quality. Now move on already.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by bRice153:

Fact is dlss quality at 4k looks better than native as proven by digital foundry, stop acting like it makes games look worse when it's already proven it enhances image quality. Now move on already.

"Better than native". Oh man, Nvidia sure knows how to pick their "marketing" terms. Funny. They didn't have that attitude when it came to previous versions of supersampling (known as SSAA). Maybe because it was understood that achieving a higher resolution by either bumping up a lower one to a higher one, or downscaling from a higher one to a lower one was the only way to RETAIN graphical fidelity without losing image quality and clarity. DLSS still continues to sometimes have the dreaded ghosting and blur that plagued TAA. Sorry, but at least native is ONE area in which it DOESN'T have that problem. And until DLSS can get rid of that, it will NOT be "better".

[Sean8102]

Specs in my profile. RTX 3080, 8700K (buying the parts to upgrade CPU now).

Played about 3 hours. Super happy with how it runs and looks. Playing on high pre set, 1440p, DLSS quality (haven't checked perf without DLSS). No RT, not even gonna try. Game looks really really good already already. And is running smooth as silk.

If I had a 4000 series card and DLSS 3.5 + Ray reconst. then I'd try RT.

[Badman]

Originally posted by bRice153:

People who complain about frame generation and dlss, can't use it. Tbis game is the new graphics benchmark and with that title it will be demanding doe current hardware. If you don't have at least a 4080 you will have a not great time with this one.

Sure bruv.

[Badman]

Maybe a 5090Ti will be enough for 1080p.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Sean8102:

Specs in my profile. RTX 3080, 8700K (buying the parts to upgrade CPU now).

Played about 3 hours. Super happy with how it runs and looks. Playing on high pre set, 1440p, DLSS quality (haven't checked perf without DLSS). No RT, not even gonna try. Game looks really really good already already. And is running smooth as silk.

If I had a 4000 series card and DLSS 3.5 + Ray reconst. then I'd try RT.

What is the performance like anyway? I just watched videos of 3070 and 3060 Ti, and at least on Max or High Quality, RT OFF, and with DLSS Off and On, it hovered between 30 and 50 FPS depending on the scenes. Wouldn't be so bad except my monitor's a 165 Hz screen with Compatible G-Sync, so for me, such a low FPS would be too noticeable and cause a stutter due to G-Sync disengaging. But it sounds like it's at least playable.

[bRice153]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

Originally posted by bRice153:

Fact is dlss quality at 4k looks better than native as proven by digital foundry, stop acting like it makes games look worse when it's already proven it enhances image quality. Now move on already.

"Better than native". Oh man, Nvidia sure knows how to pick their "marketing" terms. Funny. They didn't have that attitude when it came to previous versions of supersampling (known as SSAA). Maybe because it was understood that achieving a higher resolution by either bumping up a lower one to a higher one, or downscaling from a higher one to a lower one was the only way to RETAIN graphical fidelity without losing image quality and clarity. DLSS still continues to sometimes have the dreaded ghosting and blur that plagued TAA. Sorry, but at least native is ONE area in which it DOESN'T have that problem. And until DLSS can get rid of that, it will NOT be "better".

Maybe actually contribute something useful to this thread, or let me guess you have a potato PC.

[MrTank]

Anyone who try this game using AMD GPU instead? I got a rx7900xtx and interested in game. any one who using AMD GPU and how is the experience? (in term of setting too)??

[Guyver]

Originally posted by bRice153:

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

"Better than native". Oh man, Nvidia sure knows how to pick their "marketing" terms. Funny. They didn't have that attitude when it came to previous versions of supersampling (known as SSAA). Maybe because it was understood that achieving a higher resolution by either bumping up a lower one to a higher one, or downscaling from a higher one to a lower one was the only way to RETAIN graphical fidelity without losing image quality and clarity. DLSS still continues to sometimes have the dreaded ghosting and blur that plagued TAA. Sorry, but at least native is ONE area in which it DOESN'T have that problem. And until DLSS can get rid of that, it will NOT be "better".

Maybe actually contribute something useful to this thread, or let me guess you have a potato PC.

Most people do have potato pc's, which, again, I don't get why people just don't stick to consoles.

[ReflexShift]

Originally posted by MrTank:

Anyone who try this game using AMD GPU instead? I got a rx7900xtx and interested in game. any one who using AMD GPU and how is the experience? (in term of setting too)??

It will run high and ultra settings with FSR and no raytracing pretty well with a RX 7900xtx. I have a RX 6900xt that I commented on page one that runs decently at 4K FSR performance 1080p with a mix of high and medium settings without raytracing. You should be fine. The game doesn't have a really high frame rates unless you have a RTX 4000 series gpu that can use frame gen, so don't expect it to run spectacular but you should have no problem getting smooth and playable experience by tweaking the settings.

[ChickenBalls]

lol you need dlss fake frames on 4090 to get playable frame rate
just wait for the 5090

[Sean8102]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

Originally posted by Sean8102:

Specs in my profile. RTX 3080, 8700K (buying the parts to upgrade CPU now).

Played about 3 hours. Super happy with how it runs and looks. Playing on high pre set, 1440p, DLSS quality (haven't checked perf without DLSS). No RT, not even gonna try. Game looks really really good already already. And is running smooth as silk.

If I had a 4000 series card and DLSS 3.5 + Ray reconst. then I'd try RT.

What is the performance like anyway? I just watched videos of 3070 and 3060 Ti, and at least on Max or High Quality, RT OFF, and with DLSS Off and On, it hovered between 30 and 50 FPS depending on the scenes. Wouldn't be so bad except my monitor's a 165 Hz screen with Compatible G-Sync, so for me, such a low FPS would be too noticeable and cause a stutter due to G-Sync disengaging. But it sounds like it's at least playable.

I recorded a ~20 min vid showing the perf (with afterburner overlay, and my settings). Uploading now. It's ~3GB and my upload is 20 Mbps so it's gonna take a min. I'll reply with a link when it's done.

But I'm super happy with it. And unlike way to many PC games lately I'm not experiencing any stuttering, frametime spikes etc.

[Sean8102]

Originally posted by ChickenBalls:

lol you need dlss fake frames on 4090 to get playable frame rate
just wait for the 5090

I haven't looked up performance numbers. But if you are talking about playing the game maxed out as in with full path tracing. That's not surprising. Path tracing is just a bit demanding lol.