Use Reddit? Join us on our very own subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Linuxstuff/
You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page!
Support us on Patreon to keep GamingOnLinux alive. This ensures we have no timed articles and no paywalls. Just good, fresh content! Alternatively, you can support us on Paypal and Liberapay!

Rise of the Tomb Raider tested on AMD RX 580

Posted by , | Views: 10,517

To go along with Liam’s benchmarks of the game on his Nvidia GPU, I decided to also run some tests on my RX 580 to give you a picture of the AMD performance of the Rise of the Tomb Raider port. So, let’s go!

Disclosure: I participated in the closed Linux beta for ROTTR and thus received a key for the game from Feral.

Let’s first go over my gaming rig specs before we jump into the results. My system uses an AMD R7 1700 at 3.7GHz and 16 GB of 2133MHz DDR4 RAM. The GPU I am using is an Asus ROG RX 580 8 GB. On the software side I’m using Antergos with Linux 4.15.15 with Mesa 18.0.1. Feral’s Gamemode was installed and operational for these tests.

Due to time constraints I stuck to running the benchmark through the Lowest, Low, Medium, High and Very High without anti-aliasing at 1080p resolution. Benchmarks were repeated a couple of times on each preset to eliminate as many discrepancies as possible.

So, let’s have a look at the numbers:

On the Lowest preset the game quite simply ran flawlessly, maintaining an average of above 100 FPS during each of the three scenes the benchmark went through. The low minimum framerate during the Syria scene appears to be an oddity of this game that makes the minimum framerates in this benchmark largely meaningless. While monitoring the game, it never actually seemed to drop down to 24 FPS, so my guess is that some individual frames in the benchmark just take abnormally long to render and bring the minimum framerate way down. You can see similar numbers in my other benchmarks of the game but I wouldn’t consider these low minimums meaningful. I decided not to average them out so as to avoid looking like I am tampering with the results.

 

Low preset isn’t a big change from the Lowest in terms of performance. The game still maintains an average framerate of around 100 FPS throughout the benchmark.

 

 

On medium settings the game is finally starting to make the RX 580 work but the averages are still very much on the healthy side of 60 FPS and even according to the somewhat untrustworthy minimums the game is maintaining a stable framerate.

 

 

On High settings the gap to 60 FPS is narrowing but there’s still some wiggle room for anti-aliasing effects and possibly increased resolution here.

 

 

At Very High some of the Scenes are hitting near the desired 60 FPS average and dipping below the 60 FPS at times, although not to a point of unplayability. You could probably still enable some anti-aliasing and get away with it, but if you are unwilling to occasionally dip below the 60 mark you might need to drop some settings to achieve a constant framerate.

 

Overall I’d say this port is working quite wonderfully. Not only are AMD cards on the officially supported list, they would seem to be running quite well too. Do note however that 1st and 2nd generation GCN graphics cards (or older) are not supported, which makes sense considering the experimental state of the Vulkan drivers for those graphics card. According to Feral at a minimum you want an R9 285. So, if your GPU is either that or an R9 380, RX 470/570, RX 480/580 or better you should be good to go.

When it comes to the actual game, I sadly haven’t been able to test it too much. I played about 3-ish hours of the game during the beta and I didn’t run into issues, graphical or stability-wise so I think the game beyond the benchmark is also shipping in good condition. As far as the gameplay and story are concerned, I’ll leave the evaluation of the game to those with more time on their hands.

22 Likes, Who?
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG and Humble Store. See more information here.
72 comments
Page: 1/8»
  Go to:

pete910 19 April 2018 at 2:18 pm UTC
Nice work Samsai, Just bought and downloading, interesting to see what it's going to be like on my rx64.
drlamb 19 April 2018 at 2:18 pm UTC
View PC info
  • Supporter
I'll try my Vega FE tonight on Mesa 17.X and report back. I'll have to wait until Solus updates to Mesa 18 to test that.


Last edited by drlamb at 19 April 2018 at 2:19 pm UTC
vipor29 19 April 2018 at 2:26 pm UTC
those numbers are impressive for a 580.i think you can safely say the drivers have gotten a heck of alot better.i wouldn't mind getting a vega 56 or 64 if numbers like this keep happening.
PublicNuisance 19 April 2018 at 2:46 pm UTC
View PC info
  • Supporter
I'm glad the RX 580 is doing so well. I hope to see some becnhmarks with the Ryzen 1300X or 1600X as I am considering getting one soon to replace my 9590.
Ehvis 19 April 2018 at 2:46 pm UTC
View PC info
  • Supporter
What caused that low "min" value for the last test in Syria?
liamdawe 19 April 2018 at 2:48 pm UTC
EhvisWhat caused that low "min" value for the last test in Syria?
Syria just seems to be a hard-hitting area, even through multiple benchmark runs sometimes it just dives the minimum. I assume Samsai did multiple runs


Last edited by liamdawe at 19 April 2018 at 2:48 pm UTC
dubigrasu 19 April 2018 at 2:54 pm UTC
If you guys are interested in the performance on older AMD cards (AMD HD 7970/R9 280X):
View video on youtube.com
chui2ch 19 April 2018 at 2:55 pm UTC
EhvisWhat caused that low "min" value for the last test in Syria?
2133 memory is probably also hurting it. I know when I went from 2400 to 2933 it made a huge difference on Ryzen.
Samsai 19 April 2018 at 3:11 pm UTC
EhvisWhat caused that low "min" value for the last test in Syria?
The minimums are just odd in general and don't seem to reflect anything too meaningful. Between benchmark runs it jumps up and down and when you monitor the framerates with Steam's FPS counter it doesn't actually appear to go that low. Like I mentioned in the article, I think some small amount of frames are taking a weirdly long time to render and that drops the minimum framerate recorded. Getting 1% and 5% low figures would likely be more useful.
Shmerl 19 April 2018 at 3:27 pm UTC
How does performance of Feral's wrapper compare to dxvk? Both are using D3D11 → Vulkan translation, so it would be interesting to see. Or is it using D3D12 → Vulkan?


Last edited by Shmerl at 19 April 2018 at 3:29 pm UTC. Edited 2 times.
  Go to:
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on Patreon or Liberapay. We have no adverts, no paywalls, no timed exclusive articles. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

We also accept Paypal donations and subscriptions! If you already are, thank you!

Due to spam you need to Register and Login to comment.


Or login with...

Livestreams & Videos
Community Livestreams
  • Puzzle Tiles: „Botanicula“
  • Date:
See more!
Popular this week
View by Category
Contact
Latest Comments
Latest Forum Posts