Cities Skylines 2 reportedly runs with 7-12fps on an Intel Core i9 13900KS with AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX at 4K/High Settings
Cities Skylines 2 reportedly runs with 7-12fps on an Intel Core i9 13900KS with AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX at 4K/High Settings
Really disappointed that after a solid 3-4 months of dev diaries, open communication and hype for the game, they drop this performance bombshell on us at the last moment.
They get points for at least giving everyone a weeks notice, but that's clearly a calculated move (compared to if they kept it quiet entirely and it launched with people unaware)
I'm not instead on playing sub 60 FPS games at 1080p, especially not when I've got a 4090+13900k and it crushes almost every other game in existence. The game isn't pretty enough to justify such terrible performance, it's just purely unoptimized now.
Why there's no DLSS / FSR also at launch is baffling, it helps GPU bottlenecked necked games greatly (even if boosting from a native 30 to 60 is a bit yuck)
Really disappointed
Like you said, they aren't trying to hide it. I'm sure they weren't sure where performance would end up at launch though. They publicly said they aren't satisfied with the performance and will be working to improve it though. This isn't the end of it. It's disappointing it doesn't perform as well right now (for us and I'm sure even more for them), but they've earned some amount of trust. I'll give them time to get things where they should be.
From the couple of creators I've seen paying it, they were aware of some performance issues for sure. I think they were just unaware at how severe the impact was (since content creators normally have expensive PC's) and how quickly they'd be able to address it.
It never sounded like they were aiming for being super optimised at launch either, but it did seem like they were confident "most" would be able to play it prior to the announcement.
And having watched CityPlannerPlays performance video of it, it sounds like the article didn't really play around with things to see what different settings' impact was. Specifically regarding resolution, it was noted that anything above 1080p seems to be extremely poor in performance.
Why there's no DLSS / FSR also at launch is baffling, it helps GPU bottlenecked necked games greatly (even if boosting from a native 30 to 60 is a bit yuck)
I believe I had heard something about them having issues with getting it running, because for some reason they included their own "render scale" option that runs like ass. You can, fortunately enough, very easily add DLSS to most games even if they don't natively support it though. That's most likely what I will be doing.
If I had to guess the reason they waited so long is cause they thought they could fix them before launch, but stuff probably came up that made them realize it's not gonna be ready.
This is such a silly argument. Sure I can make a game that has a fucking memory leak to "really put your PC to the limit" and render every single tri on a polygon no matter the distance you are looking from but that is just a stupid way of "pushing your pc to the limit". Hell lets make a 30 billion tri model for a generic npc and populate a scene with many of them, that will surely push your pc to the limits. This is just a poorly together hackjob where they know they can just patch it post launch because fools will buy this shit. The devs are working hard on this game but optimization shouldn't just be pushed off to the post launch era of a god damn game.
A poorly optimized game will not put your pc to the limit. Instead it will bottleneck itself on stupid issues and inefficiencies. Your pc will actually not be utilised to its full potential. Make no mistake, this game isn't slow because it's gorgeous and advanced, it's slow because graphically it's poorly made.
GPUs have been general-purpose many-core processors for like fifteen years now. Please stop designing simulations that run exclusively on CPU... and especially stop tying your simulation speed to the goddamn renderer.
I've written a 60 Hz renderer for a game that's allowed to chug while you glide smoothly through it, and I've written a 60 Hz physics engine for a game that gets fractional frames per second, and I'm just some schmuck. What is your excuse? What kind of NP-hard nightmare did you design for yourselves, instead of identifying bottlenecks and faking the hell out of them? SimCity could run on 8-bit microcomputers. You cannot possibly be struggling to reach an acceptable minimum complexity, using hardware that's forty years newer and ten thousand times faster.
I'm pretty confident the game isn't tied to framerate, and also the game is almost always GPU bottlenecked from what I've heard. From what I've watched of the game, it has a ton of compute shaders and other shader work. In particular, weather is apparently a large cause of framerate issues, particularly temperatures. That's because (I'm betting) the game is computing temperatures on the GPU and using that to draw snow and other things on the terrain and also structures. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing. They just did too much, and now they need to try to optimize it.
They don’t work on a custom engine. So they don’t have engine programmers so they don’t know how or probably can’t (i don’t know how you would do that in Unity). That’s the price you pay for ease of development
Don't worry. They'll release optimization as a DLC.
It’s known performance will be poor, but if it was that bad the ton of YouTubers doing their preview coverage would have been reporting it.
No, there was a performance embargo for reviewers that wasn’t lifted until after the developers had made their statement a few days ago.
They do. Look at city planer plays video. According to this, I can hope to get a bit more then 30fps at 1080p with medium details with my 4070 ti and 7600x. Beyond that, I‘ll get a slideshow. For most PC owners out there, the game will be unplayable in it‘s current state.
Most YouTubers have beefy rigs. Also, the preview build could have some kind of limitation which was never intended for the final release but which improves performance
Probably will trial it and then wait for sale. By the time it goes on sale, it should run better lol
You can pick up game pass (which skylines 2 will be coming out on the 24th)
It's only a buck for 14 days (though that might be region specific) so I'm definitely going to pick it up and give it a go to see how bad the performance is
Unfortunately Gamepass doesn't work on Linux. Well, I'll just trial it for free then.
So, this is releasing on Playstation and Xbox aswell? How the fuck will they be able to run it -at all-, 480p and 30 fps on low?
Maybe it is the reason that console release was pushed to next year
It will run at a glorious 60fph.
I mean, I doubt that concidering PS5 and Series X has roughly the performance of a RTX 2070, while Series S has roughly that of a GTX 1650. If that's anywhere near the truth there's something seriously wrong with the game design. That's about 150% difference in performance compared to the hardware in this post.
Edit: yes I know I misread his joke, I addressed it further down.
Linked article is nothing but Unreal Engine fanboy masturbation.
Those people are fucking weird.
Also a bizarre comparison. Cities 2 is a simulation game - they are very CPU intense games. The graphics are nice but it's likely it's problems with balancing the CPU demand and the graphics that is the problem, rather than the graphics themselves. Simulation bottlenecks will drop the FPS drastically, regardless of the graphics engine.
From what I'e seen of the game on Twitch, I think the performance issues aren't game breaking. It seems the game runs fine if you reduce settings; while it's far from ideal it looks playable.
But it will be damaging for the game. Mods won't launch until after the game is launched, and that may be delayed further by time taken fixing the game post launch. For a game that suceeded in a very large part due to user content that may really harm the game's success.
Linked article is nothing but Unreal Engine fanboy masturbation.
UE having better 3D performance than Unity isn't really that much of a hot take. Unity got that much traction because of its really favorable licensing terms before the recent change.
Have you seriously not noticed how there's this weirdo subset that feels the need to throat UE every chance they get?
Why does the author specifically mention UE and not any of the other engines on the market? Why not Source, which is renowned for being one of the most flexible and performant engines out there?
UE fanboyism is real and it's fucking weird.
The worst thing is when people who have absolutely no clue about game development believe advertisements and hype and get really opinionated about stuff they know nothing about, such as engines, tech or techniques.
Also worth noting that Skylines 2 comes out on Xbox game pass day 1. You can usually pick up a trial for a fortnight, that's a pretty perfect opportunity to try this on PC (to see how bad it runs for you)
That's what I'll be doing, trying it out and most likely skipping it for a few months while they polish it up
Did you just say a "fortnight"?!... hold my beer...
If 90% of gamers can't play a game, is it still worth releasing it like that?
I doubt 90%of players run the newest games at 4K/high
It’s not the resolution:
Dude if someone is spending 1.8k on just a fucking CPU and GPU together (this doesn't include the cost of the motherboard, ram, storage, case, monitor, or mouse) I would fucking hope I can run my new game release at fucking 60fps 4k (minimum) natively.
Oh shit, I actually missed that last part of the headline. Mea culpa.
I just built a 7800x3d RTX 4090 build so I'd expect to hit 4k 60fps but I'm more a 1440p 240hz guy. I guess I'll settle for whatever I can't get with this game lmao. At least it's on game pass.
Do you believe 90% of gamers will be playing at 4K/High settings?
I mean... At the current state of the game, 0% of gamers will be playing at 4K/High settings.
I think I'm pretty confident in saying most people aren't interested in sub 60 FPS, especially if it's at 1080p and looking the way it does (which is mostly flat and unimpressive)
That's the most shocking part, the high-end hardware needed to brute force a 1080p game at acceptable framerates
That's basically what Crysis was when it released, so yeah why not?
Because Crysis for its time was breaking barriers in terms of graphics and physics. City skylines 2 doesn't even look that good (graphically). So it just comes down to poor optimization that will get fixed after half a year to a full year of patching. This isn't a great look even though they said "But we said it will perform poorly".
Crysis was the game that got me to stop being lazy and finally build my first PC.
I dont get why people are mad about this. I'm happy that games are coming out that destroy top setups today because that means they will be beautiful (hopefully that's what they are with max settings) with future hardware.
That's why you don't run on high settings you fucking genius.
Its a single player game, who gives a shit how someone run it. If someone is spending 1.8k on just 2 parts I think its fair to hope a game will run "well" like this is abysmal.