Tom Clancy's The Division Gameplay Performance Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,629
Tom Clancy's The Division Gameplay Performance Review - We take Tom Clancy's triple A title, The Division, and find out how AMD's and NVIDIA's high end video cards' performances stack up and what image quality settings it takes to truly be immersed. We will see what level of GPU is needed at what resolution to enjoy this game with high graphics settings and image quality.
 
Great performance review. Unfortunately the community for this game has dwindled down to almost nothing on PC. It's a ghost town after just two months.
 
The Division definately looks beautiful unfortunately it got boring real quick. I thought I'd be playing this game for months and months being as that I really enjoy third person cover based shooters, the story seemed interesting and the production value is solid. Unfortunately none of the gameplay elements feel fleshed out and it's extremely repetitive with almost no driving force to keep people playing. I hit the wall before I even hit the level cap.
 
First off, is a 4 gb video card 4000 mb, 3814 mb (like hdd conversion) or 4096 mb? I always get confused with binary conversion.

Vram usage is still confusing as ever. The GTX 980 ti, 390, and 390x have the most available in their categories, yet they have the lowest minimum frame rate. The 980 is not even using all available at 1440p, yet the 980ti uses much more. Pretty much a random bunch of numbbers.
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
Great performance review. Unfortunately the community for this game has dwindled down to almost nothing on PC. It's a ghost town after just two months.
Click to expand...
what are you talking about? there are several thousand players online even at the lowest, and that's just steam numbers. combine that with uplay and there are probably at least 50% more at any given time. it takes a few seconds to get a full party for missions and DZ instances work by transferring you to the ones nearest full capacity (24 players) so you're always going to be in a DZ instance that has plenty of people in it. i play the game every day and have never had any issues with amount of players and i even block chinese and australian servers.

the game has lost a huge amount of players but it isn't enough (yet) to actually affect gameplay.
 
Last edited:
Nihilus1 said:
First off, is a 4 gb video card 4000 mb, 3814 mb (like hdd conversion) or 4096 mb? I always get confused with binary conversion.

Vram usage is still confusing as ever. The GTX 980 ti, 390, and 390x have the most available in their categories, yet they have the lowest minimum frame rate. The 980 is not even using all available at 1440p, yet the 980ti uses much more. Pretty much a random bunch of numbbers.
Click to expand...
4096MB
hdds are smaller due to the formatting process. a 4GB hdd is 4GB before partitioning and formatting but only 3.8GBs after.
 
Lith1um said:
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it..................

/down to 9,088 players on steam at this moment with a 24 hour peak of 11,186. (all time peak of 113,877)

Tom Clancy's The Division - Steam Charts
Click to expand...
Yeah that is a really steady decline. They have a new incursion coming up this month, I think. And then we get into the DLCs this summer. It will spike back up to 20k-25k probably, but man how low is it going to stabilize? 5K? It's seriously on-track to be dead.

Seriously regretting my Gold Edition. I got a solid 300+ hours out of the game but now it's just a vegetable.

edit: Oh also that number doesn't include UPLAY. I imagine there's a lot of people there, too.
 
nterestingly the dynamic VRAM on the AMD Radeon R9 Fury and Fury X is not utilized in this game, it seems to rely only on the dedicated VRAM on board. This might mean that AMD has not specifically tweaked its drivers to utilize the dynamic VRAM capability of the Fury and Fury X in The Division. We have found that when specific optimizations are not in place this is the result, only dedicated VRAM is used and dynamic VRAM is not.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression only dx12 games were using the larger amounts of dynamic VRAM. Seems to be the case with my card anyway
 
pendragon1 said:
4096MB
hdds are smaller due to the formatting process. a 4GB hdd is 4GB before partitioning and formatting but only 3.8GBs after.
Click to expand...
no, HDDs are "smaller" because the advertised size is gigabytes when what windows and most everything else uses is gibibytes, ie base 2.
 
Odellus said:
no, HDDs are "smaller" because the advertised size is gigabytes when what windows and most everything else uses is gibibytes, ie base 2.
Click to expand...
Yes HDD use the 1000 not 1024, but the available space you have also depends on formatting between how the format heads files, stores a master record of files and cluster size for storage you get slack and thus waste loss of "expected" capacity. The two combine to really confuse people on where all their storage space went.
 
These game series reviews are not only interesting but very informative as well. Getting to understand what the game setting is doing and how the hardware handles it is really perfected here at HardOCP.

As for forward looking, maybe graphically but since it does not use DX12 or Vulkan (probably for a good reason since development probably started way before the API was finalized) it to me is short term. When will we get this type of quality development in DX12 is probably a long way off. Maybe BattleField 5, Dues Ex will start to make DX12 shine better.
 
When are you guys going to abandon this archaic method of testing video cards ? It is terrible and requires a great amount of deciphering in everything besides your apples to apples tests but that is a breeze felt for only a moment.

It's very very simple and every other website seems to get it but hard ocp.
I'll spell it out for you.

You get several video cards ranging from the $100 range to most expensive and compare the product to those.
Basically from nvidia GTX 950, 970, 980, 980ti. From AMD R9 270, 280x, 290x, fury, fury x.

Also the max in game settings aren't very relevant. The FPS tells the whole story.
Throwing in 3440x1440 benchmarks would also be nice.
 
ghostdog662 said:
When are you guys going to abandon this archaic method of testing video cards ? It is terrible and requires a great amount of deciphering in everything besides your apples to apples tests but that is a breeze felt for only a moment.

It's very very simple and every other website seems to get it but hard ocp.
I'll spell it out for you.

You get several video cards ranging from the $100 range to most expensive and compare the product to those.
Basically from nvidia GTX 950, 970, 980, 980ti. From AMD R9 270, 280x, 290x, fury, fury x.

Also the max in game settings aren't very relevant. The FPS tells the whole story.
Throwing in 3440x1440 benchmarks would also be nice.
Click to expand...

Hello and goodbye.
 
ghostdog662 said:
When are you guys going to abandon this archaic method of testing video cards ? It is terrible and requires a great amount of deciphering in everything besides your apples to apples tests but that is a breeze felt for only a moment.

It's very very simple and every other website seems to get it but hard ocp.
I'll spell it out for you.

You get several video cards ranging from the $100 range to most expensive and compare the product to those.
Basically from nvidia GTX 950, 970, 980, 980ti. From AMD R9 270, 280x, 290x, fury, fury x.

Also the max in game settings aren't very relevant. The FPS tells the whole story.
Throwing in 3440x1440 benchmarks would also be nice.
Click to expand...


Come back when you're smart enough to understand the reviews and why they are done the way they are.
 
ghostdog662 said:
When are you guys going to abandon this archaic method of testing video cards ? It is terrible and requires a great amount of deciphering in everything besides your apples to apples tests but that is a breeze felt for only a moment.

It's very very simple and every other website seems to get it but hard ocp.
I'll spell it out for you.

You get several video cards ranging from the $100 range to most expensive and compare the product to those.
Basically from nvidia GTX 950, 970, 980, 980ti. From AMD R9 270, 280x, 290x, fury, fury x.

Also the max in game settings aren't very relevant. The FPS tells the whole story.
Throwing in 3440x1440 benchmarks would also be nice.
Click to expand...
did you even read any of the reviews? [H] does them the way they should be done. if you think youre better, get your cards, start testing and start a new hardware site. cal it dbagreviewsdotcom or something along those lines...
 
Wow settle down fanboys. Not too long ago they asked for opinions of how they review their cards and here I am expressing my opinion. Of course when the someone on the internet has a different opinion than you the immediate response is to call them stupid.
 
ghostdog662 said:
When are you guys going to abandon this archaic method of testing video cards ? It is terrible and requires a great amount of deciphering in everything besides your apples to apples tests but that is a breeze felt for only a moment.

It's very very simple and every other website seems to get it but hard ocp.
I'll spell it out for you.

You get several video cards ranging from the $100 range to most expensive and compare the product to those.
Basically from nvidia GTX 950, 970, 980, 980ti. From AMD R9 270, 280x, 290x, fury, fury x.

Also the max in game settings aren't very relevant. The FPS tells the whole story.
Throwing in 3440x1440 benchmarks would also be nice.
Click to expand...


And what would those data points tell us? The same thing as those other websites tells us? So you don't want extra data, you just want the same old stuff that everyone else gives....

This is why there are multiple review styles and all are welcome because different people want different information. And this is why [H] put in the apples to apples, because that gives you a great way to compare what best playable settings are in relationship to an equalized factor.
 
ghostdog662 said:
Wow settle down fanboys. Not too long ago they asked for opinions of how they review their cards and here I am expressing my opinion. Of course when the someone on the internet has a different opinion than you the immediate response is to call them stupid.
Click to expand...


Oh so you go around calling people fanboys and expect those "fanboys" to calm down? Counter productive don't you think?
 
ghostdog662 said:
Wow settle down fanboys. Not too long ago they asked for opinions of how they review their cards and here I am expressing my opinion. Of course when the someone on the internet has a different opinion than you the immediate response is to call them stupid.
Click to expand...
2 post noob telling [H] how to do things lol. foff.
 
ghostdog662 said:
Wow settle down fanboys. Not too long ago they asked for opinions of how they review their cards and here I am expressing my opinion. Of course when the someone on the internet has a different opinion than you the immediate response is to call them stupid.
Click to expand...
That thread is still open and would be the appropriate thread for you to post in. Please keep this thread on topic.
 
Lith1um said:
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it..................

/down to 9,088 players on steam at this moment with a 24 hour peak of 11,186. (all time peak of 113,877)

Tom Clancy's The Division - Steam Charts
Click to expand...

9 days later, and we're down to 6756 players on average, with a 24 hour peak of 10,150. Might be wrong, but I predict a firing or two. It was around 22k average when I stopped playing around 2 or 3 weeks ago.

/still appreciate [H]'s work on the game, though. There are some big changes in the upcoming 1.2 patch, so numbers might improve. I doubt that I'll rekindle my interest, but who knows.
 
Lith1um said:
9 days later, and we're down to 6756 players on average, with a 24 hour peak of 10,150. Might be wrong, but I predict a firing or two. It was around 22k average when I stopped playing around 2 or 3 weeks ago.

/still appreciate [H]'s work on the game, though. There are some big changes in the upcoming 1.2 patch, so numbers might improve. I doubt that I'll rekindle my interest, but who knows.
Click to expand...

Not saying this isn't an accurate metric for gauging how many people are playing, but I purchased my game from GMG which forces me to use uPlay directly. I wonder if there are stats to see how many people are using uPlay to play the game. I'm finding it enjoyable, but I haven't been to the Dark Zone yet. I do notice (like this review indicates) that the game is hard on the graphics hardware.
 
Game honestly bored me so much i never beat it. Regretful purchase for sure.
 
Just started to play on my Xone. Anyone knows if cross platform will become available in the future?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top