Styx: Shards of Darkness PC Performance Review

Introduction

Styx: Shards of Darkness PC Performance Review

Introduction
 
The stealth genre is something that has not been seen in big-budget games for quite some time, with most recent releases like Dishonored 2 falling more into the action category than pure stealth.   
 
Yesterday marked the release of Styx: Shards of Darkness, the sequel to Styx: Master of Shadows, bringing the thief/assassin Styx into the modern era with enhanced graphics and large sandbox levels which were built in the Unreal 4 Engine.
 
This game is not about combat, but using your abilities in intelligent ways to avoid detection and kill your targets without engaging in head-on battles with large opponents.  
 
Today we will be looking at how well this new game performs on PC, playing the game on a range of both old and new GPU hardware at various resolutions and graphical settings. Now without further ado, let's get started!
 
 
 
Drivers 
 

For this game, we will be using the newest drivers that were available when the game released, which is Nvidia's Geforce 378.78 driver and AMD's 17.3.1 driver.

 

Test Setup  

We will be testing this game on our dedicated GPU test rig using both high-end and mid-range GPUs from both AMD and Nvidia. 

 

Game Test Rig
Intel i7 6850K
ASUS X99 Strix
Corsair Vengeance 4x8GB DDR4 3200MHz
Corsair HX1200i
Corsair H110i GT
Windows 10 x64 

       Rise of the Tomb Raider - AMD VS Nvidia Performance Review  Rise of the Tomb Raider - AMD VS Nvidia Performance ReviewNo Man's Sky PC Performance Review

Nvidia GTX 980Ti (Left), AMD R9 Fury X (Middle) GTX 1070 Founders Edition (Right)

 

For the high-end, we will be testing AMD's R9 Fury X, the GTX 980Ti and Nvidia's new GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 GPUs.  

For the Mid-range offerings, we will be testing the new RX 480 and GTX 1060, both of which will be the ASUS Strix Gaming models.

 

No Man's Sky PC Performance Review  No Man's Sky PC Performance Review   

ASUS GTX 1060 Strix (Left), ASUS RX 480 Strix (Right)

 

To represent AMD and Nvidia's lower-end GPU offerings we have decided to use the AMD R9 380 and the Nvidia GTX 960. Both of these GPUs will be the ASUS Strix models. 

Both of these GPUs offer very similar performance in most scenarios and come in at very similar price points, so it will be very interesting to see which GPU will come out on top. 

 

          Metal Gear Solid 5 Performance Review with ASUS  Metal Gear Solid 5 Performance Review with ASUS

Nvidia GTX 960(Left), AMD R9 380(Right)

 
 
«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next»

Most Recent Comments

15-03-2017, 14:05:55

Lynx
Detailed review, much appreciated for a fan of the game.
Any reason why we no longer bench with a 970? It's still the most popular GPU on the Steam Hardware Review.
Would be interesting to see how it degrades over time (nVidia special) compared to 10 series GPUs.Quote

15-03-2017, 18:55:20

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx View Post
Detailed review, much appreciated for a fan of the game.
Any reason why we no longer bench with a 970? It's still the most popular GPU on the Steam Hardware Review.
Would be interesting to see how it degrades over time (nVidia special) compared to 10 series GPUs.
We have never had a 970 in the game stuff as most of the GPUs I test were not provided by 3rd parties (With the GTX 1060 and RX 480 GPUs we use being the exception).

As much as I would love to test a GTX 970, the problem is where does the testing stop? Every new GPU will add more work to do and if I add a GTX 970 I would also need an R9 390 for balance.

This is the big problem when it comes to covering this stuff, as my time is limited and my job is to cover both new games and news content on the website.

When it comes to covering how Nvidia/AMD GPUs age in new games, that is why we still use the R9 Fury X/GTX 980Ti and GTX 960/R9 380 GPUs in out tests, as these GPUs provide some great insight into how older GPUs run on modern games, especially modern DX12 titles.Quote

16-03-2017, 15:43:18

AngryGoldfish
Man, I'm sick of games that run so poorly on AMD. In this case it's to a ridiculous degree. People moan about games not looking as good as they should be considering they need powerful GPU's. What I care about is parity and reasonable performance from both vendors. This kind of favouritism is incredibly destructive while demanding games in general help further the PC industry.Quote

06-05-2017, 18:47:37

Colts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryGoldfish View Post
Man, I'm sick of games that run so poorly on AMD. In this case it's to a ridiculous degree. People moan about games not looking as good as they should be considering they need powerful GPU's. What I care about is parity and reasonable performance from both vendors. This kind of favouritism is incredibly destructive while demanding games in general help further the PC industry.
It's not favouritism nor is it the developers fault AMD is behind in the GPU market these past few years. This is soley on AMD. When an RX580 with 6.2 tflops competes with GTX 1060 with 3.8 tflops you got an issue fact is Nvidia is more efficient at getting the best performance from each tflop. This is all on AMD and has nothing to do with Developers of gaming or nvidia. If AMD Vega were to take the crown for best GPU it would need to be about 18 TFLOPS to compete with Nvidia 12 TFLOPS this also tells you AMD Vega 12.5 the highend card is only going to compete with GTX 1080 and nothing above it. AMD fanboys need to face this reality AMD just isn't as good as Nvidia at making GPU's but we need both GPU Vendors that is a fact. Just quit being so blind.Quote

08-05-2017, 09:10:34

AngryGoldfish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
It's not favouritism nor is it the developers fault AMD is behind in the GPU market these past few years. This is soley on AMD. When an RX580 with 6.2 tflops competes with GTX 1060 with 3.8 tflops you got an issue fact is Nvidia is more efficient at getting the best performance from each tflop. This is all on AMD and has nothing to do with Developers of gaming or nvidia. If AMD Vega were to take the crown for best GPU it would need to be about 18 TFLOPS to compete with Nvidia 12 TFLOPS this also tells you AMD Vega 12.5 the highend card is only going to compete with GTX 1080 and nothing above it. AMD fanboys need to face this reality AMD just isn't as good as Nvidia at making GPU's but we need both GPU Vendors that is a fact. Just quit being so blind.
I'm no engineer or developer, but you just confirmed what I was saying. When a 3.2 TFLOP GPU can beat a 6.2 TFLOP GPU, would you not say that is in part due to the way games are developed? In the same way a 7600K at 100% load can beat a 6c/12t CPU at 40% load, the infrastructure is not currently suited to such hardware. How is that AMD's fault? I've been disappointed by AMD's choices, but I don't blame them entirely. So I heavily disagree with you: this is not solely on AMD.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.