ThoseDeafMutes
Member
You don't have to specifically optimize to take advantage of SSDs. They have lower read and write times, they will always be faster.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wolfenstein: The New Order; PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter Levyne
- Start date
You don't have to specifically optimize to take advantage of SSDs. They have lower read and write times, they will always be faster.
i'll never understand this mentality
I can't max it out so I'll get the console version, despite me being able to run it on PC better. Maybe I just have to turn shadows down from extra high to high, but thats too much of a sacrifice. Won't make it
i5 4670k 4,5ghz, still on my old 2GB GTX670 (oc'd) and it's basically butter on 1080p maxed. 1440p on the other hand is a no go, average 40-45 fps. My other 670 is tucked away cause I'm selling off stuff but with that I think 1440p would've been no problem. The game plays great and is nicely optimized, imo.
(VT Compress enabled), if I disabled that on 1440p I get a slide show, running out of memory I guess.
337.50 drivers
The compressed videos are terrible, the intro with the credits was like watching JPEG presentation.
(VT Compress enabled), if I disabled that on 1440p I get a slide show, running out of memory I guess.
337.50 drivers
The compressed videos are terrible, the intro with the credits was like watching JPEG presentation.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Can't guarantee 60fps but it should run well. Someone had a 900 range thing earlier in the thread and was pulling 40fps.
From what we've been seeing the game seems to be wierdly unable to hit 60 on (some) fantasic hardware, yet still runs fairly well on garbage hardware. Might be an AMD vs Nvidia thing?
metsallica
Member
Wasn't my thinking at all! I haven't upgraded my computer in a while but strongly prefer to game there. Most of what I've played has run just fine on max with a stable framerate with my current "rig." If people said the game runs like crap on my setup, I'd probably go for a console version, even though I VASTLY prefer to play on PC, because I'd value that smoothness and simply can't upgrade right now. I simply want to play the best version available to me within my current limitations, which are a computer of the specs provided, an Xbox One, and a PS4.
TJP
Member
Nvidia GPU owners can download 337.81 beta drivers from Guru3D: http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/download_nvidia_geforce_337_81_beta_driver.html These drivers have been available for 5 days and I haven't seen anyone mention them anywhere...
Partial release notes are as follows:
Updates:
Partial release notes are as follows:
Updates:
- Watch dogs SLI profile
- Wolfenstein SLI profile
- 3840x2160 resolution with SLI now on the U28D590D and selected UHDA monitors
- SLI and multi-GPU configurations support single tile monitors
- Contains fix for this the monitor display blank screen issue that started with R325
Facism
Member
i'll let you know in a few hours. i'm running a phenom x4 810 @3.1ghz alongside 8gb ram and a gtx660.
Couple of launch options to set
+com_skipIntroVideo 1 +com_allowConsole 1 +r_multisamples 4 (2-16 depending on what your PC can handle) (there's no AA option in-game)
Game's OpenGL, so force Vsync/triple buffering in Inspector. In-game's adaptive and tears if it gets below 60fps. Also, I hit a room where I dipped way below 60fps. Turned off SS reflections and it shot up to a straight 60 even with 4xMSAA. Turn that useless shit off yo.
+com_skipIntroVideo 1 +com_allowConsole 1 +r_multisamples 4 (2-16 depending on what your PC can handle) (there's no AA option in-game)
Game's OpenGL, so force Vsync/triple buffering in Inspector. In-game's adaptive and tears if it gets below 60fps. Also, I hit a room where I dipped way below 60fps. Turned off SS reflections and it shot up to a straight 60 even with 4xMSAA. Turn that useless shit off yo.
Thank god, can't live without that while tweaking a game. First thing I did after the first boot was going through cfgs looking for it.
I'll test mine when I get home from work, but I'm presuming everything on high will easily hold 60FPS.
Are there yaw and pitchspeed commands present in the cfg?
MaximusPrimus
Member
I'm really torn wether I should get this on PC (I7 950 @ 4GHZ, GTX760) or PS4.... What do you all think?
GavinUK86
Member
I have an i7 2600k oc'd to 4.5ghz, 8gb ram and a gtx660 running at 1080p with everything on max apart from dof and ssr which is on medium and it's a pretty steady 60fps.
If you have a system lower spec than mine there is still a fair bit of wiggle room for you to mess with to get it running to your satisfaction and if you have a better system well, then you'll have zero problems running it smoothly.
If you have a system lower spec than mine there is still a fair bit of wiggle room for you to mess with to get it running to your satisfaction and if you have a better system well, then you'll have zero problems running it smoothly.
What res?
Sword Of Doom
Member
finalflame
Gold Member
Interested in this. I have a watercooled OCed 780 Ti (1300/7600), and run a 1440p monitor. Wondering if I can run this maxxed at 1440p/60fps. Hope nVidia releases driver optimizations soon.
finalflame
Gold Member
I don't see why an i7 would be required for an FPS. Seems entirely unnecessary.
Aspirations26
Member
Thanks for this.
So, I have been playing it for a few hours now. Performance was great for a while(constant 60 95% of the time) max everything including r_multisamples 6. Then, I got to a certain part,
the area after you zipline climb the wall
I am running a R9 290x, i5 3570k, and 8 gigs of ram. Something is definitely up with this area for AMD cards at least. Getting late now, so I'm gonna get off. Will continue on tomorrow and hope it goes back to running at a constant 60 again.
Chance Hale
Member
Can anyone compare MSAA off with MSAA on? Not sure if I'm doing something wrong but even with it at 16 it looks jaggy so maybe I entered it in wrong.
MSAA 16
No MSAA
Its a noticeable difference, but I do still see a few jaggies in certain places. (to be expected)
Chance Hale
Member
+r_multisamples 16 in launch options right?
Also, are people using Nvidia vsync as the in-game version is completely broken.
Also, are people using Nvidia vsync as the in-game version is completely broken.
I used the console to put it in(Ctrl and ~ , r_multisamples 16), but launch options worked for me also, so yes.
I'm also using Nvidia inspectors vsync/Triple buff., but the game keeps syncing to 60 fps instead of 82 because its running to fast....heh. The joys of an odd refreshrate :/
chrominance
Member
Geeeeeeeeeeez. And to think I was this close to blowing all my GMG credit on this. That is complete balls. I'm running an i5-3570 and a 6950 2GB so I expect my performance would be marginally worse. Though the behavior you mention sounds suspiciously like you're (we're) CPU limited.
DarkLegion
Member
So uh.. I have an i3-2120, R9 280x. 8gb RAM. Is my cpu too weak, or could i just lower a few things?
littlegrasshopper
Member
I got everything maxed out and the game is runs beautifully. I think the i7 recommendation is a a bit much. I am locked at 1080p/60fps.
i5-3750k @ 4.2ghz , GTX 680 4gig, 16gigs of ram
i5-3750k @ 4.2ghz , GTX 680 4gig, 16gigs of ram
brain_stew
Member
So it's designed to run at 60fps on last gen consoles and PS4/Xbone's Netbook/tablet class CPU yet rigs with modern i7 processors are having trouble maintaining 60fps? This sounds like a disaster. It should be running at 60fps on a 8800GTX and Q6600 given its performance on consoles.
I need to know more but this isn't looking very promising.
I need to know more but this isn't looking very promising.
brain_stew
Member
Well AMD's OpenGL driver support has always been hot garbage so that might have something to do with it.
Edit: Oops double post, sorry.
Facism
Member
Ok after completing chapter 1:
Performance is hit and miss. Adjusting graphics options has minimal impact. The framerate is inconsistent, sometimes holding 60fps, but mostly dipping to the 30-40s. That said, game is playable and i'm pushing through on Uber difficulty without performance issues really getting in the way.
This game is riddled with trash textures. Hilarious boxmen corpse entities on occasion as well, lol.
Will be looking forward to some config tweaks, especially to turn off the DOF.
Ok, here are the settings I've settled on.
Specs: i5 2500k @ 4.5 GHz
8GB RAM
2GB GTX 670
With these settings plus 4xMSAA I get 60 fps 99% of the time, with the only drops coming when I assume it's streaming in the next texture or whatever. It only drops for a brief second, then shoots right back to 60, so I don't really notice. It's much smoother than before's all that matters.
Specs: i5 2500k @ 4.5 GHz
8GB RAM
2GB GTX 670
With these settings plus 4xMSAA I get 60 fps 99% of the time, with the only drops coming when I assume it's streaming in the next texture or whatever. It only drops for a brief second, then shoots right back to 60, so I don't really notice. It's much smoother than before's all that matters.
I knew this game would be a problem for a lot of people. The Rage launch was one of the worst I've ever encountered and it took months to fully sort out.
Rage eventually ran flawlessly and I have no doubt that will be the case here.
That said, even now, Rage doesn't run that well on lower end hardware. I'd be curious to know what the engine is doing that is proving difficult on the PC.
Rage eventually ran flawlessly and I have no doubt that will be the case here.
Most of Rage's problems were tied to OpenGL driver problems (especially AMD drivers).
That said, even now, Rage doesn't run that well on lower end hardware. I'd be curious to know what the engine is doing that is proving difficult on the PC.
brain_stew
Member
Well I don't run an AMD GPU which probably helps but RAGE was quite good for me at launch on a Q6600 and 560 ti and flawless very soon thereafter. It shouldn't be expecting too much for those engine and driver tweaks to be carried over to Wolfenstein, there's no justification for the CPU demands here but a crappy driver could well be the root cause.
I want OpenGL to flourish I really do, but the reality never matches upto the promise. With DX12 promising so much it is going to be even more difficult to justify the use of OpenGL on Windows.
dr_rus
Member
16x multisampling is probably resulting in a supersampling being used since there is no GPUs which can handle this at the moment. Try 8 if you have performance (or blur) problems with 16.
Jedipottsy
Member
This is most likely due to poor openGL optomization, particularly with the AMD cards as AMD suck at openGL. Opengl also needs a lot more love before its comparable to directx, hopefully valve can help though.
Now I'm going to assume the console versions *will* dip below said 60fps and aren't Max Ed it graphically. Be nice to see a range of benchmarks done under control to see if there is a common performance blip, or CPU/GPU/Driver/Vendor problem.
Now I'm going to assume the console versions *will* dip below said 60fps and aren't Max Ed it graphically. Be nice to see a range of benchmarks done under control to see if there is a common performance blip, or CPU/GPU/Driver/Vendor problem.
I'm playing on the default "High" settings on my PC and it's been pretty solid so far. I've noticed a few frames here and there where a character's textures would flash white for an instant, but I think that's either a texture streaming thing or a GPU driver issue.
1080p res
Default "High" settings
GTX 600 not OC'd
i5 4670K not OC'd
8GB RAM
Win 8.1 64-bit
I might try upping some settings and OCing if necessary tomorrow. For my first 1.5 hours though, I'm confident I was hitting 60
1080p res
Default "High" settings
GTX 600 not OC'd
i5 4670K not OC'd
8GB RAM
Win 8.1 64-bit
I might try upping some settings and OCing if necessary tomorrow. For my first 1.5 hours though, I'm confident I was hitting 60
Pjsprojects
Member
Which 580? Normal 1gb or overcocked 3gb edition?