So I set this up to download while I'm at work. I came home and found it sitting around 99% done and taking up close to double the HDD size (69gb). I was installing it on my SDD which is only 120 and wasn't able to free up anything else to get it done. Any ideas what the deal was with that? I thought the game was only 40 gb or so.
-
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.
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter batman2million
- Start date
cheezcake
Member
I meant 1.34GB not GiB. Good lord now I'm getting confused
symphonask
Member
Sorry I can't see pictures at the moment. Is there a notable difference between high and ultra textures?
I take it I won't be able to use ultra textures on a 290X at 1440p?
I take it I won't be able to use ultra textures on a 290X at 1440p?
Game download file + install footprint size.
I'm pretty happy with how it performs now so not sure ai want to fool with it but. I want to know this too, kinda. Worth downloading for a Geforce 780?
With everything except the texture pack turned all the way up it runs totally smooth.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
For those with 970s, is it normal to get that odd resolution @ 100%? I notice it's the same resolution that is listed as "dynamic super sampling" in Nvidia control panel, but this is one of the standard resolutions that comes with the drivers.
Gross. Guess I will install on HDD and then move it over to the SDD with the steam mover tool. Annoying.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Even with downsampling this game is jaggy as fuck.
ambar_hitman
Member
Anyone tried with R9 280 yet? Retail copies are delayed till 10th October here ughhh.
CyberPunked
Member
Why is there no anti aliasing? The only option is to downsample. How hard would it have been to implement smaa or fxaa?
These are my benchmark results with a Gigabyte 970 + i5 2500k @ 4.5, 1920x1200, ultra everything + textures, vsync off. And yes, the minimum framerate shown here is just the initial stutter upon load. It's not indicative of a true drop.
Gigabyte 970 @ stock:
Gigabyte 970 further OC'd:
i guess i have to disable sli, because i get avg 59fps with dips to 30s.
Well done. That is how you play a PC game.
The difference here is really small. :/For anyone curious, here's the game at lowest settings at 1080p:
Game at highest (no texture pack yet)
my gtx 460 has been good to me, looks like it's finally going the way of the dinosaur now though
Trickster
Member
I can only imagine that it's a joke post because those 2 screenshots look identical to me
edit - Oh wait no I see it now, a bit better shadow resolution, self shadowing and "fur" on the cloak
Windom Earle
Member
Dude it's a great port. No AA, messed up resolutions and 60fps with dips only on high-end cards.
GhostTrick
Banned
First: He's running at max settings iirc. The only lower setting is textures.
Also, he's not running at 1080p but more than that.
Dictator93
Member
Every game needs SMAA.
I can spot a couple little differences. The fur lining being the biggest one. Shadows, too.
But other than that, yea, you've really gotta look for em. Which is crazy. If this is a legit comparison, then we're basically talking about a game that almost any rig can play and have it look pretty damn close to people with nice setups.
cheezcake
Member
This is true
MickeyKnox
Member
Looks like the FEAR 3 SLI bits work for this
Can't you force it in graphics card control panel?
The Dear Leader
Banned
I just kicked the texture setting up to High on my 2gb 7850 and I don't notice any sort of framerate drop, it all runs the same, only a slight bit of slowdown on first loading in but it lasted 2 seconds. Everything looks much sharper now, I was even running around full speed on the back of Cara-bear thing, and had no slowdown.
That's also the conclusion of the preliminary PC Games Hardware test. Much ado about nothing.
They also checked VRAM consumption, and it really uses up to 5.5 GB with the Ultra texture pack. The differences, at least in their screenshots, are miniscule though.
These are my benchmark results with a Gigabyte 970 + i5 2500k @ 4.5, 1920x1200, ultra everything + textures, vsync off. And yes, the minimum framerate shown here is just the initial stutter upon load. It's not indicative of a true drop.
Gigabyte 970 @ stock:
Gigabyte 970 further OC'd:
You're making the wait to find a good 970 agonizing. Especially considering i'm coming from a 460 lol.
d00d3n
Member
What hardware are you running? How large was the increase in performance? Any before/after FRAPSing?
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Agreed, worked for me.
I dunno about how well it is taking advantage of higher end rigs, but it seems the game runs fairly well and is stable even on mid-range cards on high end settings.
In my book that definitely means it is NOT a crap port.
Give it a couple hours; it's got it where it counts.
MickeyKnox
Member
How you get Sli to work?
Sanctuary
Member
So does the SMAA injector just not work for this game, or do people have an aversion to using it?
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Does injecting SMAA work for anyone?
d00d3n
Member
Ok, looking forward to it! (would contribute myself, but I am at work)
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
For Nvidia cards you create a game profile in Nvidia Inspector and select the FEAR 3 SLI compatibility bits.
MickeyKnox
Member
Fire up Inspector, scroll to the entry for Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, click on add application to current profile and select the game's executable in whatever folder you installed it to, then under the Compatibility section click the the drop down menu for SLI Compatibility bits (DX1x) and use the one that's labeled F.E.A.R. 3 then in the top right click Apply Changes
Sanctuary
Member
That isn't saying much, unless you're sitting above 60 FPS the majority of the time and not dropping below 30 often, if at all.
i get the ocassional drop to 30 but nothing below. If i take motion blur off, i barely drop. again, its just pr bullshit, this game doesnt need 6gb vram, just like watch dogs didnt need 3gb vram, ill confirm more after i play more
sobaka770
Banned
He forgot to reload game between the screenshots, that's why textures are the same, only changes are geometry (i.e. fur), maybe not even post-processing depending on how the game treats changes in graphics.
I'm running the game with a mixture of high and medium settings with 70fps average on this system:
GTX 680 2GB
8GB RAM
2500k default clock
1080p
The game can have some great lighting but there are also moments when the lighting and texture work leave much to be desired. See below:
GTX 680 2GB
8GB RAM
2500k default clock
1080p
The game can have some great lighting but there are also moments when the lighting and texture work leave much to be desired. See below:
Autofokus
Member
Any way to force triplebuffer vsync? D3DOverrider doesn't seem to work.
my rig:
in-game settings (1080p, no AA):
Benchmark (with in-game Vsync enabled)
Benchmark (with in-game Vsync disabled)
Without triplebuffer, the last benchmark is useless to me -- absolutely can't stand tearing.
my rig:
Code:
i5-760 2.67ghz@3.8ghz
660Ti OC (2GB - 344.11)
12GB Ram
Win7-64in-game settings (1080p, no AA):
Benchmark (with in-game Vsync enabled)
Benchmark (with in-game Vsync disabled)
Without triplebuffer, the last benchmark is useless to me -- absolutely can't stand tearing.
MickeyKnox
Member
Also, for anyone that can't get the Texture pack to show up in their DLC tab use this link https://steamdb.info/app/311670/ install it and it will fail, then restart Steam.
adamantypants
Member
This game is not a looker and never will be. I thought ultra was gonna make all the difference in the world but honestly you'll question whether or not this game is "next gen" by the looks alone. Drop it down to high even med and you're not missing out. The most important part is that it's a consistent performer and it's a blast to play.
FWIW though, I'm playing on a 780ti 4670k. 80fps average all stock settings maxed (no ultra texture pack)
Fudge enough of the settings and you'll probably have something that looks and plays identical to the PS4 version. Up to you. PC is cheaper so I'll direct you there.
FWIW though, I'm playing on a 780ti 4670k. 80fps average all stock settings maxed (no ultra texture pack)
Fudge enough of the settings and you'll probably have something that looks and plays identical to the PS4 version. Up to you. PC is cheaper so I'll direct you there.
The screenshots people are posting in this thread look like shit compared to what I'm seeing on my monitor. This seems to be one of those poor screenshot but beautiful in motion type games.