Meh, only 4 out of 5 David Cage's head? Disappointing ;/, if was a 5/5 it'd at least explain the extremely bad performance.
-
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.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided PC performance thread
- Thread starter JaseC
- Start date
Meh, only 4 out of 5 David Cage's head? Disappointing ;/, if was a 5/5 it'd at least explain the extremely bad performance.
That is so bizarre, who exactly wants different x and y values for the mouse?? Also, why the hell do game developers always have mouse acceleration on by default and very often don't even have an easy way to disable it? I've never known a single gamer who likes mouse acceleration in their games. I could understand this maybe 10 years ago when there wasn't much focus on PC versions but in 2016, come on!
The Dear Leader
Banned
Do you happen to be using an Xbox One wireless controller adapter? I had random BSOD on anniversary update, not Deus Ex but a few other games, that I was able to trace back the adapter, uninstalling it's driver and removing it stopped the crashes.
It's never made much sense at all, it's a feature you'd have to specifically add in for it to be there in the first place.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Relived to know its my CPU. Tried a bit before work and I think my heatsink may have loosened in my move back in March, but I just hadn't caught on.
Fiddled with it, but I think I'm going to have to remove the mobo to get it properly seated again. Ordered a new heatsink/fan (rocking stock at the moment) and some more Arctic Silver. Gets here Saturday, hopeing to not only fix this issue, but crank out a bit of an OC on my 3770k.
Looking back to sporadic issues I have had over the past 6 months with my PC, most of them can be contributed to a CPU down clock, which I never caught because by the time I alt tab out to CPU-Z, it jumps back to normal clocks.
At work now, hoping to get it fixed so I can actually play this game properly and dove into it.
Fiddled with it, but I think I'm going to have to remove the mobo to get it properly seated again. Ordered a new heatsink/fan (rocking stock at the moment) and some more Arctic Silver. Gets here Saturday, hopeing to not only fix this issue, but crank out a bit of an OC on my 3770k.
Looking back to sporadic issues I have had over the past 6 months with my PC, most of them can be contributed to a CPU down clock, which I never caught because by the time I alt tab out to CPU-Z, it jumps back to normal clocks.
At work now, hoping to get it fixed so I can actually play this game properly and dove into it.
JacksUsername
Member
Ok, crashing is becoming real annoying now. I really enjoy the game, but what was the occasional nuisance is now becoming a deal breaker.
Have a 4770k, GTX 980, 16GB of RAM. I'm running the game on the high preset, which is already lower than NVIDIA Experience recommends, and I have the game crash at least once per game session.
Right now, I'm trying to complete the shooting range, and I go through the entire training and the game crashes immediately after the cutscene of Jensen putting his jacket back on after completion. It crashed after a long hour session, so I gave my PC a break and tried again after a little bit. Completed the shooting range again and it crashed at the same spot. The second time I tried skipping the cutscene to see if that would help, but no dice.
Have a 4770k, GTX 980, 16GB of RAM. I'm running the game on the high preset, which is already lower than NVIDIA Experience recommends, and I have the game crash at least once per game session.
Right now, I'm trying to complete the shooting range, and I go through the entire training and the game crashes immediately after the cutscene of Jensen putting his jacket back on after completion. It crashed after a long hour session, so I gave my PC a break and tried again after a little bit. Completed the shooting range again and it crashed at the same spot. The second time I tried skipping the cutscene to see if that would help, but no dice.
terencecah
Member
Hello, I'm using 980ti SLI (never again will I SLI)
I'm only getting about a 10 fps increase from single to SLI using 3440x1440
Is this typical for everyone?
I'm only getting about a 10 fps increase from single to SLI using 3440x1440
Is this typical for everyone?
Did you try the sli bits suggested in the first post?
flipswitch
Member
Maybe this post will help.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=214934883&postcount=1520
Or better the post above.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Sorry for not reading 36 pages, what settings are you looking at for 1080p/60fps (without dips) using a GTX 970 / 3570k @ 4.3GHz?
JacksUsername
Member
Ehhh, tried verifying integrity of the game cache in Steam, but no luck. Third time trying to complete the shooting range, and it crashed at the exact same spot. Really fucking annoying, as I don't have that much time to play at night after work, and now I've wasted most of the night playing the same content without any progress. Oh well, will move on and ignore that spot of the game, but it's definitely leaving a really bad impression on an otherwise enjoyable game.
Cool thanks
indigo-cyclops
Member
Having this exact problem. It is becoming unbearable to open any menus. It can take.up to 45 seconds for me to load the map.
Has this been addressed, are they aware of this?
I solved my low FPS issues by disabling page files, though I only tested 15 minutes after I did changed this. Before, the game would turn into a complete slideshow after about a minute after arriving in the first hub area.
http://tunecomp.net/win10-page-file-disable/
http://tunecomp.net/win10-page-file-disable/
The shooting range crash on exiting it is an inventory bug. I managed to bypass the crash by completely emptying my inventory before entering the shooting range. I also threw the weapons and ammo you get in the shooting range on the floor before exiting it, but not sure if that is necessary.
I remember having to double my RAM to get better performance in the original Deus Ex way back when. I don't remember if I went from 32 to 64 megabytes of RAM, or from 64 to 128MB. Good times
The Dear Leader
Banned
Does this have any sort of negative effect in day to day PC use?
It may. Some programs expect the paging file and crash when it's not available. My friend had a problem with some game (can't remember the title) and it turned that it did not work because his paging file was disabled.
That minor post-sharpening is the 0.7 lumasharpen using ReShade? (sorry if I asked about it before, I have deja vu).
Also, anyone tried using this mod?
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/SpecialK_Mods/discussions/0/359547436742532428
That minor post-sharpening is the 0.7 lumasharpen using ReShade? (sorry if I asked about it before, I have deja vu).
Also, anyone tried using this mod?
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/SpecialK_Mods/discussions/0/359547436742532428
Crimsonclaw111
Member
I couldn't launch Doom with mine disabled, so idk. I didn't know it was off until I tried playing Doom though.
In day to day use it won't affect your system in any negative way unless you have way too little ram. I suggest turn off page file only if you have at least 16GB ram or you will experience out of memory alerts playing latest games.
Yeah, keep those framerate tanking Contact Hardening Shadows and Volumetric Lightning on ultra at all times. Max that shit out! Who cares that graphics quality with CHS on is actually worse than with CHS off.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=885444
Judging game performance at "max settings" is enormously counterproductive.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=885444
Your HDD may be dying. Check that and main memory speeds.
It is a starting point from which to compromise, as a 1440p user, I would want to know. This baseline is more useful than any personalized settings. I can push the minimum to lower 50's on my setup but the more I deviate from the max baseline, the less useful the info to anyone with comparable hardware @1440p.
The game is installed on a new 1TB SSD, loading times seem ok.
Nice, let us know how it goes. (For those keeping track, that's the second case in as many pages of extremely bad performance not actually being caused by the game).
If you have enough memory that's generally good advice.
I haven't had a page file in Windows for 7 years now. It's not just good for games but also general responsiveness. If you have enough memory.
You should probably set CHS to "off" for now, see my analysis earlier in the thread. It's quite an expensive setting and currently greatly diminishes shadow distance.
Not really true. What i found that game has really inconsistent visual looks (especially shadows) and it really depends on situation and the level you are. There are some really great moments where CHS shines and brings that softnest to shadows but there are times where it nullifies any other shadow effects and I think it is a bug I have already reported to developers in their technical support forums. Also there are moments where shadow settings very high for some reason gives worst picture than high settings.
texhnolyze
Banned
Do you actually expect average costumers to know that ultra is not recommended and actually look worse than on/high? What's happening, should we blame the costumers now?
If those settings aren't optimized or bugged, shouldn't the devs, not the costumers, disabled or maybe optimize them first before launching the game to public?
This "costumer" posted in the performance thread, where CHS issue was mentioned multiple times. So (hopefully) he is not an average Joe, oblivious to impact of graphics settings, and existing bugs.
If they fix the bug it may look better, but I suspect the performance will be even worse (since more shadows will be rendered).
I personally don't like blurry shadows, but even if I did, it's current bugged state of CHS makes it inferior anyway (not to mention performance penalty).
If they fix the bug it may look better, but I suspect the performance will be even worse (since more shadows will be rendered).
There is a whole range of options which have "very high"/"ultra" settings that also look good and do what they are supposed to do. A few have some problems. We can't really know how "optimized" any of them are, just their performance impact. In an ideal world, yes, not a single setting would have any issues at all at launch. Of course, that is the same world in which a game doesn't have any issues at launch, period -- so, for a variety of reasons, not the world we live in.
So should those settings be removed? No. That's actually the response people who are completely outraged at a few options being available are engendering, but it's obviously terrible and objectively worse for everyone. Sadly, it's already a reality for many lesser PC versions, which ship with a minimum of options.
The best solution to this dilemma between people's lack of rationality, limited development resources, and the desire to still offer maximum flexibility to those who can deal with it is probably to move any significantly-beyond-console settings to a .ini file.
Yes it makes you slower than just walking up there normally.
texhnolyze
Banned
I get your point. But the problem is that people who have a PC with well above the recommended settings are still struggling to max the game. In many other games, recommended means it's safe to assume that their PC is capable of maxing settings, or at least high with good performance. But believe me, I've read lots of reports from gtx 980/980ti, even the newer 1070/1080 users that they have to deal with high settings with some settings turned down/off to achieve locked 60fps. If even the most advanced PC can't max out the settings, why should the devs put those settings in the game, even as an option? What's the purpose of those settings?
So people can use them at a later date when they upgrade their computers. I do that all the time with old goes once I buy a new video card. The bigger problem is that half the high end settings don't even appear to be working 100% correctly while still tanking performance.
johnnydrama
Banned
Got a 980Ti and 3770K with 16GB RAM. I'm using these settings and I've totally given up on solid 60fps now. It's just not possible at 1440p.
People who meet the recommended specs can easily run the game on high with good performance.
It should never ever be "safe to assume" that you can "max" settings.
That's the sign of a mediocre port of a high-end game.
For the future.
That said, the "most advanced PC" can easily "max out" the settings. My PC is far from the most advanced, and I can play with the settings (other than MSAA) "maxed out", even at 1440p (never mind 1080p) at well above 40 FPS.
1. Recommended actually rarely means 'you can max this game', mostly only in lacking console ports and generally not particularly scalable games is that true.
2. Because that's a great thing about PC gaming! You can come back in 5 years and play it and it looks even better and runs even better than it did when the game first came out. Why remove that just because some people refuse to have their pride hurt because they can't run something their hardware wouldn't be capable of anyway - just turn down some fuckin settings, it's pretty simple.
texhnolyze
Banned
If so, then why did they use gtx 970 as the recommended settings? If there's a comparison between gtx 970 recommended games and how they run on those games, that would be great.
And as you said, some settings don't work as intended. But why does it feel like a sin if someone here says that this is not a good port?
I have the same cpu/gpu combo with 12gigs of ram. The GeforceExperience recommended settings are a rocksolid 60fps for me(mostly high settings with some postfx like volumetric lighting and ambient occlusion turned off). Going for the complete high preset gives 60fps with drops to lower 50's during gameplay(the built in benchmark shows max 60 avg 52 and lowest 45 fps). If you experience framepacing issues with v-sync, try switching between exclusive and borderless fullscreen to see which mode has less stutter.
Sanctuary
Member
It's almost like it's 2007 again.
But can your PC run Deus Ex: Mankind Divided?
That's almost never been the case in most graphics intensive games. It usually means a mix of high, ultra and even sometimes medium.
It's going to be terrible if the "me too" crowd cries loud enough that they screw it up for the rest of us.
Because a 970 runs the game at ~60 FPS average at high settings.
RamaTheVoice
Member
I don't know about the rest of you, but I never considered that having the recommended spec for a game meant I could run it maxed out. High preset maybe, but not maxed.
For me, min spec always meant I *could* run the game on low/medium settings (or console-equivalent settings for a port) and have a good time, and recommended spec meant I could run it at high/ultra settings, but never with absolutely all the bells and whistles on.
For me, min spec always meant I *could* run the game on low/medium settings (or console-equivalent settings for a port) and have a good time, and recommended spec meant I could run it at high/ultra settings, but never with absolutely all the bells and whistles on.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Getting annoyed at the devs because some can't achieve 'Max settings' is silly because it's not a right. This is the culture we live in today where people assume 'high settings' are unsavoury and everything needs to be on ultra or the graphics are somehow missing out. Lol.
Sanctuary
Member
7/10, 8/10, medium and high = shit!
Even so, there's no telling yet how optimized or not the game truly is.
What does even recommended means today? Recommended for what resolution? There is word recommended specs but it doesn't say recommended for what settings. Why people assume recommended means max out everything. I can't remember a game that let you do that on recommended settings. There is always a few settings you would not touch if you want to keep those 60+ fps.