I'm having the same issue, latest drivers for my 970. Running with high for textures, everything else is maxed.
-
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
I'm having the same issue, latest drivers for my 970. Running with high for textures, everything else is maxed.
Prophet Steve
Member
Do you know windowed mode? That you can have the game in a window and drag it around and stuff. Borderless windowed is that but then the window is the same size as full screen without any borders. It has some different interactions. For example it makes it easier to alt tab out of a game and use a different program.
CyberPunked
Member
I preordered through steam, should I have that outfit too?PC specs:
i7 920 @3.9GHz
24GB of DDR3
MSI GTX 970 OC Edition
Benchmark @ 2560x1440 Ultra
Game looks amazing, loving that Ranger pre-order outfit.
GavinUK86
Member
Yeah, you should.
Sevenfold
Member
Not played the game yet but ran a couple benchmarks. Seems incredibly tame compared to ingame from the videos I've seen. So I wouldn't base anything other han comparisons off it.
780ti Classy
i7 2600k
16GB RAM
93FPS average all max 1080 (No extra textures)
60FPS average at 150% 2880 x 1620
ETA: Just for fun 39.7 FPS at 200% 3840x2160
I know it's completely inefficient but supersampling looks awesome in this game. pin sharp at 200%
Possibly driver related then. Sorry, PC gaming isn't that wonderful when you have to face such situation.
That's highly subjective, so far, from what I've read (still didn't play it, waiting until work is over), motion blur, shadows and ambient occlusion are pretty taxing, but if they add much or not depends on you.
Some people prefer to play without motion blur anyway, so that's a great plus for them, but personally I'd try to avoid turning it off.
In the other hand, some people have high standards for shadows and/or AO, but they're the first things that I'll turn down in order to keep 60fps.
I'll try High Shadows and AO, but if I'm not satisfied, I'll go with Medium AO, and even Medium Shadows if I have to, don't really mind.
b0uncyfr0
Member
He's right. Vsync works beautifully with borderless mode. I mustave forgotten to restart the game thus I thought it didn't work. Everyone should be running their benchmark with thus. Way more positive and accurate results.
Chance Hale
Member
According to steamdb the texture pack is t is excluded from Steam's Family Sharing service.
I can't believe the game isn't but the hd pack is :/
I can't believe the game isn't but the hd pack is :/
The DoF is cool looking during executions, but besides that I haven't really noticed it. I personally don't like camera motion blur, and you can't only do object blur so I prefer it off.
Turning them both off does seem to give me a 20+ FPS boost.
Help
I'm so sorry, but I'm finding this hilarious.
Doctor Hades
Member
So this game must be using OpenGL then if the NVIDIA driver triple buffering option works as that only works for OpenGL?
If that is the case then it may be possible to force MSAA using the 0x0000F0C1 AA compatibility flag. Has anyone tried it?
The resolution scaling is... Odd... I have it at 150% right now rendering the game at 2880 x 1620. Would rather it be 1440p.
I've had to turn down shadows and AO to high, but other than that, the game is running pretty smoothly (60 fps) albeit, I'm only going around killing orcs and such in the beginning.
I've had to turn down shadows and AO to high, but other than that, the game is running pretty smoothly (60 fps) albeit, I'm only going around killing orcs and such in the beginning.
Sevenfold
Member
You can try. There are increments below 100% (1080p in my case) the benefit of the textures is going to be diluted somewhat by the resolution nerf, no?
EDIT: So it says in teh options that at 1080 my high texture choice is using 3GB of my Vram (all of it) If I run the game at 200% resolution do I therefore need 6GB of Vram? Or does the amount taper off?
At 60fps, I've found that motion blur really isn't noticeable most of the time. If I'm running below 60, I'll keep it on, otherwise not.
It uses DX11.
SneakyStephan
Banned
I hope you didn't just call fxaa a traditional aa method
also no AA >>>>>>>> fxaa blur
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
IDK man I really fucking hate any and all jaggies more than I hate blur.
Doctor Hades
Member
Has anyone in the UK bought the PC download code from *********** for £25.09?
Their web page says the download version is out in TEN DAYS which surely cannot be right as I thought the game was released today in all territories?
Their web page says the download version is out in TEN DAYS which surely cannot be right as I thought the game was released today in all territories?
d00d3n
Member
Actually, running the 150% downscaling method turned out to be quite playable combined some of the other strategies to improve performance from this thread. Used the ultra preset (including ambient occlusion high), but lower textures to high, shadows to high, disable motion blur and disable dof. Fraps was between 50-60 fps. I think the downsampling will have a bigger visual impact than the loss of those effects in the long run.
Crimsonclaw111
Member
Looks like a banned site.
Shadowhaxor
Member
Monolith's Lithtech engine, LithTech Jupiter EX. This raises a good question since last time I knew the LithTech Jupiter EX engine was DX9 but wasn't as polished as what we're seeing here. But I don't see any mention of a newer engine either.
Doctor Hades
Member
Whether you use FXAA or not is your choice, one of the great things about PC gaming, but that still does not excuse the developers leaving out the option completely. It is a very easy thing to implement yet they opted for performance sapping downsampling instead, which makes absolutely no sense considering most people won't be able to use without losing a big chunk of performance.
My guess is that it has been omitted from the PC version because the PS4 and Xbox One versions don't have any post-process AA. Reeks of laziness in my opinion. I look forward to TotalBiscuit's critique of this game.
SixtyTonAngel
Neo Member
Then I can't explain how it works, but it definitely does. For me at least.
Edit: OK, I tested it and the triple buffering setting does nothing, but having vsync set using the drivers stops the 60/30 vsync issue with no tearing.
Lockjaw333
Member
How does a 650 ti compare to a 670? I have almost the same specs otherwise. 30fps on medium and AO/Tess off would not be worth it to me, if that's the case I'll just aim for the PS4 version.
Sevenfold
Member
Seems for me, I had to do in Firefox, and then it added it to the downloads section. Thanks.
Thanks
'Traditional' = non supersampling, basically
And I disagree. I'll take a slightly softer look rather than sawtooths all over the screen. No aliasing is downright immersion breaking for me.
but...but you dont play games?
I didn't say I played them.
Was not the case not too long ago, I remember seeing very poor sli benefits and many games that just didn't care about sli. Looking at you Diablo 3... Blizzard has a very poor track record on supporting sli
Nvidia reintroduced SLI a decade ago. It's been the case for quite a while.
TMONSTER
Member
After playing for a bit on 980s at 1440p maxed out ultra im dropping textures to high. Vram usage is pegged at 4gb and I get stutters panning the camera and during combat. If you are stubborn ultra if definitely playable but I can see why 6GB vram is recommended, at least for 1440p. High doesn't look much worse and the actual gameplay experience is far better.
a 670 can play the game fine even on ultra if you have a decent cpu. anything less than an ivy and you can play it on medium with everythinn else on max, no problems. trust me, youre not missin gmuch from medium to high
AMD FX 8120
EVGA GTX 770 SC with 2GB of VRAM (oddly, dxdiag incorrectly reports it has 4GB)
8GB of RAM
Going to have to knock textures down to medium because of the VRAM requirement, but everything runs well enough. Only real bottleneck for me appears to be the VRAM requirement. Witcher 3 is probably going to be the real test for my machine, but I'm better off machine wise than when I was when The Witcher 2 came out. I tried to play that on a 8600 GT.
EVGA GTX 770 SC with 2GB of VRAM (oddly, dxdiag incorrectly reports it has 4GB)
8GB of RAM
Going to have to knock textures down to medium because of the VRAM requirement, but everything runs well enough. Only real bottleneck for me appears to be the VRAM requirement. Witcher 3 is probably going to be the real test for my machine, but I'm better off machine wise than when I was when The Witcher 2 came out. I tried to play that on a 8600 GT.
everything on ultra just because, seems like it would still be at a somewhat playable framerate if i met the vram requirements
A 670 has a bit more shading power, I think on average, it performs about 25% better than a 650ti.
It's possible you can tick a few items to high at 30 FPS, or get a higher frame rate. The 670 is also a bit mroe powerful than what the PS4 is sporting.
So in the end you'll probaly be playign at settings so similar to the PS4, that you'll hae to squint to notice the difference, and at similar frame rates.
Except that you would have paid $30 less for the game. Your choice.
Lockjaw333
Member
I actually disagree. People are so hung up on the fxaa being "blurry" wen in reality its just that its affecting the entire image, alpha textures and all, whereas with msaa you're getting no coverage on alpha textures.
Its not that its blurry, its just redcuing ALL aliasing in the image, even aliasing thats inside of a texture (like on a rock texture) and things like grass.
For me, I usually opt for FXAA unless I have so much overhead in performance that using MSAA isn't a big deal. Its just not worth the performance hit in my opinion.
Agreed. MSAA is outdated and useless for transparencies, texture aliasing, so you end up needing to team up with some other filter to get a decent result.
I'll take good FXAA over MSAA any day of the week (with good FXAA I mena dev implemented with no pass on the GUI elements). Of course if I have a better choice over FXAA, I'll take that too.
I bought a steam gift off eBay for £18:39 a few days ago. Game up and running well. Might be worth going that route.
Lockjaw333
Member
Thanks for the response. I thought my current rig (i5-2500k, gtx 670 2gb, 8gb ram) would be clearly better than the PS4, but I guess the unified architecture really means something on the PS4.
Atraveller
Banned
But people said it's like AssCreed!I didn't say I played them.
Some other people are playing at 1080p/60fps and decent settings with lesser hardware. Pretty sure he doesn't need to settle for 30fps.
Hopefully SMAA will completely marginalize FXAA It's cheap and does not blur as much. It should be the default AA option, with SSAA for those with multi GPU setups.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
So are we to presume that Nvidia will put out some drivers with proper SLI support etc?
AndyBNV?
AndyBNV?
Your CPU is better than what's on a PS4, your GPU is slightly better than what's on a PS4. The real console advanatage here is on the CPU overhead. The game would probably run badly on something like a PS4 CPU.
Still, matching a PS4 on an almost 4 year old CPU + a mid range GPU over 2 years old, is not bad. Nto to mention that in the future, thanks to DX12 and other API's that CPU overhead will diminish, giving your rig even more breathign room later this gen, even assuming you don't upgrade at some point.
Yep.
Coma Ecliptic
Member
This has to be one of the strangest errors I've ever seen in a game. It may have been the lack of sleep, but I saw this post last night around 1:30am and I literally started crying I was laughing so hard, I'm so sorry...
Help
It just looks so ridiculous with the weird EKG graphics at the top right, it looks as if it was photoshopped in. Have you posted to their their forums?