-
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.
Witcher 3 PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter batman2million
- Start date
The Cowboy
Member
Anyone else really impressed with the ram/vram usage considering the textures and scale?, its really crazy to see such great draw distance/graphics within in an open world and have such low ram/vram usage.
Other benches do not show the 960 outperforming a 780
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...2_Assassins_of_Kings-test-witcher3_1920_u.jpg
silvermember
Banned
I think the point is why spend 350 on a graphics card when you can spend that amount on a console and gain access to even more games.
I tried for a while using old drivers and SLI disabled to see where only one 680GTX could reach. Fantastic optimization with locked 30 fps in 1080p mostly ultra without Hairworks. With hairworks on for main char, minimum 26 fps. Later on I will enable SLI so I know what it's possible applying x3 factor.
Something wrong I've seen is unlimited framerate option works fine (60 fps in reduced 1600x900 resolution), 30 fps limit works fine, but 60 fps limit is totally broken, showing 40 fps where unlocked shows 60.
Something wrong I've seen is unlimited framerate option works fine (60 fps in reduced 1600x900 resolution), 30 fps limit works fine, but 60 fps limit is totally broken, showing 40 fps where unlocked shows 60.
It looks like high end features in this titles aren't veyr well optimized, but matching the console's performance and looks is achievable on similar GPU hardware.
Why are you bullshitting here?
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Getting this as well. Fucking sucks.
Awesome, this is my exact setup. I don't think I would mind 30fps as long as it was locked.
Dead_Pixel
Banned
At the time the 670 cost £350, the ps4 wasn't even released.
Now you can get a 970 for £250-300, which craps all over the ps4's capabilities.
670 goes for £100 second hand.
Anyway, the the answer to your question specifically is that you're spending the money for the performance. My PC cost me £1000 three years ago. I spent £200 buying a 670 two years back, and £280 yesterday on a 970.
I get to play TW3 at a level far above the PS4, that to me is worth the money.
I own a PS4 too for the exclusives, but gaming on PC is just another level in comparison.
Reporting on my Gaming laptop experience last night:
Hardware: GTX 970m 3Gb DDR5, 8Gb Ram, Core i7 4720 2.6Ghz / 17" 1920x1080
The game ran on the optimized Nvidida driver flawlessly (no Hairworks of course), and the framerate seemed solid (probably around 30Fps) ... the IQ was simply gorgeous.
Also, I was worried with the reports, but not a single crash over a little more than 2hours of play, so I am a pretty happy camper.
One weird thing: As much as a graphic powerhouse that Witcher 3 seems to be, it ran better than the (supposedly) optimized Deus Ex HR Director's Cut I have been playing.
What is up with that?
Hardware: GTX 970m 3Gb DDR5, 8Gb Ram, Core i7 4720 2.6Ghz / 17" 1920x1080
The game ran on the optimized Nvidida driver flawlessly (no Hairworks of course), and the framerate seemed solid (probably around 30Fps) ... the IQ was simply gorgeous.
Also, I was worried with the reports, but not a single crash over a little more than 2hours of play, so I am a pretty happy camper.
One weird thing: As much as a graphic powerhouse that Witcher 3 seems to be, it ran better than the (supposedly) optimized Deus Ex HR Director's Cut I have been playing.
What is up with that?
UnrealEck
Member
Yep. that's the exact bench I just saw and I edited my last post.
I don't know what to think. I guess maybe some benchmarks weren't entirely accurate.
Who knows.
I wish I had a way of testing it myself on a similar Maxwell GPU.
UnrealEck
Member
That's some funky ass shit.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
how has anyone with a 4gb gtx 770 been doing with this game? I'm rocking that, 8 gigs of ram, and a 4770k. I know that i'm fine ram and cpu-wise but i'm wondering how much of a bottleneck my card is going to be.
I'm just looking for 1080p and +30 fps with as many settings cranked up as possible. Didn't get a chance to try it out last night so i wanted to see if anyone has a comparable system.
I'm just looking for 1080p and +30 fps with as many settings cranked up as possible. Didn't get a chance to try it out last night so i wanted to see if anyone has a comparable system.
What? Even more games? On a consoles?
Please re-think that statement.
Now, why spend $350 ona GPU, because that GPU will do better in games than a console EVER WILL FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THIS GENERATION.
A GTX 970 is runnig the game at around 60 FPS with better graphics effects than a PS4. My equivalent (in GPU muscle) 780ti is managing 50+ FPS at 1440p at PS4 graphics levels + HBAO+ + better physics + better AF.
Also, PC has more games TODAY than the PS4 and Xbone will EVER have.
Finally, that guy's GPU was released almost 2 years before the Ps4 hit shelves. I think it's pretty amazing, that a mid range GPU from early 2012 is still doing better than a PS4.
I'd keep it if it looked better, but it looks horrible on Geralt.
The best hair I've still seen is on Lara really.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Especially when the new weapon you just got isn't there any more.
I really prefer Geralt's hair without Hairworks.
If there was an option for creatures only I might consider it, but noodle hair and the performance hit isn't worth it to me.
My friend is running this, he's getting 40-60 or thereabouts with those settings. I actually think he had to drop a few things to medium, and he turned off CA and the blurs.
I'll ask, maybe someone will report in tread too.
If there was an option for creatures only I might consider it, but noodle hair and the performance hit isn't worth it to me.
My friend is running this, he's getting 40-60 or thereabouts with those settings. I actually think he had to drop a few things to medium, and he turned off CA and the blurs.
I'll ask, maybe someone will report in tread too.
Sanctuary
Member
Huh? I can understand how the game locked at 30fps would feel smoother than having it bouncing around between 40fps - 60fps, but I don't see what being slower as a person has to do with this. Even if your reactions are slower, 60fps isn't actually causing the game to move faster. In fact, you'd have more leeway hitting a button at 60fps than 30fps.
I think it looks great in gameplay, but get too close (especially in cutscenes) and it looks pretty off. But I will echo some others in this thread in hoping CDPR patches in an option to enable HW only for monsters. I guess I'll turn it off and kill my GPU in other ways until that happens.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. He seems to think that gmes at 60 FPS require more precision timing... but that's not how that works. It's simply more responsive is all, making your button presses register more accurately and the game respond quicker to your input.
bigwinnerx
Member
Dunno. I couldn't beat the first boss when my screen was variable in the 40s and did first time locked at 30. How that translates to what's actually occurring technically, if at all or if it's placebo, I have no idea.
From running around white orchard for about 2 hours:
i7 870 @ 2,93 ghz
GTX 970
8 gb ram
vsync - off
fullscreen with 1920x1080 resolution
background characters - high
shadows - high
terrain - ultra
texture - ultra
water - ultra
grass density - high
foliage distance - high
detail level - ultra
HBAO+
All post processing effects on except sharpening and chromatic aberration.
No hairworks.
Game runs at an almost steady 60 fps, with a couple of short drops to 50. Setting foliage distance to ultra creates a few more drops as low as 45. Great performance overall, especially considering my CPU is below minimum specs. But CPU requirements seem to be bullshit for a while now, so not really that surprising.
i7 870 @ 2,93 ghz
GTX 970
8 gb ram
vsync - off
fullscreen with 1920x1080 resolution
background characters - high
shadows - high
terrain - ultra
texture - ultra
water - ultra
grass density - high
foliage distance - high
detail level - ultra
HBAO+
All post processing effects on except sharpening and chromatic aberration.
No hairworks.
Game runs at an almost steady 60 fps, with a couple of short drops to 50. Setting foliage distance to ultra creates a few more drops as low as 45. Great performance overall, especially considering my CPU is below minimum specs. But CPU requirements seem to be bullshit for a while now, so not really that surprising.
Sanctuary
Member
Because it's easier to adjust to a consistent framerate, even if the timing is more strict, instead of having one that seems totally random.
Sorry if this has been posted already but anyone care to explain why a £160 R9 285 is getting better framerates than a £400 GTX780 / all of the 7xx series?
A 960 ahead of a 780, again. I can't believe Nvidia stopped optimizing their drivers for Kepler so early.
zero shift
Banned
So I have a GTX 970, i5-2500k OC to 4.5GHZ, and 8GB of RAM.
Despite this I never hit 60fps on Ultra. I average out ar around 42fps and it bounds from 30fps to 53 fps. Is this normal?
Despite this I never hit 60fps on Ultra. I average out ar around 42fps and it bounds from 30fps to 53 fps. Is this normal?
That's pretty bad, i'm new on Nvidia cards, bought a GTX 980 a few weeks ago, does that mean that next year it will performs poorly than a amd r9 290? Cause if that'll be the case i'll switch to AMD again, at least their card have always the same performance
QUOTE=Kezen;164433699]A 960 ahead of a 780, again. I can't believe Nvidia stopped optimizing their drivers for Kepler so early.[/QUOTE]
960 better than a 780...would be like if a r9 270 would perform better than a 7970 ghz edition... I hope that's just a Nvidia mistake which will be fixed soon
mysocksarepink
Banned
Turn off hairworks
Everything maxed with hairworks, DOF, chromatic aberration and sharpening is turned off with 16 AF forced through drivers locked to 30 fps. Stable 30 fps so far but i'm only in the starting area. I don't mind 30 fps when i play with a controller.
| 4770K @ 4.5 Ghz | 16GB DDR3 2400 MHz | Asus DC2 GTX 780 Ti | Samsung 840 Pro 256GB | Samsung 840 EVO 500GB |
| 4770K @ 4.5 Ghz | 16GB DDR3 2400 MHz | Asus DC2 GTX 780 Ti | Samsung 840 Pro 256GB | Samsung 840 EVO 500GB |
If you're maxing the settings fully then yes.
Go back a couple of pages to see my settings with the exact same set up as you but with 8gb of ram. Hitting 60fps with a shadows at medium, Hairworks off, all PP on, and a mix of ultra/high for the rest.
Edit: ha, my settings are linked in the post above me!
These benchmarks are not the same settings as the other ones.
If Hairworks is on, yes this is completely normal. 60fps with it requires a cutting edge GPU (980/Titan X).
I was able to hit at least 30 fps with a 670 with everything on ultra with only hair works turned on. Hair Works turned on gave me a few random stutters that werent worth dealing with.
If you were looking for 60 fps I doubt you can get it, but the game isnt to difficult that you need the 60 fps imo
If you were looking for 60 fps I doubt you can get it, but the game isnt to difficult that you need the 60 fps imo
Yup, me. But I've never had a jet plane in my PC
But now, as I killed the Hairworks, and now with Shadow and Foliage Visibility Range both at High, it rocks at 80-90 fps! Along with 2500k@4,5 and 8gigs of RAM.Actually I can't really get my head around the fact, that this game doesn't really give a shit about VRAM, Gpu-Z says its around 1,6 gigs :O
zero shift
Banned
My bad I have 8GB of RAM not 16.
Anyway hairworks is that much of a killer? Going to turn it off now.
Anyway hairworks is that much of a killer? Going to turn it off now.
Seems like on AMD cards, they're practically halving the framerate. I'm losing 10+ frames for Geralt getting a wig that blows unrealistically. So, I turned it off.
Ok...but the 700 series plays the game just fine. I'm not understanding the outrage that a previous generation of cards doesn't perform as well as the newest generation. How is that in any way shocking? The Kepler series of cards first launched in 2012.That is a long time in tech so....?
UnrealEck
Member
The plot thickens....
If it's an architectural difference between Maxwell and Kepler then sure (if it's proven).
If it's because they've neglected to improve the drivers for the Kepler line, then that's what people will be exceedingly pissed about.
Kepler launched in 2012, sure, but the 700 series also launched mid-2013, including the Titan and Ti later.
Yup, me. But I've never had a jet plane in my PC
Actually I can't really get my head around the fact, that this game doesn't really give a shit about VRAM, Gpu-Z says its around 1,6 gigs :O
Yeh, I expected the VRAM usage to be topped out. Was worries about the 970's VRAM issues maybe causing is some hassle.
And I'm really amazed at how well our CPU is doing still. It might be the best price of PC tech I've ever purchased.
Yep. Turn it off and you'll see a massive boost.
Grumpy-Gamer
Banned
Sorry if this has been posted already but anyone care to explain why a £160 R9 285 is getting better framerates than a £400 GTX780 / all of the 7xx series?
Not only that but a geforce 960 shouldn't be beating a 780 either! This is a bullshit chart
