• 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.

Dark Souls III - PC Performance article

D

Deleted member 325805

Unconfirmed Member
MichaelEM3 said:
Any hope I'll be able to run the game at 1080p/60 on High with shadows and a few other settings turned down with a Radeon 7950 (the minimum according to Steam) and a i5-3570K overclocked to 4.2GHz?
Click to expand...

Very unlikely, the test PC has a better CPU and faster RAM and their minimum was 40fps with that card on VHQ, dropping to high even with those advantages wouldn't net them 20fps. You can get to 60fps I'm sure, but you'll need to rethink your visual budget to maintain 60fps throughout.
 
d00d3n

d00d3n

Member
dr_rus said:
Haven't been following this thread but this benchmark is new and probably wasn't posted yet: DARK SOULS III тест GPU

ds3_1920.jpg
ds3_2560.jpg
ds3_3840.jpg
ds3_proz.jpg
Click to expand...

So, SLI scaling appears to be pretty fantastic in 4k? Considering that the fps is cut off at 60 fps, two 980Ti SLI could possibly double the fps compared with a single 980Ti.
 
Self_Destructive

Self_Destructive

Member
St3v3 said:
Oh God, intentionally playing at 30fps with a 980ti should be illegal, like a felony. Sacrificing smooth gameplay for resolution is just madness and I will never understand why anyone would do it. I would honestly rather play at 720p/60 than 4k/30. Judging from those benchmarks I'll handle 1080p/60 though so it's all good but damn, don't suggest such madness man!
Click to expand...

Well, 4K 30fps is the reality for single GPU setups atm. Nothing wrong with suggesting it if that's the res people are wanting to play at.

I agree, in this game I would take 60fps over 30fps any day of the week. It just controls so much better.
 
J

Jedi2016

Member
AllenShrz said:
Oh no, not 30fps.

Im playing the PS4 ver now and I cant stand it.
Click to expand...
That's not really 30fps, though.. that's like, 25 and jittery as fuck. A smooth and consistent 30fps actually isn't the end of the world and, oddly enough, you'll only see that on PC.. lol.

At any rate, it looks like I'll be about where I thought I would be... medium-high settings, 1440p, and hovering around 45 or so. G-sync means that's good enough for now.
 
E

Eusis

Member
Guess it should be OK on 960m.

Although, anyone know the ballpark for Console equivalent settings? And how major the difference even is from High to Very High in terms of graphical quality and FPS? I thought it was said earlier in here that the difference didn't really stand out on a visual level yet the FPS difference was huge.
 
J

Jyrii

Banned
I did ask this before on the PC building thread, but I'll ask it again to be sure.

I have i7 950 and HD5870

Should I be able to play it on low settings on 1080p/60fps?
 
L

laxu

Member
I'm a bit surprised that you need a 980 Ti to get 60 fps at 1440p. The game is not THAT good looking from what I've seen.
 
M

Mr_Moogle

Member
Hmmm that looks like a pretty decent score for the 280X. Might just tweak a few settings here and there to make sure it runs smooth.
 
F

fozzy

Member
I might attempt to overclock 3570k and 760 to get a few more fps at 1080p.

I don't think it would be worth upgrading for what I'm willing to pay for a few more fps.
 
Impulsor

Impulsor

Member
I have a 34" 21:9 (3440x2440) + 27" (1080p) monitor combo.

I have a 980ti.

I'm still considering getting the PS4 version. What is wrong with me?

I'd love to see if there is some kind of 3440x1440 support, I understand that DS 2 had it?

Even if the HUD stays at 16:9.

But meh, as I said, I kinda have the urge to just get the PS4 version and not have to think about this. I feel stupid .
 
L

lordfuzzybutt

Member
fozzy said:
I might attempt to overclock 3570k and 760 to get a few more fps at 1080p.

I don't think it would be worth upgrading for what I'm willing to pay for a few more fps.
Click to expand...

Overclocking is rather easy these days so definitely do it. That card is a bit weak but the CPU is still beefy.
 
F

fozzy

Member
lordfuzzybutt said:
Overclocking is rather easy these days so definitely do it. That card is a bit weak but the CPU is still beefy.
Click to expand...

I just found a program called msi afterburner so may have a play with that later. Is there a best tool for overclocking the cpu, or is that done in the bios?
 
C

Corpekata

Banned
fozzy said:
I just found a program called msi afterburner so may have a play with that later. Is there a best tool for overclocking the cpu, or is that done in the bios?
Click to expand...

In the Bios, just google your CPU + overclocking guide.

Can also try CPU + your specific MOBO and you might get an even easier to follow one
 
Y

Yakhont

Neo Member
What kind of performance can I expect with a 970GTX and i5-2500K locked to 3.4GHz because my replacement mother board does not support overclocking? A bit worrying that DS3 is more CPU reliant.
 
Adry9

Adry9

Member
MichaelEM3 said:
Any hope I'll be able to run the game at 1080p/60 on High with shadows and a few other settings turned down with a Radeon 7950 (the minimum according to Steam) and a i5-3570K overclocked to 4.2GHz?
Click to expand...
Same setup here but not OC. Thinking about locking the game to 40fps on Ultra. Maybe try downscaling from 1440p on High at 30fps.
 
R

roytheone

Member
lordfuzzybutt said:
Do it, I have seen that chip overclocked to 4.2Ghz, should help a lot.
Click to expand...

Well, since my aftermarket fan is pretty mediocre (I can't reach the back side of my motherboard thanks to the way the case is, so that limited my options on that front), I will not try to push it that far :). Its currently on 3,3 Ghz and stable as a rock, so that already should help a bit.
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
Slick Butter said:
So Crossfire doesn't yet work with this game or why is the 295x2 getting the same performance as the 290x?
Click to expand...

It doesn't unless they've added the support in 16.4 driver update they've released yesterday for Quantum Break.

Oh, wait, the benchmarks are done on 16.4.1. So yeah, it doesn't.
 
nkarafo

nkarafo

Member
ItsTheNew said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOnaDvWHDg

PC Benchmarks + FPS effects for turning things up/down. Pretty cool little video.
Click to expand...
Is the motion blur a full screen effect or per-object?

Well, seems like i'll be lowering shadow quality a notch and disabling motion blur. And textures to high instead of max, to prevent going above 2GB usage. And maybe "effects" too as i didn't see any big difference. I hope this will be enough to reach 60fps on my 960.
 
nkarafo

nkarafo

Member
I wonder if i can force the game to run at 50hz?

My TV supports this at 1080p and this is how i play some games (like GTA5). 50fps feel almost as smooth as 60fps but without the noticeable drops between 50/60. This game runs at it's 40's on my card, i don't know if i will be able to reach 60 stable by lowering some settings, i will probably have to lower everything. But 50fps stable seem very possible with minor sacrifices.

Edit: Anyone knows how can i force any game use a different Hz value? Nvidia inspector only has the choice of "max available" or "application setting". This will force 60hz even if i set my screen at 50 on desktop.
 
C

CHC

Member
Thabksfor posting the benchmarks, those are really helpful. I'm going to play at ~1600p on my GTX 780 and just lock it to to 30. A real, stable 30 FPS still feels great in these games and I can't stand seeing aliasing at all.
 
Agent_4Seven

Agent_4Seven

Tears of Nintendo
http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/dark-souls-iii-test-gpu
Click to expand...
WTF? There's absolutely little to no difference in overall visual quality in low and max settings. How on earth is this makes any sense? AA options is just terrible, it's like a butter smeared all over the screen (or some parts of it), so fuck it. And oh boy this 1440p preformance... How? How in the bloody hell 980 showing worse performance than 690 which is like 4 years old now with outdated architecture and all? Why 1440p 60 is basically locked behind SLI (with the exception of Fury X)? Just what the fuck From? From which place your hands are growing? The way I see it - straight out the ass and I just refuse to play this game in 1080p, it's just not a fucking option for me. I don't even know if it'll make any difference (it probably wouldn't) if I'll OC my 980 to 1340.... They basically telling people to go and spend another $200 to $340 just to get those extra frames and its is just anti-consumer, stupid and ridiculous in every possible way. And look, I know that 1440p is lot more demanding that 1080p, but I can play DSII in 4K 60 for Christ's sake and DSIII doesn't look that much better than DSII in terms of visual quality to require SLI or Fury X to.run 1440p 60, not to mention 4K 60.
 
N

napata

Member
Agent_4Seven said:
WTF? There's absolutely little to no difference in overall visual quality in low and max settings. How on earth is this makes any sense? AA options is just terrible, it's like a butter smeared all over the screen (or some parts of it), so fuck it. And oh boy this 1440p preformance... How? How in the bloody hell 980 showing worse performance than 690 which is like 4 years old now with outdated architecture and all? Why 1440p 60 is basically locked behind SLI (with the exception of Fury X)? Just what the fuck From? From which place your hands are growing? The way I see it - straight out the ass and I just refuse to play this game in 1080p, it's just not a fucking option for me. I don't even know if it'll make any difference (it probably wouldn't) if I'll OC my 980 to 1340....
Click to expand...

Huh? If SLI scales well and Kepler isn't crippled like in most recent games 2 680s are more powerful than a 980.

Also if like you said high and low look the same, why wouldn't you just play on low then?

I've heard though that some settings require restarting before they take effect but the game doesn't tell this.
 
D

Dictator93

Member
nkarafo said:
Is the motion blur a full screen effect or per-object?
Click to expand...

Per object and screen based. Dark Souls 2 even allowed you to disable one or the other I believe, which is really cool for those that dislike the screen variant. Most people like per-object though!
 
nkarafo

nkarafo

Member
Dictator93 said:
Per object and screen based. Dark Souls 2 even allowed you to disable one or the other I believe, which is really cool for those that dislike the screen variant. Most people like per-object though!
Click to expand...
Well fuck, i love object based blur and i hate the full screen one.

I hope they patch it with a separate option at some point. Or maybe there's a hidden option in some ini?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alone in the Dark | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
136
7K
Alan Wake replied
Games with 4:3 support on PC
29
2K
GHG replied
Baldur's Gate 3 PC - DF Tech Review - Graphics Analysis + Optimised Settings
Opinion Analysis
25
5K
Mister Wolf replied
Elden Ring: PS5 vs Xbox Series X | S - Performance Review (IGN)
Opinion
13
3K
onQ123 replied
Helldivers II | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
127
12K
DaleinCalgary replied
Top Bottom