-
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.
[Digital Foundry] Kingdom Come Deliverance: PC vs PS4 Pro Graphics Comparison + Frame-Rate Test
- Thread starter Senua
- Start date
JimboJones
Member
Quite CPU intensive, ultra settings are like a sneek peak at next gen.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
I don’t know if the top settings are more for future cards or if it’s more that the game is a technical mess and poorly optimized currently
It does look insanely better on PC
It does look insanely better on PC
SnowDrops
Member
I had a similar expirience on my PC about the loading times while I initially had the game installed to my HDD while downloading overnight. After the first crash I got so fed up with the loading-time that I made space on my SSD and moved it over. Since then I get just the results the video is talking about, Instant "Continue"-Button right when the Intro starts. All hail the SSDs for this game
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
See this tells me that this game is just really poorly optimized. That much horsepower just should chew up anything maxed out at 1080p right now
SnowDrops
Member
Like in the Video they said Ultra-High is for future Hardware, a Titan X Maxwell is nowhere near Future anymore.
And I'm willing to get these hits in performance because I want the visuals, I chose the settings my own, I should use High and Very-High at certain options but instead I'm going Ultra-High instead => I get the drops. Figures. For me.
Edit: for reference, my TitanX is beating out a stock 1070 in the FF15 Benchmark by quite alot, nearing 1070Ti perf. If you were wondering.
And I'm willing to get these hits in performance because I want the visuals, I chose the settings my own, I should use High and Very-High at certain options but instead I'm going Ultra-High instead => I get the drops. Figures. For me.
Edit: for reference, my TitanX is beating out a stock 1070 in the FF15 Benchmark by quite alot, nearing 1070Ti perf. If you were wondering.
Last edited:
Phatosaurus
Member
Drop the shadows down from Ultra high to very high or high, enjoy better performance.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Ehhhh, I mean we are talking 1080p here though
This game has to be able to run better than it currently does. I’m sorry.
SnowDrops
Member
I haven't been able to run anything at ultra at 4K60 since I bought the GPU, what are you talking about? It looks amazing the way it does and it's future-proof, what else would you want?
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
So you think this game is wonderfully optimized?
I mean, what are we doing here?
I mean, what are we doing here?
SnowDrops
Member
No, I think my GPU is getting quite old in the "Run it All-Ultra" High-End-GPU state. Heck, I barely managed to run The Witcher 3 All-Ultra at the time I bought it especially for that purpose (at 1080p).
Games have moved on. What would you want? Stagnating progress? Waiting untill the next Console Generation to UP the Graphics requirements?
From my expirience, I've seen an expected curve downwards in my Framerates in Ultra-Settings ever since I bought my GPU, this is the way it goes and always has been going.
Last edited:
Phatosaurus
Member
It’s not really poorly optimised, considering what the ultra settings require to be rendered in real time.
Turning some settings down drastically improves performance, unlike Assassin’s Creed Origins, for instance. A game that taxes CPUs no matter what settings are used.
A mix of the very high and high settings runs superbly for me on a 1080 and the game looks great.
I locked the game at 60FPS and it stays locked. Even at night with torches out.
Though I do have post processing and motion blur set to off/low because I don’t like how they look.
Bl@de
Member
Finally a developer decided to do this. Look at some benchmarks of old PC games in the late 90s/early 2000s. A lot of games ran at maybe 30fps on highend cards because 3D technology was moving so fast. People are not used to this anymore because of multiplattform developement these days and call everything „poor optimization“.
Edit: Note that I‘m talking about highest settings.
Last edited:
RipperGrim
Member
The load times are crazy, are they using SSDs with the consoles for the benchmarks?
SnowDrops
Member
For the Benches they are using totally unmodified Console Hardware
RipperGrim
Member
Bit misleading then? Or not as informative as it could be. Any game on an SSD loads faster, comparing it to a normal HDD is pointless especially when we know it's possible to be an SSD into the consoles.
WX3
Member
I am playing it with a 6gb 1080 and my CPU is the i7 7700k and I have everything on Ultra except for a few select things and it mostly stays at 60fps. To me its fine with a few hiccups here and there. I do not have an SSD as of yet as I just built this PC for my son and I and the budget didnt allow it (i.e. my son didnt pitch in any funds!), and the thing I could gripe about it the load times. Other than that, its been a superb experience graphically on PC.
SnowDrops
Member
They especially said that they're using an SSD in this video, and I dare say that about 95-98% of people are using the standard unmodified Consoles
michaelius
Banned
That performance on 580/1060 seems rather fine but some of those drops really make me glad to have g-sync.
lukilladog
Member
How is this pushing pc hardware while they must be using like 99% console recycled assets?, if this was vulkan or dx12 it would be drawing like 10x the level of detail on current computers. Think of gtaV for example, forget about playing at 60fps on my old pc and max settings, but extremely detailed car mods made from scratch are no problem. Making a game to crawl is easy, making a game that takes advantage of pc hardware takes comittment and talent.
Last edited:
WX3
Member
Ugh, I meant 8gb 1080, thanks for that correction I appreciate it.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Because this one talks of the graphics of the game and i think is fine for this video and fits good here, rather to open a new thread.
In my experience these kind of games offer only slightly better visuals for a lot more performance drain on ultra settings. It's not like you get whole new shaders and whole new shadow effects, like going from no ambient occlusion to VXAO or something like that.
See The Witcher 3, foliage high vs ultra. A few more trees in the most far away distances which definitely looks nice but decrease your fps around, what, 20% or something? For this little detail it's way too much. And this applies to many games with high vs ultra settings. Shadows are a bit softer or realistic (like Nvidia's PCSS) but it takes so much power.
Some games aren't meant to be played on ultra in my opinion.
See The Witcher 3, foliage high vs ultra. A few more trees in the most far away distances which definitely looks nice but decrease your fps around, what, 20% or something? For this little detail it's way too much. And this applies to many games with high vs ultra settings. Shadows are a bit softer or realistic (like Nvidia's PCSS) but it takes so much power.
Some games aren't meant to be played on ultra in my opinion.
Denton
Member
I agree with your general point, but slightly disagree with your specific examples
Foliage distance setting in TW3 is very important for reduction of pop-in when galloping on a horse; with high it actively annoyed me, with ultra it is much better.
Ultra in KCD enables insane interior shadowing that looks very different to very high, but it does kill performance, so yeah I recommend very high, which looks very close to ultra in other aspects.
Last edited: