• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice PC performance thread

Tested the performance and it is very good for me. Very High settings/1080p and i am getting 40-60fps. Model textures are great but i am not really impressed with environment textures, some of them look low rez. Overall i am pretty happy with the performance and how the game looks.

i5-4460
R9 280x
8GB
 
NeoRaider said:
Tested the performance and it is very good for me. Very High settings/1080p and i am getting 40-60fps. Model textures are great but i am not really impressed with environment textures, some of them look low rez. Overall i am pretty happy with the performance and how the game looks.

i5-4460
R9 280x
8GB
Click to expand...

Maybe the game's texture streamer is using lower mips on your card for environment textures since you lack VRAM and system RAM?

I would be curious to see how they look on different configs.

BTW: How CPU heavy is the game from everyone running it? Does it easily get up to 120hz or so?
 
Dictator93 said:
BTW: How CPU heavy is the game from everyone running it? Does it easily get up to 120hz or so?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine it's on the low side given Pro users have the option of 1080p60.

KainXVIII said:
I hate this kind of option description =(
Click to expand...

The descriptions the game provides don't actually offer much in the way of additional insight. I say "much" as view effects could definitely have a better name; it refers to "particle lights and reflections".

Edit: Oh, you're referring to the names of the settings. I thought that was directed at me.
 
My RX460 does have any chance of playing the game? I'm Fine with 720p/low/30fps/etc/, just want it to be playable
 
^ I am pretty sure that you will be able to play it.

Dictator93 said:
Maybe the game's texture streamer is using lower mips on your card for environment textures since you lack VRAM and system RAM?

I would be curious to see how they look on different configs.

BTW: How CPU heavy is the game from everyone running it? Does it easily get up to 120hz or so?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case. They look the same on YT and screens that i saw.
 
NeoRaider said:
What is so bad about it?
970 users are reporting great performance. And you can always lower setting or two if you want perfect 60fps.
Click to expand...

Not hitting 60 at all, where i can sustain it in GeoW4 with maximum settings (minus some insane graphics options). And it looks much better.
 
KainXVIII said:
Not hitting 60 at all, where i can sustain it in GeoW4 with maximum settings (minus some insane graphics settings). And it looks much better.
Click to expand...
Gears is also probably one of the better PC versions of a game to come out in recent memory. Not that it's any excuse for other games.

Seems like this would run well with my TI so time to dig into some story and gameplay.
 
Haven't bought the game yet, but looking at the options I'm going to guess that there's CA and that lowering pp to medium will get rid off it (along with some other stuff I'm sure).
 
It would be nice if someone can list what each of the Post Processing options adds/removes. I hate when there is no individual option to remove film grain, CA... etc.
 
Are there any good comparison videos yet? In particular I am curious which system I would have a better experience with: PS4 Pro or PC (i7-6700k, 970, 16gb RAM).

The benchmarks above seem to indicate the 970 will suffer a bit, but other posts in this thread seem to show the 970 running the game well at 60? If I don't have a clear winner by the end of the day I'm just going to buy on Steam and see how it runs. Can always refund and buy it on PSN if it doesn't run well for me.

Edit: Neoraider made a thread with videos! http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1417072
 
jacobeid said:
Are there any good comparison videos yet? In particular I am curious which system I would have a better experience with: PS4 Pro or PC (i7-6700k, 970, 16gb RAM).

The benchmarks above seem to indicate the 970 will suffer a bit, but other posts in this thread seem to show the 970 running the game well at 60? If I don't have a clear winner by the end of the day I'm just going to buy on Steam and see how it runs. Can always refund and buy it on PSN if it doesn't run well for me.
Click to expand...

Probably the 970 I imagine
 
Any tips yet? Skip intro - fov?

PS: You can half kill the startup videos in the game directory ( introduction, bink etc)
 
Looks like nothing to worry about desktop side of things as long as it's smooth. (1080ti) will try out on laptop on my lunch today
 
St3v3 said:
49fps with a GTX 970, ouch. I don't speak Russian but I assume that's maxed out? So a stable 60 should be possible with some tweaking.
Click to expand...

OC on the 970s plus dropping things like shadow resolution or volumetric resolution probably would bring a card to 60 if its graphics scale like other unreal titles.
 
icecold1983 said:
pcgh benchmarks

the results are....strange to say the least
Click to expand...

Not really, it seems that the game just plain and simple wants 4+ GBs of VRAM so anything with less than that or with some shenenigans as 970 is out.

Edit: although this seems to be limited to PCGH's testing scene as GameGPU's results are a bit different.

Edit2: Huh, PCGH updated their results as well. They are saying that the game run considerably better on a second+ launch due to driver's shader cache? Well, it's possible I guess.
 
Dictator93 said:
OC on the 970s plus dropping things like shadow resolution or volumetric resolution probably would bring a card to 60 if its graphics scale like other unreal titles.
Click to expand...

I'm using a MSI Gaming 4G 970 which comes overclocked but I push it further at +140/+400 which is its limit. It makes a huge difference, usually around +10fps when I hit my overclock key.
 
dr_rus said:
Not really, it seems that the game just plain and simple wants 4+ GBs of VRAM so anything with less than that or with some shenenigans as 970 is out.

Edit: although this seems to be limited to PCGH's testing scene as GameGPU's results are a bit different.

Edit2: Huh, PCGH updated their results as well. They are saying that the game run considerably better on a second+ launch due to driver's shader cache? Well, it's possible I guess.
Click to expand...

GameGPU says otherwise, even in 4k maximum VRAM consumption is 3,2gb.
Oops, updated your post =)
 
dr_rus said:
Not really, it seems that the game just plain and simple wants 4+ GBs of VRAM so anything with less than that or with some shenenigans as 970 is out.

Edit: although this seems to be limited to PCGH's testing scene as GameGPU's results are a bit different.

Edit2: Huh, PCGH updated their results as well. They are saying that the game run considerably better on a second+ launch due to driver's shader cache? Well, it's possible I guess.
Click to expand...

is the 1080ti actually a 1080? that would make sense. the numbers sure dont
 
dr_rus said:
Not really, it seems that the game just plain and simple wants 4+ GBs of VRAM so anything with less than that or with some shenenigans as 970 is out.

Edit: although this seems to be limited to PCGH's testing scene as GameGPU's results are a bit different.

Edit2: Huh, PCGH updated their results as well. They are saying that the game run considerably better on a second+ launch due to driver's shader cache? Well, it's possible I guess.
Click to expand...
That is curious!
St3v3 said:
I'm using a MSI Gaming 4G 970 which comes overclocked but I push it further at +140/+400 which is its limit. It makes a huge difference, usually around +10fps when I hit my overclock key.
Click to expand...
Yeah, perhaps you can push it over to 60
 
Played a little bit, couldn't get RTSS to work, at least the FPS wasn't showing up anyway. Can't work out exactly why, but my eyes feel strained after only 10-15 mins of playing it.

Any ideas what that could be?
 
How would my PC fair?

Gtx 970

8 gigs of ram

i5 @ 3.2 Ghz

I hate asking because I know a defentive answer isnt really a possibility. But an estimate would really be appreciated
 
Shameless cross-post since this thread is PC-centric:

JaseC said:
If you pre-ordered the game on Steam and would like to download the digital comic that Ninja Theory forgot to release, you can do so manually:

- steam://open/console
- Input download_depot 414340 626750
- Wait for the console to report "Depot download complete"
- Navigate to SteamApps\content\app_414340\depot_626750
Click to expand...
 
4k + very high, full screen on gtx1080 stock and i770k stock

doesnt drop under 40fps, doesnt go over, supper happy with that.
 
Any word on frames at 1440p? I'm committed to other tasks through tomorrow, otherwise I'd purchase via Steam and take it for a spin.
 
So i have 2 questions:

- Can FOV be changed?
- Downsampling doesn't work for anyone else? It only accepts 1080p or lower for me, if i select 1440p game is still in 1080p.
 
R9 380 paired with an i3-6100.

I get between 30 and 60 for me on medium, high or very high.

I'll probably wait until I upgrade in a few years to play this game, if I can't get 60fps on PC, it's no good. Maybe with some patches the performance will increase but I highly doubt it.

I can get 60 fps on Witcher 3 (medium/high), Homefront the Revolution(mostly high) and Ryse Son of Rome (mostly high), but I can't get 60fps in Hellblade.
 
0WWEetu.jpg


So apparently this happened to me, and I can't fix it. Immediately after loading it looks fine but a moment later it turns into this. Looks like the GI just decides to break.
 
I have a 1440p video upscaled to 4K being rendered right now. I wanted to get some truly high bitrate footage out there. Will post after its done.
 
NeoRaider said:
So i have 2 questions:

- Can FOV be changed?
- Downsampling doesn't work for anyone else? It only accepts 1080p or lower for me, if i select 1440p game is still in 1080p.
Click to expand...

Changing the resolution to 1440p in Windows didn't help. I just can't make this game to run in higher than 1080p resolution.
Is there any kind of fix for this or i can only hope that it will be fixed with a patch?
 
Having huge performance problems in the
beach
hub. Most of the game runs at 50-60 FPS for me but in that hub my framerate hovers around 20-25 FPS. It's even dipped as low as 14. Kinda weird.

R9 Fury
i5-4690K
16GB RAM

Running at 1080p on highest settings.
 
Runs alright on a 970 and an i7 2600k. Any scene where the camera zooms right into Senua's face it drops to 45-50ish but apart from the odd stutter here and there which I presume is texture streaming, it's perfectly playable at Very High settings at 1080p. Even more so at High.

Took these shots because I noticed the GPU usage spiked right here. Think it might be the waterfall. I wanted to see the difference between low, medium, high and very high. Shadows are noticeable, nothing else is too different. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

In my opinion, it's still quite the looker on Low. NT did a great job with the art.

1lowvdj9s.jpg
2medaokd9.jpg
3highckjtd.jpg
4vhigh9gk3b.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Senua is not Hellblade 3
2 3
116
586
Spukc replied
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice (Switch) & Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II (PS5/XSX) physicals coming via Limited Run Games
News 
20
2K
Judge Magister replied
LTTP: Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice (Xbox Game Pass) 2018
8
1K
BigLee74 replied
How is Hellblade 2? I enjoyed Hellblade 1, but have been hesitant to get this
2
51
425
Pedro Motta replied
Senua's Saga: Hellblade II Enhanced coming to PS5 this summer
3 4 5 6 7
303
7K
Shmunter replied
Top Bottom