Support NeoGAF

[CharmingCharlie]

Personally I think there is a bit of "expectation management" going on here. Basically release the specs and tell everyone you can expect 30fps from an Intel 20 core cpu and Nvidia GTX 7 zillion which naturally prompts loads of "OMGZ dis is totally unoptimised, I should get like 7,000 fps on my PC".

Game releases and bang everyone sees that they can easily hit 60fps and all of a sudden it becomes "Wow this game is so well optimised, they really put the work into it and it runs smooth as butter".

Edit : by "everyone" I mean those running 1070's/1080's or near enough the recommended specs. I didn't think that needed saying, I thought it would be blindingly obvious I was not talking about people running an i3 with an Intel Extreme 4000HD on board graphics.

 

[Durante]

I don't think "everyone" will easily hit 60 FPS.
(I also don't think everyone should easily hit 60 FPS, especially at higher settings)

 

[Renekton]

Yeah I can imagine the volume of support tickets logged when the "newly-ascended" with i5 GTX1060s did not get locked 60fps on max.

 

[LexW]

I don't think "everyone" will easily hit 60 FPS.
(I also don't think everyone should easily hit 60 FPS, especially at higher settings)

I think pretty much everyone should be hitting 60/1080 on moderate settings. On ultra or 4K sure pretty much no-one but those with badass machines should be.

Given the engine, if you couldn't hit 60/1080 on even a fairly crummy machine, on lower settings, I think questions would need to be asked about why that was.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I don't think "everyone" will easily hit 60 FPS.
(I also don't think everyone should easily hit 60 FPS, especially at higher settings)

Yeah I agree but, I'm interested in how it scales though. Dice works magic in Frostbite but none of the other studios working with it seem to be able to achieve the visual/perf balance and scalability that Dice does.

 

[K.Jack]

I think pretty much everyone should be hitting 60/1080 on moderate settings. On ultra or 4K sure pretty much no-one but those with badass machines should be.

Given the engine, if you couldn't hit 60/1080 on even a fairly crummy machine, on lower settings, I think questions would need to be asked about why that was.

What is the minimum card you feel should hit 1080/60?


Your expectation seems unreasonable.

 

[LexW]

What is the minimum card you feel should hit 1080/60?

Your expectation seems unreasonable.

What I'm saying is you were running 1080/60 in BF1, then I would be pretty astonished if you couldn't get 1080/60 in ME:A (probably with lower settings relative to the max, but that's a given, as it's a more recent game), and I'd want to know what settings or features exactly were leading to this.

That's the question, for me. But Gamble already came out and said 1080/30 on High was the absolute floor, not the expected framerate for the rec specs, so we shall see.

Only six days now!

As Felix says, scalability is an issue - really, Bioware should be asking DICE how to do that if they can't work it out themselves (I mean, they claim to ask DICE about a lot of stuff). But maybe they can. Maybe Medium or Low will give you a much better framerate than High. It really should.

EDIT - Also, given it's supposed to run 1080/30 on Xbox One or a PS4 (non-pro), it really seems like it should run a lot better on a more powerful PC.

 

[BeauRoger]

Not sure what to think about the 3570k being on the "low" end. As ive mentioned before, im targeting 1440p/60 fps with max settings on everything except AA. Have a Geforce gtx 1080 along with the 3570k, overclocked to 4.2 with 16gb of 2400mhz ram, so im ignoring that part and hoping for ultra at 1440p anyway, since ive been able to do it previously when my cpu was below the recommended threshold. Had basically uninterrupted 60 in DA:I as well.

 

[Renekton]

What I'm saying is you were running 1080/60 in BF1, then I would be pretty astonished if you couldn't get 1080/60 in ME:A

Do note that MEA should be more demanding than BF1, based on console targets: 1080p/30 vs 900p/60.

 

[Lashley]

targeting 1080 60fps personally, I imagine it should be close enough with high settings with a 970 and i5-6600k

 

[LexW]

Do note that MEA should be more demanding than BF1, based on console targets: 1080p/30 vs 900p/60.

True, true. I guess the real test is scalability - as in, are there options you can change that will actually impact your framerate positively and meaningfully? One issue with a fair number of modern games seems to be that you can lower your framerate plenty, but you can't really raise it much (i.e. dropping from "high" to "low" will only give you like 5fps but going up from high to ultra will crash your framerate into the floor).

As noted, though, that's not been true for BF1.

 

[Felix Lighter]

Do note that MEA should be more demanding than BF1, based on console targets: 1080p/30 vs 900p/60.

Let's just hope cutscenes don't suffer the way they did in Inquisition. Locked to 30 fps by default, stuttery as hell even when forcing them to render at 60 fps. An issue that remains to this day.

 

[tea_and_crumpets]

i5 6600k @4.2Ghz
16GB DDR4 RAM
GTX 1070

I'm guessing I will struggle for 60fps at 1440p?

 

[prag16]

Let's just hope cutscenes don't suffer the way they did in Inquisition. Locked to 30 fps by default, stuttery as hell even when forcing them to render at 60 fps. An issue that remains to this day.

I believe Bioware stated cutscenes are no longer locked for Andromeda. So we can hope for better performance.

 

[bongpig]

Some reviewer performance impressions are starting to get out:-

https://www.reddit.com/user/GamingTrend

I've got good news...
This is my laptop, for comparison's sake: http://www.gamingtrend.com/reviews/origin-eon15-x-review-an-incredible-desktop-replacement/
I decided to pump up to the Ultra default (no tweaks) and measured with MSI Afterburner. With that and Nvidia's capture stuff (used to be Shadowplay? I don't know what they are calling it these days) running in the background, I was hitting between 45 and 60fps. For the vast majority of people, that's probably going to be fine. I'll be tweaking the settings moving forward to see what it takes to get the framerate to lock at 60, but even before NVidia's inevitable day-0 driver update, this is already well optimized from what I've seen so far.
And to answer your question, that's at Temporal AA settings.
For clarity - this is at 1080p at 60hz.

So, this dude is running a i7-4790@4ghz + 980m and getting between 45-60fps at ultra/1080p.

Seems better than the nvidia benchmarks from a few days ago. Im feeling a bit more hopeful now that my 1060 6gb + 4670k@4.4ghz will be able to handle 60fps on mostly ultra settings.

 

[sgs2008]

Keep getting a direct x error and crash within the first few seconds on Eos on the newest drivers. Playing on ultra 4k. With sli titan xp's anyone experience this /know a fix ?