Support NeoGAF

[Redmoon]

Anyone found a way to get some form of aa working

Downsampling is the only way to get some AA afaik.

Works pretty well too. Only issue is randomly bad framerate issues, probably due to vram.

(possible spoilers)
http://i3.minus.com/ibtbGIW8nAgeQm.png
http://i5.minus.com/ib26KFypXUWLQO.png

Apparently FXAA is being injected, but I cant really tell when it's downsampled.

 

[Carlius]

they did such an amazing job on the latin american voices, it tops alan wake, i never thought id see that.

 

[CyanideFuse]

Does enabling AA in Nvidia Control panel work? I'm download the game now and from reading a few pages of this thread it's not clear.

Can anyone confirm this? I am swotting up (not the other type of swatting) before I can actually play the game.

 

[Padinn]

For those with crashing issues the game appears to be very sensitive to Gpu overclocks.

 

[sgs2008]

Can anyone confirm this? I am swotting up (not the other type of swatting) before I can actually play the game.

Tried forcing aa through inspector and control panel didnt do anything

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

I get driver crashing when GPU is not stable at OC settings. If other card is overclock, user or factory, try running at stock speed and see if the problem persist.

My card is at stock (well, its a factory overclock, it's a EVGA SC edition)

Did it say it repair itself?

I've had that once, the other times the game just freezes, I have to kill the task in the task manager to close it

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

For those with crashing issues the game appears to be very sensitive to Gpu overclocks.

Yeah I'm getting that impression.

 

[MikeE21286]

I am soooo on the fence with whether to go PC or PS4 on this one.

i5 2500
570
12GB DDR3

I'll play at 1080p on PC.


Not sure where I should go....

Anyone have experience with a similar setup so far?

 

[RVinP]

For those with crashing issues the game appears to be very sensitive to Gpu overclocks.

Or the game is taxing the memory modules?

 

[porkchopexpress]

GTX 580
2600k @ 4.45ghz
8gb ram

1920x1200
Default high settings with filtering set to ultra, shadows set to medium and motion blur set to camera only.

Avg FPS 55.69
Min FPS 33.57

 

[jpax]

Anyone have experience with a similar setup so far?

maybe this helps?

With an i7 920@ 2.67ghz, GTX 570, and 8gb ram:

I averaged 62.9fps on the benchmark with settings at:
Resolution:1680x1050
Lighting: High
Mesh: Medium
Motion Blur: None
Shadows: Medium
Texture Filtering: Ultra
Texture Quality: High
Ambient Occlusion: High
Vegetation Range: High
Tessellation On

 

[Benhur]

I played this last night on the follwing setup:

i7 3770
16 GB RAM
560 Ti 1GB

I was able to get a smooth framerate of over 30fps wih settings on low/medium. The benchmark said my average framerate was 52fps. The game looks fine to me and plays very well, but I'm going to bump up the textures to medium since the orcs look like featureless plastic models at low texture settings. I'm kinda scared to do it since I get a red message warning whenver I put the textures to medium telling me I might blow up my computer or something to that effect, but it looks like others have been able to put similar cards at medium textures with no GPU explosions.

 

[knitoe]

My card is at stock (well, its a factory overclock, it's a EVGA SC edition)


I've had that once, the other times the game just freezes, I have to kill the task in the task manager to close it

As I already mention, the factory OC may not be 100% stable. Lower the speed to normal stock speed and see if the problem persist.

Or the game is taxing the memory modules?

It means the OC was never 100% stable. Benchmarks and games pushes the GPU / memory differently. It's only problematic when you run them software.

 

[Markitron]

A friend of mine upgraded his rig recently and I got his hand-me-downs, so now I have a halfway decent PC for the first time in years. Trying to decide between PS4 and PC versions, do you guys think it would look better on a 670 / i3-4150 / 8 GB Ram?

 

[jpax]

For all the Radeon users out there.

Everything maxed out and activated @1080p. Only Textures on high.

Ran the Benchmark a few times

Average FPS: 81.5

Max FPS : 211.2
Min FPS : 37.1

CPU: i5 2500k OC @4Ghz
GPU: R9 290 4GB Custom OC @1075Mhz, 5.6Ghz VRam
Ram: 8 GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz

edit: Oh in game performance is a constant 60 FPS with very few drops down to 55 FPS or so, never saw something below 50 FPS till now.

Update now with Ultra Textures:

Average FPS: 74.6

Max FPS : 192.8
Min FPS : 23.7

 

[Dr Dogg]

Could someone post some FRAPS frametime graphs, please? Average FPS is an awful metric for judging performance consistency.

Well better late than never...

Setup is 4670k@4.2Ghz, 1x780 @ 1097mhz base clk on 344.11 drivers, 16gb RAM @ 1,666mhz

Haven't tweaked much out of what settings it detected out the box but I haven't bothered grabbing the Ultra textures so settings are everything should be everything as high as they go at 1920x1080. Started bench just as it transitioned and finished just as the results screen came up. Actually appeared a bit smoother at 2560x1440 but didn't capture that and headed back out so won't be able to until later so might have a play around with SLI but scaling doesn't sound too hot at all so will probably wait for Monolith to report back on that fingers crossed soonish.

 

[dsk1210]

780TI
2500k 4.4ghz
8GB ddr3
G-sync

Played about 3 hours last night and it ran fantastic with everything on ultra except textures on high. Framerate was always above 60, mostly in the 80's. Silky

 

[BPoole]

How indicative is the benchmark of in game performance? On Ultra (no hi res texture pack installed) the my R9 290 and 2500k averaged 55 FPS in 1440p.im strongly considering down sampling from 1800p and lowering other settings to have a more crisp IQ

 

[FallingEdge]

Anyone else getting nvidia driver crashes randomly?

344.11 on a GTX 680

780 for me and yeah, random crashing. Have to go to task manager to exit. Running stock. Graphics are set to a combo of high/ultra.

 

[blaidd]

How indicative is the benchmark of in game performance? On Ultra (no hi res texture pack installed) the my R9 290 and 2500k averaged 55 FPS in 1440p.im strongly considering down sampling from 1800p and lowering other settings to have a more crisp IQ

Not very much. The framerates you'll get with the integraded benchmark are usually quite a bit higher, the min-fps say nothing at all, because in most cases, there's a drop to single-digit numbers right in the beginning and there's only a proportion of the VRAM used as compared to the amount used in the game itself. I don't recommend using this to evaluate performance. Rather jump directly in the game. Get to a high point and rotate the camera - if you get slowdowns or hitches, your VRAM is too low. Drop to a flat surface and run straight for a couple of meters - that'll be your average fps. Get in a fight with some orcs (preferably in the rain) and you'll get the lower end of your expected performance.

That being said, your card should be okay with above mentioned settings. You might get a slowdown once in a while because of GPU-memory, but not too heavy ones and those are dependent on what system-RAM you're using, your card will use system-memory to compensate for a lack of VRAM.

 

[s_mirage]

anyone with a 780 ti runnign ultra textures at 1440p ?

Not tried 1440p but I have tried 1080p. You'll get hitching when you turn around in a lot of cases as it's having to page in textures from system RAM.

 

[cripterion]

Game is running smooth for me at 60fps using adaptive vsync to get rid of that awful tearing through nvidia control panel (the fps limiter and ingame vsync are disabled). All options set to max settings except AO to high.
I do have the ultra textures installed too but the aesthethics of the game don''t reflect the system requirements at all. Don't get me wrong, it's nice but not mindblowing pretty... I especially find the faces to look old gen and the textures are so so imo.

What kills me is that going anything up but 1080P and I get a slideshow, and that's with no AA... Definitely didn't expect that coming from a 4790K and GTX970 SLI rig :/

 

[Kezen]

What kills me is that going anything up but 1080P and I get a slideshow, and that's with no AA... Definitely didn't expect that coming from a 4790K and GTX970 SLI rig :/

Wait for SLI profile. The game does not support SLI right now.

 

[Skyzard]

Are people going to carry on asking Nvidia for less ram with their next high end graphics cards?

 

[Kezen]

Are people going to carry on asking Nvidia for less ram with their next high end graphics cards?

You meant more. You can't have too much VRAM.
I suspect high-profile games will start to require 3+GB just for 1080p. I underestimated how much was necessary at such a resolution.

 

[Gbraga]

You meant more. You can't have too much VRAM.
I suspect high-profile games will start to require 3+GB just for 1080p. I underestimated how much was necessary at such a resolution.

Yep, me too.

I hope the next series comes with 8GB by default, without having to wait for custom cards.

 

[Kezen]

Yep, me too.
I hope the next series comes with 8GB by default, without having to wait for custom cards.

8GB would be fantastic, pretty much future-proof for 1080p. There are rumors circulating that both 970 and 980 could be released in 8GB of GDDR5 flavour.

I might bite if it turns out true even though I will definitely upgrade anyway. I'm a near max settings chaser.

VRAM and DirectX are my only worries on the PC front at the moment.

 

[zephervack]

Well damn, I guess next-gen ports are here.

I have a small rig that I exclusively use to stream games using Steam Home Streaming and nVidia shield around my house. @ 720p

It has a i7 2600k and a GTX 650 with 1GB of VRam.

This game is having none of it, getting 20fps with everything on Medium and Textures at low. Everything at low gets me around 40fps, but it looks relatively bad

I have tons of games that work just fine on this rig, including The Witcher 2. Not really planning to upgrade the rig right now just for one game.

 

[Prophet Steve]

8GB would be fantastic, pretty much future-proof for 1080p. There are rumors circulating that both 970 and 980 could be released in 8GB of GDDR5 flavour.

I might bite if it turns out true even though I will definitely upgrade anyway. I'm a near max settings chaser.

VRAM and DirectX are my only worries on the PC front at the moment.

There aren't really rumors, but most of the time you get custom models later on with a double amount of VRAM.

 

[Gbraga]

8GB would be fantastic, pretty much future-proof for 1080p. There are rumors circulating that both 970 and 980 could be released in 8GB of GDDR5 flavour.

I might bite if it turns out true even though I will definitely upgrade anyway. I'm a near max settings chaser.

VRAM and DirectX are my only worries on the PC front at the moment.

I'll be very very tempted too, but I'm also tempted to hold on playing The Witcher 3 at launch and wait for the next series. Even if it's not enough to get the best performance and visuals, at least I'll know that it's as good as it gets for my money. Can't afford SLI anyway, so no regrets. But if I upgrade now, I'll wait at least 2 years before upgrading again.

I understand that things are always evolving, and "waiting for the next card" will always be a thing, but it's not as generic as that, I want it specifically for Wild Hunt.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

8GB would be fantastic, pretty much future-proof for 1080p. There are rumors circulating that both 970 and 980 could be released in 8GB of GDDR5 flavour.

I might bite if it turns out true even though I will definitely upgrade anyway. I'm a near max settings chaser.

VRAM and DirectX are my only worries on the PC front at the moment.

Rumor I heard is it would be a 980 TI version... so expect 700-800$ if a new Titan then 1000$ ...

 

[Kezen]

There aren't really rumors, but most of the time you get custom models later on with a double amount of VRAM.

True, but I was questionning earlier the point of such amount of memory on a 256 bus.

I'll be very very tempted too, but I'm also tempted to hold on playing The Witcher 3 at launch and wait for the next series. Even if it's not enough to get the best performance and visuals, at least I'll know that it's as good as it gets for my money. Can't afford SLI anyway, so no regrets. But if I upgrade now, I'll wait at least 2 years before upgrading again.

I understand that things are always evolving, and "waiting for the next card" will always be a thing, but it's not as generic as that, I want it specifically for Wild Hunt.

If you have anything above a 680 I don't think there is anything to be worried about. Remember : the game runs on consoles. Matching or exceeding that visual target will not be difficult on a relatively modern GPU. The additional PC only enhancements will surely be extremely taxing of course.

Rumor I heard is it would be a 980 TI version... so expect 700-800$ if a new Titan then 1000$ ...

I'm not sure how there could be a 980ti given that the GM204 is complete. Perhaps they can craft a beefier GM204, but I think a 1000$ GM200 is more likely.
Word on the street is the chip is already ready.

 

[garath]

Update now with Ultra Textures:

Average FPS: 74.6

Max FPS : 192.8
Min FPS : 23.7

Getting any hitching with the 4gigs of VRAM and Ultra textures?

 

[Kinthalis]

A friend of mine upgraded his rig recently and I got his hand-me-downs, so now I have a halfway decent PC for the first time in years. Trying to decide between PS4 and PC versions, do you guys think it would look better on a 670 / i3-4150 / 8 GB Ram?

Yep. I would say the i3 troubles me, but given the CPU benchmaarks so far, you'll be fine. You can probably do a bit better than a PS4 @ 1080p.

 

[scitek]

Game is running smooth for me at 60fps using adaptive vsync to get rid of that awful tearing through nvidia control panel (the fps limiter and ingame vsync are disabled). All options set to max settings except AO to high.
I do have the ultra textures installed too but the aesthethics of the game don''t reflect the system requirements at all. Don't get me wrong, it's nice but not mindblowing pretty... I especially find the faces to look old gen and the textures are so so imo.

What kills me is that going anything up but 1080P and I get a slideshow, and that's with no AA... Definitely didn't expect that coming from a 4790K and GTX970 SLI rig :/

The requirements are BS. It stays above 60fps on my rig whereas better looking games like Crysis 3 don't when maxed. It's open-world, too, which essentially means one shouldn't even make comparisons between it and simpler games.

 

[CryptiK]

Did the original install include ULTRA textures? Because I dont have the option in DLC, Downloading the steam//install/ wont work but I can select Ultra textures in Advanced options.

 

[Dictator93]

The requirements are BS. It stays above 60fps on my rig whereas better looking games like Crysis 3 don't when maxed. It's open-world, too, which essentially means one shouldn't even make comparisons between it and simpler games.

Renderingwise openworld games tend to be lighter on the GPU shading tbh. It is the CPU and VRAM/bandwidth where they hammer home (if they have a diverse set of assets that is).

They are kinda comparable, you just have to preface.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

Did the original install include ULTRA textures? Because I dont have the option in DLC, Downloading the steam//install/ wont work but I can select Ultra textures in Advanced options.

It's a separate download, open your DLC tab in library to get it. If you select ultra it'll default to high textures.

 

[scitek]

Renderingwise openworld games tend to be lighter on the GPU shading tbh. It is the CPU and VRAM/bandwidth where they hammer home (if they have a diverse set of assets that is).

They are kinda comparable, you just have to preface.

I just don't get the "it doesn't look as good as its requirements" argument. I wonder how much of that is probably due to people not liking the art or something rather than just technical capabilities.

 

[Dictator93]

I just don't get the "it doesn't look as good as its requirements" argument. I wonder how much of that is probably due to people not liking the art or something rather than just technical capabilities.

Yeah i get that. It is like when people say Crysis 3 blah blah blah.

From what I have seen so far though, the VRAM requirements for the texture options seem a bit inflated in comparison to leaner and meaner renderers. The tetures on Ultra do not look THAT good or anything.

Otherwise, the game seems to be performing pretty alright on most machines (texture stuff aside).

 

[-tetsuo-]

The benchmark tool is pretty useless. I get 88fps average. In game, the framerate tanks everytime I come out of the options menu. There are constant drops in any kind of situation even down into the teens.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

The benchmark tool is pretty useless. I get 88fps average. In game, the framerate tanks everytime I come out of the options menu. There are constant drops in any kind of situation even down into the teens.

I'm hoping we get new drivers soon that fix up things like this. It sucks.

 

[Kezen]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-eyes-on-with-pc-shadow-of-mordors-6gb-textures

 

[Bunta]

The benchmark tool is pretty useless. I get 88fps average. In game, the framerate tanks everytime I come out of the options menu. There are constant drops in any kind of situation even down into the teens.

Yeah, the random drops really suck.

 

[OrangeOak]

so there is no way to set resolution between 1080p and 1440p?

 

[scitek]

The only issue I have with the game is the lack of triple buffering, and D3DOverrider doesn't work for some reason. Also, the game stutters from time to time, but ... open-world, etc., not sure how much can be done about that. I could probably just turn down settings, but I'm stubborn.

 

[fantomena]

Nvidia, give me SLI support goddammit. None of the unofficial methods has worked so far.

 

[Trickster]

Just ran the bench mark @ 1440p with everything on max except texture which were on high

CPU: i5 2500k @ 3.3ghz
Ram: 16 gb @ 1600
GPU: Zotac GTX 970 standard clock

Feel like I remember seeing people with a 970 also running 1440p getting slightly higher average? Maybe my i5 with standard clock is making me lose those extra frames? It seems like most other people are running better cpu's or at least high clock on the i5 2500k.

 

[OzPinoy]

I'm really disappointed. I have to lock my 290 OC rig to 30 fps to even get stable non-erratic fps on everything Ultra on Ultra DLC. Using a non(K) i5 haswell cpu could be hindering it.

 

[Skyzard]

Maybe take textures down to high then