• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

The Division PC performance thread

sgs2008

Member
Mar 10, 2013
236
0
0
sigh I should not have looked at the reveal trailer before playing. Just setting myself up for dissapointment
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
i5-2500k@ 4.0ghz

GTX 970 SSC

8GB RAM


I used the High preset and tweaked a few things up like HBAO+. Getting 50-60 fps mostly (rivatuner 60 lock). Performs fairly well and looks pretty damn good.


With Tomb Raider and now Division, I'm coming to grips with not being able to max or near max games anymore with my 970. Mental hurdle but I'm getting there haha.
 

mullet2000

Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,420
1
735
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
www.youtube.com
i5-2500k@ 4.0ghz

GTX 970 SSC

8GB RAM


I used the High preset and tweaked a few things up like HBAO+. Getting 50-60 fps mostly (rivatuner 60 lock). Performs fairly well and looks pretty damn good.


With Tomb Raider and now Division, I'm coming to grips with not being able to max or near max games anymore with my 970. Mental hurdle but I'm getting there haha.

Yupppp same here. I actually overclocked mine a little bit to make myself feel better haha. I don't know that I'll be able to resist Pascal later this year.
 

dragn

Member
Jun 19, 2014
1,444
0
0
after turning some stuff down i went from min fps 32 to 45+, much better for mouse aiming
 

Anteater

Member
May 22, 2010
27,731
1
845
39


game looks so goood

(on a gtx 760 at 50fps)
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
Some joker wrote a comment under Digital Foundry article about beta performance on consoles:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-the-division-beta-performance-analysis#comment-5923322 said:
The engine on PC seems to be very well optimized.
1440p on a 980Ti, with everything on Ultra/high and AA turned on. 60+ fps all the way.

I tested his claim and recorded this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk7caww5GBI

As you can see, FPS was around 40, not "60+ fps all the way".

Can anyone confirm/deny his or my results? I personally call big fat bullshit on his getting "60+ all the way" with maxed settings at 1440p on a 980Ti, considering I am getting around 40. I am using Windows 7, so there is a 1% chance that the game miraculously performs 50% better on Win10, but I doubt it.
 

Klyka

Banned
Sep 23, 2007
12,531
0
0
Some joker wrote a comment under Digital Foundry article about beta performance on consoles:



I tested his claim and recorded this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk7caww5GBI

As you can see, FPS was around 40, not "60+ fps all the way".

Can anyone confirm/deny his or my results? I personally call big fat bullshit on his getting "60+ all the way" with maxed settings at 1440p on a 980Ti.

Well he says "everything on ultra/high" but he could turn down object detail to 0% :p
 

Abdozer

Member
May 17, 2012
646
0
0
Some joker wrote a comment under Digital Foundry article about beta performance on consoles:



I tested his claim and recorded this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk7caww5GBI

As you can see, FPS was around 40, not "60+ fps all the way".

Can anyone confirm/deny his or my results? I personally call big fat bullshit on his getting "60+ all the way" with maxed settings at 1440p on a 980Ti, considering I am getting around 40. I am using Windows 7, so there is a 1% chance that the game miraculously performs 50% better on Win10, but I doubt it.

Yep, I get the same performance, 980Ti stock with 4770k stock and 16GB RAM with Win10.
 

Kenzodielocke

Banned
Dec 24, 2014
22,161
4
0
What is up with the high RAM usage of Tomb Raider and The Divison ? Any specific reason ? I always read I would be fine with 8GB, but 16GB seems like a must now.
 

Rodin

Member
Mar 12, 2015
4,716
0
0
i5-2500k@ 4.0ghz

GTX 970 SSC

8GB RAM


I used the High preset and tweaked a few things up like HBAO+. Getting 50-60 fps mostly (rivatuner 60 lock). Performs fairly well and looks pretty damn good.


With Tomb Raider and now Division, I'm coming to grips with not being able to max or near max games anymore with my 970. Mental hurdle but I'm getting there haha.

I maxed it on a 970 at 1080p (minus SSAA) and i get 40-60fps depending on the area. I usually hate frame pacing all over the place but it's somehow acceptable in this game for some reason, so i just went with those settings.

Anyway it's a beta, so maybe things will be a bit better in the final release, but my point is that you can't max these games at a stable 60fps. If you can live with drops or 40fps locked with rtss, you're ok.

What is up with the high RAM usage of Tomb Raider and The Divison ? Any specific reason ? I always read I would be fine with 8GB, but 16GB seems like a must now.
I don't know what's up with these games, especially ROTR, but about the bolded... it really isn't.
 

Cutwolf

Member
Mar 28, 2007
691
0
0
i7 6700k
980ti SLI x 2
1440p

Runs between 50-60 for the first 15 minutes of gaming, then randomly decides to go full beast mode and hits 70-90.

Not sure what that ramp up period is about. Tomb Raider does same thing.
 

ref

Member
Jan 27, 2013
1,340
32
500
Winnipeg, MB
Alright, if SLI isn't working for you, you probably have a GSYNC monitor.

I disabled GSYNC on my ROG Swift and now SLI works fine.

Just a heads up!
 

ABK

Banned
Aug 10, 2014
59
0
0
Anybody else getting stuttering in this game? Both me and my friend get a stutter every 10 steps or so even when the framerate is at 60fps. He's playing on a 970 and me on a 390 and we both have it at the default graphic settings (I tried lowering mine and got even worse performance amazingly).

We're both using i5 2500k's and I think he's using 8 gb's of ram where as I'm using 16gb's. Oddly enough his performance is worse than mine which I assumed would be the opposite given the nvidia licensing.
 

Yibby

Member
Sep 14, 2013
436
0
0
Alright, if SLI isn't working for you, you probably have a GSYNC monitor.

I disabled GSYNC on my ROG Swift and now SLI works fine.

Just a heads up!

Gsync is bugged in Fullscreen mode, try borderless window and it works. At least gsync. Maybe SLI + Gsync works in borderless window mode.
 

Ceadeus

Member
Jun 22, 2013
2,541
650
655
32
Canada, Québec
i5-2500k@ 4.0ghz

GTX 970 SSC

8GB RAM


I used the High preset and tweaked a few things up like HBAO+. Getting 50-60 fps mostly (rivatuner 60 lock). Performs fairly well and looks pretty damn good.


With Tomb Raider and now Division, I'm coming to grips with not being able to max or near max games anymore with my 970. Mental hurdle but I'm getting there haha.

Same, no overclock at all though so probably 40-55 but it looks very good with V Sync on and Xbox1 controller. It's very damn good I should say.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
do you guys use HBAO? any noticeable difference? Trying to get 50-60fps on 1440p via GTX980.

Hbao+ everything highest it can go @ 1080p w/ Titan X yields 60fps. But in some instances just barely, I think you will have to turn down more to achieve that desired framerate @ 1440p.
 

Doogington

Member
Oct 12, 2006
969
0
0
GTX 650 Ti
Q6600

My desktop is dated, but I usually do not have issues running new games.
I get frequent stuttering and have gotten stuck on walls several times. Also common to fall through the world.
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
i7 4790k + 980ti all maxed out ~70fps
i7-6700K (4.5GHz) + 980Ti all maxed out ~50-60 (1080p)

https://youtu.be/psbdH-FnBWg

Vsync was on, so it might have been more than 60 at times, but there were drops to 50s too, which means that for me max setting are not sustainable, as I am aiming for rock solid 60fps (that's why I bought 980Ti and 6700K).

Luckily, by dropping few settings by a notch I managed to achieve near perfect 1080p60 and the game still looks damn good (I particularly like real time reflections, I think Division is one of a very few games that has them).

https://youtu.be/AZYE30dEZdg

When I was buying 980Ti shortly after release, almost all games ran 1440p60 without drops at max settings, now I have to dial down settings get a stable 1080p60. Pascal can't come soon enough.
 

Sharkiller

Member
Jun 17, 2014
292
1
350
Argentina
www.sharkiller.com.ar
i7-6700K (4.5GHz) + 980Ti all maxed out ~50-60 (1080p)

https://youtu.be/psbdH-FnBWg

Vsync was on, so it might have been more than 60 at times, but there were drops to 50s too, which means that for me max setting are not sustainable, as I am aiming for rock solid 60fps (that's why I bought 980Ti and 6700K).

Luckily, by dropping few settings by a notch I managed to achieve near perfect 1080p60 and the game still looks damn good (I particularly like real time reflections, I think Division is one of a very few games that has them).

https://youtu.be/AZYE30dEZdg

When I was buying 980Ti shortly after release, almost all games ran 1440p60 without drops at max settings, now I have to dial down settings get a stable 1080p60. Pascal can't come soon enough.
you are recording. also i have a 850pro ssd and 32gb ram and win 7 ult. vsync off
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
you are recording. also i have a 850pro ssd and 32gb ram and win 7 ult. vsync off
Performance is almost the same when I am not recording. The game is installed on 850EVO. There should be no performance difference between 16 and 32 gigs.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
Performance is almost the same when I am not recording. The game is installed on 850EVO. There should be no performance difference between 16 and 32 gigs.

Very True. But having shadow play on should cut 5+% performance, up to 10% in some instances.
Ah, I stopped scrolling right after seeing very high. Good deal, I'm willing to take whatever hit my fps takes for hbao+.

Yeah, the game's options are so abnormally good for a multi-platform game that it is easy to lose a bit of the overview in them. This is a good thing of course. Love the graphics, hud, and other options.
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
Very True. But having shadow play on should cut 5+% performance, up to 10% in some instances.
I was under the impression that performance drops only when you are actually recording. Thanks for the tip. 5% may make a difference when you are trying to eke out a bit more performance.


Yeah, the game's options are so abnormally good for a multi-platform game that it is easy to lose a bit of the overview in them. This is a good thing of course. Love the graphics, hud, and other options.
Yeah the hud customization is very welcome.
 

105.Will

Member
Feb 10, 2015
1,625
0
250
Kinda disappointed with the performance. 980ti, 17-6700k with everything on high at 1440p and getting a pretty inconsistent 60
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
I was under the impression that performance drops only when you are actually recording. Thanks for the tip. 5% may make a difference when you are trying to eke out a bit more performance.

Shadow play is always recording if it is on by default, but the alt + f9 allows for discrete cuts. alt + f10 saves the last few mins. So the background recording adds that overhead.

I never really looked though to see if you can have it set to just allow discrete manual cuts, that would solve the performance dillema perhaps.

edit: you can, just set it to manual! derp

now to just test if it actually affects performance if set to manual and not "manual + automatic"

edit 2: yes it does, well now I feel like an idiot for never using the pure manual mode. So much better lol
 

Slackbladder

Member
Mar 13, 2007
4,141
1
880
50
I turned V-sync off and....didn't notice any difference. Odd. There was no tearing which I would have expected on my TV and the fps didn't seem to change though I was locked to 60fps. Maybe I should have restarted the game even though it didn't say I should?
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
Shadow play is always recording if it is on by default, but the alt + f9 allows for discrete cuts. alt + f10 saves the last few mins. So the background recording adds that overhead.

I never really looked though to see if you can have it set to just allow discrete manual cuts, that would solve the performance dillema perhaps.

edit: you can, just set it to manual! derp

now to just test if it actually affects performance if set to manual and not "manual + automatic"

edit 2: yes it does, well now I feel like an idiot for never using the pure manual mode. So much better lol

First thing I did after installing GeForce Experience was to switch to pure manual mode :)
 

Qassim

Member
Jul 6, 2012
6,854
2
590
United Kingdom
qassim.uk
The GeForce experience beta and the new shadowplay overlay helps a lot with this, it allows you edit the settings in-game, turn shadow mode on and off (you can even see the difference in performance whilst in game, usually only a few fps). It's nice because most of the time I don't really need or want the shadow mode, but for games like Counter-Strike, it's useful - so I can now easily turn it on in game.
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
Kinda disappointed with the performance. 980ti, 17-6700k with everything on high at 1440p and getting a pretty inconsistent 60

I'm dissapointed too. I too have 980Ti (OC'ed to 1440MHz) and i7-6700K (OC'ed to 4.5GHz) In order to get a consistent 60fps at 1080p I had to dial some options from the highest available. Here's my current setting - everything set to max except these options:
Shadow Quality: High (notch down from PCSS+)
Particle detail: High (notch down from Ultra)
Volumetric fog: High (notch down from Ultra)
Object detail: 80% (max is 100%)
Extra streaming distance: 80% (max is 100%)
Chromatic aberration: Yes (kidding, No, of course)
Lens flare: No (J.J. Abrams is sad)
Vignette effect: No

That gives me solid 60fps in 1080p. I tested at night, when I assume the GPU load is higher because of additional lights and shadows.

Here's the vid (performance should be a tad higher when not recording with GFE):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZYE30dEZdg
 

Blitzhex

Member
Aug 21, 2011
1,930
0
560
This game runs pretty good, for the visuals.
Around 60-55 fps 980ti at high preset 3440x1440 when running around doing some solo missions.
 

SimplexPL

Member
Apr 30, 2015
953
0
280
This is "nvidia sponsored" game (GameWorks) and yet 4GB Fury X has more FPS than 6GB 980Ti? And nano is almost as fast as 980Ti? I'd say that's unexpected.
I wonder which setting there were using. My VRAM usage was around 4.5GB

EDIT: ok, no PCSS+ and HBAO+, that explains it. GimpWorks strikes again! ;)