The chart is on this very page (well, the previous). You even quoted it! On a 960 HBAO+ is even faster than the default AO!
-
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.
Witcher 3 PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter batman2million
- Start date
I thought they said they were using some in house TXAA they developed?
UnrealEck
Member
If the graphics comparisons are accurate, it's easy to understand why when looking at performance benchmarks.
Which graphics comparisons? The ones with versions that didn't even include the real ultra settings?
Static Jak
Member
I usually go through Nvida and set adaptive v-sync to half refresh.
I wish they would have an in-game option though.
What about SMAA?
Grechy34
Member
Just talking experience with previous games.
And I'd take those charts with a grain of salt.
Onimusha78
Member
I feel pretty confident you can hit a nice, relatively stable 60fps.
How can you be so sure
In all seriousness I'll probably just turn down some settings, it's not that big a deal
Yeah you're right. I'm hoping ultra settings include things like a maxed out draw distance slider and MSAA, which are things I can live without. I'm guessing hairworks is included to which I'm not fussed about, good thing to considering I've got an AMD card
Oh, didn't see the note next to the MSAA setting, thanks!
I really didn't want to play with an OC, oh well whatever it takes didn't spend X amount of money on this card for it to sit pretty.
borborygmus
Member
Hm, my old as hell 2GB HD 6970 is well below the minimum specs, yet I've been holding out on upgrading since new tech is just around the corner. :/
Even 30fps @ 1080p on medium seems unlikely for me to pull off. Wondering if I should get the ps4 version.
Even 30fps @ 1080p on medium seems unlikely for me to pull off. Wondering if I should get the ps4 version.
Game doesn't support it out of the box but via SweetFX? That may still be possible.
Wow. I was staring at the same chart for minutes and still didn't pick it up. I even quoted the damn chart.According to this chart, it's 3 frames.
I'm tired dammit!
Well you can't blame people for being skeptical after everything CDPR pulled. I mean now suddenly there's this new ultra setting out of nowhere which we hear about the day it releases.
Madrugador
Member
Damn, I have a HD 7870. The time to upgrade is upon me.
giant_frying_pan
Member
Looks like it'll be low settings for me!
Dictator93
Member
It makes you wonder exactly what the temporal AA is going to be...
Does the game support any AA solution? D:
I'd still recommend people to take the charts with a little grain of salt. What I'm reading is that the review build is still not exactly the same as the public final build.
PCGH is being extremely trigger happy the past few days with their constant flurry of "updates", comparisons and benchmarks over multiple builds that are contradicting each other. If I were them, I'd just ease off the throttle for a day or two. But that would mean lesser clicks, I guess
Launch day panic. Understandable
Only post process. Equivalent to FXAA and some in-house temporal AA solution
PCGH is being extremely trigger happy the past few days with their constant flurry of "updates", comparisons and benchmarks over multiple builds that are contradicting each other. If I were them, I'd just ease off the throttle for a day or two. But that would mean lesser clicks, I guess
Launch day panic. Understandable
Only post process. Equivalent to FXAA and some in-house temporal AA solution
Turin Turambar
Member
I have a bad feeling AMD owners are going to get the short end of the stick for this one
Well, it isn't so bad. Same performance as 970 owners.
I'm in Aus and tried proxy for US site and it gives me the exact same countdown, different currency so definitely worked. 10 Hours and 20 mins. Annoying because it's just after I start work so will need to Teamviewer into home pc to start the download. At least it won't take all day to download. (Gmg keys not out until release).
I'm very glad to see the little impact of HBAO+ on framerate, I guess I'll be using it after all.
Though it may also be because it's not working? Some people had the theory that HBAO+ is glitched prerelase, which is why we didn't see any shots with it on?
I wish they did medium and high benchmarks as well, would be very helpful.
Though it may also be because it's not working? Some people had the theory that HBAO+ is glitched prerelase, which is why we didn't see any shots with it on?
I wish they did medium and high benchmarks as well, would be very helpful.
Alright. Ill check out what they have to offer. At any rate the 4K DSR will add some AA support too.
Well a 960 slightly OC (or at least, a version with a bit more factory OC than that Zotac) seems perfectly capable of running it at max details/30fps. With this game the card seems to perform slightly better than the 770, which is roughly on par with a 280X but who knows, maybe the AMD card fares better here. We'll know for sure when they add it to the bench
UnrealEck
Member
'Real' ultra settings could simply be a newer patch they've later produced after last minute scrambling. But yes, that patch which produces an apparently substantial performance hit (on top of the already substantial hit from hairworks) if we compare it to the performance of the game prior to those benchmarks. From what's been said of the patch, it also doesn't appear to change much in the way of improving the graphics.
You are going to use 4k DSR for this game? Do you have a single card or SLI? Because Nvidia doesn't support DSR at 4k for SLI setups. It will not utilize one of your cards.
Well a 960 slightly OC (or at least, a version with a bit more factory OC than that Zotac) seems perfectly capable of running it at max details/30fps. With this game the card seems to perform slightly better than the 770, which is roughly on par with a 280X but who knows, maybe the AMD card fares better here. We'll know for sure when they add it to the bench
Wonder how my specific XFX R9 runs it, kinda a mess to compare with all the different factory clocks and tweaks, I'll just have to wait to sink my teeth into the game on my own.
Biggest worry is of course my FX CPU
Huh I had no idea that the 285X was even a thing. Is is a big difference between the normal 280X OC? I'm only really planning on playing on high with capped at 30 with as much setting turned on as I can.
Watching that Nvidia video and hair works seems like a must have. The difference is pretty striking. Is that something AMD users will be able to use? albeit not as well I imagine.
Watching that Nvidia video and hair works seems like a must have. The difference is pretty striking. Is that something AMD users will be able to use? albeit not as well I imagine.
I thought the same thing, but Andy said Hairworks is actually a tessellation effect.
Temporal AA. Not TXAA. Post process only.
The Cowboy
Member
The game was updated with better LOD and more grass etc in the 1.02 build, on the older build (info in the downgrade thread) that was the ultra setting, however those ultra settings are now the very high setting in the new build and the new better LOD/grass used in this benchmark is the new Ultra setting.
So the pics etc from the downgrade thread based on this new build would be the very high setting.
I think it works out like this.
PS4 = high setting,
Old build ultra = very high setting.
New build ultra = ultra.
UnrealEck
Member
Optimisation can come from reduction in quality.
We can't say for sure whether it'll be a bigger step above the console versions after they patch it (again). But I suspect, from what I've read on other sites who have been testing the game on PC, that they're changing things like object draw distance which can have a pretty large impact on performance. Beyond that, I doubt the game's going to look much better than previous comparisons with the console versions.
Hmm. I have SLI
Could have swore I used DSR and SLI together.
If anything I can make a custom resolution for 4K.
OmegaDL50
Member
Aren't the consoles using AMD graphics chips, and CDProjektRed has gone on count to say the console versions on par with the PC version at High outside some PC specific settings?
If that being the case, I don't see how an AMD GPU that is more powerful then the APU inside either then PS4 and XB1 would run the game worse.
My HD7950 shouldn't have issues in this regard, but I guess I will see tonight at 7PM EST first hand on what happens.
If that being the case, I don't see how an AMD GPU that is more powerful then the APU inside either then PS4 and XB1 would run the game worse.
My HD7950 shouldn't have issues in this regard, but I guess I will see tonight at 7PM EST first hand on what happens.
888
Member
OK. Thanks for the run down. I'm running an overclocked i5 4670k and 970 that is overclocked so I am curious to see how that goes. Find out tonight for sure.
Static Jak
Member
I'm seriously considering locking it to 30FPS at this point.
That's what I used to do before getting a 4K TV. Worked really well
Bubba_Sparks
Member
I think it's really crazy that a Titan X is ~60fps at 1080p in this game. That's a $1300 CAD GPU just getting double the FPS of the PS4 version. Sure some of the effects are better looking than the PS4 version, but from the screen comparisons posted earlier its not that big of a leap. On top of that I went back to Dragon Age Iquisition recently, and it compares pretty nicely with the Witcher from what I can tell. So does GTA V, and performs better from what I can tell as well. I have a 970 so I can max it out and play it fine, but those numbers are a little shocking.