Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor PC Performance Thread

If you had to pick: 1440p with Medium textures or 1080p with High textures?

I've been playing High and 1080p on my 2gb 770 and around 80% of the time its at 60 fps. Even when the screen if filled with orcs it barely drops below 60.

That hiccup only happens when I'm exploring.

Edit: Why is it taking so long for Nv to release drivers? Normally they're on top of their game with new releases.
 
They recommend 6gb if you want everything on max and using the built in downsampling I'd say.

My (original) Titan has 6gb but is well behind the benchmark scores of 980s and even 970s.
 
i5 4570
770 2GB
12 GB RAM

This is the sweet spot I landed on.

shadowofmordor2014-108jk5k.png
Click to expand...

Originally had the mesh/shadows on Ultra, as they seemed to keep a 60+ average in the benchmark, but in practice, it gave me dips to 40s and 50s that would immediately spring back to 60 when moving the camera around in the world.

These current setting seem to more or less keep it hovering at 60. I've only done the second story mission so far, but I'm pretty damn satisfied with this performance.
 
Phreakuency said:
They recommend 6gb if you want everything on max and using the built in downsampling I'd say.

My (original) Titan has 6gb but is well behind the benchmark scores of 980s and even 970s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it still is a bit weird for me if they used downsampling for those requirements since they said for rendering at 1080P. I just wonder if people are having no trouble with 4 GB of VRAM.
 
Prophet Steve said:
Yeah, it still is a bit weird for me if they used downsampling for those requirements since they said for rendering at 1080P. I just wonder if people are having no trouble with 4 GB of VRAM.
Click to expand...

No, they actually mean 1080p without downsampling. Don't use the integraded benchmark as reference, it's not providing compareable numbers. With downsampling (1080p, 150 %) even a GTX Titan starts to lag because of insufficiant memory. It's not terrible or unplayable but noticeable and quite a bit annoying.

The only card I tested doing just fine with those settings was a AMD FirePro W9100. That thing has 16 Gigs of RAM.

I'll post the benchmarks as soon as they're online. These do not tell the extent of the lag completely, but you'll get the notion. The rest of the info's in the article, it's german however.

Regards,
blaidd
 
I am getting 60fps most of the time using these settings on my 2GB GTX 670:

KyGjkWo.jpg
Click to expand...

It was performing worse yesterday but I think it was down to the fact the card was running too hot and throttling. I set up a more aggressive fan curve and it seems better this morning.

Precision X recorded that I was using 2001MB of video memory. I took a fair few screen shots of action-orientated moments but the Precision X readings do not appear on the images unfortunately.

The frame rate was staying at 60 during these fight sequences so I am pretty happy with this performance.
 
Decided to jump in with the GMG %25 off code.

i5-2500k (stock 3.3 ghz)
GTX 670 2GB
8GB RAM


I'm getting 50-60 fps on the Very High preset at 1080p with max FPS set to 60. If I bump AO from medium (what its set to on Very High) to High, I get dips down to like 45fps. Pretty happy with the performance.

Also the texture setting on Very High is High, but my 2GB 670 is running it fine.

I can also set everything to Ultra except textures to High, and put max FPS at 30 and get a steady 30.

The game looks nice, but its not that amazing. I'm not sure why its so taxing, the performance doesn't seem to match the visuals in this case. The ground seems fairly flat, and there is little vegetation (I know its Mordor and all, but just saying).

Lack of AA doesn't feel that noticeable, they must be using some sort of post-process effect.

I will say that I was surprised at the wealth of PC graphics options. In-game FPS limiter is a nice touch.

As for the game itself, it was fun for the hour or so I played, but I'm ot blown away. I'm a big AC fan, and the game definitely feels like a rip off of AC (not that this is bad), but it doesn't handle nearly as well. I found the controls to be slightly clunky and the parkour isn't nearly as good. Holding A to run feels strange, since its so similar to an AC game I find myself wanting to hold RT. Also RB to grab system feels weird too, I keep fumbling with it. Probably will be fine a few hours in.
 
Prophet Steve said:
Link doesn't seem to work yet.

EDIT: Since trying to access it through the frontpage doesn't work yet either I'll assume I just have to wait a few moments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I fucked up the publishing and my boss pulled the article again. It's gonna be on at 14:15 - That's 12:15 GAF-Time. Sorry about that ;-)
 
st1llx said:
Still not sure if i should go best settings and 30fps, or lower settings and 60fps.

Whats better to do yall for this game?
Click to expand...

I found that the increase is a few settings was not noticeable enough visually to justify the 30fps, so I'm opting for 60fps with a few things bumped down.
 
kudoboi said:
anyone here have a HD7870? how does the game perform on that specific GPU?
Click to expand...

Yeah I do, got it running sweet now with some settings see my post from earlier.

R_Deckard said:
Yeah I had BIG issues yesterday with it on High with my 7870 but now I got it sorted.

Borderless screen for the triple buffer
V-sync on
Shadows, Textures, Mesh/AO set to high and I get a much better rate now.

You still get stutters in parts with dips but less often and getting around 45-50fps now which is fine with some parts full 60.

Also NOTE: Texture setting DOES NOT change in game unless you quit to desktop and reload the game.

I would say a great job on the PC version even with the >2gb use it is not a massive issue.
Click to expand...
 
i5 2500, gtx 650 (1GB), 12GB RAM

Able to play with most things on medium (including textures) except motion blur and ao are off. 30-60fps at 720p.
 
Probably covered already, but did anyone figure out a way to force AA? The console version looks like it has AA for sure, would be nice to at least have some FXAA or something.
 
Ran a series of perfomance benchmarks on my Lenovo Y510P

CPU: Intel Core i5 @ 2.50GHz RAM: 6.00GB DDR3 @ 798MHz GPU: SLI nVidia Geforce GT 755M 4GB VRAM Total(forced SLI using F.E.A.R 3 bits) Storage: 1TB 7200RPM HDD

Results/Conclusion: Ambient Occlusion and Veg Range seem to be the hardest hitters, I kept everything at Ultra except Shadow Quality @ High and AO + Veg Range @ Medium and gameplay has been a smooth 60FPS with very little impact on the graphics.

I also noticed that the benchmarks have really low fps compared to the actual fps when you play the game. With the high preset everything is @ a smooth 60 despite it having an average fps in the 40's.

Keep in mind I do not have the Ultra Textures pack enabled since It nearly halved my performance at the cost of minimal graphical improvements (Maybe i'd notice the difference @ 4K).

Benchmarks (Presets): 1920x1080 w/ Vsync OFF

Lowest - Min: 26.32 Avg: 67.23 Max: 413.47

Low - Min: 22.95 Avg: 61.88 Max: 465.11

Medium - Min: 22.45 Avg: 43.41 Max: 278.82

High - Min: 19.30 Avg: 41.46 Max: 212.30

Very High - Min: 10.48 Avg: 39.53 Max: 391.79

Ultra - Min: 4.87 Avg: 31.17 Max: 448.74
 
Lockjaw333 said:
Will forcing FXAA via NCP work? I thought I read earlier in the thread that it doesnt work.
Click to expand...

I just tried and yes it does. So does AMDs MLAA. It's somewhat blurry of course but you'll get rid of some of the jaggies. Also, it looks quite nice when combined with downsampling.
 
Prophet Steve said:
I've asked this before, but I'll try ask it again.

Has someone that played with 4GB of VRAM and ultra textures experience hitching because of that? On 1080P.
Or otherwise, would someone with 4GB of VRAM and a non 9 series Nvidia GPU (because of the delta color compression that saves on VRAM) measure frametimes? I get the impression that 4GB seems enough for everybody, but I think it is weird they still recommend 6GB.
Click to expand...

4GB 970. Ultra @1080p. Definitely hitches. I am sensitive though but it's bad imo.
 
schennmu said:
4GB 970. Ultra @1080p. Definitely hitches. I am sensitive though but it's bad imo.
Click to expand...

It surprises me that so many people say to have no trouble with ultra textures on 4GB, but thank you for the input. I wonder if it is actually is different for most people or whether people just don't notice it.
 
3770k
R9 290 4gb
16gb 1600 ram
seagate hybrid drive

I clicked the auto config which gave me a mix of high and ultra settings (high textures, dialed shadows down to high) and I'm getting 60 FPS 95% of the time at 1080p
 
ItsTheNew said:
3770k
R9 290 4gb
16gb 1600 ram
seagate hybrid drive

I clicked the auto config which gave me a mix of high and ultra settings (high textures, dialed shadows down to high) and I'm getting 60 FPS 95% of the time at 1080p
Click to expand...
So if i want to play 60fps, the auto-config is the best option?
I can run it at 30fps at everything max no problem.

Also is borderless window a must?
 
schennmu said:
4GB 970. Ultra @1080p. Definitely hitches. I am sensitive though but it's bad imo.
Click to expand...

Same here, though on a GTX 980. Generally speaking, I tend to easily notice even minute frame rate drops, frame pacing issues, etc., and I will say that enabling Ultra textures affords me an inferior experience to what High textures provide (which may well be perfectly acceptable to some). There are far more frequent "slowdowns" with the Ultra textures pack than I'm willing to deal with.
 
So what is the verdict? I don't have 6gb vram but 3gb GTX 780. i3570. Will it work still? Is it worth it? I just want to play at 1080p
 
Hi, anyone with input lag issues, can you try fiddling with the "Max frames to render ahead" settings and tell me if i'm experiencing placebo? cheers.
 
delt31 said:
So what is the verdict? I don't have 6gb vram but 3gb GTX 780. i3570. Will it work still? Is it worth it? I just want to play at 1080p
Click to expand...

I have a i7 920 3.4, 12 gb ram and a stock 780.

I have everything on full except ultra textures, locked at it 30 and it's good. too many drops on 60.
 
Anyone know of Ultra Textures scale with your vram? Im on a Gtx 970 with 4 GB Vram and ultra only uses 3.3 - 3.5 Vram where as I see people with 6GB Vram cards running Ultra at 5.5 Vram so I was wondering does Ultra Textures scale based on how much video memory you have?

Also, Does anyone have a comparison of Ultra shadows to High Shadows and Ultra AO to High AO? Both of those settings take a chunk of frames for what appears to be minimal visual improvements.
 
stanleyc415 said:
Anyone know of Ultra Textures scale with your vram? Im on a Gtx 970 with 4 GB Vram and ultra only uses 3.3 - 3.5 Vram where as I see people with 6GB Vram cards running Ultra at 5.5 Vram so I was wondering does Ultra Textures scale based on how much video memory you have?
Click to expand...
Did you download the Ultra Textures Additional Pack? If you did not the "Ultra" setting just uses the High textures.
 
Damn it, bought this yesterday, took all day to install, only to boot it up and find the only way to get above 20fps on lowest settings was to go 50% resolution, at least going by the benchmark. I have pretty low standards as far as image quality and what a playable framerate is, but this is the first game I've found I simply can't play on my laptop in any enjoyable capacity. No surprise, it was a $500 gaming laptop three years ago, but it's held up pretty well for a lot of visually demanding games. I got through Wolfenstein thanks to some mod that was posted that turned off a lot of ancillary settings and bells and whistles, same with Far Cry 3. I suppose unless some such ultra-low mod comes out for this, it'll have to wait until I can afford a real PC. Which could take years. Shit.

$50 down the drain.
 
If anyone wanna know if this will run on a shit/old gaming rig, here's what i have :

Gigabyte Gaming Laptop
i7 - 2770
GT-555M
16 RAM

So i finally got the game and i'm happy that it runs at avg 30fps at 1600x900 with most settings set to med and low.
 
Running fine on i7 4790k stock 16g ram and r9 290 tri x

Tested on Max everything with/without ultra texture and don't see noticeable different.
 
st1llx said:
So if i want to play 60fps, the auto-config is the best option?
I can run it at 30fps at everything max no problem.

Also is borderless window a must?
Click to expand...

I just selected auto config and that's the result I got. In game options set to vsync, 60 FPS limit. I haven't messed with radeonpro or borderless.
 
i5-4670k@4.2ghz
R9 290@1000/1300
8gb DDR3 2400mhz

Everything is maxed (including ultra textures), 1080p resolution, frame limiter at 60. Using FRAPS in game I'm sitting at 59-60. I haven't seen it dip below 59 yet. I've played a little over 3 hours so far.
The downsampling used in the game tanks performance quickly for me. If I set it to even 150% (which is 1440p, I think) I drop from 60 to 45ish.
I would kill for some in game 2x or 4x MSAA.

Loving the game so far.
 
justjim89 said:
Damn it, bought this yesterday, took all day to install, only to boot it up and find the only way to get above 20fps on lowest settings was to go 50% resolution, at least going by the benchmark. I have pretty low standards as far as image quality and what a playable framerate is, but this is the first game I've found I simply can't play on my laptop in any enjoyable capacity. No surprise, it was a $500 gaming laptop three years ago, but it's held up pretty well for a lot of visually demanding games. I got through Wolfenstein thanks to some mod that was posted that turned off a lot of ancillary settings and bells and whistles, same with Far Cry 3. I suppose unless some such ultra-low mod comes out for this, it'll have to wait until I can afford a real PC. Which could take years. Shit.

$50 down the drain.
Click to expand...

What do you have right now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wizards of the Coast tries to position itself as a Monolith in gaming as they hire former Shadow of Mordor/Black Panther devs
19
293
Inspector Q replied
  • Locked
Steam releases new PC performance monitoring tool
Platform 
3
537
IFireflyl replied
Borderlands 4 Patch Due Out, PC Performance 'Our Top Priority,' Gearbox Says
Platform  2
60
1K
R6Rider replied
[IGN] Crimson Desert Performance Preview (Tested on PC)
News 
11
717
saintjules replied
Incredibly Faithful Shadow Of The Colossus Texture Remaster
38
661
nial replied
Top Bottom