The Witcher 3 runs at 1080p ULTRA ~60 fps on a 980

texhnolyze said:
Can we compare it with DA:I?
Both games are kinda similar right, semi-open world separated in several zones.
A 980 get 55 fps average on ultra. Similar to this Gamestar report?
Click to expand...

Yes, i've been comparing Witcher 3's graphics to DAI's for a while. They look very similar graphically.
Bear in mind, the benchmark you mentioned they're running with 2xMSAA and the card seems to be a stock clocked nVidia card. Some overclocked aftermarket cards can get 10-20 FPS more in games.

edit: Example of a good aftermarket overclocking card here.(this is with the default manufacturer's overclock, so it can go way higher)
 
Wag said:
How about 21:9? Love my 34" Ultra-widescreen display.
Click to expand...

5120x2160 is 21:9

MickeyKnox said:
And it's a fucking travesty.

The objectively superior aspect ratio got tossed by the wayside.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaat. I actually hate playing games in 16:9 now. I typically use my 2:1 custom resolutions or wider for gaming these days.

16:10 would almost feel like playing in a box. When it comes to games, I feel like seeing more horizontal information is far more useful than vertical.
 
supernormal said:
I though there was a bigger gap between the two.
Click to expand...

15-20%

20% of 60 FPS.... hence.

Edit: The 3.5 RAM problem will not affect every game. I really am doubting it will affect this game now even @ the config you mentioned.
It is more of a problem for SLI users or people with above-1080p monitors.
 
Surprised no ones asked if there's indication whether Ultra is using some form of MSAA?
If its something like 4x MSAA, no wonder a 980 cant get 60 fps. Switching that to SMAA should allow an oc'd 970 to get to a close 60 fps.
 
b0uncyfr0 said:
Surprised no ones asked if there's indication whether Ultra is using some form of MSAA?
If its something like 4x MSAA, no wonder a 980 cant get 60 fps. Switching that to SMAA should allow an oc'd 970 to get to a close 60 fps.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm also curious about. I don't need 4xMSAA, not from the viewing distance I plan to play from.
 
b0uncyfr0 said:
Surprised no ones asked if there's indication whether Ultra is using some form of MSAA?
If its something like 4x MSAA, no wonder a 980 cant get 60 fps. Switching that to SMAA should allow an oc'd 970 to get to a close 60 fps.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt they have MSAA as an option. You'll likely be able to choose FXAA or nothing (until they put in supersampling again).
 
supernormal said:
How would 970 fare? Ultra 1080p at 30fps?

I don't care about fps, gimme that eye candy.
Click to expand...

A 980 isn't a huge deal faster than a 970. Usually about 10 FPS faster in most games I've seen benched.
If you have a good overclock on a 970 (above 1500Mhz boost) you'll probably be getting 50+ FPS in Witcher 3 on ultra.
 
Orayn said:
Haha, yeah, these kinds of announcements can polarize people in funny ways: If the game is extremely difficult to max out on current hardware, it's unoptimized shit and the devs obviously spent all their time on the console versions. If a game is easy to max out, it's obviously under-ambitious and being held back by console limitations.

I still remember people completely losing their shit over the high VRAM requirements for the optional texture pack for Shadow of Mordor.
Click to expand...

That's true. It's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't for the developers.

I have no doubt the game will look outstanding and if I can get solid performance on my GTX 970 then I'll be a happy camper.
 
Kezen said:
Maximum settings for textures in all likelyhood. I mean neither consoles lack VRAM, that is unless TW3 requires 4g+ for textures.
Click to expand...

Well, according to the Gamestar preview the PS4 version's textures are a bit below the PC's "high" setting. Although that could possibly be due to inferior AF.

"PS4: 1080p, 30fps, minimally sharper textures than XB1, slightly less sharp textures than the "high" setting on PC"
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=979619
 
texhnolyze said:
Can we compare it with DA:I?
Both games are kinda similar right, semi-open world separated in several zones.
A 980 get 55 fps average on ultra. Similar to this Gamestar report?
Click to expand...

Eh. From what I understand the "zones" in Witcher 3 are actually much larger -- two of them each being larger than Skyrim. Plus there's supposed to be a lot more going on in Witcher 3 in terms of NPC AI, wildlife, day-to-night systems, weather, and so-on. It's basically supposed to feel like two Elder Scrolls games packed onto one disc.
 
I actually prefer playing a couple games at 1080p on my 980+1440p monitor. Crysis 3 and Evolve, I think. Some consider it blasphemy to go sub-native.
 
UnrealEck said:
Reasonable I'd say yes. The gap between 970 and 980 would probably widen as the resolution goes up though. It would probably be around 30 on a 970. Maybe not much more than 30.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I guess it comes down to testing and deciding. I know myself well enough to predict that I'll still be switching it around between 1080p and 1440p after 50 hours into the game.
 
Ooo wow, finally an honest PC thread. Thanks op!

I get annoyed of that statement, "Get it on PC and play it at 4k 120fps on ultra!" No. Get it on PC with a _____ and a _____ and play it at 4k 120fps on Ultra.

There is no PC sku. It varies. You'd think that'd be obvious to people... Excited to play this though! Getting a 980 soon.
 
-tetsuo- said:
Confirms my fears that the game will look shitty and has been heavily downgraded. I wish it wasn't so hard to cancel digital pre-orders.
Click to expand...

How so? And even if that were true, your reaction seems irrational.

I mean, honestly, looks shitty? How can you say something so ridiculous?

That's plainly not true simply looking at the game. And it certainly isn't the opinion of those that have actually played the game.

"So we cranked up all different types of configurable graphics options from the grass density to texture, water and terrain details to 'Ultra'. Because in our PC (Intel i7-4790, 16GB RAM) there was also a Geforce GTX 980, we were also able to activate the option "Nvidia Hair Works". The result, to put it lightly, knocked our socks off: In Geralt's face, we saw each skin pore, his long shadow spread in the setting sun like a bed sheet on a dense colorful flower meadow, the breeze made his white hair flutter realistically in the wind."
http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/news/the_witcher_3,49062,3083995.html

"It looks amazing"
"Every direction you turned, there was a vast landscape with rich colours and a great attention to detail."
http://analogaddiction.org/2015/03/13/the-witcher-3-pax-east-demo-impressions/

"Visually The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is going to be a showstopper. High-end PCs especially are in for a real treat. What I played at PAX East 2015 was one of the best looking games I’ve ever seen, period."
http://www.twinfinite.net/2015/03/16/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-preview-pax-east-2015/

"you’ll probably be too busy staring at the sunset or the skin on the characters around you, as the graphics are looking stunning thus far"
http://www.gamecrate.com/the-witcher-3-hands-on-gorgeous-enormous/

"I really can’t stress enough just how gorgeous the game looks."
"Vistas go on for miles and the facial animations are the best I’ve seen in a long, long while. They even managed to get the eyes to look right, which is where other games with fantastic character animation and motion capture tend to go wrong and plummet smack dab into the uncanny valley, never to be seen again.

Social Media tends to go on and on about graphics and what it means to be “next gen”, but I’ve never really gotten into the discussion. This was the first time I have ever actively thought about the jump in technology. This is what I have unknowingly hoped that a “next gen” game would look like in 2015. Even the grotesqueness of its violence manages to be beautiful, and that’s not something I ever thought I’d say."
http://www.sidequesting.com/2015/03/hands-on-with-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-bloody-gorgeous-pax-east/

"The first thing that truly stands out about The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is the game’s visuals. From the moment I sat down with the game, I was blown away by The Witcher 3’s visual fidelity. Older build of the game or not, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is easily the best looking video game I have ever played."
http://www.entertainmentbuddha.com/the-witcher-3-pax-east-hands-on-preview/

Those are just the very recent previews that I could find. There are plenty of older previews that also rave about the graphics, but I didn't include those because people like you would just claim that those impressions were from before the game was supposedly downgraded. Most of these previews are based on the hands-on event at PAX East 2015 and as you can see these people were left very impressed with the game's visuals.
 
Kinthalis said:
Gsync is my next upgrade. I'm waiting for a 1440p 28-30" IPS panel with > 60 hz support.

Any day now...
Click to expand...

You will be damn happy with G-Sync. It was the best gaming-related purchase I ever made. I have the Acer XB270H and I'm really happy with it. The image quality is actually very good for a TN panel and it is blazing fast. But I do want to upgrade to a 1440p IPS display at some point if they can get them fast enough.

It's nice not having to worry about hitting certain fixed target framerates. If I fluctuate somewhere between 40 and 80fps in The Witcher 3, for example, I'll be perfectly fine with that since it will remain smooth and stutter free the entire time.
 
Hopefully a core i5 2500k oc'd to 4.5ghz will cut the mustard, then again with this 980 I bought a few months ago I've been able to conquer everything.

FC4 runs fine framerate-wise but it still crashes a lot so I uninstalled it because it hard crashed my machine once, which is something no other game has done. I tested everything and it seems fine, and I am ready for The Witcher 3.
 
RoyaleDuke said:
Hopefully a core i5 2500k oc'd to 4.5ghz will cut the mustard, then again with this 980 I bought a few months ago I've been able to conquer everything.

FC4 runs fine framerate-wise but it still crashes a lot so I uninstalled it because it hard crashed my machine once, which is something no other game has done. I tested everything and it seems fine, and I am ready for The Witcher 3.
Click to expand...
Actually, FC4 is very good at detecting instability. It hard crashed your machine most likely means that your OC is not stable.
 
lordfuzzybutt said:
Actually, FC4 is very good at detecting instability. It hard crashed your machine most likely means that your OC is not stable.
Click to expand...

That's pretty odd considering it stands up to OCCT and Prime95 for extremely long torture tests, my ram is fine too, graphics card checks out.

I think it's FC4 since FC3 and pretty much anything else I throw at my machine is fine.
 
jtar86 said:
I have no trouble getting 60fps on my 960. Played Dying Light basically maxxed and kept a steady 60 @1080.
Click to expand...

I think this is a common misconception about PC gaming among many non-PC gamers. People seem to put too much emphasis on the highest settings/presets in games on PC. They might not even realise they're doing it either.

For example, Crysis 3 on Very High (highest preset) is very very demanding compared to the High preset. However, just turning down shading to high from very high gives a pretty big performance difference.
 
RoyaleDuke said:
That's pretty odd considering it stands up to OCCT and Prime95 for extremely long torture tests, my ram is fine too, graphics card checks out.

I think it's FC4 since FC3 and pretty much anything else I throw at my machine is fine.
Click to expand...
Same thing happened to me actually. FC4 crashed when everything else is fine. Tweaking my vcore slightly up and it held. Might or might not be the same case here.
 
OmegaDL50 said:
I'm going to have trouble with this game on my i5 3570k and HD7950 3GB, right?
Click to expand...

You definitely won't be running ultra. Probably a healthy mix of high with some of the more CPU dependent toggles to medium. Should still look better than the console versions.
 
Welp, hopefully driver updates and whatnot make perfect 60 FPS possible for my 970 eventually. :x I'm going to hold out for the inevitable Enhanced Edition anyway.
 
UnrealEck said:
I think this is a common misconception about PC gaming among many non-PC gamers. People seem to put too much emphasis on the highest settings/presets in games on PC. They might not even realise they're doing it either.

For example, Crysis 3 on Very High (highest preset) is very very demanding compared to the High preset. However, just turning down shading to high from very high gives a pretty big performance difference.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
There are numerous graphical settings on PC that can be tweaked to most suit our needs.
My 2gb HD 7870 Ghz can run DA:I on ultra texture at 60 fps in open field but I guess people just wouldn't believe it.
 
lordfuzzybutt said:
Same thing happened to me actually. FC4 crashed when everything else is fine. Tweaking my vcore slightly up and it held. Might or might not be the same case here.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I just find it interesting because I played it fine for 20-30 hours straight and boom huge crash after that latest patch. I'll look into it, and I thank you for the insight.
 
Dennis said:
But imagine how good the graphics would look if you could only hit 30 fps.

And lets be honest, any fps over 30 is just vanity.
Click to expand...

R_Deckard said:
This.
Click to expand...

I hope these are sarcastic. How is a better frame rate vanity but more/better effects are not?

dr_rus said:
Pffft who cares about 1080p on PC, this resolution was interesting here five or so years ago.
Now let's talk about 5120x3200...
Click to expand...

Well, my TV and PC monitor are both 1080p, and I have no desire to push for fancier lighting, shadows etc at higher resolution if it drops the frame rate.

I'd be totally content at 1080p on the PC for several years if I can hit 60 fps with most effects maxed. 1080p/60 is the sweet spot for me. Hopefully hardware does advance fast enough that meeting this for a reasonably priced card is trivial.
 
Great, that means that, with my 980, I can probably downsample from maybe 1440p and have 40 fps overall? It's IQ over fps for me, no doubt.
 
HeelPower said:
I don't like how they've never shown off the console versions,and almost nothing concerning PS4.

The equivalent PC thing isn't good enough.Game is releasing in like 2 months,should be ready to be shown natively on console by now.
Click to expand...
You can find an X1 gameplay walkthrough on youtube i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Far Cry 4 now runs at 60 fps on PS5
2 3
100
1K
LakeOf9 replied
Monster Hunter Wilds runs at 60 FPS on PS5 Pro, 4K30FPS or 1080P/60FPs on XSX/PS5 and 30 FPS on Xbox Series S
News 
46
8K
vkbest replied
Over 90% Players Can’t Run Final Fantasy 16 At 1080p 60 FPS
Platform  4 5 6 7 8
397
21K
Allandor replied
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle on PS5 Pro: Ray traced native 4k at 60 fps
3 4 5 6 7
308
17K
Duchess replied
Lossless Scaling allows you to play any 30/60 fps locked game with a 60/120 fps without breaking game logic
2
63
3K
evanft replied
Top Bottom