No Mans Sky | PC Performance Thread

Fps on border less is better but the frame times are off. Jitters.

On full screen it's fine but a lot of drops when in the menus. Triple buffering helps a bit but also adds jitter.

970gtx and i5-4690 both stock. Settings in game are shadows and reflection on medium. Textures and distance on high and no AA. 16xAF through nvidia panel.

Should run better imo
 
mario_O said:
And a 6700K. Skylake seems to run this game well. This GPU with Sandy/Ivy would be a different story. My OC 980Ti with a 2700K struggles with this game.
Click to expand...

Game runs extremely well on a 5930k too. Might be the case of more cores = better terrain generation. Smooth 60fps on a single 480 at 1080p.
 
I finally cracked and got the GoG version and am playing it offline (i.e. not through GoG Galaxy).

Running it on an i5 6600K, 16Gb Ram and a 1080, and after playing it for about 8 hours I can confirm that the stuttering lessens over time, to the point where I barely notice it anymore outside of entering/exiting my ship and warping to a new system.

I've tried playing it at 4K with everything maxed out (simply because at 1440p with SSAA 4x I'm still getting massive amounts of jaggies) and it's pretty smooth, even though I can't get locked 60fps when on a planet. Game tends to drop into the low 50s when looking into the distance, but it still feels fairly good to play.

Tweaks: Gsync set to false in config, Vsync off in game and adaptive in NVCP, triple buffering on in NVCP also.

No crashes or anything so far, even though at one point after about 4 hours of uninterrupted gameplay the game dropped to 12-12fps (low CPU and GPU usage) until I restarted. Don't know what's up with that.
 
I got a lot of stuttering, even on the start-up screen animation, before changing settings. But it's been solid sense, holding pretty steady around 75-80fps (GOG version played in Steam with the FPS counter) with occasional drops down into the 50s when panning fastly in a lot of colorful fauna etc.

I just used the Nvidia Experience game optimization, turned off G sync in the game settings file, Vsych in game and set it to Max FPS in game. Playing in 1080p on TV.

Specs:

i7-4790k 4GHz
16 GB Ram
GTX 970
Game installed on HDD rather than SSD

Game Settings:

Resolution: 1920x1080
V-Synch: Off (and Gsync off in the game settings text file)
Anti Aliasing: FXAA
Field of View: Both at 100
Gamma: 128
Anisotropic Filtering: 16
Texture Detail: High
Shadow Detail: High
Generation Detail: High
Reflection Quality: High
Show HUD: On
Max FPS: Max
 
Been running at 1440p 60fps having a good time, thought I'd hook up to my 4k TV and play some 4k 30fps.

For some reason everything is taking 19 times longer to load than before, not changed any settings except 1440p 60>4k 30.

Title menu stays on the stars for much longer before loading my game and warping takes much longer. Switched back to 1440p and it's quick again. Very strange this game.

6700k
1070
16gb ddr4
Installed on ssd
 
Well, the experimental branch on Steam fixed my performance and stutter problems completely, however I have now had 3 complete BSODS after playing for a few hours...

Can't remember the last time I had a single BSOD in all my other games combined!
 
dr_rus said:
No Man's Sky Pc AMD RX 480 1080p Ultra Settings Frame Rate Performance Test
Seems to stutter a lot less on AMD's h/w.
Click to expand...

At this point, there's been so many weird fixes and people doing the opposite of others to fix things that I'm not taking anything concrete. Some of the AMD guys in here have much worse stuttering than I did on my 980 ti before I applied the shader cache fix and for whatever reason, that doesn't fix it for them.

There's just some weirdness in the code that doesn't seem to be consistent and effects different people in different ways it seems.
 
After installing the experimental branch and deleting my old settings, things have been MUCH better for me. However, the pop-in and draw distance is just garbage. This constant wave of drawing terrain as you fly over looks horrible.
 
Stuttering is gone for me for the most part.

My main issues at this point are that I feel I should be getting better frames when planetside (drops down to the 30s a lot) and that really weird pop-in effect when you are flying around where the textures are popping in slower than you are flying giving a really odd graphical effect where it just seems like the placement of textures is somehow out of sync. Not sure how to explain that any better.

Neither of these issues I feel can be fixed with settings at this point unless someone knows something I don't
 
b0uncyfr0 said:
Still crashing after a random amount of time doing practically anything. Does anyone have any tips i can try? I have no stuttering or hitches which is excellent but crashes are annoying, especially since i don't save very often.

Running on a 290x.
Click to expand...

I was getting blue screens and when I looked at the error logs it was to do with hyperthreading. I turned on hyperthreading in my bios settings and haven't had an issue since. Hope this helps.
 
I haven't been able to check on GAF much over the past couple of days; what's the verdict on the 21:9 support for this? Is it still stretched like was first said on launch day or is it working properly?
 
Kenzodielocke said:
Sorry, but shouldn't games always use 100 % of the GPU ? It only uses 75 % on my GPU.
Click to expand...

If you've got an FPS roof enabled, say 30 fps, and your GPU only needs to work 75% to achieve that, then everything is in order.
If you are at lower than desired fps and you still are not utilizing 100% of your graphics card, there is likely an issue feeding the GPU properly, CPU bottleneck etc etc.
 
Dave_6 said:
I haven't been able to check on GAF much over the past couple of days; what's the verdict on the 21:9 support for this? Is it still stretched like was first said on launch day or is it working properly?
Click to expand...
it renders at 21:9 but the UI is stretched from 16:9
 
Does anyone with a GTX1080/6700K have settings that might hold 4K/60 in the game? I'm really really wanting to play in 4K (currently doing 1440p in a 4K TV), but I'm afraid of what'll happen to my frames.
 
I'm glad people are having such luck with the experimental patch, but for me it TANKED my performance....

Hope this doesn't mean when the actual patch comes out it'll be the same....
 
Following Digital Foundry's instructions on pixel counting (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-teach-yourself-pixel-counting), I tested No Man's Sky.

Below is a screenshot I took in a space station at 2560x1440, max settings, AA disabled (sample area circled in read.)...

j8fg2x.png
Click to expand...

Here it is blown-up...

3FnbNY.png
Click to expand...

I tried multiple sample areas, and every time, the area between both points was exactly 29 pixels. Either I'm doing something wrong, or something is seriously wrong with the way this game is rendering.

If my test is to be believed, it is actually outputting a 2474 x 1392 resolution (or at least an approximate uneven offset of 1440p; calculated output seems to depend on the height of the vertical red line), and scaling to 2560 x 1440.

I'm fully willing to believe I miscalculated on this (I hope so, in fact), and if anyone wants to investigate this, or provide further correction or explanation, by all mean do.

EDIT: I rewatched the tutorial video several times over to make sure I was doing it right, and *facepalm*, it appears they count the final pixel at the end of the line, which would give me a total of 30 pixels. This means No Man's Sky is NOT upscaling. I repeat NOT upscaling. Good to know. That leaves shader aliasing and post-processing to blame for the perceived blur. Alien Isolation had loads of shader aliasing, which made it appear as if anti-aliasing was doing little to nothing for edges. Shader aliasing can't really be touched by anything but downsampling or TAA.

This game, in my opinion, seriously needs some TAA; "luma"sharpen it up a little, and you'd be good to go.
 
Kenzodielocke said:
Hm, no real mods by now is a bad thing, right ?

I really want CA and those post processing effects out...
Click to expand...

Lots of work being done here. Also there were cheatengine tables posted a few pages back to remove the HUD and CA. Someone is working on a DLL injector which will make modding certain things much easier.
 
red731 said:
Why would it be a bad thing?

I don't like those effects too, but a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Bad thing as in no mods are coming. Usually for big game releases like this, there are a lot of mods available shortly after launch.

finalflame said:
Lots of work being done here. Also there were cheatengine tables posted a few pages back to remove the HUD and CA. Someone is working on a DLL injector which will make modding certain things much easier.
Click to expand...

Cheatengine thing didn't work for me :/ Well, I'll wait a bit. I really like the game but a lot of things are just too distracting to get myself immersed.
 
jorimt said:
Following Digital Foundry's instructions on pixel counting (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-teach-yourself-pixel-counting), I tested No Man's Sky.

Below is a screenshot I took in a space station at 2560x1440, max settings, AA disabled (sample area circled in read.)...



Here it is blown-up...



I tried multiple sample areas, and every time, the area between both points was exactly 29 pixels. Either I'm doing something wrong, or something is seriously wrong with the way this game is rendering.

If my test is to be believed, it is actually outputting a 2474 x 1392 resolution (or at least an approximate uneven offset of 1440p; calculated output seems to depend on the height of the vertical red line), and scaling to 2560 x 1440.

I'm fully willing to believe I miscalculated on this (I hope so, in fact), and if anyone wants to investigate this, or provide further correction or explanation, by all mean do.
Click to expand...



the game is absolutely upscaling from 720p. this thread proves it

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyT.../found_out_why_nms_looks_like_trash_on_pcthe/
 
That thread is by someone that doesn't know even know how borderless windowed mode works. He changes it to fullscreen later and it improves.


It's not upscaling from 720p. The game is just ugly. Makes for some sweeping vistas at time, but overall it's just ugly.
 
Not sure what's different about today but so far the experimental build patch is not having severe frame drops for me. It's averaging 30-45fps which is still piss poor compared to my specs and what graphic settings I'm using but I'm not getting drops to 5-20fps except a handful of times. I wonder if something was done server side about the procedural generation.
 
metareferential said:
No it's not, unless we're all blind and pretend to play on our resolution of choice.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's upscaling from 720p, but I should be counting a total of 30 pixels (or at least a number evenly divisible by itself) between the points to achieve a native 2560 x 1440. I'm getting 29. I tried a 60 pixel high line after posting these images, and I got 59 total pixels between points. That's still doesn't give me a 2560 x 1440 native resolution.

It's very possible I'm not doing something right, and the guide I'm using is moot for resolutions above 1080p, but if I am, then something with the way the game renders the chosen resolution is plain weird.

Even if it's rendering just a few pixels below the selected native resolution on both axis, it would create some seriously ugly artifacting, much like what you see with uneven DSR multipliers and the Smoothness slider set to 0%.
 
Looks like a new internal patch was released within the last hour, according to steamdb... hopefully this means we are getting an actual patch sooner than later...
 
Tahnit said:
look at the pixel count. its clearly upscaling.
Click to expand...

In that very thread:

I think it is dependant on if you are in full screen or borderless window mode
Full screen seems to respect the resolution setting in options. However if you are in borderless window mode then it just takes your desktop resolution.
Click to expand...

The game isn't upscaling.
 
finalflame said:
Does anyone with a GTX1080/6700K have settings that might hold 4K/60 in the game? I'm really really wanting to play in 4K (currently doing 1440p in a 4K TV), but I'm afraid of what'll happen to my frames.
Click to expand...

I hear you! 60fps is paramount, so I had to drop the resolution down to 2880x1620 (from 4K) upon landing on a stormy planet with very dense vegetation. I'd say the shadows setting probably makes the biggest difference under most circumstances. Unfortunately, maintaining a steady 4K60 throughout the game doesn't appear to be possible on a single card at this time.

Titan XP @ stock
5820K @4.5Ghz
 
Buburibon said:
I hear you! 60fps is paramount, so I had to drop the resolution down to 2880x1620 (from 4K) upon landing on a stormy planet with very dense vegetation. I'd say the shadows setting probably makes the biggest difference under most circumstances. Unfortunately, maintaining a steady 4K60 throughout the game doesn't appear to be possible on a single card at this time.

Titan XP @ stock
5820K @4.5Ghz
Click to expand...

Ah, well, shit. And I was actually considering getting a Titan XP, not just for NMS, but in general, but if it could play NMS @ 4K/60 that would be the nudge I needed. Guess I'll just hold out at 1440p, then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

No Man's Sky: Relics (New update)
35
2K
Trogdor1123 replied
Final Fantasy XVI PC Performance Thread
2 3
138
14K
Rush2112 replied
No Mans Sky hits new milestone on steam (ALL reviews: Very Positive)
29
1K
Loomy replied
No Mans Sky Worlds Update 2 | Billions of New Planets, New Lighting System and More
News  2 3
124
6K
Soodanim replied
Capcom responds to Monster Hunter wilds PC performance issues
2 3 4
158
11K
polybius80 replied
Top Bottom