D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
That's a question, is the benchmark or in-game more taxing?
-
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.
Batman AK PC Perf Thread of DARKNESS, NO SETTINGS [30fps cap / intro removal in OP]
- Thread starter Peterthumpa
- Start date
Garrett Hawke
Member
In game
The benchmark is kind of broken, on launch night people were reporting 1080/60 in the benchmark on 970's
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
In game
The benchmark is kind of broken, on launch night people were reporting 1080/60 in the benchmark on 970's
Thanks, what I usually do is find a spot that tanks my frame rate and adjust the settings until it's 60fps, that way I know it won't dip anywhere else, and if it does I do the same thing.
In-game is a better way of measuring performance in this game. It should run a lot better than before the patch but it's certainly not perfect on a broad range of machines.
I already reported that the game now runs much better on my system, but I would not recommend it yet if you have mid-range hardware.
Stuttering has been 100.000% eradicated though, but I got far less "pauses" when in the Batmobile and much less pop-in as well.
980/4770K and SSD.
Is cdkeys place trustworthy?
SliChillax
Member
Garrett Hawke
Member
Probably. They're unauthorised but they have very good reputation with people on here and other sites, and the one time they were involved in anything shady was when a bunch of sites were unwittingly selling stolen Sniper Elite 3 keys (I think it was that game anyway). They refunded people who bought the keys as they were revoked on Steam, so no harm done.
Garrett Hawke
Member
With an SSD? Oh dear.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Fuck. I'm using a 3570k @ 4.3 / GTX 970 so I'll get similar performance, the game definitely isn't ready for me to play yet so it'll stay in my library untouched until they fix it properly. On the flip side, dat Mad Max port quality doe!
I have the game installed on my secondary 7200 RPM drive, where I keep most of my games. How much of a bump will I get it if I move it to my SSD? I have an 7950, FX-6300, and 8 GBs of RAM.
I'm seeing frame rates all over the place. I can run it above 30 at 1080p if I keep settings down or at 720p near 60 with higher settings.
I'm seeing frame rates all over the place. I can run it above 30 at 1080p if I keep settings down or at 720p near 60 with higher settings.
Your config is jacked or something. I never went below 60 only on hdd load during driving.
Really where is this being proven, should I send this game back to my HDD? Considering what we have had to deal with so far though this would not surprise me.
shiftplusone
Member
"taxing" is maybe not the right word, but in game for sure
I, like many others at launch, ran the benchmark and saw 70+ fps and thought "hell yeah we good to go" and then saw the actual game shit its pants at every opportunity
Backlogger
Member
This configuration gives me the best performance. 60 FPS most of the time and the lowest it drops is around 53-54
i5 3570k 4.1 OC
R9 290 4GB
1440p
16 MB RAM
Windows 10
Mohonky
Member
i7 4770k @ 4.3ghz
16gb ram
Gigabyte G1 GTX970 OC'd
Win 10
2560x1080
All regular settings On or High except Textures Normal
nVidia Gameworks off except Enhanced Rain and Lightshafts on
Seems to be running good now. When I first got the patch it basically broke the game, not sure what changed but its running at nearly constant 60fps for me now, drops into the 50's at times when driving Batmobile or traversing environment, worst I have seen is very high 40's during a big tank battle but that was brief.
Perfromance generally seems fairly decent, I dont think a 970 could maintain 1080 @ 60fps regardless of optimization. Certainly imo, the game now works fine enoug for me to begin playing the game finally.
16gb ram
Gigabyte G1 GTX970 OC'd
Win 10
2560x1080
All regular settings On or High except Textures Normal
nVidia Gameworks off except Enhanced Rain and Lightshafts on
Seems to be running good now. When I first got the patch it basically broke the game, not sure what changed but its running at nearly constant 60fps for me now, drops into the 50's at times when driving Batmobile or traversing environment, worst I have seen is very high 40's during a big tank battle but that was brief.
Perfromance generally seems fairly decent, I dont think a 970 could maintain 1080 @ 60fps regardless of optimization. Certainly imo, the game now works fine enoug for me to begin playing the game finally.
black_vegeta
Member
Samehere, when the patch was first installed it game still ran a little rough but now it runs pretty solid. There's a few framerate hitches usually when I glide into another city but after the textures load in it's all good. Really happy to be finally playing this game, it was my most looked anticipated game.
Crantius_Colto
Member
I've got comparable specs (i5-3470@3.20 GHz, 8 GB, GTX 970; not installed on SSD, though ) and have similar issues. Even with everything on low it's all but stable. While gliding it drops into the 40s. Running around and moving the camera give frequent framedrops. Deleted the config folder as suggested but that didn't change anything. Hope there's another patch coming.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
For me all that matters is minFPS, I always aim to have my games run at 60fps 99% of the time without dips, but according to people in this thread Batman still isn't there yet.
Indeed it isn't. The game consumes quite a lot of system ram as well, >6gb.
Excessive surely, hence why the game has not gone on sale yet.
Installed this for the first time yesterday.
i5 760 3.8 OC
GTX 970 Strix Default OC
8GB RAM
Pro Evo SSD
Win 10
I used the texture streaming .ini tweaks by some guy on the Steam forum. I'm not sure if they helped but I'm not getting any hitches at all (or very very rarely) with everything maxed out/enabled except for the first 2 gameworks options. Constant 60 FPS except for fluctuations during car chases/gliding from extreme height. Drops to low 50's at worst. Seems like the game is more prone to dropping below your vsync'd cap as when I run half refresh vsync (for 30 FPS) I still get get drops to like 27-28. However, if I use regular vsync and enforce a 30 FPS cap through RTSS it's a solid 30 throughout. So I tried OCing my monitor to 70hz and running a 35 FPS cap w/ regular vsync and found the game to also be running flawlessly like that.
I'm guessing the ideal set-up to run the game (apart from g-sync/freesync) without any dips for most people who are getting minimum FPS in the low 50's/high 40's is to be using a 144 hz monitor and capping the FPS to 48 (1/3 of the max refresh). Obviously not as good as 60 but still a much bigger improvement over 30.
i5 760 3.8 OC
GTX 970 Strix Default OC
8GB RAM
Pro Evo SSD
Win 10
I used the texture streaming .ini tweaks by some guy on the Steam forum. I'm not sure if they helped but I'm not getting any hitches at all (or very very rarely) with everything maxed out/enabled except for the first 2 gameworks options. Constant 60 FPS except for fluctuations during car chases/gliding from extreme height. Drops to low 50's at worst. Seems like the game is more prone to dropping below your vsync'd cap as when I run half refresh vsync (for 30 FPS) I still get get drops to like 27-28. However, if I use regular vsync and enforce a 30 FPS cap through RTSS it's a solid 30 throughout. So I tried OCing my monitor to 70hz and running a 35 FPS cap w/ regular vsync and found the game to also be running flawlessly like that.
I'm guessing the ideal set-up to run the game (apart from g-sync/freesync) without any dips for most people who are getting minimum FPS in the low 50's/high 40's is to be using a 144 hz monitor and capping the FPS to 48 (1/3 of the max refresh). Obviously not as good as 60 but still a much bigger improvement over 30.
Theres not many games out there that can hit 60 fps minimum
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Apologies for quoting myself but Batman just manages to scrape an almost perfect 1080p60 with all gameworks on with my 980Ti + 4790k. Windows 10 just pushes it over the line. It's still pretty lousy performance considering.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Especially since it was supposed to be maxed out at 60FPS on a normal 980.
Why should it ?
electroflame
Member
Because that's what Warner Bros. and NVIDIA's original marketing said?
I don't recall them saying that, do you have a source ?
I never agree when I read that X or Y game *should* be "maxable" on any hardware, let developpers make their games as scalable as they see fit.
I'm glad that many do get that frame of mind with very high hardware ceiling for "max" settings, AK is no exception but there are some rough spots in regards to optimization. It's not quite in a state which I would call "shippable".
However, let's be realistic even when the game performs as good as possible it's still going to be demanding if you are looking for an uncompromising experience, no way around that that's how it should be imo.
Without nvidia smoke and debris at 1440p I am getting a fairly rock solid 60 fps with the same spec. Performance is massively improved with this patch. At 1080p and smoke I was getting down to 30fps.
electroflame
Member
Here's a page on the Geforce site. Specifically the ULTRA requirements.
They've since changed that page slightly (if my recollection is correct) and there were also some marketing images that I can no longer find. Regardless, the page still clearly shows that it should be "maxable" up to ULTRA on a single 980, which clearly still isn't the case.
Those requirements are accurate if they target 30fps at 1080p. But as usual with requirements they're so vague nothing meaningful can come out it.
And it can be "maxed" at 30fps/1080p. The page makes no mention of framerate or resolution, therefore can't be accused of deceiving. The original statement I disagreed with specifically mentioned 60fps.
The game actually runs pretty well (as of the latest patch) on lower-end hardware. It just doesn't scale well at all, as far as minimum frame rate is concerned. Very little benefit to a 970 over a 750 TI when the latter is capable of maxing out (sans gameworks) @ 1080p/steady 30FPS throughout whilst the 970 will never achieve a 60 lock for driving/high altitude gliding no matter how much you lower settings. Adaptive sync monitors are pretty much required if you want to see the smoother performance higher end GPU's can provide.
Dictator93
Member
A little bit of perspective, if I remember correctly Geforce experience optimizes games for a minimum framerate of 40 or 45.
So if a 980 was recommended by NV for da max settin's... then it was not a flat 60fps.
So if a 980 was recommended by NV for da max settin's... then it was not a flat 60fps.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Except NVIDIA's marketing portrayed the game as running at 60FPS, those requirements weren't intended to be at 30FPS.
I fail to connect the dots here. They have never officially commented on what specs powered their Gameworks demo.
I'm sorry but nothing thus far suggests they have implied a single 980 was intended to max out AK at 60fps no less and that's a good thing because it would be very low for "max"settings.
It seems to me you are merely trying to create a narrative.
Wat??
PHOENIXZERO
Member
What video card do you propose they were selling with that video and the game on Ultra settings running at 60FPS? The problem isn't the horse power of the 980 it's that the game still wants more than 4GB VRAM with everything on at 1080p even though the Ultra requirement for VRAM was supposed to be 3GB. Smoke/Fog and maybe debris are basically the only things that prevent a 970 (or at least mine at 1417MHz) from hitting a consistent 60FPS.
dr_rus
Member
A PC game has no "fps target". A video of a PC game can run at 200 fps for all I care as this is a number that may well be possible to achieve at some point. Nobody is promising you anything via a promotional video framerate. Your PC is more than just a videocard. Next time some Razer will show you a promotional video of a game running at 60 fps with their mouse shown at the end go bug them because the game doesn't run on their mouse at all in the real world and they were showing it as running.
i5-4690k and 980 on Windows 10 here, all latest drivers - game is still using 50% of my GPU at most maxed out (minus fog) but FPS hovers between 55-60 when gliding and will lurch down to 47 in the car.
It's much better than before but still not a locked 60 ala Mad Max or MGSV.
It's much better than before but still not a locked 60 ala Mad Max or MGSV.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
What?
No shit there's more to it than just your video card, the purpose of that promotional video was to sell NVIDIA cards and that's besides the point. Regardless of that video this game should be able to run at 60FPS at 1080p with everything on and at the highest settings with a 980 (especially OC'd) with little issue, especially if the rest of your hardware meets those requirements.
This interm patch didn't fix everything, they fixed memory leaks and GPU utilization issues and it's still using more VRAM than it should going by their own requirements (assuming it wasn't an error) and still likely using more system memory too. Then again, after the game came out and such a mess Rocksteady/WB claimed that their minimum requirements were meant to be at 720p which is just ridiculous. There's still plenty of room for improvement, including when it comes to memory usage.
Krappadizzle
Member
This kinda bums me out. I just picked up a 1440p monitor and AK came free with my 980ti and 1080p doesn't look great on the monitor. O well. Hopefully more improvements down the line.
No, the ultra requirements always stipulated 4gb. There is no explicit information about the GPU they were trying to sell for 60fps at ultra settings, your claim of a 980 is completely baseless. Contrary to what you put forward Nvidia never promised a 980 would get you ultra at 60fps.
I would not mind, but I don't see how that's possible considering how impressive the game is with all those effects.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
After seeing 'that' Nvidia promo video, my expectation was that I would be able to achieve the same on their flagship gpu and a high end cpu. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. At least it shouldn't be.
Its not that bad Im running it on a single titan x at 1400mhz since sli isnt working. And i get about 70-80 fps average most of the time maxed out 1440p. It only dips to about 50 in areas with tons of the nvidia fog effects which I dont rly notice due to my gsync monitor. But a 980 ti should get more or less the same fps/
Dictator93
Member
The flagship is the titan x at that time btw, and if you noticed, NV does its performance guides with two of them.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Not when they first came out in a topic you even made. But it apparently was just a typo.
I could have sworn someone from NVIDIA claimed a 980 should've been able to achieve that but I can't find the reference so maybe not.
Still, my claim is primarily based on how my 970 currently performs on the game and that a 980 at the same clock speeds should be able to handle this game at 60FPS with all the Gameworks junk enabled with its additional GPU headroom. And that 1080p at 30FPS on Ultra was not what NVIDIA/Rocksteady/WB Games had in mind for those settings but meh, maybe it was, whatever. I still think there's still room for improvement in this game's performance.