Dark Souls III - PC Performance article

Dark Souls 2 set a high but easily cleared bar. FROM has the skills to make a great PC version of Dark Souls. Hopefully they will deliver.
 
A 765M is really slow by semi-recent desktop standards. You're probably talking 720p if you really want to maintain 60 FPS on that.
How about an MSI GT80 Titan SLI?
2 980m's in SLI (total vram of 16 gigs)
Intel i7-5950HQ @ 2.90 Ghz
32 gigs of RAM

You think I can max out the game @ 2650x1440 res and 60 fps?
 
What kind of Vsync does the game use? Seems like a really good port.

I wonder if my GTX 780 and i7-6700k will run this 1440p60...
 
Got a 980m on my laptop. Would be nice to play this max setting at 60fps/1440p or higher without the need for antialiasing. Definitely wont be turning on motion blur and depth of field that should save me some frames. Hopefully using adaptive vsync will give me a boost in performance as well.
 
Pro tip: If you're making a performance video make the OSD bigger than you'd usually play with so it's readable after YouTube butchers the quality.
 
If this game allows 60 FPS @ 1440P with a single 980 Ti, I'll be stoked. I'm sure some settings might have to be turned down but that's fine.
 
I'm fairly confident 4K @ 60fps should be possible. I mean, the game looks like shit but at least the frame rate should be nice.
To be honest I've seen better looking shit, but we all know that's not From's forte at this point.

Except Bloodborne. That game was gorgeous.
 
You should not count much on it, seeing how DaS2 managed SLI at launch. It could be a different story being a different engine (different to which point ?), but I'm currently not relying on my 2 980Ti to run the game at first.
Well, in worst case I play 1080/60 until then...All I need is to finally play this game.
 
- Dual Core CPU is enough to start the game :/ (no comment about performance). Long loading times though.

It says you can start and play the game with reduced framerate (higher load times), it doesn't say how much slower it is.
 
Oh yea that sucks. What AA technique did Bloodborne use?
The nothing one. It's just raw 1080p IIRC.

That so many claimed to not even notice.
I can get that people are more or less "sensitive" to such effects, but damn, to not see the amount of colours shifting happening in that shot...
1920x-1
 
I noticed this exchange in the gamestar forums between a forum member and one of the authors (Jan Purrucker):

Question:
An die Hardware-Redaktion: Könntet ihr bitte nachsehen, ob das Spiel 21:9 Auflösungen unterstützt?

Answer:
Hi, wir haben gerade keinen entsprechenden Widescreen-Monitor da. Werd's für den kompletten Technik-Check aber im Hinterkopf behalten.

So (and excuse my awful grasp of the German language) they are not prepared to make any statements about 21:9 support, because they do not have access to a 21:9 monitor?
 
I noticed this exchange in the gamestar forums between a forum member and one of the authors (Jan Purrucker):

Question:


Answer:


So (and excuse my awful grasp of the German language) they are not prepared to make any statements about 21:9 support, because they do not have access to a 21:9 monitor?

Yep, they didn't have a 21:9 monitor while testing the game.
 
I noticed this exchange in the gamestar forums between a forum member and one of the authors (Jan Purrucker):

Question:


Answer:


So (and excuse my awful grasp of the German language) they are not prepared to make any statements about 21:9 support, because they do not have access to a 21:9 monitor?
Exactly.
 
I noticed this exchange in the gamestar forums between a forum member and one of the authors (Jan Purrucker):

Question:


Answer:


So (and excuse my awful grasp of the German language) they are not prepared to make any statements about 21:9 support, because they do not have access to a 21:9 monitor?
Correct, they will however keep that in mind for the full release review.
 
From the video, it seems like most of the differences between max and low settings are minimal. High VS Max is almost non existent. Especially for textures.

That's great because i have a 960 2GB. Since it needs more than 2GB at max, i think i can have the same experience at high settings/1080p.
 
If this game allows 60 FPS @ 1440P with a single 980 Ti, I'll be stoked. I'm sure some settings might have to be turned down but that's fine.

Should be even possible with a 970 with a few settings lowered (antialiasing) , don't worry about your 980ti.
 
A 765M is really slow by semi-recent desktop standards. You're probably talking 720p if you really want to maintain 60 FPS on that.

How about my 960m then? 60 fps at 1080p with some sort of AA (there's some intel i7 laptop CPU in here I can't remember the name of, think it's like 3.x GHz)? Or am I better off getting the game for PS4? The good thing getting it for PC would be that I could play when the GF is hogging the TV, otherwise I'll just get it on PS4.
 
R9 280X over here, hoping the same.

R280X shouldn't even be a question when comparing it to the PS4 version. As they mentioned in the video. A GTX 760 is enough for 40-45fps in max. settings. The R280X is above the 760X so with a little bit of tweaking it is 1080p/60fps on PC. Not talking about other benefits here (free multiplayer with a big playerbase, mods, etc.)

Is the 960 faster than a 770?

Looking for 1080p/High settings, stable 60fps.

The GTX 770 is 5-10% faster.
 
This and No Man's Sky are the only new releases I'm looking forwards to where I'm worried about how my 660m is going to perform. I'm hoping to build a beefier computer later this year, but for now I'm just hoping my ASUS Rog hangs in there. It hasn't really let me down so far.
 
Seems fine, especially performance-wise.

It's actually surprising how little hardware seems to be needed for 60 FPS, given that it's a 30 FPS game on consoles.


That's trivial to circumvent though.
I'm surprised too. Though I'd have to stick to 30fps with my 7950 but now I guess 60 looks doable with High settings.
 
Top Bottom