Giantbomb was on app 1.01, regulations 1.01 at least.
I wonder is Unstable's suggestion about the xbone controller is solid, GB was using one at least on their stream.
edit:
Dark Souls III - PC Performance article
- Thread starter Bl@de
- Start date
Giantbomb was on app 1.01, regulations 1.01 at least.
I wonder is Unstable's suggestion about the xbone controller is solid, GB was using one at least on their stream.
edit:
What's your budget?
I know that a 970 can certainly hold 60 FPS at maximum settings at 1080p -- it does pretty well even at 1440p which is 77% more pixels. Also, the final level of settings (going from "high" to "max") doesn't have the greatest return on performance investment, so that could be disabled for slower cards. In fact, I'd take higher resolution even over the medium -> high jump.
One thing I would suggest in all cases is a GPU with at least 3GB (and better 4) of memory.
Haunted
Member
RIP Haunted's 1GB GTX560. ;_;7
Duebrithil
Member
Yup. My 580 weeps.
What did you expect, it's not a game held back by platforms with 512 MB of memory 
I mean, I told you this would happen over 3 years ago.
Sadly, the oldest GPU I have readily available is a 4GB 770, so I can't test how well a 2GB one would fare.
I mean, I told you this would happen over 3 years ago.
Sadly, the oldest GPU I have readily available is a 4GB 770, so I can't test how well a 2GB one would fare.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Sorry for asking but how well do GPU with 3GB run? I know the min is a 2GB and the recommended is a 4 GB. So should I expect to run the game in 1080p and 60 fps on a i5-3570k @ 3.4 Ghz, 16 GB of ram and an AMD 7970 Ghz 3 GB?
I can't really say for certain. 3GB is pretty borderline from what I can see with maximum settings at 1080p, so it comes down to how effectively the driver manages that memory. I think it should probably be fine.
Frametimes are pretty stable already by default, at least in exclusive fullscreen mode.
OverturePT
Member
My 2GB GTX770 is weeping but I really don't want to invest in another GPU right now without knowing exactly what's coming up later this year. Lord, give me strength. If I can at least play this on medium at 60FPS I'm a happy guy.
The article in the OP measured 2.4 GB VRAM usage so I'm sure it'll be fine on medium texture settings.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Thanks for the info! I really appreciate it :3
edit: seems like I will be needing a new GPU very soon.
General Lee
Member
Probably something like a 960 would be a nice pair for a FX-6300. Above that is probably better to just upgrade the whole platform.
Dinky Dino
Member
Out of the blue but does this game use Denuvo or some uncracked type of drm? Bamco has been giving out a lot of copies to streamers lately so I feel it runs a high risk of being leaked.
I don't know whether streamers get the same press copies I did, but if so then those are user-specific and online is IP-locked. So even if one was leaked and cracked people could only play the leak offline (which IMHO misses a lot of what makes Souls games great).
Well for what it's worth, 2GB holds up surprisingly well so far this gen (at a 1080p framebuffer). The only game I've really seem memory issues pop up with was Shadow of Morder with the optional ultra textures enabled. Though to be doubly fair, I haven't tried out that many current gen games yet.What did you expect, it's not a game held back by platforms with 512 MB of memory
I mean, I told you this would happen over 3 years ago.
Sadly, the oldest GPU I have readily available is a 4GB 770, so I can't test how well a 2GB one would fare.
I'm sure DSIII will be fine, maybe with lowered texture resolution if needed.
daninthemix
Member
How is the AA / jaggies at 1080p?
Due to the palette of the game, it's not as bad as you would expect from simple post-AA.
Adry9
Member
Almost same setup here but I have a 7950 Boost. Hoping to reach 60fps in High settings, although I'll probably lock it to 40-45 if there's constant drops.
daninthemix
Member
That's good news, but Fallout 4 has really spoiled me in this regard.
$150ish?
You're better off saving more cash/waiting for next-gen video cards then. You won't get much of an upgrade with just $150
Don't bother.
Welp...
I did say 150ish =P. My budget is flexible.
I'm not against buying used as well. Currently, the best offer I've gotten is a 280x for $120. However, I'm thinking she needs something like a 290 or similar.
Unless Pascal or Polaris is a timed release with Dark Souls 3, that sadly isn't a possibility. If you get my meaning =P
Mister Wolf
Member
Good im guessing there wont be any problem getting 1440p/60fps with my 980m. Im gonna force adaptive vsync, disable AA, motion blur, and depth of field so that should free up some additional power.
Talonz
Member
If anybody is going Nvidia I would go with EVGA since they have a "step-up" program and new cards should be coming out in the next 90 days hopefully.
http://www.evga.com/support/stepup/
http://www.evga.com/support/stepup/
Mr. Plankton
Neo Member
I have:
i5 2500K @ 4.2 GHz
2 GTX 670s (2 GB of VRAM each)
8 GB RAM
How will I fare?
Really hoping I can at least run at 1920x1080/60 FPS with most settings set to high (especially textures).
i5 2500K @ 4.2 GHz
2 GTX 670s (2 GB of VRAM each)
8 GB RAM
How will I fare?
Really hoping I can at least run at 1920x1080/60 FPS with most settings set to high (especially textures).
I actually went from a 560ti to a gtx 680 a few months ago for $150. It was too late to go the full step to the 970 with pascal right around the corner. For a non serious gamer I don't think I'd even spend that much on a half step.
chaobreaker
Member
Think I could run this at like 30 FPS medium settings in my old GTX 560 Ti?
Yeah, I hear you. Although, the only reason I'm considering upgrading her GPU at all, is literally Dark Souls 3. She really loves the series. If it wasn't for Dark Souls, I'd be saying the same thing.
indigo-cyclops
Member
I'm perfectly fine with 1080p/60 with Max settings on my 970, though I may try to downsample. What's more important for me is that the game be released and I get to play it ASAP.seriously!!
? Isn't a 970 signficantly (like 25-30%) more powerful than a 980m? If it does "pretty well" at 1440p on a 970, how is a 980m going to do that with 60?
Take some comfort that the recommended is 750. She won't get 60 FPS, but neither should it be worse than consoles.
EDIT: Did not take into account used though. Hmm.
Yeah, I can't see a 980m doing 1440p60 100% consistently.
Self_Destructive
Member
Durante are you able to post some PC screenshots?
Mister Wolf
Member
By me turning off uneeded settings like motion blur, anti aliasing, and depth of field plus lowering some of those max settings to high.
Crimsonclaw111
Member
Hey Durante you said a 770 4GB is the oldest you got? Help me out and tell me how it runs on it if you're so inclined 
roadrunn3r
Member
I'm guessing a 960 would be perfect for 1080p 60fps at high settings from what's I'm reading.
You'll see a lot of those in my article. Maybe I'll inadvertently post some earlier than that.
That would require actually installing it. Which could mess with my setup and be really annoying. It might happen.Hey Durante you said a 770 4GB is the oldest you got? Help me out and tell me how it runs on it if you're so inclined
Nicely done.
Self_Destructive
Member
No jaggies, wow. BB had a shit ton.
This is a downsampled screenshot to be fair, but from the normal settings I use to play the game at 45-60 FPS on a GTX 970.
DOT DASH DOT
Member
What's your thoughts on it then? Up there with the best in the series?
Abilidebob
Member
You think the game will be easily moddable? At least some graphical enhancements like ENB and so on?