So you think we need another driver update or a patch from Bioware for performance?
Absolutely (for both)
but why do you think it'll take Nvidia a long time to do that? I like their driver development
So you think we need another driver update or a patch from Bioware for performance?
As an experiment, I tried turning down Shadow, Terrain, Vegetation and Water quality from high to medium and benchmarks showed only a slight improvement of 5-7 frames.
yep, that happens to me when using Mantle, although normally only during loading.
Absolutely (for both)
but why do you think it'll take Nvidia a long time to do that? I like their driver development
Haven't tried messing with either much, is the visual quality very noticeable between settings? I tend to have a bad eye for differences with ambient options.I feel the only options that actually improve frames are the ambient occlusion and tessellation settings.
Yep, mantle gives better frames in CPU limited areas (lots of NPCs, like the crossroads in hinterlands), but in GPU limited situations (4xMsaa) it gives poorer frames, at least on my pc. Loading is much faster as well.Very strange. Have you tried jumping over to DX11? I did and it seems like the game is more stable now. Strange enough, it feels like I am getting the same FPS, if not similar, to what I got when I used Mantle. Going to have to switch on the FPS counter on my next session.
It's more a case that we just got a driver update for DA:I and I might be wrong but I rarely see two driver updates for the one game in a short span of time.
Plus with it being AMD focused in development. Tomb Raider suffered from a similar issue and it took forever for a driver update.
I feel the only options that actually improve frames are the ambient occlusion and tessellation settings.
Yeah it's more an issue with single player games imo.ah ok, I guess it depends on your definition of timeframe. I'm thinking in one or two months, the performance should be improved from both the Bioware and Driver sides
Which is a shame. Ultra effects look gorgeous. Best part of playing a Mage.also changing Effects from Ultra to High makes a difference too
I feel the only options that actually improve frames are the ambient occlusion and tessellation settings.
Yeah it's more an issue with single player games imo.
If it was something like Battlefield, Titanfall or another MP game, you could be playing that on a more long term basis.
Single player wise, I rarely haven't finished a game in 2 months unless I just stopped playing.
---
Which is a shame. Ultra effects look gorgeous. Best part of playing a Mage.
Is this what i should do to sort out the stuttering in the cutscenes?
I can definitely see a different. Fire attacks are much more detailed and vibrant. But it hits your fps hard.For Effects, do you think High really looks that much worse?
Yep that's correct.Is this what i should do to sort out the stuttering in the cutscenes?
![]()
I can definitely see a different. Fire attacks are much more detailed and vibrant. But it hits your fps hard.
I'd say leave it on high. Can't miss what you never had.ok got it. I only have a 680 and I read this thread carefully before even running the game
so I immediately turned Effects to High and haven't seen the Ultra version
I've heard this could break the game.Is this what i should do to sort out the stuttering in the cutscenes?
![]()
If hes lucky it wont just crash randomly.
Pardon my ignorance but what exactly does this do?
I've heard this could break the game.
The Resolution Scale option in the Graphics settings screen lets you lower the resolution that most of the game renders at by a specific fraction (e.g. if your display is set to 1920*1200, a resolution scale of 80% will render the game at 1536 * 960). It's capped at 100%, but you can use what I described to go over the limit. "1.5" will be a resolution scale of 150%, so the game will be rendered at 2880 * 1800, and downscale from there. Literally supersampling (or "downsampling") baked into the game.
And, speaking of which, lowering the Resolution Scale slightly (e.g. to 85 or 90%) can be another good alternative to improve performance with a, imo, fairly mild hit to image quality. It's especially a lot better than changing the resolution in the Display section, because all of the UI will be rendered at full resolution: think of the "Display" settings only as "How should the game display on the monitor I'm on", and "Graphics" as "How good does the game itself look". That's why Resolution Scale is under "Graphics".
Thanks for the info! Does this have any real impact to performance? I'm assuming it does.
Thanks for the info! Does this have any real impact to performance? I'm assuming it does.
Thanks for the info! Does this have any real impact to performance? I'm assuming it does.
To give you an example: At one point in the hinterlands, I tested a few different resolution scales. Default gave me 77 fps. 0.8 gave me 85 fps (CPU limited, it seems). 1.2, 1.5 and 1.8 gave me frame rates of 62, 46 and 36 respectively. It really kills performance, but it looks excellent. It also gets rid of some of the blur of post-AA, since the AA is applied to a larger image before being downsampled.
I'm getting over 70fps and yet it still feels like a stuttery uneven mess. Anything I can do to make it smoother? Vsync doesn't seem to help.
Having similar issues with FC4. Blegh.
Oh yeah. Probably one of the most significant impacts, in either direction. Much of the performance is dependent on # of pixels rendered, so increasing it one way or another can really save, or murder, your framerate.
thx for the numbers
What about 1.5 with both AA options completely off, how does that look??
I tried it out and boy is that a strain on my video card but it looks absolutely amazing!
Btw, I noticed GstRender.Mantle 0 in that same file. Does enabling this have any effect?
I've played for 12 hours and not had a single crash.
why is the volume so low in this game.
I have to turn my speakers way up just for it
+1
Why??? Any tips?
lol I noticed this too, it's weird
Are you sure you guys don't have it set to Home Theater? I don't know why, but that's what my game defaulted too. I switched it to Headphones and it got much better. The voices are still a bit muffled, as if the sound levels were not properly mixed, but at least I don't need to put my character's ears pointing at the character I'm talking to in order to hear something...
Take a look here.They are (in order): downsampling (resolution scale 1.5), msaa 4x, postAA only, downsampling AND postAA. The last one looks especially good to me.
Great, now I have to decide between playing @ 60 fps with postAA only or locking at 30 fps with amazing image quality.
Also don't go by the in-game Benchmark tool, it's terrible and not indicative. Just go by your real play experiences
Thrust me, go to Redcliffe and use that as a benchmark. Way better indicator of how well it runs.Came here looking for exactly this. I just spent 20 minutes of fairly dramatic settings tweaking without seeing significant changes with the in-game Benchmark tool. It always seems to report low 50's average and mid-40's minimum frame rate across any combination of High/Ultra settings on my GTX 780.
Should I consider getting another 290X for this, GTA5, and Witcher 3? I want to run all games at 1080P 60FPS maxed. Thank you for the advice. I have never done SLI of CF before and am leery.