Ninja Sharingan
Banned
Have you seen this game? it is not uncharted or master chief collection or the last of us. Its completely re built and it looks leagues ahead of the original game. (apart from some rain)
Gears of War: UE PC performance thread
- Thread starter icecold1983
- Start date
Have you seen this game? it is not uncharted or master chief collection or the last of us. Its completely re built and it looks leagues ahead of the original game. (apart from some rain)
plagiarize
Banned
And even though the rain is worse looking, by what I heard it's more technically intensive and less faked now. Still, the faked stuff looked better.
Dictator93
Member
Does the PC version use more particles there? That was the main problem on xb1 IIRC. I mean, it was coming down as a light drizzle in the remaster instead of in thick torrential sheets.
GPU particles on console probably cannot be too thick in number.
Thank you.
dmix90
Member
Same here. I posted link to my screens on previous page in this thread. Restarted game like it suggests after changing texture setting and i think there is no difference in iq but big difference in performance....
sure, gimme 5 mins.
edit: there's a difference. look at the engraving on the pillar on the right (the swirls). looks 3D on 'highest'. you can see the groove. the cracks too. looks flat on 'medium'.
'Highest' Textures
'Medium' Textures
SliChillax
Member
There's only a lock framerate option in the menu, on or off. With the option set to on, game feels like it's running at less than 30fps, with framerate lock off framerate is good but there's too much stuttering and hitching.
That works wonderfully.Nothing happens, you mean the Game Bar doesn't show up when you press Win + G? Try to run the game in windowed mode then (ALT + ENTER). When the cutscene is over just hit ALT + ENTER and you're in fullscreen mode again.
Btw anyone else having stuttering and hitching during the campaign? Using a 980ti, i7 5820k, 16gb ram and it performs like ass.
PvP is buttery smooth compared to campaign. It's not just you. Game needs a patch or two.
Sorry, I missed your post earlier. Yeah, I'm seeing the same thing, it seems like there's no difference at all that's visible.
Thanks. I don't really see it, but that might mean POM is only on with the Highest setting. I'm wondering if things like that and texture filtering are the only real differences between the two.
The circles? It's just resolution and/or compression. Look at the cracks on the concrete (same pillar).
Dictator93
Member
I mean, if that is 2x 4x the texel density (probably dependent on the texture)... then that is what it would look like I guess.
dmix90
Member
Ignorance is a bliss
Especially noticeable in 4k. Now i see other muddy textures even on markus model. No way in hell i will notice that on my TV though so i guess medium will do. Still probably will wait for a few patches and hopefully mGPU support.
What are you talking about? Who are you talking to? DX12 despite being fully commercially available for what, nearly 12 months now, is still yet to see ANYTHING that indicates whether it is a net positive for games and gamers. There's a lot of hype pushed from both AMD and nVidia, but it's just not bearing fruit at all atm.
I should hope not? Why is this something that people proclaim with such smug satisfaction? You shouldn't have any issues with this on a 8800GTS. It looks minimally improved over the original.
dgrdsv
Member
I'm talking about the general feeling that because this game is running bad on AMD "DX12 is doomed" while the fact that it's running more or less fine on NV is completely ignored for some reason.
Seriously?
Original:
"Minimally improved":
How is that for "completely re built"?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-vs-gears-of-war-ultimate-edition said:
Dictator93
Member
Every single graphical asset was remade as far as I understand it. WHile the gameplay system were purposefully kept the same.
That is more to say than most next gen up-res's rereleased.
SliChillax
Member
Join Neogaf they said, they don't tolerate trolls they said. I like how everyone is an expert over graphics in here and they know better what hardware should run games optimally.
You be trolling or you be blind. Which is it?
Nostremitus
Member
If I buy a game on Windows Store, is it available on all of my PCs signed on using that account?
velociraptor
Junior Member
Still looks pretty bad to me.I'm talking about the general feeling that because this game is running bad on AMD "DX12 is doomed" while the fact that it's running more or less fine on NV is completely ignored for some reason.
Seriously?
Original:
"Minimally improved":
It's still vastly improved over the original, an 8800GT just wouldn't cut it with the new version
Triscuitable
Member
You know, trolls don't typically lay it on so thick. The improved lighting and geometry should be a dead giveaway, but if you're just going to keep being objectively wrong, nobody's gonna stop you.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
running like FUCKING TRASH on my 970 + i5 4670k
dgrdsv
Member
If you'll find me a better shots of the original from the first couple of levels I may find the time to make a comparison. This was the first shot I've stumbled on in Google.
dgrdsv
Member
980Ti runs it just fine. 980 and 970 are probably fine as well if you turn texture quality down to make them fit into 4GBs.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
It's not always that binary (Simple).
I kind of agree with him and I think it wrong that he is accused of being a troll because he doesn't see the 'dramatic' change that you or others may see, is there no middle ground?, Yes I can see there is a difference but I'm not a graphics expert and on the surface to me it doesn't look a lot different and I'm being genuinely honest, I think it's just a case of different people have a different scales of what they consider largely different.
I've seen people on here say that a game with no AA compared to a game with 4xAA is a massive difference, others would barely see it, I look at those two pictures and yes they look different in many respects but they also look very similar also, I mean they are the same game for a start with many similar components in them, for some people that is enough to be classified as similar, they are not seeing the extra 'tech' in the images.
You have to imagine sometimes that not everyone perceives things as you do.
well I dont think someone who is blind (cant see) should judge
High Fry Frow
Member
1440p, all max (save for blur), I get 59fps average with rare dips. GPU usage stays around 85% and CPU usage never passes 30%.
4790k
980 ti, OCed to 1400Mhz
16GB
SSD
But the frame pacing is janky as all balls. It gives the illusion of a game hovering around 30-40fps. Reminds me of Bloodbourne in that regard.
4790k
980 ti, OCed to 1400Mhz
16GB
SSD
But the frame pacing is janky as all balls. It gives the illusion of a game hovering around 30-40fps. Reminds me of Bloodbourne in that regard.
i have it maxed out with a 970 and its buttery smooth
Celcius
°Temp. member
Getting 57.62 avg fps @ 1080p max settings with 2600k @ 4.6ghz, 16gb ddr3 1600mhz, gtx 780 ti @ stock, samsung 840 pro 256gb ssd
Runs really smooth but sometimes it looks like textures haven't loaded or are taking a long time to load. Not sure if it's due to 3gb vram or just the game / engine.
Runs really smooth but sometimes it looks like textures haven't loaded or are taking a long time to load. Not sure if it's due to 3gb vram or just the game / engine.
nkarafo
Member
I love these comparison shots that show the supposed big graphical leap between the original and this. As if it means anything.
Doesn't matter if the difference is big or small. The original is a 10 years old game. The new version still looks like a 2010 game at best. Should be able to run on a modest PC with ease.
Doesn't matter if the difference is big or small. The original is a 10 years old game. The new version still looks like a 2010 game at best. Should be able to run on a modest PC with ease.
Yeah, a plain looking game runs fine on one of the most powerful cards you can buy. You also have to turn textures DOWN to fit into 4GB. So a 2GB card can only handle, what, low?
Celcius
°Temp. member
What's with PC GAF lately?
The original game is 10 years old, this is a fact.
"The new game looks like a 2010 game at best". This is an opinion.
"Should be able to run on a modest PC with ease". This is an opinion.
"a plain looking game". This is an opinion.
Unless you're a developer, I don't see how you're in a position to determine how the new game should run. How do you know how much memory the textures should take up? It does run on a modest pc with ease, check the minimum requirements:
Minimum Requirements
OS: 64 bit Windows 10 – version 1511
Processor: Intel Core i5 @ 2.7Ghz or AMD FX 6-core
Memory: 8 GB RAM (2 GB VRAM)
Graphics: Geforce GTX 650 Ti or Radeon R7 260x
Hard Drive: 60 GB available space
DirectX 12
Higher settings and resolutions will require more power.
holygeesus
Banned
People having issues with frame pacing need to turn off the frame limiting option.
dgrdsv
Member
This game is anything but "plain looking". And yeah, you probably have to go for "low" textures on 2GB card. Why is that surprise you in 2016 on PC?
That's just silly and completely incorrect.
Twilight Princess HD basically runs on the same engine with...new textures. That's it.
Gears Ultimate uses a massively overhauled and more modern version of Unreal Engine 3. Gears was basically the FIRST iteration of UE3 while Ultimate is using techniques in the last release of the engine.
KainXVIII
Member
He is right though - game looks plain, boring and flat. And DX12 flop don't help either.
People still amazed about the requirement, a 980Ti is recommended if you want max settings at 4K/60FPS.
970 if you want max at 1080P/60. Xbone is medium settings at 1080P/30FPS...when you consider all of that it makes sense.
Someone will tell you it doesn't matter how many iteration UE3 had because it is still UE3 and as such the same engine since engines can only belong to different generations if they have a different number at the end of their name.
But this is what I don't get when people say Gears UE is a remaster like Zelda HD or Twilight Princess HD. Gears UE is a remake with Gears 1 gameplay code, a remake does not necessarily has to change gameplay. It is a remake by the virtue that they had to remake every single bit and corner of the game except the gameplay engine (which has been tweaked and modified as well)
970 if you want max at 1080P/60. Xbone is medium settings at 1080P/30FPS...when you consider all of that it makes sense.
Someone will tell you it doesn't matter how many iteration UE3 had because it is still UE3 and as such the same engine since engines can only belong to different generations if they have a different number at the end of their name.
But this is what I don't get when people say Gears UE is a remaster like Zelda HD or Twilight Princess HD. Gears UE is a remake with Gears 1 gameplay code, a remake does not necessarily has to change gameplay. It is a remake by the virtue that they had to remake every single bit and corner of the game except the gameplay engine (which has been tweaked and modified as well)