You can check if G-Sync is on by enabling the overlay from the NVIDIA control panel G-Sync -> Display (top bar) -> G-Sync indicator.
-
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.
The Division PC performance thread
- Thread starter JaseC
- Start date
You can check if G-Sync is on by enabling the overlay from the NVIDIA control panel G-Sync -> Display (top bar) -> G-Sync indicator.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Only getting between 65 and 70% usage on my 970s in SLI.
Any inspector tips/downloads to help with this?
I feel like if I was using closer to 90% of my GPU's I could push it to 4K instead of settling for 1440p.
Any inspector tips/downloads to help with this?
I feel like if I was using closer to 90% of my GPU's I could push it to 4K instead of settling for 1440p.
It offers great performance considering how good it is (e.g. it's only a bit more expensive than most high end standard AO solutions, but is most often a lot better).
Do you have your CPU overclocked? It could help with that if you're experiencing some low gpu usage due to a bottlenecked cpu.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
3770k, not overclocked.
Never had to worry about it being the bottleneck before.
Are people running into 3770k's bottlenecking their rigs?
Yeah, that seems like a pretty good explanation, thanks for that. So if you have a reasonably fast nvidia card, then HBAO+ should be one of the last visual goodies to disable, because you would get a very small performance increase at a cost of considerable visual quality decrease.
Luckily, I don't like PCSS at all, my mind is conditioned to like sharp shadows better, even if it's not realistic. Get more blurry shadows AND fps drop at the some time? Not for me, thanks.
http://international.download.nvidi...tive-comparison-1-nvidia-pcss-vs-softest.html
http://international.download.nvidi...teractive-comparison-1-nvidia-pcss-sharp.html
Sharp shadows FTW!
your CPU has a K. Use it for what it was intended to be used for! Overclock that thing.. it's almost criminally easy! Get yourself to 4.5ghz.
Any CPU can be a bottleneck to some degree. Some engines love a high clock on the CPU, which will help keep the minimum frametimes as high as possible.
Anyone with a K-CPU should really use all that extra power they have paid for, especially when it is so easy to OC. While it might not increase your max FPS, it certainly will help keep the minimum frametimes as high as possible.
Your CPU usage is probably pegged at 100%, especially with no OC. That will cause your GPU usage to not be up to par as they are waiting on PC cycles.
This seemingly being a nvidia licensed game (or whatever they call it) but getting better performance on amd's cards in the beta has me worried as a person using an amd card.
I don't want to be one of those conspiracy theorists, I don't buy into the whole team red and team green crap but nvidia has been known to do shady things before. And I doubt they're happy that a game they're backing is getting superior performance on their oppositions cards. Especially when that game is more than likely going to be very popular.
I'm sort of worried that they're going to do something to botch amd's performance on the actual release because minus a few issues it ran pretty well on high settings for me.
In my case I'm motherboard limited. Trying to go over 4.0ghz on my i5 2500k causes the computer to instantly crash. Guess that's what I get for getting a sub $100 gigabyte motherboard.
I don't want to be one of those conspiracy theorists, I don't buy into the whole team red and team green crap but nvidia has been known to do shady things before. And I doubt they're happy that a game they're backing is getting superior performance on their oppositions cards. Especially when that game is more than likely going to be very popular.
I'm sort of worried that they're going to do something to botch amd's performance on the actual release because minus a few issues it ran pretty well on high settings for me.
In my case I'm motherboard limited. Trying to go over 4.0ghz on my i5 2500k causes the computer to instantly crash. Guess that's what I get for getting a sub $100 gigabyte motherboard.
eman4ever
Member
Digital Foundry just posted this comparing Gtx 970 and AMD R9 390 running on a i7 4790k for those still wondering who has not played the beta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne8VWuE2a4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne8VWuE2a4
Dictator93
Member
Very interesting results. GCN showing some awesome advantage here in those indoor scenes.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Yeah, the K in the name stands for "Keep it overclocked"
I have a non overclocked 4690k with stock fan. What's the best guide to use so I don't kill my cpu?
I wouldn't OC when using stock fan and would first invest into some Noctua or similar air cooler. Intel stock fan solutions are horrendous when it comes to cooling OC'd CPU and are super loud. I guess it's why they don't even ship those things with Skylake-K models.
I have the same CPU (2 actually, another in my sons PC). Basically don't OC with the stock fan, The k already runs in turbo up to 3.9ghz when in heavy load, and under the stock fan can get really warm already. So if your thinking about OCing, start with a new cooler.
<beaten like a step-child>
What Comrade said, start by installing a third party fan. Personally I swear by Thermalright HR-02 Macho (and not just because of the name).
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Thermalright/Macho_RevB/9.html
It's smooth sailing from there, there are dozens of overclocking guides on the internet, I bet gaf has one too.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Thermalright/Macho_RevB/9.html
It's smooth sailing from there, there are dozens of overclocking guides on the internet, I bet gaf has one too.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Thanks guys. I'll probably pick that Thermalright one and get that installed.
Wow. Huge difference at times.
How's SLI performance for everyone? For me, it didn't seem like SLI was working. Both 980 Ti's were showing high usage percentage but I don't believe it as I was only getting about 55 FPS either maxed or close to maxed. This is at 1440p. Game was sluggish almost like G-Sync wasn't working. Will test more tonight.
icecold1983
Member
jesus. 20 to 33% some of the time
Smushroomed
Banned
You need to turn off local reflections completely for ski to work
Gormenghast
Member
So, conclusion:
an i7 + 970 can't get anywhere close to a 1080p/60 fps lock, at similar console settings possible. More like dips to 40s.
Console level parity can't be even remotely reached if you go under i5/960, and probably it's not enough for a 30 fps lock either.
That puts a 970 only very slightly ahead of a ps4.
Confirming what I said: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=193893851&postcount=187
an i7 + 970 can't get anywhere close to a 1080p/60 fps lock, at similar console settings possible. More like dips to 40s.
Console level parity can't be even remotely reached if you go under i5/960, and probably it's not enough for a 30 fps lock either.
That puts a 970 only very slightly ahead of a ps4.
Confirming what I said: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=193893851&postcount=187
Dictator93
Member
Huh?
Did you see the resolution of the world and spotlight shadows on PS4 in comparison to their performance settings for the 970 article? The DF report did not even analyse correctly what the actualy settings for volumetrics were. Your conclusion is presumptuous.
Letalone your second statement which is unfounded in any sort of comparative data. There is no "confirmation of what you said". You are extrapolating on non-information.
The game looks and runs surprisingly well on consoles, considering their (lack of) power.
There must have been some breakthroughs in optimization made, just compare this game to another ubi game on a supposedly "new, netx-gen engine" - watch dogs:
900p vs 1080p, framedrops vs rock stable 30fps, fake reflections vs local reflections, etc.
Baically, in less than two years between releases, Division looks better than W_D, at higher resolution and with higher framerate. That is impressive.
There must have been some breakthroughs in optimization made, just compare this game to another ubi game on a supposedly "new, netx-gen engine" - watch dogs:
900p vs 1080p, framedrops vs rock stable 30fps, fake reflections vs local reflections, etc.
Baically, in less than two years between releases, Division looks better than W_D, at higher resolution and with higher framerate. That is impressive.
Anyone knows what "auto" settings does. Is this adaptive vsync? I just read a comment under DF tech analysis ( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-the-division-pc-tech-analysis ) saying: "the Auto V-Sync setting is particularly impressive." so it piqued my interest.
This is because it's a completely different engine that cannot be compared.
I've fiddled around with this during the PC beta for a bit and it appears to be some kind of "software-freesync" (yeah, yeah, I know).
I had some input lag with Vsync turned on, had some tearing with Vsync turned off (when my FPS dipped from 60 to mid 30s) but with this option on "auto" I experienced neither tearing not input lag. Was quite impressed, to be honest, might be placebo of some sort?!
I know these are different engines, but that does not mean that these two games cannot be compared based on some aspects. I am comparing graphics quality, rendering resolution and framerate of two third person open world game games by the same publisher. There is a huge performance and graphical leap between these two games, despite the fact that the hardware remains the same.
Thanks for the explanation, I am usually wary of any "auto" settings so I did not use it. Hopefully it will be possible to test it further during the open beta.
Both games have different objectives
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I played a good 5 hours of the beta at 1080/60 on a 970+3770k. It held 60 fps just fine.
What graphical settings did you lower to achieve that? According to Digital Foundry dropping all settings to high and shadows to medium and substantially overclocking the card still did not allow them to achieve locked 60fps on 970 at 1080p, so I am curious how did you achieve that.
I achieved locked 60fps at 1080p on overclocked 980Ti after the following "downgrades":
Shadow Quality: High (notch down from PCSS+)
Particle detail: High (notch down from Ultra)
Volumetric fog: High (notch down from Ultra)
Object detail: 80% (max is 100%)
Extra streaming distance: 80% (max is 100%)
This might have been a tad too aggressive, it's possible that leaving the last two options at 100% would make no difference. But definitely the single biggest performance sapper are PCSS+ shadows. Luckily I don't like their realistic blurred look, so I gladly disabled them.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-the-division-pc-tech-analysis said:
I achieved locked 60fps at 1080p on overclocked 980Ti after the following "downgrades":
Shadow Quality: High (notch down from PCSS+)
Particle detail: High (notch down from Ultra)
Volumetric fog: High (notch down from Ultra)
Object detail: 80% (max is 100%)
Extra streaming distance: 80% (max is 100%)
This might have been a tad too aggressive, it's possible that leaving the last two options at 100% would make no difference. But definitely the single biggest performance sapper are PCSS+ shadows. Luckily I don't like their realistic blurred look, so I gladly disabled them.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Yeah, me too. No idea where all that was coming from. Most of my settings were on high as well.
Oh good. I thought I was the only one.
Glad I could validate your preference
Friend played beta on 970, had everything on high, shadows on medium and he reported frequent drops below 60.
You had no drops below 60fps? Is your card heavily oc'ed?
Friend played beta on 970, had everything on high, shadows on medium and he reported frequent drops below 60.
Smushroomed
Banned
I feel bad for ever saying that a 970 was perfect for 1080, and that 980ti was overkill
Glad I could validate your preference
You had no drops below 60fps? Is your card heavily oc'ed?
Friend played beta on 970, had everything on high, shadows on medium and he reported frequent drops below 60.
Maybe your friend meant ultra? I didn't get common sub 60s until I turned on ultra settings. On my GTX970 and I5 4690k it took a very large firefight in the DZ to get me in the 50's when limited to high settings. If I mixed in some mid&low I could keep it over 100 fps (which I felt was more representative of the console versions). Honestly, the game still looked good with that, which is why the console versions are getting such fanfare IMO.
Example:
Low running 120fps
Ultra running 49fps
But I mostly played at ultra and ran 45-75 fps because it still felt super smooth. Any other games with FPS bouncing around that much would be a stuttery, screen tearing mess. The Division was great in that regard.
Dictator93
Member
Who really knows atm. The game could have seen and might see driver and dev improvements between now and then. One can put everything to ultra without HBAO+ or PCSS and be pretty close to 60 I imagine?
icecold1983
Member
assuming perf is similar to closed beta, no pcss should get you close if you have a good oc
Judging from the Closed Beta, I am pretty sure you can achieve smooth 60 FPS in 1080p with everything on a mixture of Ultra/High (depending on your CPU, but my OC'ed 3570k never ran at 100%).
You'll have to fiddle around a bit with the AA settings and the more demanding options, I guess.
Furthermore, with their amazing Auto-Vsync I have never experienced any significant input lag and/or tearing even when my FPS dipped into the 50s and high 40s.
Also, expect some driver optimizations after launch.
Bottom line: you'll be just fine @ 1080p with High settings!
ISee
Member
My oc isn't crazy but okish and I'm already used to turn off PCSS. Overall this sounds more promising than I expected and high with some extra for ~60 is good enough for me. thx.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Wow, the AMD performance seems really good.
The Nvidia framerates seem disappointing if I'm honest.
The Nvidia framerates seem disappointing if I'm honest.
One thing I noticed in the closed beta was that Particle Quality also seemed to affect smoke and gave me massive fps jumps if turned down.
I did a test standing next to a burning barrel and on ultra particle quality, i would drop to 45 fps while on medium it would basically look exactly the same but run at 60fps.
Quite interesting.
I did a test standing next to a burning barrel and on ultra particle quality, i would drop to 45 fps while on medium it would basically look exactly the same but run at 60fps.
Quite interesting.
texhnolyze
Banned
Ok, not sure if it's because of DX11.1 (I was on Win7) or they did some optimization since the last beta. I got significant performance improvements right now. I can now play the game on everything high at 1080p without dipping below 30fps ever. I only use supersampling temporal AA but no MSAA. On the previous beta, I had to set everything on medium to gain mostly 30-ish fps. And it still dipped to below 30 in certain conditions. I'm certainly pre-ordering the game soon, because performance was my only concern.
Gareth Bale
Member
Can you not turn off temporal AA? What's this stabilisation TAA?
Dictator93
Member
If it works like the way I think it does: that would be a TAA which kicks in on the camera move (and maybe when objects move?) to reduce signal change. While the super sampling option jitters the screen by subpixels all the time and accumulates samples for AA.
The Stabilisation one would lead to more aliased but "clearer" standing screenshots, while Super Sampling option would lead to less aliased but arguably softer standing screenshots.
texhnolyze
Banned
Gareth Bale
Member
Lots of stuttering when moving into new areas
Cheers. Shame there isn't an option to not run with neither.
Cheers. Shame there isn't an option to not run with neither.