Static Jak
Member
I like everything apart from Geralts hair. Just looks unnatural to me for some reason.
Anyway, going by those benchmarks, I won't be using it most of those settings.
-
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.
Witcher 3 PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter batman2million
- Start date
Anyway, going by those benchmarks, I won't be using it most of those settings.
Dictator93
Member
They didn't. I am an idiot who reads too quickly. Check out my post above.
AKA, the new ultra is a step above the old ultra. Not that a new preset showed up.
Static Jak
Member
So we could possibly save a lot of framerate by simply turning down those options?
Well, a lot of people call removing features "optimization"
Probably.
Like in every decently scalable game.
But some people equate not "maxing" the settings with losing their manhood. Or womanhood. Or whatever.
Like any other game, yes. But that also means you are getting closer to console equivalent settings.
Well, a lot of people call removing features "optimization"
Touche!
Bubba_Sparks
Member
Those benches point towards pretty poor performance. I can play GTAV at 1440p with everything set to high and get around 40-45fps on my 970. This game doesn't look that much better of better at all and it seems the perf is much worse.
Static Jak
Member
Yeah I'm just trying to get a decent idea of what hits framerate hardest beside the gamework settings.
Anyone have screenshots of the whole graphic settings menu?
KoruptData
Member
My wife wants to play this on her PC. I'm a lazy couch console gamer so I don't follow the PC scene much anymore since I gave her my old PC. It's a i7 2600 with a 2 GB 7850, 8 GB RAM. What should I expect to set this at? She is not big on 60 FPS so that's not a must.
BigWeather
Member
Praying my Alpha i3 12gb ram can pull off playability.
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
I think those benches have in game AA turned on. Assuming its 4x that may explain the lowered performance.
I hope anyway, my 780 and 1440p monitor can't take that frame rate.
I hope anyway, my 780 and 1440p monitor can't take that frame rate.
Hair looks great, but the song is just fucking amazing
I think I'm gonna listen to the OST tonight to get that hype going
Grechy34
Member
The i3 will be the probably be the bottleneck.
Kinda reminds me of the hair in AC:U. Each time the camera swapped you would see the hair re-adjust.
Ah no worries.
Max is such a weird phrase. It doesn't even imply best looking. There are numerous effects activated during max in numerous games, such as motion blur and depth of field, that only makes the game uglier, while killing frames in the process.
It's also frustrating how benchmarks are often done in max or ultra and then they leave it at that. It's pretty ridiculous as most people won't even be playing in those settings. low-mid-high benchmarks are of equal, if not greater importance.
That doesn't make it any less true though. I feel I can call a game unoptimized when other open world games look better and run better.
Daaayum
Grechy34
Member
Not really it will run and look great on most modern PC's. It's gaf though. If you can't see every hair strand then mostwillnotplay/10.
Static Jak
Member
Yeah I always turn off DoF and Motion Blur. Had to turn off Bloom in Witcher 2 as well because it looked awful.
BigWeather
Member
Yeah, I'm not expecting much -- hoping it'll perform slightly better than the PS4.
RazorbackDB
Member
It wouldn't surprise if they turned all the sliders to the max because of all the downgrade talk, opposite Dying Light LOD situation, I'm sure dropping to high or even just turning down the more demanding settings the game will perform a lot better, didn't PCGH said it was running fine on ultra on a 770 before?
Static Jak
Member
I'd like to see if there is a frame limiter option. It'd be nice to have the option instead of having to go through Nvidia settings each time.
theignoramus
Member
Welp....time for an upgrade. 22 fps on the 770 wont cut it. Dial back effects to what, console settings for decent performance? I wont have it. Bought this game on Steam for a reason.
Good call. The previous version only had an AA on - off toggle. And it was only believed to be FXAA. But what the newest version actually uses we don't know I believe.
Jesus christ. According to this graph I will be around 45fps with my card. Well that pretty much gives me no reason to NOT cap the game at 30. Which gives me more reason to shoot for a higher resolution... Seems i really will end up with 1440p 30fps with Gameworks on a 780 Ti after all... Yum yum.
Grechy34
Member
Mix of medium to high with HBAO and some of the fancier settings turned down you'll get 30FPS on high I reckon. Wild prediction though. Those specs are still decent.
Highly doubt that has changed.
CyberPunked
Member
Hair looks nice. Didn't know they had cloth physics and destructuon in so that's a treat.
Gonna spend tonight tweaking the config files, I need a good LOD.
Gonna spend tonight tweaking the config files, I need a good LOD.
Actually, the fact that it does have real ultra settings is reason for joy.
UnrealEck
Member
Since I don't have the game yet, I can't be sure. But I don't believe the game will ultimately perform as poorly as the benchmarks linked to in this thread suggest. At least not with Gameworks features disabled.
Probably looking at 50-60 FPS on the preset below ultra. Unless of course they're changing the ultra preset to make it more graphically sparkling.
Hard to say without benchmarks of the same build and drivers they used.
Static Jak
Member
Oh god, really?
Onimusha78
Member
£1000 on a gaming PC last month and I'll probably get 42fps. Feel like breaking this thing apart and sending the parts back where they came from
Or you can put the game at console settings and get 3 times the console framerate.£1000 on a gaming PC last month and I'll probably get 42fps. Feel like breaking this thing apart and sending the parts back where they came from
Or put it at maximum settings at higher resolution and get the same framerate.
But no, it would be much better if they kept out the real maximum settings so that everyone can get that maxxxxed 60 FPS.
What? No, the chart on this very page shows that its performance hit is very small. Considering how much better HBAO+ is than the default that's one of the last things I'd turn off.
Static Jak
Member
Yeah but HBAO+ usually looks great.
The ini-files had MSAA in them, right? So maybe they added those options, but yeah I don't think so aswell. And according to those benches a 980 should get around 50ish average fps right? Well and NVIDIA's recommendations were for 40 fps... so yeah, probably spot on those benchmarks.
Yep.
£1000 on a gaming PC last month and I'll probably get 42fps. Feel like breaking this thing apart and sending the parts back where they came from
No need to play with ultra settings. Playing with high should catapult you above 60 easily.
£1000 on a gaming PC last month and I'll probably get 42fps. Feel like breaking this thing apart and sending the parts back where they came from
I feel pretty confident you can hit a nice, relatively stable 60fps.
10-15 frames...? Wait what? Can someone confirm? Or is it sarcasm. I really don't know :/
The files also explicitly said MSAA is not currently supported. It requires engine level changes as they don't currently support any hardware AA solution. Highly doubt they are making new engine features at this point during crunch time
According to this chart, it's 3 frames.
Static Jak
Member
The ini-files had MSAA in them, right? So maybe they added those options, but yeah I don't think so aswell. And according to those benches a 980 should get around 50ish average fps right? Well and NVIDIA's recommendations were for 40 fps... so yeah, probably spot on those benchmarks.
Yep.
I hate when they do that.