Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [pcgameshardware]Witcher 3 benchmarks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[pcgameshardware]Witcher 3 benchmarks - Page 30

post #291 of 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
well this game runs fine on "ultra" on my 970 at 1080p... of course fine is relative... call it 50fps, sometimes it gets choppy though usually its sitting at 60fps. It's unplayable at 1440p on ultra.

I gotta say though, the graphics are trash. DA-I looks a lot better. really i'm surprised at how cartoony/poor the graphics are. i expected better. I chopped a bandit in half, and his model went from clean with no blood to dyed red shirt as his body split in two in a single frame. one moment clean the other dead. horrid. the foliage ranges from great to horrible, typically based on how close you are. the further away the foliage the worse it looks, the closer the better. for all the hubub about the hair effects, it's pretty poor looking, inside all the characters look like they're outlined.

seriously. THIS is the game that taxes a gtx970 in 1080p? hard to believe it.

this is just a poorly optimized console port. I expect the performance for everything will get a lot better in the coming months as the game gets patched and drivers come out. but right now i suspect it's just a game released too early and unfinished.

BTW: you have to play this game with a controller. i tried with keyboard and mouse, it's unplayable. my xbox controller works perfect.

-also, no crashes or bugs yet... so i'll give it props for that.

Thanks for the feedback. thumb.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2NINETY View Post

Its unplayable at 1440P for you with the 970? Runs great on my 290X all maxed except hairworks off but even with it on I was keeping 30-35fps.

What res are you running @?
post #292 of 461
This is running pretty good on my system at 4k max settings (HairWorks off + SSAO and a few settings off under Post Processing like Blur etc. because I don't like that crap). Getting about 35fps average which is exactly what I was expecting. I have it locked at 30fps and I've never seen anything under. Using a 360 controller and it's perfect.

I think the game looks very good overall. Does it look "perfect"? No, but I'm pretty happy.
One thing I have noticed that was bad was the night sky. It was very low res at times. Lame! rolleyes.gif

Game itself is pretty awesome though! biggrin.gif
post #293 of 461
While the game is somewhat choppy, I'm playing with an Xbox One controller wired up and it's great compared to mouse and keyboard. So far I'm still loving it despite graphics issues which is due to my GPUs. Not going to fault the game.
post #294 of 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by R2NINETY View Post

Its unplayable at 1440P for you with the 970? Runs great on my 290X all maxed except hairworks off but even with it on I was keeping 30-35fps.

In this title, I consider 30-35fps unplayable. (that's not always the case, there are many games where 30fps is fine, not this one)

and when i say ultra i mean maxed with everything on.

the fps was from 20-40 depending where i was. frankly i call that unplayable.
 
Deep-6
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5-4690K Asus Maximus VI Gene MSI GAMING 4G GTX 970 gskill sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 evo  Samsung 850 evo Thermalright HR-02 Macho Rev.B Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer K242hl Corsair Raptor K30 Seasonic X-650 Fractal Design Arc Mini R2 
MouseAudio
Logitech MX518 Sennheiser - MOMENTUM Over-the-Ear Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Deep-6
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5-4690K Asus Maximus VI Gene MSI GAMING 4G GTX 970 gskill sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 evo  Samsung 850 evo Thermalright HR-02 Macho Rev.B Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer K242hl Corsair Raptor K30 Seasonic X-650 Fractal Design Arc Mini R2 
MouseAudio
Logitech MX518 Sennheiser - MOMENTUM Over-the-Ear Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #295 of 461
Oh god... Titan on the same level as the 960/285/280X? Nvidia, what gives? My old 780 wouldn't be holding up so well now. :/
Edited by Serandur - 5/18/15 at 9:16pm
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #296 of 461
Specs in sig. 4K.

Post processing ALL off except HBAO+ and light shafts.

Main graphics all maxed except shadows on High and HairWorks off (of course).

Getting like 20-30fps.

290's are never maxed running 0 to 90-ish percent usage (random). CPU is equally whack seemingly never going over 40% on any core.

So yeah...graphics don't match performance at all. That and there are seemingly some pretty big optimization issues. Seems to not be GPU manufacturer specific issues either.

Anyone have some tips on Crossfire or is it just a driver/game issue?

In the end, graphics look pretty good. Definite downgrade for sure and certainly not some ground breaking stuff in the end. Let's hope someone fixes this stuff soon!
post #297 of 461
Ok, mea cupla time.

It appears that I did allow the common consensus and discredited German site's numbers to color my opinion of how my rig is performing now compared to early last year, before Maxwell's launch (at least as far as 3dmark is concerned). I just ran FS and 3dmark11 at similar clocks as some runs I did in May last year and to my surprise the current scores were slightly improved over last year. In the FS run last year my clocks were 1292MHz core and 3742MHz memory while I ran it this time at 1280MHz core and 3706MHz memory (ran my preset by accident so the clocks were slightly lower than last year's run) yet the score was slightly improved, despite the lower clocks (CPU was also at 4600MHz rather than 4700MHz as my 4930K won't do 4700MHz reliably anymore). In 3dmark11 I ran the same 1306Mhz core as last year but goofed and ran 3746MHz memory rather than last year's 3742MHz but that should be a negligible difference. Again, the current score was slightly better than last year's.

5/4/2014

5/19/2015

5/4/2014

5/19/2015


I owe you guys an apology. I don't appear to have lost any performance in the 3dmark tests with the latest drivers, but would be interested to see if any 980 users have improved dramatically in the same kind of scenario? I also am still not happy about how much better Maxwell is being optimized for in newer games than Kepler but I guess that is somewhat to be expected.

Anyway, yeah, I suck. redface.gif
Edited by Majin SSJ Eric - 5/18/15 at 9:10pm
post #298 of 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Ok, mea cupla time.

It appears that I did allow the common consensus and discredited German site's numbers color my opinion of how my rig is performing now compared to early last year, before Maxwell's launch (at least as far as 3dmark is concerned). I just ran FS and 3dmark11 at similar clocks as some runs I did in May last year and to my surprise the current scores were slightly improved over last year. In the FS run last year my clocks were 1292MHz core and 3742MHz memory while I ran it this time at 1280MHz core and 3706MHz memory (ran my preset by accident so the clocks were slightly lower than last year's run) yet the score was slightly improved, despite the lower clocks (CPU was also at 4600MHz rather than 4700MHz as my 4930K won't do 4700MHz reliably anymore). In 3dmark11 I ran the same 1306Mhz core as last year but goofed and ran 3746MHz memory rather than last year's 3742MHz but that should be a negligible difference. Again, the current score was slightly better than last year's. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
5/4/2014

5/19/2015

5/4/2014

5/19/2015
I owe you guys an apology. I don't appear to have lost any performance in the 3dmark tests with the latest drivers, but would be interested to see if any 980 users have improved dramatically in the same kind of scenario? I also am still not happy about how much better Maxwell is being optimized for in newer games than Kepler but I guess that is somewhat to be expected.

Anyway, yeah, I suck. redface.gif

Huge props for actually taking the time to test it for us. :thumbsup:

Edit: okay, seriously, what's the :code for the thumbs up icon. I've tried like 10 different things on my phone and none are right.
post #299 of 461
Sorry to you specifically Forceman, you were right.
post #300 of 461
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/26.html

So a 670 had a 32% lead over a 7970 and now the 7970 rebrand is faster? Suddenly, the 29% lead of the 780 is gone over a a 7970? Optimization is one thing, but 30% speed suddenly vaporizing is questionable, unless I missed something and the 280x isnt a 7970 rebranded and same goes for the 7870s...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [pcgameshardware]Witcher 3 benchmarks