PC performance thread

[Ulminati]

Show me the difference between SweetFX shaders and normal pl0x.

https://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/3696/ bunch of comparison shots here.
SweetFX eats a couple of FPS, but it's not too bad. And I like the texture sharpening in foliage and grass. Helps with green blob syndrome.

 

[Irxy]

Guise, don't use this hairworks crap. It's a pointless framerate sink and an evil Nvidia scheme to sell you $1000 cards.

Well, it looks good but barely noticable outside of cutscenes and dialogs.
Also TressFX from AMD both looked and worked better in Tomb Raider - even on NVIDIA cards.

 

[taxalot]

I have an AMD 6950 , 2 GB, and I am running the game on Medium with Anti Aliasing, some post processing, and , oh my god can you believe this shit, Ultra textures. It works perfectly.

 

[Jimmious]

I have an AMD 6950 , 2 GB, and I am running the game on Medium with Anti Aliasing, some post processing, and , oh my god can you believe this shit, Ultra textures. It works perfectly.

Really? I thought they said 6900 Series was "below minimum"! That would be interesting news

 

[taxalot]

Yeah, supposedly below minimum, but I get performance that is comparable with the PS4 version, with graphics that are higher.

My 6950 is slightly overclocked, and so is my I7-960 , but I doubt that makes a huge difference.

 

[Irxy]

I have an AMD 6950 , 2 GB, and I am running the game on Medium with Anti Aliasing, some post processing, and , oh my god can you believe this shit, Ultra textures. It works perfectly.

Btw there is no texture quality difference between high and ultra, the only difference is that ultra cashes more textures in VRAM if you have >2Gb of it for smoother horse riding, thus it might be overall better to use high texture setting for <2Gb cards.

 

[Jimmious]

So I guess with my 6970, Quad Core Q8sth and 8GB of Ram I could actually play this? That's.... tempting.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

So I guess with my 6970, Quad Core Q8sth and 8GB of Ram I could actually play this? That's.... tempting.

Easily.

 

[sser]

I updated my 970's drivers and it almost fucking bricked my computer. Had to system restore. Good stuff as always, NVIDIA.

The game doesn't run nearly as well as it should with my computer, but it runs. It also looks amazingly beautiful even without all the bells and whistles turned on, but I wouldn't say it's a big leap from the 2nd game as those graphics totally blew me out of the water. I guess that's the cost of 'open world.'

 

[AetherVagrant]

So I guess with my 6970, Quad Core Q8sth and 8GB of Ram I could actually play this? That's.... tempting.

Dude my rig isnt even that high and im enjoying it like whoah. Just stoked i can dick around with this and check some witcher dick instead of working on underrail and aod before their releases. wasnt planning on being able to handle the game, but especially after the last patch it runs great. especially if youre diligent about background tasks, dont have steam running, that kind of shyte.

 

[Jimmious]

Well damn, I was hoping to stay hardcore and not get this one. I'm tempted, I wanna see bewwwbs

 

[oddech_wymarlych_swiatow]

Wiedźmin 3 runs on:

- Nvidia GeForce 550 Ti, 1GB Vram, slightly OCed from 900Mhz~960Mhz
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2 CPUs) 2,13 Ghz~3Ghz
- 4096MB RAM 800 Mhz Kingston
- Win 7 64-bit

Spoiler

Pretty nice looking and smooth, I had to play W2 on lowest setting / 800x600 on weaker hardware but surprisingly there is a chance for my old rig to run W3.

 

[MicoSelva]

Wiedźmin 3 runs on:

- Nvidia GeForce 550 Ti, 1GB Vram, slightly OCed from 900Mhz~960Mhz
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2 CPUs) 2,13 Ghz~3Ghz
- 4096MB RAM 800 Mhz Kingston
- Win 7 64-bit

Pretty nice looking and smooth

What resolution do you run it at and what rame rate are you getting?

 

[Great Deceiver]

I expected the game to run better on my rig - i5 3570K@4.4ghz, gtx 770. Getting 35-45 fps mostly on ultra with hairworks off and a couple things turned down to high (foliage rendering distance is the most impactful one).

In other games, benchmark differences between a 970 and a 770 are on the order of 20-30%, this game runs at a locked 60fps on a 970, same processor. I'm not usually one to give credence to driver rumours (i.e. game is purposefully gimped on the Kepler family of cards now), but something definitely feels fishy for this one.

 

[Zeriel]

I expected the game to run better on my rig - i5 3570K@4.4ghz, gtx 770. Getting 35-45 fps mostly on ultra with hairworks off and a couple things turned down to high (foliage rendering distance is the most impactful one).

In other games, benchmark differences between a 970 and a 770 are on the order of 20-30%, this game runs at a locked 60fps on a 970, same processor. I'm not usually one to give credence to driver rumours (i.e. game is purposefully gimped on the Kepler family of cards now), but something definitely feels fishy for this one.

Memory might play a role, stock 770 has pretty low memory for a modern game. People say Witcher 3 rarely exceeds 2GB of memory usage, but you never want to have exactly what a game uses as your total VRAM.

 

[Great Deceiver]

According to the RTSS (Rivatuner Statistics Server) OSD, which I have on all the time, the game has never reached 2GB VRAM usage (it usually hovers around 1.8-1.9). Also, the performance impact of running out of VRAM is very specific and dramatic - it's not a framerate decrease, but rather a pause while the game caches textures from the slower, main system RAM. I get that if I try to run GTA5 at 4k on ultra textures, for example, but I haven't experienced anything like that on TW3.

 

[Zeriel]

Memory usage meters don't seem to be very accurate for performance purposes for whatever reason. Far Cry 4 never used all of my memory on my old video card for some reason, but it had massive stuttering due to texture streaming issues that all disappeared the moment I upgraded to a 4GB card.

Not saying that's what's going on here, but it is a possibility.

 

[Zeriel]

Also, I don't think it's a Witcher 3 specific issue. 770 just has a lot less power, the delta is more like 50% and more rather than the 20-30% you're citing, even on older games.

Source:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1037

There is some last-gen issues with Nvidia's drivers when it comes to tesselation/gameworks but that shouldn't be an issue if you are actually toggling the crazy features off.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Yeah, I'm turning hairworks off and I'm not trying 4k resolution or anything like that. Oh well, I'll try to resist the temptation of plunking down another 350USD a year after buying a card. Guess the 770 was a bit of a clunker.

 

[oddech_wymarlych_swiatow]

Wiedźmin 3 runs on:

- Nvidia GeForce 550 Ti, 1GB Vram, slightly OCed from 900Mhz~960Mhz
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2 CPUs) 2,13 Ghz~3Ghz
- 4096MB RAM 800 Mhz Kingston
- Win 7 64-bit

Pretty nice looking and smooth

What resolution do you run it at and what rame rate are you getting?

It's not my movie, I have a slightly less powerful PC - Core 2 Duo 2,8 GHZ, 3 Ghz RAM, Geforce 9500 GT and I don't mind to play W3 even in 640x480.

 

[AetherVagrant]

Nice. its not my favorite, but it can be sorta cool to play newer games in low resolutions. especially if that's the only way theyre smooth -- on just imagines he is playing the sweetest-piece of undiscovered ass from 10odd years ago.
I hate my 1080p 40" tv though. its too big for being up close, things dont even look close to hd unless its at native rez, the response time sucks making it look slightly jittery (like a theatre screen) during intense action..
i keep telling my gf if we stumble across an old 21 or 22" crt monitor i want it as my nose-to-the-screen game station

 

[J_C]

Looks like it looks worse than The Witcher 2? lol

I thought the same at firts, looking at the pictures, but after running the game, I can safely say that it looks better than TW2 even at medium settings. Not by a long shot, but it is a step forward.

Anyway, the game runs with 25-35 fps on a rig like this: AMD Athlon II X4 955, Ati HD6870, 8 GB DD2 RAM, Windows 7 64 bit. Detail level: High, everything else is low and medium. The bottleneck is the GPU, it would run much better with a little better graphics card.

 

[norolim]

The game is very well optimised. Runs 40-60 FPS on my rig: GTX 570, i5-4760, 8 GB RAM, Win 7. My settings are a combination of High and Ultra with just a few options set to Low (in those cases where higher settings make no difference or very little difference), only useful post-processing on and Hairworks off.

 

[Sensuki]

That's average-mediocre optimization, actually.

 

[Irxy]

It's not my movie, I have a slightly less powerful PC - Core 2 Duo 2,8 GHZ, 3 Ghz RAM, Geforce 9500 GT and I don't mind to play W3 even in 640x480.

Well, 9500 is not slightly less powerfull than 550ti but more like ~5x times slower.
Also, you need a dx11 card.