• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

The Witcher 3 Benchmarks

By fixing the FPS to 30, i'm finding it runs really well on max settings inc hairworks at 1440p. A lot of people won't want to run it at 30FPS, but it seems fine to me. Same as Kaap though in terms of GPU usage, both sitting there on around 70% usage, GTA makes my cards work harder.

It's interesting reading Kaaps comments on VRAM usage as I assumed I would struggle with 3GB on my 780ti setup, but no problem at all. No burning desire for me to upgrade just yet.

EDIT: I should calrify, I tried running the game without it being fixed at 30FPS and seemed to hover around 35-40 with some dips to 29. I prefered to just stick it to 30, less noticable drops. I have not tried to run it with Hairworks off, I like the effects too much.
 
Everything max with hairworks turned off i get a solid 60,dips down to 58 59 sometimes,but smooth as butter.

Hairworks tanks performance,smooth 60>fluctuating 50's anyday


Also grass/foilage is really incosnsistant,some of it looks great,other parts of it look pretty bad :/
 
Is it true that the graphics options go all the way down to 1024x768. If so it will definitely run on my sons i3 and 750ti.
 
Bizarre thing is that W3 looks best on PS4 on my TV in the lounge 46" Samsung.

VS PS4 / PC + Titan X on 1080P Dell Monitors.

I think large screen and sofa is the best way to play this..
 
MrMD said:
Everything max with hairworks turned off i get a solid 60,dips down to 58 59 sometimes,but smooth as butter.

Hairworks tanks performance,smooth 60>fluctuating 50's anyday


Also grass/foilage is really incosnsistant,some of it looks great,other parts of it look pretty bad :/
Click to expand...

Same experiance here mate on msi 970, very happy with it
 
At 3440x1440 i have to turn everything to low and still cant get a solid 60. If i go down to 2560x1080 i get about 80ish on low.. The second i start turning up a few settings ill end below 60 again.. This game is running utter crap atm on my 780 lightning. Btw the game on low looks awwful.. I guess ill have to wait cause im not playing this game at 30 locked just to have something bearable to look at.
 
it does seem that the level of disquiet is increasing amongst the PC gaming posters generally across threads and games...its all getting a bit 'antsy' (moreso than usual :-))..

I guess NVIDIA have the most to loose if trust in PC gaming tanks what with 70+% of dGPU market....NVIDIA must want to see the pc games market thrive..and that probably means having a stronger ATI with a happy core hardware base across all vendors that developers are confident in....so any alledged anti-competitive behaviour re eg. gameworks that hurts general confidence doesnt sound like a long term play even if in the short it makes them look good on some titles.

This level of disquiet just makes me want to hold out for the new world order even more (DX12/16nm)

Have to agree that GTA V felt well optimised for PC.
 
Already had quite a few times where the game just stops and bringing up the task manager shows it's not responding.

Could be Windows 10/drivers or maybe it's just the game is unstable.
 
surprised some are winging about R9 performance

seems to be running just fine on my oc'd 290 @ 1080p - all Ultra apart from Hair-works off and Veg to high

getting high 50s
 
VincentHanna said:
Already had quite a few times where the game just stops and bringing up the task manager shows it's not responding.

Could be Windows 10/drivers or maybe it's just the game is unstable.
Click to expand...

I had this a few times when in the inventory,updated to latest drivers(from 347.88),seemed to have fixed it ,6 hours no issues.
 
A lot of folks have been saying this game scales well in SLI. So a request for those who'd be kind enough: If you have SLI/CF GPU, can you post the benchmarks for the multi-GPU alongside single GPU (just disable the extra) on the same settings so that we can see the performance difference of SLI/CF. I don't believe anything until I see the cold hard numbers to prove it. Thanks!
 
The (as far as I've gotten) constant moving of trees is really irritating now. Some movement is great, but everything moving all the time is more unrealistic than nothing moving at all. Saw it in the video posted a few days ago and it's more irritating in game. Trees on a hill swaying, sure, a tiny bush alongside a stone wall inside a castle... no it shouldn't be constantly swaying in the wind. I wonder how much performance is being wasted with the constant tree/foliage moving.

Some good textures, some really quite rubbish looking ones. Again I saw in the videos and feel the same after playing in game, character models look pretty tame compared to most games around these days. Chain mail that is clearly a flat texture and looks terrible up close.

I feel like this is once again gameworks implemented poorly. Lets make everything move and apply physics to every tree and bush then make them move so the user knows physics is working every second of the entire game... be damned if it's realistic or irritating as hell, be damned if the performance means massive downgrades in quality in everything else compared to early videos.

Performance isn't actually bad on a single 290, it's just I feel not great for the given level of quality for the game. IN general I think the graphical downgrade and where that performance has been spent instead makes for a poor overall impression. I'd take non moving bushes and better texture quality.
 
Im surprised I get 55 fps on average on all Low settings with a GTX 580 at 1920x1200.

I know people say there's little difference between Low and High, but boy are the texture muddy messes on low. I got to the hangman's tree, the camera pans towards what's supposed to be a Crow. What do I see?

Playdough birdy haha!

At least it's playable, took me 6 hours and I just left White Orchid. Although it's not nearly as "open world" as they promised. Too many times I was chasing a monster only to have the game say I'm out of the playable area, and then port me back.

I'm excited to get my replacement Titan X to play this at 1440p with G-Sync on High.

Screenshot on a hill on all low running on the GTX 580
RsN6ZX9.png

Have to say I'm extremely disappointed with the graphical fidelity compared to what they showed in 2013 for ingame footage.

I wish we got that 2013 version with some proper optimisation.
RyRafWG.gif
 
Last edited:
That 2013 to 2015 is a very poor example on how the actual game looks.

Here are some screenshots I took earlier using a sweet fx profile which are a much better indication. You can make it not that far away from the 2013 just by changing the cartoonish colours of the retail version.

SpGPPoh.jpg


zNbQoRj.jpg


uXB6mft.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom