Or they showed a spiced up demo as most of developers do these days.
-
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
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
Or they showed a spiced up demo as most of developers do these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,327
- Location
- UK.
Regarding the Titan X, I do remember reading a while ago somewhere (dont quote me on that), how games in development but coming out in the future will need Titan X level of performance as a base line. (I.e 1080p)
Jeezus, I was hoping to keep this card for 1080P for a while. Looks like it's back to the norm then. Waiting on 390X and then Nvidia Pascal..
It's bonkers that PS4 VS PC (Ultra) look almost identical @ 1080P yet the disparity in GPU power needed doesn't make any sense. A PS4 with 7850 / 7870 level GPU and PC with Titan X... We know that PS4 is closer to the metal, but really a 7850 VS Titan X producing similar visuals... Crazy..
I suppose the PC is hitting 60fps while console is aiming for 30fps so that is a big difference but still..
Is it just enabling the game-works features like hair etc that need all the extra performance on PC??
Last edited:
I know you're a massive shill, but how does AMD have anything to do with the dire performance of the Titan, 780 & 780ti in Project Cars? The phenomenally weak 960 beats the 780 and is within a hair's breadth of the Titan and 780ti.
If you're effectively porting a console game optimised solely for AMD's GCN architecture (as far as it can be on DX11 XB1, and to quite some extent on PS4), and then enter into a contract with NVIDIA to infest the game with their malware (GameWorks), it's likely to have a predictable effect. It's a horribly optimised mess. Doesn't matter if CDP intended the PC version to be like the original footage, that was likely before the integration of NVIDIA's closed libraries, which would ruin performance for both vendors. Thus you get a massive graphics downgrade combined with laughable performance.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,317
- Location
- London
I want to see SLI benchmarks.
It is a fact that Maxwell is getting the most looked after and that is progression. The 780/Titan/780Ti are getting on now, so they tend to get overlooked. As for being a shill, you couldn't be more wrong and I was pleased as punch with the performance of my 290X and applauded it. That doesn't detract from AMD messing up the drivers for PCars and always quick to point the finger and should instead be sending out there own devs to work with the games developers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,653
- Location
- Scotland
malware lol
The 45 fps I referred to was without the Hairworks feature. With Hairworks it's even slower than that (36fps on a gtx 970)
I was hoping for 60fps or greater but this is ridiculous. I guess I might get about 45-50fps with my crossfire setup but really if a PS4 can run this game at 30fps then gpu's that are more than twice as fast should be handling 60fps surely.
Short for "malicious software," malware refers to software programs designed to damage or do other unwanted actions on a computer system. In Spanish, "mal" is a prefix that means "bad," making the term "badware," which is a good way to remember it (even if you're not Spanish).
Seems to fit GameWorks and NVIDIA's objectives perfectly?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,327
- Location
- UK.
The 45 fps I referred to was without the Hairworks feature. With Hairworks it's even slower than that (36fps on a gtx 970)
I was hoping for 60fps or greater but this is ridiculous. I guess I might get about 45-50fps with my crossfire setup but really if a PS4 can run this game at 30fps then gpu's that are more than twice as fast should be handling 60fps surely.
No idea mate, it's bonkers. A PS4 (£275) giving similar visuals to a PC running a Titan X (£850+ for just the GPU).
Something just isn't right here lol.
Let's hope DX12 is the savour for PC gaming..
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,317
- Location
- London
Wouldnt they still have to optimise for the lowest common denomonator? i.e consoles...
Ok, I was going to refrain from any further comments about graphics because some tests indicated that the requirements for ultra at 1080p weren't so high, so it seemed like a fair trade-off. But in the end it turns out that not only does the game look like quite a turd but it also runs like one? Just great. GTA 5 fares much better in the graphics department yet requires nowhere near that amount of grunt to use decent IQ settings.
And here I hoped a 970 would be enough for ultra given how the game looks.
For a console port, yes. But this wasn't supposed to be a console port, it was supposed to be a PC game first and foremost, like the previous two games.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 171
So Lazy AMD is the reason why the Project Cars engine is built entirely around physx then? Which as we know runs on cpu if you have a AMD card which tanks the performance big-time. From day one Project Cars was designed around physx, AMD being lazy or whatever has nothing to do with the problems with Project Cars.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,327
- Location
- UK.
Yeah GTA V looks and runs stunning on my Titan X, everything maxed out, there so much going on with npc's, day / night cycle, the amount of vehicles moving around.
I guess it all comes down to the developers ability to get the most out of the given platform. The size of the development team and length of time etc. Rockstar have the budget etc..
I still think we could see patches from CDPR for PC version of Witcher 3 that might add graphical effects / performance improvements in the future. So not all hope is lost yet.
Is worrying though that my Titan X will be borderline at 1080P, and I hope this isn't the trend going forward...
Hopefully Witcher 3 will get better over time with support from CDPR.
Lol, I love how the 970 is labelled as '3.5+0.5GB.'
And even so the 290X can't beat is with 4.5GB more, or on 1440p the 290X only gives 1 more FPS and the 8GB one makes jack to improve on that. Goes to show that the little *3.5GB* 970 is still a strong card. Now I want to know how next months 300 series handle this, even if most of them are filthy rebrands. But the biggest question... where did the 980 go?
And even so the 290X can't beat is with 4.5GB more, or on 1440p the 290X only gives 1 more FPS and the 8GB one makes jack to improve on that. Goes to show that the little *3.5GB* 970 is still a strong card. Now I want to know how next months 300 series handle this, even if most of them are filthy rebrands. But the biggest question... where did the 980 go?