The Witcher 3 Benchmarks

romper76 · 18 May 2015 at 18:05

who knows? im just glad i picked up a gtx 970 for my micro instead of the 780ti that were on offer!

Gregster · 18 May 2015 at 18:06

etched Chaos said:
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.

whyscotty said:
You do know it's CPU Physx only for Nvidia too

This.

With PhysX in PCars, it runs on the CPU for both AMD and nVidia. I understand people get frustrated when performance isn't as good as it should be but don't be so quick to point the finger. I don't think it is right that Kepler is getting overlooked either and that is nVidia to blame but Kepler is old now and I would rather they (nVidia) prioritised Maxwell first and then Kepler/Fermi etc.

Sorry for going off topic slightly but I guess it is the same thing we are seeing with the Witcher 3 benchies. Maxwell is doing well, whilst Kepler and Radeons, not so.

PhysicsMan94 · 18 May 2015 at 18:13

Hopefully my 780s will cope well at 1440p, I'll be quite annoyed if the performance is pretty bad even after the obvious graphics downgrade.

Boomstick777 · 18 May 2015 at 18:17

mahius said:
Now I want to know how next months 300 series handle this, even if most of them are filthy rebrands.

Haha

AllBodies · 18 May 2015 at 18:41

africanos23 said:
Some nice comparisons on the settings. Low vs Ultra doesn't have a big difference IMHO.

Wow, pretty nuts how little difference there is between high and ultra (seems to be none at all if you don't zoom in).

And in general there's very little difference between low and ultra, much less than you'd normally expect.

jimhaumman · 18 May 2015 at 18:48

mahius said:
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?

You got this one wrong mate...
Vram has nothing to do with raw perfomance in mosty cases.

MrMD · 18 May 2015 at 18:52

I dont get how more people arnt ****ed off at nvida for the driver performance on 7xx cards since the 970/980 came out.

mahius · 18 May 2015 at 18:54

jimhaumman said:
You got this one wrong mate...
Vram has nothing to do with raw perfomance in mosty cases.

I'm just poking fun at all those folks who complained about less VRAM. This just shows that VRAM doesn't matter as much as all those ppz crying 3.5GB. I know VRAM won't affect performance like that XD Sorry if I came across wrong in my fun making.

@The Quality comparison video,
The pixels in the thumbnail crack me up. Would be hilarious if that level of quality was possible in the real game

fs123 · 18 May 2015 at 19:07

mahius said:
I'm just poking fun at all those folks who complained about less VRAM. This just shows that VRAM doesn't matter as much as all those ppz crying 3.5GB. I know VRAM won't affect performance like that XD Sorry if I came across wrong in my fun making.

@The Quality comparison video,
The pixels in the thumbnail crack me up. Would be hilarious if that level of quality was possible in the real game

I don't know why you think it's funny that a card with 2 year old architecture is the same performance as a brand new 970.

humbug · 18 May 2015 at 19:07

Final8y said:
PCgameshardware.de
To see more graphs with hairworks and HBAO+.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FThe-Witcher-3-PC-237266%2FSpecials%2FGrafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196%2F

1080p.

Orange = 1080p. Yellow = 1440p.

The 780 & 770 is cut off, both are below the 960!!

The classic Titan not doing so well here.
1080p

Why is it according to that the 290X is on par with the 970 with and without Hair Works on?

Tonester0011 · 18 May 2015 at 19:15

It's because there isn't one with Hairworks on, what you're seeing is 3 graphs all saying the same thing all testing the same thing.

fs123 · 18 May 2015 at 19:16

humbug said:
Why is it according to that the 290X is on par with the 970 with and without Hair Works on?

Look at the german site with google translate. The 290X drops to 27.9fps compared to the gtx 970 which drops to 36.5fps.

TheRealDeal · 18 May 2015 at 19:19

MrMD said:
I dont get how more people arnt ****ed off at nvida for the driver performance on 7xx cards since the 970/980 came out.

People are blinded when it comes to Nvidia. They think it's down to new tech but brute force usually wins in this case, Nvidia have clearly gimped there cards to sell what they currently have on the market. It's very obvious but the usual excuses will flood in.

bru · 18 May 2015 at 19:35

Tonester0011 said:
It's because there isn't one with Hairworks on, what you're seeing is 3 graphs all saying the same thing all testing the same thing.

Top left hand corner of the benchmark table, under the heading The Witcher 3 Nvidia Gameworks there is a HBAO+ or Hairworks tab's.

shankly1985 · 18 May 2015 at 19:38

Didn't a titan used to complete with 290x? In that bench a 290x is faster by some degree. Titan down there with 960 and 285?

Gotta sell them TitanX

whyscotty · 18 May 2015 at 19:39

TheRealDeal said:
People are blinded when it comes to Nvidia.
They think it's down to new tech but brute force usually wins in this case,
Nvidia have clearly gimped there cards to sell what they currently have on the market.
It's very obvious but the usual excuses will flood in.

Good to see you're still beating the Anti Nvidia drum

fs123 · 18 May 2015 at 19:46

TheRealDeal said:
People are blinded when it comes to Nvidia. They think it's down to new tech but brute force usually wins in this case, Nvidia have clearly gimped there cards to sell what they currently have on the market. It's very obvious but the usual excuses will flood in.

This would explain why a 780Ti is quite a bit slower than the gtx 970/290X even though it has more bandwith and fillrate than the 970 and presumably a better tessellation engine than the 290X.

Classic Nvidia tactics. I bet all the 780ti guys will rush out and buy a 900 series. lol.

Tonester0011 · 18 May 2015 at 19:55

fs123 said:
Classic Nvidia tactics. I bet all the 780ti guys will rush out and buy a 900 series. lol.

I bought 3 970s after my 780ti was performing worse. They then started nerfing the performance on that, so bought a TX.
Love Nvidia, best friends forever.

shankly1985 · 18 May 2015 at 20:01

Tonester0011 said:
I bought 3 970s after my 780ti was performing worse. They then started nerfing the performance on that, so bought a TX.
Love Nvidia, best friends forever.

Wrong they started nerfing performance on Titan.. 970/980 is fine till 980ti comes along.

Dicehunter · 18 May 2015 at 20:03

CDPR are releasing a day 1 patch to improve graphics, Looks like they may have admitted to the famous "Downgrade"

Can't find an English version but for those of us who speak German, GameStar are one of the first to report this -