Well can it run Deus Ex MD ?

Greebo · 24 Aug 2016 at 14:33

Dicehunter said:
A lot of games now hardly look any different when switching between 1080P and 4K from what I've seen so far.

That doesn't seem too bad TBH, Max settings at 1080P and still getting north of 60FPS is decent

Sarcasm? Surely you cannot be saying max settings and 60fps on 1080p with a £1100 card is "decent"?

Has the world gone mad?

wunkley · 24 Aug 2016 at 14:35

Greebo said:
Any links to sweetfx profiles for a beginner please? A site where I can just pick one for each game would be great

This is the best start https://sfx.thelazy.net/games/

Look for the game of choice and go from there. I find Kputee's profiles the best starting point. Most people go way overboard and make things too contrasty and dayglow, losing details in highlights and shadows etc but his profiles are subtle and spot on.

I make my own now though. It's a definite skill and takes a lot of practice, but it's fun. It's like post processing your photos, but for games. As with post production in photography, less is more.

Seanspeed · 24 Aug 2016 at 14:44

Greebo said:
Sarcasm? Surely you cannot be saying max settings and 60fps on 1080p with a £1100 card is "decent"?

Has the world gone mad?

What is your issue, exactly? Would you rather the devs just not include these top options just so people can feel better about what performance they get at 'max'? :/

The problem is this obsession with 'max settings' from PC gamers, not with the game or with the GPU tech. It's sad that all this whining is just going to push devs to stop including such options altogether for fear of being accused of poor optimization.

cadmunkey · 24 Aug 2016 at 14:50

Dicehunter said:
A lot of games now hardly look any different when switching between 1080P and 4K from what I've seen so far.

Should have gone to specsavers?

VincentHanna · 24 Aug 2016 at 14:56

Seanspeed said:
What is your issue, exactly? Would you rather the devs just not include these top options just so people can feel better about what performance they get at 'max'? :/

The problem is this obsession with 'max settings' from PC gamers, not with the game or with the GPU tech. It's sad that all this whining is just going to push devs to stop including such options altogether for fear of being accused of poor optimization.

Exactly what I said earlier.

As a developer all I would learn from the internet cry babies is that adding in OTT 'ultra' settings is pointless because people just complain that performance is poor.

Better to just put in a 'very high setting' preset and save yourself from poor reviews and criticism.

The argument about poor performance might even make sense if you can notice the difference between very high and ultra, but in motion it's literally undetectable.

Greebo · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:21

Seanspeed said:
What is your issue, exactly? Would you rather the devs just not include these top options just so people can feel better about what performance they get at 'max'? :/

The problem is this obsession with 'max settings' from PC gamers, not with the game or with the GPU tech. It's sad that all this whining is just going to push devs to stop including such options altogether for fear of being accused of poor optimization.

No, i am fine with max settings being better than current hardware can run. The fact that these game on runs fine on medium settings at 1080 only for cards costing £400+ is what i am complaining about. If you look at the graphics there are nowhere near good enough to justify that performance.

If the graphics at medium 1080p and no AA were "wow, drop dead gorgeous" then I wouldn't complain. but they aren't.

Maybe dx12 can give them a 20% boost, who knows.

Greebo · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:23

VincentHanna said:
Exactly what I said earlier.

As a developer all I would learn from the internet cry babies is that adding in OTT 'ultra' settings is pointless because people just complain that performance is poor.

Better to just put in a 'very high setting' preset and save yourself from poor reviews and criticism.

The argument about poor performance might even make sense if you can notice the difference between very high and ultra, but in motion it's literally undetectable.

FFS is everybody been thick today? I am not complaining about ultra settings, I am complaining about needing a 1070/80/titan to run at MEDIUM at 1080P with NO AA at 60 fps..........................

If this game had no high, v.high or ultra settings and medium was the max, would people really be saying , wow great performance at 1080p on my titan?

Greebo · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:25

wunkley said:
This is the best start https://sfx.thelazy.net/games/

Look for the game of choice and go from there. I find Kputee's profiles the best starting point. Most people go way overboard and make things too contrasty and dayglow, losing details in highlights and shadows etc but his profiles are subtle and spot on.

I make my own now though. It's a definite skill and takes a lot of practice, but it's fun. It's like post processing your photos, but for games. As with post production in photography, less is more.

Thanks will have a look tonight.

Kaapstad · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:32

The bench thread is now open for business.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18746487

wunkley · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:38

Seanspeed said:
What is your issue, exactly? Would you rather the devs just not include these top options just so people can feel better about what performance they get at 'max'? :/

The problem is this obsession with 'max settings' from PC gamers, not with the game or with the GPU tech. It's sad that all this whining is just going to push devs to stop including such options altogether for fear of being accused of poor optimization.

Have to say I agree. I like it when a game comes out that pushes the boundaries of visuals, and makes the current top end GPUS cry, like the first crysis. Not having the game yet, I'm not sure this fits that bill though, or if it is a bit badly optimised - will reserve judgement til I see it for myself.

The thing is there's max settings and max settings. If you get my drift. Personally I think 8x MSAA is just silly and has little noticeable difference compared to x4 or even x2 at 1440p and especially 4K. It's an inconsistent factor really too as many games don't have built in MSAA options anymore.

mcdermotx · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:39

Certainly those contact hardening shadow and overall shadow details need to drop down to very high and high respectively when playing the game.......can result in a 20fps gain in some scenes early in the game.
Unfortunate.......whether or not you should have to with a top card is neither here nor there, unless there are going to be some optimization patches incoming, there are areas which are going to suffer on any system.

Greebo · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:43

wunkley said:
The thing is there's max settings and max settings. If you get my drift. Personally I think 8x MSAA is just silly and has little noticeable difference compared to x4 or even x2 at 1440p and especially 4K. It's an inconsistent factor really too as many games don't have built in MSAA options anymore.

BUT WE ARENT EVEN TALKING ABOUT APPLYING ANY AA EVEN ON 1080P AND YOU STILL NEED A £400 CARD TO RUN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dancook · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:51

For kicks I set the settings to low, msaa off- 3440x1440

Average 92.7 fps, min 78 fps, max 112.7

Titan Xp@2050, [email protected]

Dicehunter · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:53

I hope a performance patch is released for this and I have a sneaky suspicion that when they release the DX12 update it will end up hurting performance while not adding anything in the visuals department, Hope I'm wrong though.

VincentHanna · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:54

Dicehunter said:
I have a sneaky suspicion that when they release the DX12 update it will end up hurting performance while not adding anything in the visuals department, Hope I'm wrong though.

What would even be the point of that?

Dicehunter · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:56

VincentHanna said:
What would even be the point of that?

There wouldn't be any point to it, It would just be lazy coding.

Seanspeed · 24 Aug 2016 at 15:57

Greebo said:
The fact that these game on runs fine on medium settings at 1080 only for cards costing £400+ is what i am complaining about.

Is that a fact?

Seems a GTX1070 will let you run everything 'on' and Very High settings at over 60fps average.

And a GTX970 will get you over 60fps using High settings.

Very High and Ultra settings include some very demanding options.

Also many are reporting that the game runs much better than the benchmark results would suggest.

wunkley · 24 Aug 2016 at 16:01

Greebo said:
BUT WE ARENT EVEN TALKING ABOUT APPLYING ANY AA EVEN ON 1080P AND YOU STILL NEED A £400 CARD TO RUN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say that again, couldn't quite hear you

dancook · 24 Aug 2016 at 16:03

Seanspeed said:
Is that a fact?

Seems a GTX1070 will let you run everything 'on' and Very High settings at over 60fps average.

I get less than 60fps average on V high with Titan X Pascal according to benchmark, but that is 1440p

Killer7xx · 24 Aug 2016 at 16:03

Looks like the game eats VRAM as well at higher quality settings http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html

Future is not looking good for those 3GB card owners out there