Witcher 3 Benchmarks! Holy Balls this game is demanding!

[ACatWithThumbs]

This guy has to work for UbiSoft

Nope, I didn't even like AC Unity.(Worst AC game by far.)

But The Witcher 3 performance is worse than AC Unity which got huge flak for being badly optimized.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark

A GTX780 should not be struggling with The Witcher 3 when my 3 year old GTX670 can run AC Unity at Ultra+FXAA which uses physical based rendering and looks like this:

 

[alphaproject]

The game is more than playful on my GTX 770 but I take off a few pointless features.

 

Commented above somewhere....

 

Take off hairworks.

 

Put grass on low.

Put Foliage on low.

Crank everything else. Game gets anywhere from 30-55 fps on my GTX 770.  Also....game barely uses any Vram. 1.5 maxed. AA is also off but I'm going to put it on now and see how it runs.

 

[bramturismo]

I said I was going to be happy if I would be around 40-45 fps on my GTX 780:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ0f47kIeKY

Guess I'm going to be happy. AA is overrated anyway, and I don't need Hairworks.

[Memphaestus]

Nope, I didn't even like AC Unity.(Worst AC game by far.)

But The Witcher 3 performance is worse than AC Unity which got huge flak for being badly optimized.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark

A GTX780 should not be struggling with The Witcher 3 when my 3 year old GTX670 can run AC Unity at Ultra+FXAA which uses physical based rendering and looks like this:

 

Instead of looking at a screenshot of a tiny indoor area, how about you compare an outdoor area with grass vs a comparable scene in the Witcher 3?

 

AC:U has crap for grass or anything with small polygons.  It really just looks like a couple blades of grass that have a near static cyclic animation.  In W3, the grass is thick, dense, and reacts to the wind via physics.  I mean any area in W3 with foliage completely stomps AC:U graphically.  I'm running the game on Ultra except for hairworks off, grass density on high, and foliage distance on high, and it never drops below 50fps running a single 290.  It actually hovers around 59-60 unless I hit the really graphically tough areas with lots of physics and effects.  And to think that AMD's driver isn't even out yet.  I wonder what I'll get then.

[Dabombinable]

I need to buy this game, and see what differences are made with my GTX 650 ti OC 2GB handling PhysX and CUDA processing alongside my GTX 970 (that is if the 970 doesn't crash after an hour or so of gameplay).

[Nineshadow]

I had to OC my GPU to get good framerates, but I've done it!

 

This game runs at 50-60fps on low settings on my GTX 560. Oh that's right, a 560 back from 2011. A 4 year old mid-range GPU.

<3

[Jasmin]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

 

Makes sure to press the HairWorks tab on the first benchmark. Auf = OFF, An = ON. Average 970, is 35% better than 290x. Without, it's only 4% (with HBAO+). Without that either, it's pretty neck and neck. So yeah HairWorks is horribly optimized, and run like shit on everything, but there is a massive added performance hit on AMD cards.

Ye, HairWorks is a massive hit, most felt if you try to record with anything but  shadowplay. 10-30 fps gain with HairWorks off is exactly the range I experience - 10 with only Geralt on screen, 30 in fight with several wolves at once.

 

That being said I don't think it's badly optimised - I'll try to make comparison video later, but the amount of detail hairworks introduces to fur is simply astounding. The now classic FurMark looks like a child's toy in comparison, and it still fries gpus like there's no tomorrow. It's thick, has many layers, reacts to movement and wind at the same time...

 

Gods, I wish there was an option to turn it off for hair and have it remain on for Fur. It barely does anything for hair (in my opinion Geralt's hair looks less realistic with the glossy plasticness of hairworks), yet it tanks fps the most, while all the animals look 10000% better with it on.

[SirPaul]

Everyone, please, remember how it was when witcher 2 was out.  And then remember that everything change when they pushed optimization patch. 

Thanks.  No more talk about how intensive is the game that most of gamers are excited about.

Thanks.

[SirPaul]

I had to OC my GPU to get good framerates, but I've done it!

 

This game runs at 50-60fps on low settings on my GTX 560. Oh that's right, a 560 back from 2011. A 4 year old mid-range GPU.

<3

 

Yup, the same here, with my famous gtx 460

[Humbug]

I need to buy this game, and see what differences are made with my GTX 650 ti OC 2GB handling PhysX and CUDA processing alongside my GTX 970 (that is if the 970 doesn't crash after an hour or so of gameplay).

Why would it crash?

[Dabombinable]

Why would it crash?

I think its VRM are damaged, its for some reason got its core clock running stock at 177MHz over reference cards (its the G1 gaming-it should be 127MHz over reference), and it went unstable at its default settings after playing BF 1942 for about half an hour. And that's a DirectX 8 game that even my old workstation laptop can run without any problems at 1080p full settings.

[MegaDave91]

Here's what my OC'd Titan X yields at 4K:

 

Settings are at ultra with no hairworks, motion blurr/blurr and no AA. I think the game looks fantastic.