Witcher 3 Benchmarks! Holy Balls this game is demanding!

[Misanthrope]

Actually it performs not unlike highly modded Skyrim I guess we have no magic trick for grass just stupid amounts of horsepower are needed.

[Valentyn]

We are supposed to see Day0 patch so I wonder if it will enhance optimatization.

 

It would have to be some pretty big darn patches to fix these issues.

[ACatWithThumbs]

Crysis 3 was not an open world game, so the comparison does not hold up. Open world games, are a lot harder to drive, and requires a lot more of the hardware.

Even AC Unity runs better and that game uses physical based rendering and was totally un-optimized.

With how demanding the game is it should look like this(And the demo is open world):

Or this running on a single GTX680 at 1080p/30fps:

[Toddwjp]

Actually it performs not unlike highly modded Skyrim I guess we have no magic trick for grass just stupid amounts of horsepower are needed.

 

exactly this, looking at the game there is alot of foliage and greenery that moves in the wind etc. and the devs have said the pc version has a larger draw distance which hopefully can be reduced slightly for the lower end cards

[WereCat]

It would have to be some pretty big darn patches to fix these issues.

We will see in 12 hours. I am excited and disapointed at the same time.

[ShadowCaptain]

I'm slightly off put by this. Why in the 7 goddamn hells is the 780ti getting stopmped by the 290x in these benchmarks?

 

I dont always blindly trust benchmarks, there can be errors in testing, or drivers etc so far i have found my 780ti plays almost everything maxxed out at 1440p despite what some benchmarks say

[Brainless906]

Looks like my R9 290 will max it out with a stable 40fps. That's enough for this kind of game for me. I'll probably get more with upcoming drivers...

 

Suprised to see how far Kepler keeps falling behind. So now 780ti is now noticeably slower than an R9 290?

 

Titan-X beast as always! It's so far ahead of the 980.

 

One good thing that benchmark shows is that minimum framerate are very close to the average. That's a sign that framerates will be stable and not jump all over the place...

Got duel 7970s so assuming it plays nice with crossfire (gameworks game..rarely does..) I'm hoping to push 60 with mostly ultra/high settings

 

I also noticed the 290x taking out the 780ti which i found extremely odd. Tinfoil hat says the rumors about nvidia gimping the 7xx series to promote sales of the 9xx series come to mind. Though it could just be that the latest iteration of drivers has some kinda issue with the 7xx series that will be fixed in the future. Still strange though.

[christianled59]

It's probably running at 720p 30 fps on console. A Titan X can manage 30 fps at 4K so that would be a substantial difference

I was exaggerating. My point is, this shouldnt require this kind of hardware.

[MEC-777]

We complain when games are too demanding. We complain when games aren't demanding enough... 

[Brainless906]

We complain when games are too demanding. We complain when games aren't demanding enough... 

 

We wouldnt complain that they are too demanding if it was for the right reason. For now its taken with a grain of salt but by the way we're seeing it look it doesnt really justify its performance. 

[MEC-777]

I was exaggerating. My point is, this shouldnt require this kind of hardware.

 

Depending on the level of detail it has to render, it could very well require this kind of hardware.

[WereCat]

We complain when games are too demanding. We complain when games aren't demanding enough... 

We complain when games are too demanding for no reason.

We complain when games are not demanding enough if they look bad and they could make it look a lot better while our PCs would still handle it fine.

[Elapo]

yep, gtx970  at 1080p high - very high it is, like expected, everybody calm down.

 

Indeed, like they said - to run the game at ultra 60fps you'll need a "high end SLI setup".

 

What the fuck?? Considering the graphics are on par with consoles (dispite gameworks, etc.) shouldn't it run on similar hardware as consoles? Why is it a modified 270 can run it on consoles but a Titan fucking X is required on pc? Unless the PC's graphics are ridiculously good and there in fact isn't a downgrade to the "lowest denominator," as they put it, then this is a bad port.

Taking with grain of salt considering the game isn't out yet and I've heard multiple things regarding a downgrade. Could be there isn't a downgrade, although that is unlikely.

 

There's been optimizations, which usually result in some reduction in quality, but we'll see what the fuzz is all about in a few hours. That being said, You're forgetting that the console version only runs at 30FPS, which is around 285 level of performance.

[MEC-777]

We wouldnt complain that they are too demanding if it was for the right reason. For now its taken with a grain of salt but by the way we're seeing it look it doesnt really justify its performance. 

 

Personally, I'm going to wait until I see it in person to make any judgment.

[IrshaadH]

As if a Titan X is just enough for 60fps @ 1080p.  I'm sure there are plenty of settings that can be turned down with minimal effects

[christianled59]

Depending on the level of detail it has to render, it could very well require this kind of hardware.

Well if that were the case than sure. But they downgraded the game to the "lowest denominator". The game doesn't look any better than consoles. Only difference is textures and resolution. Consoles run a modified and underclocked 270, so it would be reasonable if the PC version ran it at similar specs.

[Humbug]

I do not think that these benchmarks look too demanding. The minimums and averages are close together. As long as it doesn't stutter, and as long as it scales well it should be good. When you reduce the graphics settings it should be become noticeably easier to run. that was one of the problems with Unity; it barely ran faster when you turned stuff down and it always stuttered regardless of raw framerate averages.

 

Got duel 7970s so assuming it plays nice with crossfire (gameworks game..rarely does..) I'm hoping to push 60 with mostly ultra/high settings

Yep as long as AMD has a nice driver ready you should be golden.

 

I also noticed the 290x taking out the 780ti which i found extremely odd. Tinfoil hat says the rumors about nvidia gimping the 7xx series to promote sales of the 9xx series come to mind. Though it could just be that the latest iteration of drivers has some kinda issue with the 7xx series that will be fixed in the future. Still strange though.

Not just the 290x; at least that is acceptable... but the regular R9 290 with fewer stream processors is beating the 780ti by a decent margin. The R9 290 when it came out was supposed to compete with the geforce 780 and in this benchmark it's beating that card by almost 50%. We see the 780 performing like a 960 again.

Kepler is still powerful on paper. I'm not convinced that Nvidia is intentionally gimpling it. Maybe they have just abandoned kepler specific game optimzations. Due to resource limitations they may be totally focused on maxwell.

[Brainless906]

Personally, I'm going to wait until I see it in person to make any judgment.

Again, its the grain of salt. We're currently judging it on a slightly sketchy benchmark and on pics/video of what the game apparently looks like. 

 

That said if it comes out looking like what we've come to expect and the 980 can only muster 49 fps then the outcry would be justified. A single 980 can run something like shadow of mordor at 4k res at almost that framerate. 

[christianled59]

Indeed, like they said - to run the game at ultra 60fps you'll need a "high end SLI setup".

 

 

There's been optimizations, which usually result in some reduction in quality, but we'll see what the fuzz is all about in a few hours. That being said, You're forgetting that the console version only runs at 30FPS, which is around 285 level of performance.

Yes, we'll find out for sure later. That's why I said to take this all with a grain of salt.

[Notional]

Not that bad, just behind a 970 and below a 980... its not THAT crippled, probably limited by its 3gb of VRAM compared to the 970s 3.5gb + bit

 

Does Project Cars, even use that much vram? Either way, 780ti should always offer performance  better than 970, unless it genuinely is vram limited.

 

Even AC Unity runs better and that game uses physical based rendering and was totally un-optimized.

With how demanding the game is it should look like this(And the demo is open world):

Or this running on a single GTX680 at 1080p/30fps:

 

I wouldn't put too much faith in tech demoes. I doubt it's open world, either way, there is no AI in it, and no entities/NPC's. It's not exactly representative of actual games.

[MEC-777]

Well if that were the case then sure. But they downgraded the game to the "lowest denominator". The game doesn't look any better than consoles. Only difference is textures and resolution. Consoles run a modified and underclocked 270, so it would be reasonable if the PC version ran it at similar specs.

 

Have you seen the game in person yet? If not, I would hold off on making such claims and take them with a grain of salt. 

 

You can't compare to console performance because the resolution is lower and nearly every other setting from textures to lighting to draw distance to AA, is all turned way down compare to the "max" settings available on the PC version. 

[christianled59]

Have you seen the game in person yet? If not, I would hold off on making such claims and take them with a grain of salt.

You can't compare to console performance because the resolution is lower and nearly every other setting from textures to lighting to draw distance to AA, is all turned way down compare to the "max" settings available on the PC version.

Have you not read any of my previous posts? Before you try to deface my argument, maybe go back and actually READ what I've been saying.

There are videos comparing the two builds.

I have already stated I'm taking this with a grain of salt and that it's currently all speculation. However, I have evaluated my sources and my claims aren't substantial.

According to the devs themselves, the game looks similar to consoles. I can fetch you sources if necessary.

[Humbug]

Let's not cry too-demanding until we see how the games looks on PC. If it looks great and does not stutter I will say well done to them.

 

Also I am sure things will change somewhat with patches and drivers.

[Texhnlyze]

Hopefully the draw distance can be adjusted.

[Brainless906]

I do not think that these benchmarks look too demanding. The minimums and averages are close together. As long as it doesn't stutter, and as long as it scales well it should be good. When you reduce the graphics settings it should be become noticeably easier to run. that was one of the problems with Unity; it barely ran faster when you turned stuff down and it always stuttered regardless of raw framerate averages.

 

Yep as long as AMD has a nice driver ready you should be golden.

 

Not just the 290x; at least that is acceptable... but the regular R9 290 with fewer stream processors is beating the 780ti by a decent margin. The R9 290 when it came out was supposed to compete with the geforce 780 and in this benchmark it's beating that card by almost 50%. We see the 780 performing like a 960 again.

Kepler is still powerful on paper. I'm not convinced that Nvidia is intentionally gimpling it. Maybe they are have just abandoned kepler specific game optimzations now as they focus on maxwell.

I honestly couldn't see nividia gimping the kepler cards either, specially because they are still pretty young, that rumor just popped to mind when seeing the numbers. That said I could totally see nvidia dropping the ball on kepler targeted game specific optimization as a priority. Maybe we'll get a driver update post launch that will bring the 7xx series back up to where they should be on paper. 

 

 

Fingers crossed on that AMD driver though