Beautiful World of The Witcher

Updated:11:59 PM CEST Aug,31

NEWS / RSS
CHEATS

REVIEWS

ARTICLES

HARDWARE

DEMOS

FORUMS

LINKS (new)

CONTACT

Please e-mail us if you have news.

Gameguru Mania News - May,28 2015 -

Beautiful World of The Witcher - briefly
(hx) 11:08 PM CEST - May,28 2015 - Post a comment / read (14)
The new trailer features a bird's eye view of some of the gorgeous environment gamers can experience in The Witcher 3.

last 10 comments:

gx-x	(12:56 AM CEST - May,29 2015 )
I think I will be buying gtx 970, it comes with witcher 3 now. my 270 overclocked to 270X simply can't run this properly even on medium/1080p with v-sync ON (don't tell me to turn it off, I hate tearing and v-sync is a must for me). It was nice while it lasted. Time for upgrade.

psolord

(01:10 AM CEST - May,29 2015 )

Hey guys.

I did a run of my own benchmarks and I am posting them here for anyone that may be interested.

The benchmark consists of the whole Woodland Beast mission. It starts with a quick real time cutscene, a fight with two ghouls, a ride with Roach, a fight with two alghouls, a fight with five Scoia'tael and a fight with 6 drowners. All in all, around 8mins of gameplay. Same path for all systems and same actions as humanly possible.

No hairworks on any of the tests hence the preset's (-) deviation in some of them.

For the Ultra settings I tested my 970 on three processors, 2500k i7-860 and Q9550, as well as the 7950 with the 860. (spicy wallpapers on all video links)

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srZ9eEXNMQ"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 Ultra(-) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i5-2500K @4.8GHz[/URL] - 68fps

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTzxF0ljeIo"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 Ultra(-) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz[/URL] - 62fps

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r84HcI9cf4"]Witcher 3 1920x1080 Ultra(-) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Q9550 @4GHz[/URL] - 61fps

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaN-f7JJkOQ"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 Ultra(-) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz[/URL] - 33fps

For the High Settings, I tested the 7950 and the 570

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZuU3kixRv4"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 High(-) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz[/URL] - 47fps

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc_yqCxd0QE"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 high(-) GTX 570 @850Mhz Q9550 @4GHz[/URL] - 31fps

And for the Medium settings I tested the 570 and 5850

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYyWZi2D3k0"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 medium GTX 570 @850Mhz Q9550 @4GHz[/URL] - 36fps

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74lAVWqIXI"]Witcher 3 1920X1080 medium 5850 @950Mhz Q9550 @4GHz[/URL] - 29fps

These are with the 1.02 patch. I did a rerun with the 1.03 on the 970+2500k and found equal results. The 7950+860 did not seem to produce something considerably better with 1.03 and 15.5 Catalyst, although I did not do a complete benchmark.

Take care.

gx-x

(01:24 AM CEST - May,29 2015 )

do you have min fps for the test? Q9550 seems to be doing really well for 1000 year old core2duo*2 :d

PS. Did you do some benchies before the 1.2 patch? I have the patches but only played with the 1.1 and all was well during the "dream" but as soons as that was over and the first fight started after waking up it was anywhere between 15fps and 60fps (i5 [email protected] r9 270 @1000mhz gpu (default memory clock). Suffice to say I was annoyed, surprised, ambushed, n00b, and died and quit and haven't returned to the game since then :/

psolord

(02:53 AM CEST - May,29 2015 )

No data before 1.02 unfortunately.

In my videos I show the frapslog.txt at the end of the video, which has max,min,avg values, as well as the framerate and frametimes graphs in MSI Afterburner for all the duration of the gameplay.

I have started adding some frafs analysis lately, which is also included in these videos.

These are far more important, imo, than the split second value of minimum framerate.

gx-x

(03:06 AM CEST - May,29 2015 )

psolord> No data before 1.02 unfortunately.

In my videos I show the frapslog.txt at the end of the video, which has max,min,avg values, as well as the framerate and frametimes graphs in MSI Afterburner for all the duration of the gameplay.

I have started adding some frafs analysis lately, which is also included in these videos.

These are far more important, imo, than the split second value of minimum framerate.

Do you really need me to watch your video? :/ It's not that I want to avoid you or anything, it's the opposite - I want to avoid spoilers since I barley played the game. If you will profit from my view - I will click it, like it, sub it, but still I will not watch it so please just toss some numbers here man ;)

Tom	(03:47 PM CEST - May,29 2015 )
A guy with too much time on his hands.. the game is poorly optimized and requires higher grade hardware to make up for it. Your stats are meaningless and serve no other purpose than to encourage people to go buy new hardware for no reason. Give the game a few months and a hundred patches and then test it. Then it might actually mean something.

gx-x

(04:46 PM CEST - May,29 2015 )

Tom> A guy with too much time on his hands.. the game is poorly optimized and requires higher grade hardware to make up for it. Your stats are meaningless and serve no other purpose than to encourage people to go buy new hardware for no reason. Give the game a few months and a hundred patches and then test it. Then it might actually mean something.

well if they give us the option to disable physics it would probably work a lot better. They do have a lot going on on the screen. They have very good foliage system, wind, rain, interactive surfaces etc and game doesn't use 2GB of vram until you reach 4K. You are looking at ~1.3GB on average system. It's hardly "unoptimized" but they could have given us more options to tackle performance. I really don't care for the swinging trees and grass if that will make the game unplayable on my system. And CPU clearly isn't being fully utilized. Hmm...I might h ave to agree with you Tom. It does seem unoptimized.

psolord

(02:25 PM CEST - May,31 2015 )

gx-x> psolord> No data before 1.02 unfortunately.

In my videos I show the frapslog.txt at the end of the video, which has max,min,avg values, as well as the framerate and frametimes graphs in MSI Afterburner for all the duration of the gameplay.

I have started adding some frafs analysis lately, which is also included in these videos.

These are far more important, imo, than the split second value of minimum framerate.

Do you really need me to watch your video? :/ It's not that I want to avoid you or anything, it's the opposite - I want to avoid spoilers since I barley played the game. If you will profit from my view - I will click it, like it, sub it, but still I will not watch it so please just toss some numbers here man ;)

I don't "need" anyone to do anything. I just provided some test results accompanied by videos, so people can know HOW they came to be.

These are the results of the 970+2500k system

2015-05-19 21:30:11 - witcher3
Frames: 33024 - Time: 484898ms - Avg: 68.105 - Min: 52 - Max: 94

Also the mission that the test was done on, is barely a couple of hours in the game. Out of 100hours of total gameplay time, I don't think it can spoil anything. The 3000+ people that have seen these videos, have not complained about spoilers though.

psolord

(02:30 PM CEST - May,31 2015 )

Tom> A guy with too much time on his hands.. the game is poorly optimized and requires higher grade hardware to make up for it. Your stats are meaningless and serve no other purpose than to encourage people to go buy new hardware for no reason. Give the game a few months and a hundred patches and then test it. Then it might actually mean something.

The game is well optimized. It takes a toll on older hardware and that's it.

My stats are not meaningless and I have not intention to encourage people to do anything. Just to inform them. I found the game to be quite playable on older hardware, that's why I made these presentations.

You can give the game a million years. It will never run at 100fps on a 3Dfx, because that is not how performance works.

New code has higher hardware needs. It always had, always will have. Sure some code is inflated and bloated, Witcher 3 is not such code.

Actually if it was not optimised, it would run like shit on the Q9550 which is a 7 year old cpu by now and as you can see it runs fine.

gx-x

(05:03 PM CEST - May,31 2015 )

psolord>

The game is well optimized. It takes a toll on older hardware and that's it.

psolord>

Actually if it was not optimised, it would run like shit on the Q9550 which is a 7 year old cpu by now and as you can see it runs fine.

This is my problem with the game...
Which one of the two statements is it? If it's taking a toll on older hardware then the second quote cannot be true and vice verse. Is it well optimized if Q9550 gives the same performance as i5 ? Or is it just not optimized well at all and not using all the resources available to it?

I can see the game using only about 40% of my CPU and ~70% of my gpu (r9 270X) while giving me shitty framerate in the process. It doesn't appear to be optimized at all. Not for AMD at least since gtx 960 outperforms almost every gtx 7xx card, and almost EVERY AMD card, but only in this particular game.

psolord

(06:23 PM CEST - May,31 2015 )

gx-x> psolord>

The game is well optimized. It takes a toll on older hardware and that's it.

psolord>

Actually if it was not optimised, it would run like shit on the Q9550 which is a 7 year old cpu by now and as you can see it runs fine.

This is my problem with the game...
Which one of the two statements is it? If it's taking a toll on older hardware then the second quote cannot be true and vice verse. Is it well optimized if Q9550 gives the same performance as i5 ? Or is it just not optimized well at all and not using all the resources available to it?

I can see the game using only about 40% of my CPU and ~70% of my gpu (r9 270X) while giving me shitty framerate in the process. It doesn't appear to be optimized at all. Not for AMD at least since gtx 960 outperforms almost every gtx 7xx card, and almost EVERY AMD card, but only in this particular game.

I meant it takes a toll on older gpus.

The real optimization has to do with the cpu.

For my tests, it seems optimized enough to keep the 970 well fed from an old Q9550. Sure the 970 is not at 100% load all the time, although this is a non vsynced benchmark.

To illustrate this better these are two screen caps from the respective videos of the 2500k and the Q9550, with the 970. The first one is with the 2500k and the second is with the Q9550.

[URL=http://imgbox.com/etQ8bILP]

[/URL]

[URL=http://imgbox.com/TYDbd7wl]

[/URL]

Notice the cpu usage of the Q9550 which is at a near maximum on all cores, while the 2500k has much lower cpu usage, but still better gpu usage since it is a much better cpu.

The Q9550+970 graphs really show how well optimized the game is.

The frametimes could be better I guess, but with vsync and/or a framelimiter they are much better.

Also note that my GPU usage was at max on all my AMD cards tests.

Maybe you are using vsync, so the framerate drops to 30fps hence shity framerate and gpu usage?

gx-x

(07:16 PM CEST - May,31 2015 )

gtx970 is maxwell and maxwell performs great in witcher, gtx 960 is performing very close to gtx 970 while gtx 770 and 780 are not.

What you need to look at is 7950 @1GHz which performs better in all games (save for witcher) than gtx 960. Look how that low CPU usage is poorly feeding that card...If GPU usage were to be ~95% (vsync off) that card would have given much better framerate than it currently does. It's poorly fed (my overclocked r9 270 is @ 270X stock speed which is similar to 7950 GHz edition) and it's poorly fed. Age of the card has nothing to with it, unless we are talking something like gtx 560 or radeon 5750... 7950 GHz edition (or overclocked 7950 w/e) is still a strong card.

The thing is: if you look at benchmarks for Witcher 3, you will see 200$ 960 outperforming (by ~30%) r9 280X which is at least a 250$ card that usually outperforms gtx 960 by 30% and more.

Everything "not-Maxwell" is underperforming in Witcher 3, CPU usage and GPU usage are showing that. nVidia said they will try to fix performance for non-maxwell chips, and AMD...well...one can only hope but knowing AMD nothing will change. New drivers that they say improve performance do nothing, at least on my system. My card is doing 30fps with v-sync ON with usage being at ~30%. Sure, I've seen 60fps and ~50% usage but rarely. Without v-sync it sits at about ~45-50% and cpu is something similar that you observed with your i5.

So, well optimized? You still think so? For Maxwell maybe, tho those could still run much better! There is nothing special going on in Witcher graphics, it uses very little vram, textures are crap, shaders are so-so, nothing that we haven't seen before and ran at 60fps with 150-200$ GPUs.

all of this is my opinion and the way I see it. I can run AC: Black Flag on almost maxed out settings + AA at 60fps. 7950 @ 1GHz would do even better job at it and game, arguably, looks on par with W3. Same goes for FC3 and FC4...and I am naming only open world games here.

PS. yes, I am running vsync ON since 2001. I hate screen tearing. I tried it with OFF. Put your 7950 in and look at gpu usage there. Like I said, Maxwell runs great, but only maxwell. I mean, gtx970 is 350$ GPU. I need a 350$ GPU to run W3 in 1080p?!?! No. Just...no. That's not optimized.

psolord

(10:16 AM CEST - Jun,02 2015 )

The 960 is a medium powered graphics card and performs as such.

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-v-1-04-test-gpu.html

[URL=http://imgbox.com/FpDxkn4i]

[/URL]

I see that it is on par with the r9 280x, which seems normal considering their overall performance delta

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_960_Gaming/29.html

[URL=http://imgbox.com/o4oPdhAz]

[/URL]

The 290X is right up there with the GTX 970, also as it should be.

The only discrepancy I see, is that the strong Kepler cards have tanked, but that is Nvidia's doing. The latest drives is supposed to fix kepler performance though.

All in all, the game is heavy on the gpus. If it does not run well on medium cards, that is to be expected. Also the settings are there for a reason. I had to tone them down for my weaker cards, but it run OK after that. Not 60fps OK, but still OK.

Also regarding the low vram usage, that just shows the length the devs went to optimize the game in order to run on older hardware as well. Instead of throwing everything on the card, they follow a very clever streaming scheme.

Yes I do believe that the game is VERY well coded.

gx-x	(04:27 PM CEST - Jun,02 2015 )
well, it is hard to keep this conversation on track and relevant when they keep patching the game. This is how the performance was when game came out: (scratch that, he updated the review to patch 1.02, so the difference is even smaller now but still...) http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_witcher_3_graphics_performance_review,5.html Very different than it is now.

All comments

Add your comment (free registration required)

Related news:

Beautiful Light - Official Alpha Gameplay Trailer - movie (Jan 12 2026)

Hands-On With Steam Machine: Valve's Beautiful PC/Console - Specs, Impressions And More - tech (Nov 15 2025)

Beautiful Desolation developers issue statement - briefly (Feb 29 2020)

Beautiful Desolation releases on Feb 26th - briefly (Feb 13 2020)

Beautiful Desolation gameplay video - movie (Feb 06 2020)

Final Fantasy XV PC Edition looks beautiful but ... - tech (Feb 10 2018)

Beautiful 10th anniversary Witcher video - briefly (Sep 05 2017)

Beautiful Desolation Trailer - movie (Jan 18 2017)

Black Desert - The Most Beautiful MMORPG? - movie (Dec 05 2014)

BEYOND: Two Souls - Beautiful Drama Video - movie (Aug 30 2013)

How beautiful Minecraft can actually be - movie (Feb 11 2013)

The Witcher 2: Beautiful and Deadly Trailer - movie (Mar 06 2012)

Assassin's Creed: Beautiful Lies Video - movie (Dec 13 2010)

Rich & Beautiful announced - briefly (Aug 21 2005)

related cheats/trainer:

Hentai Beautiful Girls [cheats]

Links

Search results for -Beautiful- :

PacBoy - Remake of a popular classic game, Pacman, in which you must eat all the pills on the maze to pass on to the next level. Breathtaking action, 50 levels, beautiful graphics, fine music and sound. Fun game for all the family. (1484 hits)
Farming Simulator 2011 - In Farm Simulator 2011 players take on the role of a young farmer faced with the test of building a successful business. Beginning with just a thousand acres of beautiful rolling countryside and a small collection of vehicles, they progress through the game by completing a range of farming tasks over 18 hour days, like breeding and feeding cows, spreading manure, milking, plowing, seeding and baling, eventually building up wealth to invest in newer and better equipment and machinery. With licenses from leading manufacturers such as DEUTZ-FAHR, KRONE, HORSCH, PĂâ€“TTINGER and VOGEL & NOOT, Farming Simulator 2011 features a variety of sophisticated and authentically replicated equipment for players to choose from, including tractors, combine harvesters, plows, seeders and balers. (1322 hits)
Risen 3: Titan Lords - A true classic European RPG, Risen 3 refuses to hold your hand. It gives players the freedom to explore the vast and beautiful world at their own pace. Engaging combat will test the player's skills and with a visually stunning environment, Risen 3: Titan Lords is a must-have title for RPG fans looking for a challenge (713 hits)
Hard Reset - Hard Reset is an action-packed, single-player shooter for the PC. With over-the-top destruction, loads of enemies, great weapon variety and a beautifully realized cyberpunk setting, Hard Reset is sure to shake up the shooter scene. Exclusive in the extended edition: four new enemy types, five new campaign levels with about 3 hours of new gameplay and improved graphics engine! (679 hits)