Gameguru Mania Forum Index Gameguru Mania
Daily Gaming, Hardware, Software and Technology News
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
news | cheats | reviews | specials | hardware | demos | FLASH GAMES | about | links

Beautiful World of The Witcher [39562]

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gameguru Mania Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ggrobot
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 11:08 pm    Post subject: Beautiful World of The Witcher [39562] Reply with quote

The new trailer features a bird's eye view of some of the gorgeous environment gamers can experience in The Witcher 3.

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psolord
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 :/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psolord
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psolord wrote:
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 Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 4194

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psolord
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gx-x wrote:
psolord wrote:
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 Wink


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psolord
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

psolord wrote:


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



psolord wrote:


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psolord
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gx-x wrote:
psolord wrote:


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



psolord wrote:


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.





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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psolord
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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



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



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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2545

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gameguru Mania Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2666 phpBB Group