bro what im confused with is that my 1660ti is getting anywhere from 60-110 fps but i can't cap it so it jutters kinda badly. also cutscenes shoot up into the thousands, not sure how
..the game has bad optimization that's why. but there's a lot of mods/console code lines/settings in nvidia panel etc.. that you can do to achieve a pretty solid performance. I have a gtx1080 and I am running the game very nicely with most things in high/veryhigh, HD textures ON + reshade.
Great video. No drama, no opinion, just data and the always-excellent technical analysis. Also, I really like hearing the developer explanations . You guys should do a series on how different aspects of a given game engine tax the hardware.
The reason that Crysis didn't run well is that the vast majority of its effects were full simulations rather than the fake effects that you would find in most games. I believe DF did a video breaking it down recently, it really was amazing for the time, and that's why the performance tends to drop so low
@UHD Gaming PC no can write better shader code than polish guys PERIOD, optimization is not magic, it just means removal of effects to cater the lowest common denominator, and battlefield 1 has no comparison cause just a single TREE on ULTRA high in KCD looks more real than even pre-built models in blender...
Now, this is the kind of comparison I love from DF. Showing PC's each gfx preset and comparing them to console equivalent settings with fps counter. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Good job as always.
I wasn't responding to you. I was just correcting the claim that the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X have higher resolutions and lower framerates than the base hardware. It's blatant misinformation and really petty considering that this is the very channel that highlights the higher framerate and resolution that the intermediate consoles provide in its video comparisons, sometimes doubling framerates from 30 to 60 frames per second.
SSD is practically mandatory for this game. Without it even talking to npcs with a HDD leaves like a 5+ second delay before the conversation starts.. its insanely annoying. SSD eliminates that problem, making npcs load in about 1 second.
Why get hung up on that one review? By all accounts, most customers are happy with the game, or are only bothered by technical issues, not the writing or values of the story. People who don't agree with the game's narrative choices aren't buying it, presumably (I'm not, for example). There is no a widespread movement of outrage, indeed, that Eurogamer review is the only one I've seen going after that angle.
So finally a game that can compare to Crysis 1, where developers thought ahead of the time and made settings future proofed. More games should do this but people should also educate themselves before spewing non reason of unoptimisation.
Most games especially Ubisoft games are designed with future proofing, the division is a great example it took until the 1080ti to run the game at completely max settings above 60. Ultra is future, high is now
Playing on a 7900XTX at max settings in 2023 including experimental. Very impressive looking and cool to see a game is able to scale up for new hardware so well.
@@MrLathor I am running 5775C at 4.0 GHz. 32GB DDR3-2200MT/s and 5700 XT. There are many 40-45 fps scenes which are starting to annoy me. I am in the early level where I go back to my village to find my dead parents to bury them. The game looks absolute gorgeous and addictive. I literally did not think a 7700X would have to face 50ish fps. It's one of the best CPUs in the world for gaming, at least for now. And the game is kinda old. The CPU optimization is literal shit which makes it the same as OG Crysis 1. I wish they remade it on Vulkan. I am pretty sure if it were on Vulkan, the worst fps would have been no less than 70ish something.
@@deletevil One almost unique aspect of the game is that almost every building has a full detailed interior with lots of objects/NPC’s, and zero loading times. I think it’s partially optimization (2 cores doing most of the work), but also just the scale and density that is beyond a lot of similar titles that don’t attempt such attention to detail and seamless environments. By maxing out the experimental settings, I am going far beyond what the developers were bothering to optimize for (hence “experimental”). Dropping them a little improves it over 60 fps again. This is the only game that has limited the 7700X so far. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DDR3 was also limiting you a bit in this case.
man i just got a 1080ti hoping it'd be somewhat future proof and now 2 months later this game and ff15 come to PC and it can't even do 1080p with a locked 60fps. I'm just not gonna upgrade anymore and just keep the same hardware until it becomes completely obsolete or dies. No point in pouring money into my PC year after year in upgrades. It's not possible to have the best possible experience for more than 2 years.
Brilliant analysis. My takeaway from this is that: 1). Limit your FPS for this game. 2). Really consider tweaking Draw Distance settings when utilizing the High general setting 3). Do all the above at 1080p to be safe; and to be merciful to your PC rig.
It's cool to see another CryEngine game with ultra settings used as future proofing and for really neat graphical features, not just 8k super soft shadows or ULTRA anti-aliasing or grabage like that, which doesn't really make much of a difference.
@@lysergicaciddiethylamide6127 what resolution? i have i5 12600k and 4070 and on very high preset, at night in the city my fps are going down up to 52 fps.. this game have terrible optimization ;d and i get it at 1080p XD
To anyone wanting to play it nowadays: optimization is much better than two years ago. I’m playin on a 2700x with a 1070 ti and get pretty stable 60ish fps (sometime higher, sometimes a bit lower) on very high setting. The only exception this far was the night scene also shown in the video where I got pretty stable 30 FPS in the worst case. All in all a very nice experience, but it’s super important to install the game on a SSD if you don’t know already!
Maybe I missed it, but did they ever show a comparison of SSD vs HDD performance? I feel like that'd be a large contributor to pop in considering I've seen that first hand with other games. Although, I do see people who've said SSDs don't get as great of benefit on consoles. So, who knows.
The Xbox One X version runs at 1440p, whereas the PS4 Pro runs at 1080p, but has slightly higher ambient occlusion settings. Seeing as they were doing an analysis of the PC version running at 1080p, it makes sense to use the Pro version.
I genuinely appreciate Digital Foundry checking these games out and telling us about optimal settings for games. Every time I install new titles I check the PC Gaming Wiki for fixes, and Digital Foundry for a better understanding of how a game will run for me. I've been having some problems keeping locked 60fps with this game so this is a very helpful video. Thanks DF!
I feel like the game isn't as good looking or as detailed as The Witcher 3 and yet it's far more demanding. Novigrand in Witcher is more dense and detail packed and my GPU (1060) holds a 50fps lock at ultra settings (thankfully my TV also supports 50hz for this). But i will need to lock this game at 30fps without even using the Ultra preset...
It's not about the results. It's the technology behind them. The Witcher 3 is much prettier, but it uses much older technology. If you watched the video you will have heard it - SVOGI, Parallax Mapping, Crysis foliage etc.
Well they are going for not just photorealism (the tech) but accurate medieval recreation. This is why the game looks sort of boring and bland. There isn't anywhere near as much color or interesting architecture. Don't worry, though, the Witcher 4 (if it exists) will use this next-gen technology and it's advantages will really shine in a game set out to be beautiful, instead of realistic. I guarantee you will see the difference then in Witcher 3 vs 4 comparisons. If you want to see a game which targets both and uses similar lighting to this game (though with older technology) check out Assassins Creed Origins. The whole tutorial sequence of that game is basically a tech demo for their new soft ambient lighting.
Now it's getting interesting, thanks! I was prepared to wait for a year or two before playing this, and it was really cool to hear that devs put something for the future in there.
I don't know if you noticed this or not but the "Ultra High" Preset in the Graphics menu will give different performance to going into the Advanced menu and manually setting everything to Ultra High. The preset seems to be failing to apply some settings that the advanced menu does but I have no idea what ones. You can test this for yourself by applying the preset and running a test, then going to the advanced menu, changing a setting, hitting apply and then changing it back to ultra high and hitting apply again and then running the test again.
Laggy hm i disagree. i like fps more stable and more of it on mouse because of how much control you have of the mouse. since controller is slow and stable it isnt too big of an issue if it drops because my precision isnt too thrown off since you have less control.
This game is not even nearly as pretty to compare it to Crysis. Crysis graphics justified the performance but it's not the case here. Witcher 3 crushes this game.
why do you have to bring out witcher 3 every time? witcher 3 is a master piece, but graphically witcher 3 goes for the oil painting style which is completely different and way less demanding.
This game deserves to be played at Ultra settings! I can live with 1080p@30fps. Finally we have true successor of Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead! Question: Will RX570 be enough for stable 30fps in 1080p ULTRA?
I pretty much used eveything on "high" but added HD ultra textures. Just build around the resolution you would like to use. If you really need to go lower, it makes sense to cut back to 30 fps, not like this game needs quick reaction times.
Really well optimized game that clearly shows future proof graphical prowess. The crybabies in the comments remind me of the same ones during the Crysis 1 days. Come back here a few years later and you'll realize this game is the golden standard for benchmarking. Finally a new Crysis.
Are you gonna do a video about the updated version of DOOM on the Switch?Supposedly it has performance and resolution improvements and the frame times might be fixed?
Okay so after adjusting the fps on my monitor to 120hz from 60hz the game is running a lot smoother though still leaves a lot to be desired imo. Turning off vsync in the nvidia control panel and using the in game v sync capped at 60fps gave me the best results. Game is at least playable now.
Unoptimized garbage ! A whole vista gives me solid 60, a narrow corner gives me 21 fps. Yea yea for future hardware. Gtx 1070, i7 6700k, 16 gigs ram on 'High settings, 1080p'
Yep and unlikle Crysis which can be bruteforced these days, I doubt we will be able to bruteforce this game unless they optimise it better. Like you said, the fucking grocers in Skalitz gives me 39 fps and as soon as i step out its 60+ fps... What kind of piss poor performance is that lol. That shop is like a single room with 2 npcs and buggy flashing shadows.
+LazorHD Crysis 1 still can't be bruteforced that well. Modern graphics cards still get drops below 60 FPS at 1080p when you turn everything up. CryEngine in general has a rough history with optimization, but CryEngine 2 is notoriously bad about this. All things considered, Kingdom Come runs pretty well. Its medium settings run fairly well at 720p or 900p on a GTX 660, and slightly more modern cards like R9 200's or GTX 760+'s are pulling off some nice settings at 1080p and 30+ FPS.
"Even with an expensive PC, running at 30 fps might be unavoidable..." What? 1060/580 is like mid-tier cards, and you guys just showed that it ran at 60fps+ 99% of the time with console+ settings.
The 1060 is far from low end. A low end card doesn't run modern games at 1080p, high settings, at 60fps. And you're saying that a 1070 is mid-end. Lol.
I have a 4790K and a 1080 Ti and am using ultra settings (1080p), and the only places it drops below 60 is in larger towns. In small towns and the wilderness it runs great.
To show that 60fps and above in this game is exclusive to PC. On a 1060/580 grade GPU, the game would def run at 30fps or above at console equivalent settings at 1440p. No point in comparing that.
lawrence akwaboah I think they wanted to test it against the "low end" of current console releases tbh, I own a pro before I get shit because it's the Internet.
I know it will perform better than the X but I think it would have been nice to give the viewers a broader view of what to look forward to on PC as far as all settings and resolutions.
I was wondering that, 1440p and 4k test would of been nice even at medium setting and 30fps, would of been intresting to see, anyway, looking at what we saw, the 580 and 1060 should have any real issues at 1440p 30fps at medium settings considering it seems to be holding 60fps at 1080p for the most part.
I'm running with a Core i5-7300HQ and a GTX 1050. I'm running at medium settings, but I've noticed that while my CPU is usually maxed out at 100%, my GPU is usually around 60-70%. What settings are tied to the GPU, so I can raise those without taxing my CPU much more?
You can maybe bump up the resolution? Im running at 1440p on my 1080p display with super resolution enabled. I think its too much shimmering/aliasing on 1080p and high settings.
LazorHD they didnt show utilization so if its only 70-80% then we could see 10-15 fps or higher gains with optimization. If vega werent only available in museums id look up how it performs
11.3 teraflops of power and can't even maintain 1080p/60fps? I don't know who to blame here. The visual increase of the Ultra settings over the console version does not warrant such a card at all. Give Horizon Zero Dawn 11.3 TF to work with and you'll see a game 3-4 times better looking than the Ultra here.
2018 and still going on about flops for gaming gpus. Smh. How many times does it have to be shown in AMD vs NVIDIA that flops dont mean shit today unless you have a very specific niche application. Your argument automatically loses all ground if you ever bring up gpu flops for games.
You'll not see a game 3-4 times better looking Horizon game. Juse better draw distances and better quality effects that normal player will mostly not see. Better quality effects maybe subtle but are eating a lot of power.
1070ti running high with draw distance settings bumped at 2k res with hi res textures. No console game can come close the beauty of this game at high settings. It's just incredible on a high end rig.
Here's newest patch notes sweetheart ''60 FPS mode added for PS4, Xbox One, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Battle Royale now defaults to 60 FPS, but you can switch back to 30 FPS in Settings.''
Should have enabled volumetric fog via the console, does not drop fps at all. Was just disabled on all 3 because consoles could not cope. Open the console and type e_volumetricfog 1. It's not as good as the dynamic volumetric fog the beta had before the game made the move to consoles but still very nice
PCs don't struggle. Some idiot PC users do, however. If you have the brain to go into the option and tweak settings to your hardware's capability, 60 fps is more than doable across the board while at the same time looking two times better than console counterparts. All the reports/videos of PCs struggling are at the futuristic ultra high (not even meant for this generation) or at the wrong combination of settings. The PC version is just fine.
Cryptocurrency miners are buying out all graphics cards causing shortages at retailers, that's why the prices are 2-3 times the MSRP. Wait 6-7 months for prices to normalize. Now is a very bad time to get into PC gaming if you already don't have a PC.
+Cmdr Flint Man just think about how this game looks in Ultra settings and all the techs that are put onto this game before saying "ouch,is this a Ubisoft game". Optimization is something very important but sometimes you cant do miracles. The escale of the game, the level of folliage and ligthning plus the physics and IA interactions will tax any PC for now (unlesh you have like 2 1080Tis with a I78700K or even higher CPU or even 2 Titan Volta`s). One thing devs could do to improve performance is using Vulkan in case the game is not using it already but this is all they can do when it comes down to optimization if the games is running at Ultra settings for now
Jaspion88 I know, it was a joke. And 2017 hardware yes, but it's not like GPUs are made to be upgraded once per year, and the 1080ti is still the most powerful single gaming GPU available.
10 years from now, when midrange GPU's will breeze through this game at 4K 60 FPS we will finally get to experience the original vision of the creators.
looks like shit!!?, RDR2 looks like shit, like literally that brown ass 1800s shit filter, and KCD runs at 60fps locked on medium even on lower end hardware...
I know PC is more expensive Specially Right now, but with a Good cheap CPU like i3-8350K and a custom OC RX 580 you are able to destroy X1X's performance as most powerful console. If this RX 580 with medium settings can average more than 60FPS at 1080p, so it is probably able to deliver a solid 30FPS with high settings at 1440p. I mean there is no need to a High-end system or high-end GPU to beat OneX's perfomance.
Looking at benchmarks for comparable games right now, no, it doesn't "destroy" the X1X. In fact, a lot of PC's with even a decent GPU cost double what an X1X does for similar performance. I'm fortunate enough to have a great PC I built before crypto shot components through the roof, but I've done so many breakdowns buying both used & new (via Newegg pricing) while comparing benchmarks from reputable outlets, and PC's that offer high-ultra settings 1440p-4k at 30fps-60fps cost FAR more than $500 (and yes, just scroll back through almost all of DF's X1X videos, and most devs use high/ultra assets for X1X settings).
That's fine. I've also done the research and can provide links to every component, the price, and the related benchmarks that show it's true. People can generalize & make claims all they want, but the actual data doesn't back up the "I build my PC for $350 and a Starbucks gift card & it does 4k 160 fps on ultra!" comments people throw around. I know you were just joking around, so this wasn't meant to be rude :) Also, PC is far & away the best platform. Much better than Xbox One or PS4 in every way. I've been building them for over 20 years, and just dislike seeing inaccurate info being thrown around.
Adam Smith i rather lower the res to 1080p and have everything on very high and some stuff on high than using some settings on medium and low...besides 40-50 fps on this kind of game is playable enough
Apart from the still present pockets of 100% CPU utilisation (regardless of how powerful your CPU is) the 1.6v is very nicely polished and these frame drops (CPU at 100%) are not as common as they used to be in the older versions of this game.
I will never find myself playing multiplat on a console. It's masochistic. You pay $10 or more on average to get worse quality. While on steam during countless annual sales you can get a superior product at a fraction of a price.
I buy games on PS4, then sell them when I'm done. Evil Within 2 cost me a total of 5€, PC games can't compete with that. Never will as long as PS4 has physical releases.
Admiral Ackbar I used to think that was true myself but having owned a PS4 pro for 12 months I can tell you there's actually just as many sales on psn as there is on steam, and a couple of months after games come out you can usually snap them up for £30 or so, so it's really not that different. And indis in my experience are usually slightly cheaper on psn than on pc. I'd still say pc games can be acquired slightly cheaper overall but it's not a huge disparity by any means
You must have really bad specs if you went from pc to a console for multiplats. Anyone I know who played on PC only uses their console for exclusives. Why would you want to play a game usually unstable 30 (mid 20s) fps 1080p with "low-medium" settings when you can play 2k-4k at 60 usually maxed?
OK. I will get this game in 2021 when GTX 3080 is launched. I think the developer maybe aiming to set a new crysis benchmark standard rather than selling a properly running game. On the second thought, more people would buy it as a benchmark tool regardless off whether they like this sort of game play or not. Good sales strategy!
No mention of weird stuttering?? Using a controller on pc. 1080ti with an i7 6700k. Frame counter says i'm locked at 60fps, but there's this constant judder every time i pan side to side. Makes me think my pc is broken. They are such pains in the ass!
I own descent PC with overclocked i7 and gf 1070 but this is one of those games I might wait to play till next generation of graphics cards just to enjoy it at 1440p/60fps. Luckily next gen of nvidia cards might just be around the corner.
PS4 pro drew the distance from tv stand to trash can , was able to handle that demand and went for it .. I now have a ps4 pro in the trash and a empty ikea tv stand.
Great job on this wonderful analysis, personally I truly underestimated this game until I saw the reviews. Might be a wonderful experience of medieval settings with no magic and dragons, atmospheric as might say.
It does, DF was just comparing the 1080p set up with the PC and the PRO because the X1X runs at 1440p. This gives people the standard low level (res) look and the fps that comes with it.
X can't handle it.... For Christ sake. It was maxing out their i5 8600k. The ancient Jaguar chip would destroy it's self trying anything more. This game is to demanding for even the highest end hardware. The x is only on par with a 1060 99% of the time.
Did you do something with contrast, or is that just youtube? because that game has THE best rendering of subtle light changes I have ever seen, but here, it is just "black spaces".
Looking at the RX580 vs GTX1060 comparison, RX580 might be reaching higher FPS, but oh god the frametimes are all over the place, and the GTX1060 footage appears much smoother.
Right? Came to the comments looking for this. Something's wrong with that RX580, might be the recording, or frametimes, although in the graph, it doesn't seem like much of a difference.
if you a referring to the shadows cast by henry as indoor shadows then nah mate they are actually on the lowest settings available. It also doesn't render indoor shadows as you would assume as there a literally no shadows being cast by any object other than henry from the open door while inside.. This is evident if you look at any chair or table while inside...
Or you know, it is for future hardware, since their is no way to make the game run good with such effects enabled. It's not the first game to do this btw. GTA IV did the same. FFS most modern system still can struggle with everythin maxed out in GTA IV and that's a ten year old game.
paavo665 I can max gta v at 4k on my rig but on this piece of shit I played high settings and sat at about 45fps average and dropped to 38fps at 4k high on a gtx 1080 strix at 2063 core clock and 5508 memory and an i7 4790k at 4.7ghz lmao `future hardware'
PC MASTER RACE FTW. This is how make a visually appealing game on PC that not just looks good now utilizing hardware to the fullest but also give room for future more powerful hardware with even better visual fidelity.
*adjusting settings to medium or low because performance is bad*: such intense problem solving.. but ill agree that in a case where you're used to something just running and not having any choices at all it could seem a bit overwhelming to actually be able to change things like render distance or texture quality
Consoles actaully take longer than ever to setup and play games, PC's have gotten much easier, takes 15 minutes to install Windows and it's just a case of clicking next, which you do on you console setup. Drivers usually download from Windows update, stick a disk in if you don't have the driver or just go to the website. You actually learn and use PC at school now days so there is no excuse. Games are all digital now, just download them via Steam, click the icon ont he desktop.
I admit it can be a hassle sometimes, but more than 95% of the time, that hassle is in achieving 60fps, either because the game is a straight console port with a 30fps cap, or because my mediocre GPU isn't up to the task. In either case, the console would be a simpler choice... but only because it removes the option to play at 60fps at all! Achieving 30fps on PC takes no effort, just as it takes no effort to get the same on console.
Look the lighting is very impresive I don't deny that but the rest of the game while still looking good doesn't really justify that kind of performance. I get it it's a small studio and they have done a good job but lately I just wish every game is as well optimised as Doom.
The foliage is incredibly dense and the lighting is above most other games, never mind all the CPU tasks in the background, i'd say it's running about what you'd expect given the scale.
This is a fantastic game that just needs extra polish and optimization. I hope 6 months down the line the technical issuess have been resolved and this gem is allowed to shine.
Im from the future. We have 2080ti now! Still not fully smooth. Thank you and goodbye.
3080ti will crush this game in 4k
@@cosmic_gate476 KCD will crush this GPU in degree celcius.
bro what im confused with is that my 1660ti is getting anywhere from 60-110 fps but i can't cap it so it jutters kinda badly. also cutscenes shoot up into the thousands, not sure how
Cry Engine is so damn unreasonably demanding.
..the game has bad optimization that's why. but there's a lot of mods/console code lines/settings in nvidia panel etc.. that you can do to achieve a pretty solid performance. I have a gtx1080 and I am running the game very nicely with most things in high/veryhigh, HD textures ON + reshade.
Great video as always. Love your hard work digital foundry!
Why did you compare it to the PS4 Pro instead of the XB1X? Seems odd you wouldn't compare it to the latest console....
Great video. No drama, no opinion, just data and the always-excellent technical analysis. Also, I really like hearing the developer explanations .
You guys should do a series on how different aspects of a given game engine tax the hardware.
But can it run kingdom come ?
Battlefield 1 doesn't have to simulate an AI world in the background.
Crysis is a ridiculously unoptimized game and it's had the reputation for this long.
The reason that Crysis didn't run well is that the vast majority of its effects were full simulations rather than the fake effects that you would find in most games. I believe DF did a video breaking it down recently, it really was amazing for the time, and that's why the performance tends to drop so low
@UHD Gaming PC no can write better shader code than polish guys PERIOD, optimization is not magic, it just means removal of effects to cater the lowest common denominator, and battlefield 1 has no comparison cause just a single TREE on ULTRA high in KCD looks more real than even pre-built models in blender...
Now, this is the kind of comparison I love from DF. Showing PC's each gfx preset and comparing them to console equivalent settings with fps counter. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Good job as always.
This is why i subscribed. I couldn't care less about the console comparisons.
Exactly. With consoles it's always 'this base console runs the game at 900p/28fps but this updated console runs the game at 4k/25fps'
Wow!
What? The Xbox One X and the PS4 Pro have significantly higher framerates than the base consoles for this game.
I wasn't responding to you. I was just correcting the claim that the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X have higher resolutions and lower framerates than the base hardware. It's blatant misinformation and really petty considering that this is the very channel that highlights the higher framerate and resolution that the intermediate consoles provide in its video comparisons, sometimes doubling framerates from 30 to 60 frames per second.
Very clever. Gold star for your useless comment.
SSD is practically mandatory for this game. Without it even talking to npcs with a HDD leaves like a 5+ second delay before the conversation starts.. its insanely annoying. SSD eliminates that problem, making npcs load in about 1 second.
i tried to max this game out at 1440p on gtx1080 OC.. "medieval slide show.exe has stopped working"
Eurogamer: 'Blacks lived all over Europe in the Middle Ages.'
0/10 - 'racism.'
Why get hung up on that one review? By all accounts, most customers are happy with the game, or are only bothered by technical issues, not the writing or values of the story. People who don't agree with the game's narrative choices aren't buying it, presumably (I'm not, for example). There is no a widespread movement of outrage, indeed, that Eurogamer review is the only one I've seen going after that angle.
Agamemnon2 Polygon too and all the feminist social justice warrior types
Already sold 1 million copies. 😆
Cam Kustka no one cares about SJWs
'Blacks lived all over Europe in the Middle Ages.'
No, they weren't. At least not here in the central region (where the actual game takes place).
I really wish DF's PC coverage included a wider range of PCs.
They analize graphics, not hardware. For multiple cards and CPUs, go to gamer's Nexus or hardware unboxed.
If you were making the videos, would you really want to mess with a bunch of PCs for every single video?
So finally a game that can compare to Crysis 1, where developers thought ahead of the time and made settings future proofed. More games should do this but people should also educate themselves before spewing non reason of unoptimisation.
this is a joke right?
Most games especially Ubisoft games are designed with future proofing, the division is a great example it took until the 1080ti to run the game at completely max settings above 60. Ultra is future, high is now
I'm gonna go ahead and say Ubisoft does both. Their games look good but their optimization should definitely be better.
When developers stop targeting 30 (or 31) fps, then I will stop complaining about optimization.
JustOneGuy yeah, but still, crysis 3 looks more advance (released in 2013)
Cinematic 17 FPS.
AMD JAGUAR IS SO RAD DUDE I LOEV CONSOEL
WELCOME TO 2010!!!!!!!!
Inb4 "human eye cannot see above 17 fps" and "most consumers cannot tell the difference"
Archnid 001 It was a joke. :-(
Marty McFly Christ you PC lot are an insecure group ain't ya..?! lol
CEWIIH No, we are just riffing of a goddamn meme (which "cinematic FPS" has become a long time ago).
Tom is a young fella with an old man's voice, Dave is the total opposite... Need a Patch?
lol
Would be great to see a short list of recommended settings to lower for performance vs visual quality
when I was a teenager I was very happy to get 15 fps...I had to lower the polygons count just to have 15 frames....times have changed...
great game but requires polishing....this might the best game released on pc so far in 2018
The same will be said about Star citizen...
when it releases in 2031
Playing on a 7900XTX at max settings in 2023 including experimental. Very impressive looking and cool to see a game is able to scale up for new hardware so well.
cpu?
@@deletevil 7700X at 5.7 GHZ. Actually was CPU limited in Rattay into the 50 fps range. Very single core limited.
@@MrLathor I am running 5775C at 4.0 GHz. 32GB DDR3-2200MT/s and 5700 XT. There are many 40-45 fps scenes which are starting to annoy me. I am in the early level where I go back to my village to find my dead parents to bury them. The game looks absolute gorgeous and addictive.
I literally did not think a 7700X would have to face 50ish fps. It's one of the best CPUs in the world for gaming, at least for now. And the game is kinda old. The CPU optimization is literal shit which makes it the same as OG Crysis 1. I wish they remade it on Vulkan. I am pretty sure if it were on Vulkan, the worst fps would have been no less than 70ish something.
@@deletevil One almost unique aspect of the game is that almost every building has a full detailed interior with lots of objects/NPC’s, and zero loading times. I think it’s partially optimization (2 cores doing most of the work), but also just the scale and density that is beyond a lot of similar titles that don’t attempt such attention to detail and seamless environments. By maxing out the experimental settings, I am going far beyond what the developers were bothering to optimize for (hence “experimental”). Dropping them a little improves it over 60 fps again. This is the only game that has limited the 7700X so far. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DDR3 was also limiting you a bit in this case.
man i just got a 1080ti hoping it'd be somewhat future proof and now 2 months later this game and ff15 come to PC and it can't even do 1080p with a locked 60fps. I'm just not gonna upgrade anymore and just keep the same hardware until it becomes completely obsolete or dies. No point in pouring money into my PC year after year in upgrades. It's not possible to have the best possible experience for more than 2 years.
This game runs like shit and ffxv it's not very optimized, don't worry too much, your 1080ti will last for many years at 1080p/60fps ultra.
Brilliant analysis. My takeaway from this is that:
1). Limit your FPS for this game.
2). Really consider tweaking Draw Distance settings when utilizing the High general setting
3). Do all the above at 1080p to be safe; and to be merciful to your PC rig.
It's cool to see another CryEngine game with ultra settings used as future proofing and for really neat graphical features, not just 8k super soft shadows or ULTRA anti-aliasing or grabage like that, which doesn't really make much of a difference.
I don't know why, but setting the resolution to dynamic resolution in "900p
I’m from future with 3080ti everything maxed and it still dips under 60 with a 3440x1440 monitor
Yup same here lol my 3070 has issues still with this game but it’s not bad
I’m from the future future and R7 7800x3d and 4070 super ti. Maxed out at 60 locked.
@@lysergicaciddiethylamide6127 what resolution? i have i5 12600k and 4070 and on very high preset, at night in the city my fps are going down up to 52 fps.. this game have terrible optimization ;d and i get it at 1080p XD
@@szewcyka6395 1440p
That's a very well done PC analysis. Thank you
Why did you compare it to the PS4 Pro instead of the XB1X? Seems odd you wouldn't compare it to the latest console....
becoz like 99% of people play 1080p res
Sony foundry
Some graphical effect(s) are higher on Pro.
they should have testet xbox x on a 1080p screen vs pc
no one cares about xbox
To anyone wanting to play it nowadays: optimization is much better than two years ago. I’m playin on a 2700x with a 1070 ti and get pretty stable 60ish fps (sometime higher, sometimes a bit lower) on very high setting. The only exception this far was the night scene also shown in the video where I got pretty stable 30 FPS in the worst case. All in all a very nice experience, but it’s super important to install the game on a SSD if you don’t know already!
i guess now we have to ask "but can it run Kingdom come Deliverance?"
Typing "e_volumetricfog 1" in the console gets you, well, volumetric fog. It really adds a lot to outdoor scenes.
Far better on PC, though i will wait for performance optimization patches.
no shit
sadly never came
Shit devs never delivered lol
Maybe I missed it, but did they ever show a comparison of SSD vs HDD performance? I feel like that'd be a large contributor to pop in considering I've seen that first hand with other games. Although, I do see people who've said SSDs don't get as great of benefit on consoles. So, who knows.
Why would you compare the pc version to the ps4 pro? They should've compared it to the xbox one x. Would have made more sense
The Xbox One X version runs at 1440p, whereas the PS4 Pro runs at 1080p, but has slightly higher ambient occlusion settings. Seeing as they were doing an analysis of the PC version running at 1080p, it makes sense to use the Pro version.
Chris Covington The Pro is the preferred console.
The pc version decimates the Slideshowbox One X version
Compare PS4 to PC just like compare Bicycle to Mustang Ford 1969
I genuinely appreciate Digital Foundry checking these games out and telling us about optimal settings for games. Every time I install new titles I check the PC Gaming Wiki for fixes, and Digital Foundry for a better understanding of how a game will run for me. I've been having some problems keeping locked 60fps with this game so this is a very helpful video. Thanks DF!
I feel like the game isn't as good looking or as detailed as The Witcher 3 and yet it's far more demanding. Novigrand in Witcher is more dense and detail packed and my GPU (1060) holds a 50fps lock at ultra settings (thankfully my TV also supports 50hz for this). But i will need to lock this game at 30fps without even using the Ultra preset...
It's not about the results. It's the technology behind them. The Witcher 3 is much prettier, but it uses much older technology. If you watched the video you will have heard it - SVOGI, Parallax Mapping, Crysis foliage etc.
Not arguing with that, i just find it unjustified on the developer's part. They use these features and yet The Witcher 3 is still prettier in the end.
Well they are going for not just photorealism (the tech) but accurate medieval recreation. This is why the game looks sort of boring and bland. There isn't anywhere near as much color or interesting architecture. Don't worry, though, the Witcher 4 (if it exists) will use this next-gen technology and it's advantages will really shine in a game set out to be beautiful, instead of realistic. I guarantee you will see the difference then in Witcher 3 vs 4 comparisons. If you want to see a game which targets both and uses similar lighting to this game (though with older technology) check out Assassins Creed Origins. The whole tutorial sequence of that game is basically a tech demo for their new soft ambient lighting.
Imgema No IT IS NOT. Walk through a forest at night with a torch out. And you'll see exactly just how outdated TW3 is
Imgema witcher 3s textures aren't HD where as on high these seem almost 2k
Now it's getting interesting, thanks!
I was prepared to wait for a year or two before playing this, and it was really cool to hear that devs put something for the future in there.
Hi, from the future. I can finally run this game at 2k 60fps on ultra with a rtx 3080, Ryzen 5800x. It's.... Beautiful..
I don't know if you noticed this or not but the "Ultra High" Preset in the Graphics menu will give different performance to going into the Advanced menu and manually setting everything to Ultra High.
The preset seems to be failing to apply some settings that the advanced menu does but I have no idea what ones.
You can test this for yourself by applying the preset and running a test, then going to the advanced menu, changing a setting, hitting apply and then changing it back to ultra high and hitting apply again and then running the test again.
I love the realistic look this game has. Stunning really.
The FPS are at 80 95% of the time. Why would you lock it at 30 for just one scene?
Because 95% isn't 100%.
Laggy hm i disagree. i like fps more stable and more of it on mouse because of how much control you have of the mouse. since controller is slow and stable it isnt too big of an issue if it drops because my precision isnt too thrown off since you have less control.
They need to optimize this title, not purchasing it till it’s done.
TheRedRaven kinda like ppl asking crytek to optimize crysis in 2008
Lmao ask crytek, not the dev then. It is like asking the devs so that crysis can run on your 2007 PC spec.
This game is not even nearly as pretty to compare it to Crysis. Crysis graphics justified the performance but it's not the case here. Witcher 3 crushes this game.
Nebula go back playing 2008 crysis without mods 😂
why do you have to bring out witcher 3 every time? witcher 3 is a master piece, but graphically witcher 3 goes for the oil painting style which is completely different and way less demanding.
You guys are great. Loved the developer commentary.
This game deserves to be played at Ultra settings! I can live with 1080p@30fps. Finally we have true successor of Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead!
Question: Will RX570 be enough for stable 30fps in 1080p ULTRA?
Have you played Modded Crysis? It's beyond Ultra setting.
i know it's been a while but i wish we had an optimized settings video as well =)
I pretty much used eveything on "high" but added HD ultra textures. Just build around the resolution you would like to use. If you really need to go lower, it makes sense to cut back to 30 fps, not like this game needs quick reaction times.
@@Franku_4 thx my fellow doge.
@don__clemenza have you thought about the possibility that he was, when i had posted that comment?
@don__clemenza because he was, when i had posted that comment.
@don__clemenza and you are not an elephant.
The game is orgasmicly beautiful.
Really well optimized game that clearly shows future proof graphical prowess. The crybabies in the comments remind me of the same ones during the Crysis 1 days. Come back here a few years later and you'll realize this game is the golden standard for benchmarking. Finally a new Crysis.
+DigitalFoundry
Which DDR4 memory did you guys use???
DDR4-3200 CL14 is a good performance/price.
This game is my Crysis, every time I get a new GPU it’s the first game I load up.
Are you gonna do a video about the updated version of DOOM on the Switch?Supposedly it has performance and resolution improvements and the frame times might be fixed?
I wish Bethesda would stop sending these bots into the chat. Noone cares about that old game..
Michael Tepes k
DeadPhoenix86 tell that to the old doom
DeadPhoenix86 your mom needs to be 60fps
DeadPhoenix86 actually im 4
4090 and medium settings still struggling to hit solid 60fps. Engine is unoptimized. I hope the sequel runs better
Something has to be off with your setup unless your cpu is lacking
@@zoomzoomkaboom cpu is 7800x3d. Yeah. Idk what could be causing fps to fluctuate so much. I think the game ran better on my old set up with a 1080ti
Okay so after adjusting the fps on my monitor to 120hz from 60hz the game is running a lot smoother though still leaves a lot to be desired imo. Turning off vsync in the nvidia control panel and using the in game v sync capped at 60fps gave me the best results. Game is at least playable now.
Unoptimized garbage ! A whole vista gives me solid 60, a narrow corner gives me 21 fps. Yea yea for future hardware.
Gtx 1070, i7 6700k, 16 gigs ram on 'High settings, 1080p'
Gökhan isnt there some technique where it doesnt render whats on the other side of walls?
Gökhan
"Future proofing" is just an excuse.
Yep and unlikle Crysis which can be bruteforced these days, I doubt we will be able to bruteforce this game unless they optimise it better. Like you said, the fucking grocers in Skalitz gives me 39 fps and as soon as i step out its 60+ fps... What kind of piss poor performance is that lol. That shop is like a single room with 2 npcs and buggy flashing shadows.
+LazorHD Crysis 1 still can't be bruteforced that well. Modern graphics cards still get drops below 60 FPS at 1080p when you turn everything up. CryEngine in general has a rough history with optimization, but CryEngine 2 is notoriously bad about this. All things considered, Kingdom Come runs pretty well. Its medium settings run fairly well at 720p or 900p on a GTX 660, and slightly more modern cards like R9 200's or GTX 760+'s are pulling off some nice settings at 1080p and 30+ FPS.
"Uhg, why cant this gorgeous game with bleeding edge graphics run at 300 fps maxed out on my potato computer?" Thats you, thats what you sound like.
Not having Alex break this down and recommend settings hurts
"Even with an expensive PC, running at 30 fps might be unavoidable..." What? 1060/580 is like mid-tier cards, and you guys just showed that it ran at 60fps+ 99% of the time with console+ settings.
i think he meant at the highest possible settings
the 1060 is a low end card, mid end is 1070
then whats a 1050 and gt 1030? super super low end?
no 1050 is entry level, and the gt 1030 is just for people who want hdmi port for 4k videos or whatever not for gaming
The 1060 is far from low end. A low end card doesn't run modern games at 1080p, high settings, at 60fps.
And you're saying that a 1070 is mid-end. Lol.
I have a 4790K and a 1080 Ti and am using ultra settings (1080p), and the only places it drops below 60 is in larger towns. In small towns and the wilderness it runs great.
If I am not mistaken the One X ran it at 1440p so why wasn't the PC version not tested with a resolution higher than 1080p for a better comparison?
To show that 60fps and above in this game is exclusive to PC. On a 1060/580 grade GPU, the game would def run at 30fps or above at console equivalent settings at 1440p. No point in comparing that.
lawrence akwaboah I think they wanted to test it against the "low end" of current console releases tbh, I own a pro before I get shit because it's the Internet.
I know it will perform better than the X but I think it would have been nice to give the viewers a broader view of what to look forward to on PC as far as all settings and resolutions.
I was wondering that, 1440p and 4k test would of been nice even at medium setting and 30fps, would of been intresting to see, anyway, looking at what we saw, the 580 and 1060 should have any real issues at 1440p 30fps at medium settings considering it seems to be holding 60fps at 1080p for the most part.
you are mistaken.
I'm running with a Core i5-7300HQ and a GTX 1050. I'm running at medium settings, but I've noticed that while my CPU is usually maxed out at 100%, my GPU is usually around 60-70%. What settings are tied to the GPU, so I can raise those without taxing my CPU much more?
You can maybe bump up the resolution? Im running at 1440p on my 1080p display with super resolution enabled. I think its too much shimmering/aliasing on 1080p and high settings.
The performance on 1080Ti is just shocking.
LazorHD shockingly bad or good?
Shockingly bad obviously. This game needs patching and maybe better drivers from Nvidia
LazorHD they didnt show utilization so if its only 70-80% then we could see 10-15 fps or higher gains with optimization. If vega werent only available in museums id look up how it performs
Salt Maker i mean. A card 8 generations from now at the 600$ price point had better be able to max this game
Have you made a Steam Version vs Gog Version Test? Drm vs no drm?
11.3 teraflops of power and can't even maintain 1080p/60fps? I don't know who to blame here. The visual increase of the Ultra settings over the console version does not warrant such a card at all. Give Horizon Zero Dawn 11.3 TF to work with and you'll see a game 3-4 times better looking than the Ultra here.
jinchuriki26 No. Horizon doesn't hold up when you get in close. The game is 3rd person so you don't see close details like in this game.
Damn so True and I own a High End PC lol. Only If Guerilla Games got a Card like 1080ti to work with
Horizon easily holds up in close range. In fact the character models in Horizon are so much more detailed than KCD's
2018 and still going on about flops for gaming gpus. Smh. How many times does it have to be shown in AMD vs NVIDIA that flops dont mean shit today unless you have a very specific niche application. Your argument automatically loses all ground if you ever bring up gpu flops for games.
You'll not see a game 3-4 times better looking Horizon game. Juse better draw distances and better quality effects that normal player will mostly not see. Better quality effects maybe subtle but are eating a lot of power.
Well done on the analysis.
"Medium settings 30 fps and drops under 30."
- The Beast
imagine we already kill 5 enemies and they still stuck at loading screen
1440p though, but still a valid point.
Sindhu Baskoro Dumb comment.
Reza Saputra then your game crashes back to Windows.. :)
Slideshowbox One X
"I got in touch with the warhorse lead programmer : Tomáš blaho" huh what Jason Blaha?
Will you guys check out the new Doom patch for the switch?
1070ti running high with draw distance settings bumped at 2k res with hi res textures. No console game can come close the beauty of this game at high settings. It's just incredible on a high end rig.
can we get a fortnite battle royale framerate test on consoles with uncapped framerate?
xKarvalho nope, enjoy your buttery smooth sub-30fps on your PS4 :)
Maybe they are waiting for the 60 fps update to make a complete analysis
Here's newest patch notes sweetheart ''60 FPS mode added for PS4, Xbox One, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.
Battle Royale now defaults to 60 FPS, but you can switch back to 30 FPS in Settings.''
MrNonsense220
what??!! 60fps on the old consoles? That will just never happen, if they can't keep up with 30fps how will they be able to run at 60fps?
No username well, gonna test it on ps4 and pro after they switch on the servers :D
I got RTX 2080, i7 7700 and it still drops under 60 fps in big cities at very high settings and 1080p. But it's 100+ fps in landscapes and forests.
Personally I would not compromise visuals for fps in a game like this. 30fps is perfectly fine.
Thiago Vidal but not in a first person game
No username This isn't shooters.
It isn't. I'll just wait I can overpower it with my hardware.
Thiago Vidal bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahaha
Should have enabled volumetric fog via the console, does not drop fps at all. Was just disabled on all 3 because consoles could not cope. Open the console and type e_volumetricfog 1. It's not as good as the dynamic volumetric fog the beta had before the game made the move to consoles but still very nice
Even PC's struggle with this one. Time to refamiliarize ourselves with 30 fps
PCs don't struggle. Some idiot PC users do, however. If you have the brain to go into the option and tweak settings to your hardware's capability, 60 fps is more than doable across the board while at the same time looking two times better than console counterparts. All the reports/videos of PCs struggling are at the futuristic ultra high (not even meant for this generation) or at the wrong combination of settings. The PC version is just fine.
+ ytubeact123 What happened to graphic card prices? I bought gtx 1060 6gb 2years ago at 250$ and now it's like almost 500$...
Just lower the shadows and shaders a little and you will get huge boost in fps.
Cryptocurrency miners are buying out all graphics cards causing shortages at retailers, that's why the prices are 2-3 times the MSRP. Wait 6-7 months for prices to normalize. Now is a very bad time to get into PC gaming if you already don't have a PC.
i4570 + rx 470 8gb +8 gb system ram ( pc cost me 485€ 2 years ago ) -> 75fps in 1080p max settings bar the shadow at low.... pc master race
Great video! Will there be any 1440p and 4k tests? :)
Looks pretty good, but sub 60 on ultra with a 1080ti.. ouch, is this a ubisoft game?!? Does it scale with sli/xf?
„sub 20 on ultra“ My lowest fps drop was exactly 17fps on a 1080ti/i7 7700k/16gb ram @ultra/1440p.
+Cmdr Flint Man just think about how this game looks in Ultra settings and all the techs that are put onto this game before saying "ouch,is this a Ubisoft game".
Optimization is something very important but sometimes you cant do miracles.
The escale of the game, the level of folliage and ligthning plus the physics and IA interactions will tax any PC for now (unlesh you have like 2 1080Tis with a I78700K or even higher CPU or even 2 Titan Volta`s).
One thing devs could do to improve performance is using Vulkan in case the game is not using it already but this is all they can do when it comes down to optimization if the games is running at Ultra settings for now
It's future proof / next gen. Don"t expect to run smoothly at max settings on 2017 hardware.
Jaspion88 I know, it was a joke. And 2017 hardware yes, but it's not like GPUs are made to be upgraded once per year, and the 1080ti is still the most powerful single gaming GPU available.
10 years from now, when midrange GPU's will breeze through this game at 4K 60 FPS we will finally get to experience the original vision of the creators.
Developer:
"The game looks and runs like absolute shit because we've "future-proofed" it. For future PC gaming hardware".
looks like shit!!?, RDR2 looks like shit, like literally that brown ass 1800s shit filter, and KCD runs at 60fps locked on medium even on lower end hardware...
Very nice video and very useful!
I know PC is more expensive Specially Right now, but with a Good cheap CPU like i3-8350K and a custom OC RX 580 you are able to destroy X1X's performance as most powerful console.
If this RX 580 with medium settings can average more than 60FPS at 1080p, so it is probably able to deliver a solid 30FPS with high settings at 1440p.
I mean there is no need to a High-end system or high-end GPU to beat OneX's perfomance.
someones about to come call the rx 580 high end and say you can only get one for 1000$
Looking at benchmarks for comparable games right now, no, it doesn't "destroy" the X1X.
In fact, a lot of PC's with even a decent GPU cost double what an X1X does for similar performance. I'm fortunate enough to have a great PC I built before crypto shot components through the roof, but I've done so many breakdowns buying both used & new (via Newegg pricing) while comparing benchmarks from reputable outlets, and PC's that offer high-ultra settings 1440p-4k at 30fps-60fps cost FAR more than $500 (and yes, just scroll back through almost all of DF's X1X videos, and most devs use high/ultra assets for X1X settings).
Corey D the prophecy has been fuffilled, you are the one tatsufollower fortold
That's fine. I've also done the research and can provide links to every component, the price, and the related benchmarks that show it's true. People can generalize & make claims all they want, but the actual data doesn't back up the "I build my PC for $350 and a Starbucks gift card & it does 4k 160 fps on ultra!" comments people throw around.
I know you were just joking around, so this wasn't meant to be rude :)
Also, PC is far & away the best platform. Much better than Xbox One or PS4 in every way. I've been building them for over 20 years, and just dislike seeing inaccurate info being thrown around.
Corey D youre very reasonable, and i like that you can provide evidence, i wish more people in this comment section were like you
But can it run Kingdom Come Deliverance?
980ti i7 6700. 60fps locked at 1440p all very high settings except shadows low and shaders medium. Looks stunning. Very happy with how it runs
Almost 3 year old gpu still destroying Xbox one x
i am wondering how my gtx 970 will work ? it is 4 years old card, maybe 1080p medium setitng can lock 60 fps
That is what I love about pc. Among many things. But yah you can customize whatever you want to get what you want out of your games.
Reza Saputra it should perform close the the gym 1060 if you overclock your 970.
Adam Smith i rather lower the res to 1080p and have everything on very high and some stuff on high than using some settings on medium and low...besides 40-50 fps on this kind of game is playable enough
Apart from the still present pockets of 100% CPU utilisation (regardless of how powerful your CPU is) the 1.6v is very nicely polished and these frame drops (CPU at 100%) are not as common as they used to be in the older versions of this game.
I will never find myself playing multiplat on a console. It's masochistic. You pay $10 or more on average to get worse quality. While on steam during countless annual sales you can get a superior product at a fraction of a price.
Admiral Ackbar so true. 7d2d is one of my favorite multiplat indie* games and it is literally painful to play on console
I buy games on PS4, then sell them when I'm done. Evil Within 2 cost me a total of 5€, PC games can't compete with that. Never will as long as PS4 has physical releases.
Psydrre what if you buy it from psn ?
Admiral Ackbar I used to think that was true myself but having owned a PS4 pro for 12 months I can tell you there's actually just as many sales on psn as there is on steam, and a couple of months after games come out you can usually snap them up for £30 or so, so it's really not that different. And indis in my experience are usually slightly cheaper on psn than on pc. I'd still say pc games can be acquired slightly cheaper overall but it's not a huge disparity by any means
You must have really bad specs if you went from pc to a console for multiplats. Anyone I know who played on PC only uses their console for exclusives. Why would you want to play a game usually unstable 30 (mid 20s) fps 1080p with "low-medium" settings when you can play 2k-4k at 60 usually maxed?
OK. I will get this game in 2021 when GTX 3080 is launched. I think the developer maybe aiming to set a new crysis benchmark standard rather than selling a properly running game. On the second thought, more people would buy it as a benchmark tool regardless off whether they like this sort of game play or not. Good sales strategy!
No mention of weird stuttering?? Using a controller on pc. 1080ti with an i7 6700k. Frame counter says i'm locked at 60fps, but there's this constant judder every time i pan side to side. Makes me think my pc is broken. They are such pains in the ass!
does it happen with a mouse? it could be poor controller support
Use nvidia inspector to cap the frame-rate to 60, and disable in-game Vsync.
Fallout and Skyrim both do that too.
That would be due to poor frame pacing.
What resolution are you playing on by the way?
I own descent PC with overclocked i7 and gf 1070 but this is one of those games I might wait to play till next generation of graphics cards just to enjoy it at 1440p/60fps. Luckily next gen of nvidia cards might just be around the corner.
"Optimization? Fuck that noise, lets just say it's meant to be played on future hardware!"
which exact setting should i increase to high to activate parallax occlusion? i can't afford to raise everything to high
PS4 pro drew the distance from tv stand to trash can , was able to handle that demand and went for it .. I now have a ps4 pro in the trash and a empty ikea tv stand.
Ha!
You mean from T.v. stand to mac pro ? /s
Great job on this wonderful analysis, personally I truly underestimated this game until I saw the reviews. Might be a wonderful experience of medieval settings with no magic and dragons, atmospheric as might say.
Eurogamer said this game is racist so I'm unsubbing from this channel for covering a racist game.
WHITE MALES IN MY GAME WHERE 99.9999% OF PEOPLE WERE WHITE? WHY I WOULD NEVER!
They probably thought that Martin Laurence movie Black Knight was based on historical documents
"don't be racist. Just hate everyone" - italian proverb -
Don't worry. I do. We're all despicable.
Dude, these SJWs unironically believe that Black Panther is an accurate representation of how the world would be if Africa have never been colonized.
That indoor lighting is unbelievable. Next generation stuff.
Jesus PC, this is at LEAST the difference there should be between console and PC versions.
It does, DF was just comparing the 1080p set up with the PC and the PRO because the X1X runs at 1440p. This gives people the standard low level (res) look and the fps that comes with it.
X can't handle it.... For Christ sake. It was maxing out their i5 8600k. The ancient Jaguar chip would destroy it's self trying anything more.
This game is to demanding for even the highest end hardware. The x is only on par with a 1060 99% of the time.
Turrican4D
Nope. It's out done by a 1060 on most games.
Turrican4D
The x GPU is just a slightly modified 580 pretty much.
Did you do something with contrast, or is that just youtube? because that game has THE best rendering of subtle light changes I have ever seen, but here, it is just "black spaces".
Looking at the RX580 vs GTX1060 comparison, RX580 might be reaching higher FPS, but oh god the frametimes are all over the place, and the GTX1060 footage appears much smoother.
and at medium settings the gtx 1060 dropping down to 40fps :(
I think they mixed up the footage. The one on the right is obviously lower fps, even though they put it under RX580...
That is possible, it doesn't even look like ~10FPS less but like half the FPS at times.
Right? Came to the comments looking for this. Something's wrong with that RX580, might be the recording, or frametimes, although in the graph, it doesn't seem like much of a difference.
That's exactly what I thought.
Playing this game in 2560x1440p on my 1080ti with most things on Ultra settings except shadow and shader settings. This game is so damn beutiful.
The models look horrible. They look like ps3 la noire.
Yea they look like an afterthought
if you a referring to the shadows cast by henry as indoor shadows then nah mate they are actually on the lowest settings available.
It also doesn't render indoor shadows as you would assume as there a literally no shadows being cast by any object other than henry from the open door while inside.. This is evident if you look at any chair or table while inside...
"Ultra High settings are for future hardware" = We are lazy at optimizing game.
Or you know, it is for future hardware, since their is no way to make the game run good with such effects enabled. It's not the first game to do this btw. GTA IV did the same. FFS most modern system still can struggle with everythin maxed out in GTA IV and that's a ten year old game.
paavo665 I can max gta v at 4k on my rig but on this piece of shit I played high settings and sat at about 45fps average and dropped to 38fps at 4k high on a gtx 1080 strix at 2063 core clock and 5508 memory and an i7 4790k at 4.7ghz lmao `future hardware'
a bad example.. gta IV is actually really terribly optimized.. a better example would have been crysis
Tatsufollower I said gta v not gta iv what are you talking about?
If ignorance is bliss, I imagine you're downright euphoric
PC MASTER RACE FTW. This is how make a visually appealing game on PC that not just looks good now utilizing hardware to the fullest but also give room for future more powerful hardware with even better visual fidelity.
To be honest PC gaming is a bit of a hassle. I’ll admit it lads
The pros far outweigh the cons, but yes, no platform is perfect.
Yeah. Paying for online when it should be free is such a breeze!
*adjusting settings to medium or low because performance is bad*: such intense problem solving.. but ill agree that in a case where you're used to something just running and not having any choices at all it could seem a bit overwhelming to actually be able to change things like render distance or texture quality
Consoles actaully take longer than ever to setup and play games, PC's have gotten much easier, takes 15 minutes to install Windows and it's just a case of clicking next, which you do on you console setup. Drivers usually download from Windows update, stick a disk in if you don't have the driver or just go to the website. You actually learn and use PC at school now days so there is no excuse. Games are all digital now, just download them via Steam, click the icon ont he desktop.
I admit it can be a hassle sometimes, but more than 95% of the time, that hassle is in achieving 60fps, either because the game is a straight console port with a 30fps cap, or because my mediocre GPU isn't up to the task.
In either case, the console would be a simpler choice... but only because it removes the option to play at 60fps at all!
Achieving 30fps on PC takes no effort, just as it takes no effort to get the same on console.
Would love to see a CPU benchmark of this game, especially with AMD and nvidia cards
It’s poorly optimized, period
robert Tagliaferro people are in denial
seems pretty well optimized given graphical fidelity.
Look the lighting is very impresive I don't deny that but the rest of the game while still looking good doesn't really justify that kind of performance. I get it it's a small studio and they have done a good job but lately I just wish every game is as well optimised as Doom.
The foliage is incredibly dense and the lighting is above most other games, never mind all the CPU tasks in the background, i'd say it's running about what you'd expect given the scale.
robert Tagliaferro its also a kickstarter game, i expected worse
This is a fantastic game that just needs extra polish and optimization. I hope 6 months down the line the technical issuess have been resolved and this gem is allowed to shine.
Fanboys...urghhhh.
K
Great video as always! Lets see what the new Mount and Blade have to offer compared to this!
So I have to pay 1400$ to play this crap game at 60-80 FPS? No thank you
love you guys work !!!