I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Damn you too? I was wondering if it'll be worth it. It seems like I'd get it just for this game.
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Really? My 1070 seems to be running it somewhat fine and have everything maxed at 60fps. granted it dips to 55 occasionally but then again, I have 16GB Ram and this game uses more Ram. Also, my main grip with Andromeda setting is that there's no way to turn off Motion Blur and I don't know why Bioware left that feature out.
Try disable your Resolution Scaling Mode. It's causing a huge problem with stable fps.
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Just like cows only posted DF topics when PS4 came out on top...
LOL have to love the hypocritical cows. All day they hide behind PC claiming X1 has no exclusives but all of a sudden it's bad to compare the Pro with PC performance. Does anyone take cowgenja seriously?
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Damn you too? I was wondering if it'll be worth it. It seems like I'd get it just for this game.
Playing with a GTX 1060 6 GB, and getting mostly between 55-70 fps on High, with the odd dip to low 40's here and there. Likely it's my FX 8350 that's the bottleneck. I even tried switching my texture setting between High and Ultra and seeing little difference in average performance, so I'll bump that setting back up and keep the rest on High.
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Damn you too? I was wondering if it'll be worth it. It seems like I'd get it just for this game.
Playing with a GTX 1060 6 GB, and getting mostly between 55-70 fps on High, with the odd dip to low 40's here and there. Likely it's my FX 8350 that's the bottleneck. I even tried switching my texture setting between High and Ultra and seeing little difference in average performance, so I'll bump that setting back up and keep the rest on High.
I have an i7 7700K. You think i'd be able to get away with a 1060?
Just like cows only posted DF topics when PS4 came out on top...
I don't know about other posters here but I stopped because all they were doing for a time was comparing PS4 to PS4 Pro. That's boring. I'll be posting them again when scorpio comes out.
Playing with a GTX 1060 6 GB, and getting mostly between 55-70 fps on High, with the odd dip to low 40's here and there. Likely it's my FX 8350 that's the bottleneck. I even tried switching my texture setting between High and Ultra and seeing little difference in average performance, so I'll bump that setting back up and keep the rest on High.
Why would changing the textures from High to Ultra change anything unless you have a VRAM bottleneck? Changing the textures setting usually barely affects the performance.
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Damn you too? I was wondering if it'll be worth it. It seems like I'd get it just for this game.
Playing with a GTX 1060 6 GB, and getting mostly between 55-70 fps on High, with the odd dip to low 40's here and there. Likely it's my FX 8350 that's the bottleneck. I even tried switching my texture setting between High and Ultra and seeing little difference in average performance, so I'll bump that setting back up and keep the rest on High.
I have an i7 7700K. You think i'd be able to get away with a 1060?
I should have mentioned my resolution is 2560x1080, just a nominal res bump from conventional 1080p, which would also factor in my frame rate. But generally speaking 1060 is prime for 1080p gaming.
Playing with a GTX 1060 6 GB, and getting mostly between 55-70 fps on High, with the odd dip to low 40's here and there. Likely it's my FX 8350 that's the bottleneck. I even tried switching my texture setting between High and Ultra and seeing little difference in average performance, so I'll bump that setting back up and keep the rest on High.
Why would changing the textures from High to Ultra change anything unless you have a VRAM bottleneck? Changing the textures setting usually barely affects the performance.
I guess I always thought texture was the most resource intensive setting right after resolution. But as I'm sure my 6 GB VRAM is more than sufficient at my 2560x1080 res... well it's good to have a better idea of the correlation between what settings affect performance in what way.
I'm hitting between 30 and 60 on my 970 on High settings, and it's really annoying. SO much so, that i'm grabbing a 1070 today. Couldn't imagine playing consistently at that with this game.
Damn you too? I was wondering if it'll be worth it. It seems like I'd get it just for this game.
Playing with a GTX 1060 6 GB, and getting mostly between 55-70 fps on High, with the odd dip to low 40's here and there. Likely it's my FX 8350 that's the bottleneck. I even tried switching my texture setting between High and Ultra and seeing little difference in average performance, so I'll bump that setting back up and keep the rest on High.
I have an i7 7700K. You think i'd be able to get away with a 1060?
I should have mentioned my resolution is 2560x1080, just a nominal res bump from conventional 1080p, which would also factor in my frame rate. But generally speaking 1060 is prime for 1080p gaming.
Ah. I'm at 1440. I've been reading that you need a 1070 for anything above 1080p. I guess I'll go that route.
PS4 Pro seemed like an inherently flawed product before, and it seems mores like it now. Like using a push mower to care for a golf course.
Based on what I'm seeing on PC, I don't think it's all the PS4 this time. I see this game getting some performance patches later down the road. At least I hope.
I guess I always thought texture was the most resource intensive setting right after resolution. But as I'm sure my 6 GB VRAM is more than sufficient at my 2560x1080 res... well it's good to have a better idea of the correlation between what settings affect performance in what way.
Understandable. Back then cards had much less VRAM and people tended to max out textures only to see their fps tank in the single digits. Then they found out it was simply because they ran out of VRAM.
Usually things that kill performance are resolution, anti-aliasing, shadow quality and ambient occlusion. Some other more exotic things like Hairworks and PhysX also slaughter performance. At times you simply drop them down a notch and your fps improves by like 30%.
I guess I always thought texture was the most resource intensive setting right after resolution. But as I'm sure my 6 GB VRAM is more than sufficient at my 2560x1080 res... well it's good to have a better idea of the correlation between what settings affect performance in what way.
Understandable. Back then cards had much less VRAM and people tended to max out textures only to see their fps tank in the single digits. Then they found out it was simply because they ran out of VRAM.
Usually things that kill performance are resolution, anti-aliasing, shadow quality and ambient occlusion. Some other more exotic things like Hairworks and PhysX also slaughter performance. At times you simply drop them down a notch and your fps improves by like 30%.
Yeah I'll generally drop shadows before anything else as it has the least visual impact to the performance hits. And I forgot to factor in the AA. Thing about MEA is it doesn't even have scaled settings to that (2x, 4x, 8x, etc...), just on or off, with either FXAA or Temporal. And as I generally avoid using FXAA, I'm playing with the temporal, not even being sure what it's performance to quality factor is.... but when FX is the only other alternative.
Yeah I'll generally drop shadows before anything else as it has the least visual impact to the performance hits. And I forgot to factor in the AA. Thing about MEA is it doesn't even have scaled settings to that (2x, 4x, 8x, etc...), just on or off, with either FXAA or Temporal. And as I generally avoid using FXAA, I'm playing with the temporal, not even being sure what it's performance to quality factor is.... but when FX is the only other alternative.
I can get the game for 25$ but I'm really hesitating between that and Nier Automata. I haven't bought Nier yet because the art style and concept kinda puts me off but the gameplay looks pretty damn good. It also isn't that long apparently.
I would have bought ME in a heartbeat but the reports of it being Dragon Age Inquisition in space worry me.
Log in to comment