@quadknight: Where do you get those screenshots from? They look like they are all on PC, with the settings adjusted to what the editor thinks Pro and X will look like... Not actual screenshots from the platforms.
@xantufrog: I noticed that also. The town areas are strongly or anything that has over a certain amount of NPCs are CPU bound. Does this game utilize multi-threading?
Those PC shots are sharpened to their own detriment. Looks good in a still with a surface that benefits(stone wall). The Xbox One X pictures are smashed and it shows.
This is more indicative of the difference;
[Above: Playstation 4 settings with increased AF, HBAO+, increased Shadow quality, increased Texture quality]
Viewing at a 4k native would reveal blocky edges not smooth, but the difference is negligible compared to Playstation 4 and the PC.
Looking forward to Digital Foundry's analysis. Looking at the current results though, I feel that the texture quality can still be patched later on. If Origins can be run with 4K textures on the X, so should this right?
lol, I played Witcher in 4k at more than 30fps years ago xD Playing native 4k since 2014. Sure, in the beginning with medium settings, but still. Seeing people happy about it now close to 2018 with FPSes around 30 is just sad.
Comparing a $1000+ PC to Xbox One isn't exactly fair. Its a totally different market area. A PC costing less than $600 wont run it much better than an Xbox One X.
But its better on PC simply cos of the mods available.
My old rig (i5 3570k, 970) ran this game flawlessly at 1080p, 60FPS, ultra settings, except Hairworks off and shadows dropped one notch. That's a 2012 CPU!
Comparing a $1000+ PC to Xbox One isn't exactly fair. Its a totally different market area. A PC costing less than $600 wont run it much better than an Xbox One X.
But its better on PC simply cos of the mods available.
Anytime they compare the Xbox One X to a highend PC they are effectively calling the One X high end equivalent. Rather self defeating.
My old rig (i5 3570k, 970) ran this game flawlessly at 1080p, 60FPS, ultra settings, except Hairworks off and shadows dropped one notch. That's a 2012 CPU!
@Pedro: I don't know what the deal is with that, but it certainly runs 60fps Ultra on my i5 6500 (quad core non K chip) and a 970 - my one exception is I lower foliage render distance to high and use geralt-only hairworks at 4x AA. Might have shadows at high too - would need to double check. You definitely don't need an i7 to run the game at great settings at 60fps. I posted some benchmark screens from Novigrad on this recently, in fact
@Pedro: Games only CPU bound in a few locations like novigrad and crookback bog (for some reason). And yes, the game does take advantage of multiple threads.
@Pedro: df running stock 970, he also mentioned he lowered shadows and hairworks off, so not exactly far fetched
Hairworks is off in the video and they are using a stronger CPU for a game that is CPU bound in many locations.
CPU bound on high fps yes, my old 2600k would be a bottleneck with my old 980ti on 1080p, not at 1440p. I have no doubt 3570k is enough to keep 60fps
You can check this for reference: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-is-it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
2500k with stock clock and 1600mhz ram dips slightly below 60fps in few occasions in the novigrad stress test
They are using a Titan X in the link you provided not a 970. The original poster said he was getting 60FPS flawlessly with the specs listed. I find that claim highly unlikely.
lol, I played Witcher in 4k at more than 30fps years ago xD Playing native 4k since 2014. Sure, in the beginning with medium settings, but still. Seeing people happy about it now close to 2018 with FPSes around 30 is just sad.
Not everyone played it on the PC and it WASN'T 4K a year ago on consoles. Perhaps you shouldn't project onto others.
@Pedro: df running stock 970, he also mentioned he lowered shadows and hairworks off, so not exactly far fetched
Hairworks is off in the video and they are using a stronger CPU for a game that is CPU bound in many locations.
CPU bound on high fps yes, my old 2600k would be a bottleneck with my old 980ti on 1080p, not at 1440p. I have no doubt 3570k is enough to keep 60fps
You can check this for reference: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-is-it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
2500k with stock clock and 1600mhz ram dips slightly below 60fps in few occasions in the novigrad stress test
They are using a Titan X in the link you provided not a 970. The original poster said he was getting 60FPS flawlessly with the specs listed. I find that claim highly unlikely.
Come on now, I linked that to prove the cpu argument you pulled, dont sidetrack. First you say the cpu is not strong enough because they used a better one on the df 970 video, I say it is and you go speaking about gpu?
@Pedro: df running stock 970, he also mentioned he lowered shadows and hairworks off, so not exactly far fetched
Hairworks is off in the video and they are using a stronger CPU for a game that is CPU bound in many locations.
CPU bound on high fps yes, my old 2600k would be a bottleneck with my old 980ti on 1080p, not at 1440p. I have no doubt 3570k is enough to keep 60fps
You can check this for reference: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-is-it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
2500k with stock clock and 1600mhz ram dips slightly below 60fps in few occasions in the novigrad stress test
They are using a Titan X in the link you provided not a 970. The original poster said he was getting 60FPS flawlessly with the specs listed. I find that claim highly unlikely.
Well with my last year's PC, which had an i5 4690k and a GTX 970 , it was able to achieve 55-60 fps on mostly ultra settings one or two settings was on high, foliage and grass. I also had (low AA, no hairworks and 4x tessellation AA). Now if you had an i7 the Witcher 3 made good use of the 8 threads, Ive seen others with with i7 4th gen and newer and 970's able to keep it north of 60 fps just fine with similar settings.
lol, I played Witcher in 4k at more than 30fps years ago xD Playing native 4k since 2014. Sure, in the beginning with medium settings, but still. Seeing people happy about it now close to 2018 with FPSes around 30 is just sad.
Not everyone played it on the PC and it WASN'T 4K a year ago on consoles. Perhaps you shouldn't project onto others.
@quadknight: Lol, good ol' Quacknight hiding behind PC as usual...
Anyway I can't decide which mode I like better. I think I'm slightly leaning towards the 4k mode... it looks so nice and sharp. I don't think 60fps is as critical in this game imo.
@hrt_rulz01: Not hiding behind PC. I simply like the best. Playing Witcher 3 on consoles is an epic fail IMO but I can see how people with no choice like you would like it.
I bought TW3 for PS4 a long time ago and played it for a few hours before I deleted it and went back to the PC version. The console version is ass compared to the PC version in pretty much every regard.
@howmakewood: it's unambiguously a CPU issue. By employing sub-ultra settings and dynamic resolution and still dropping into the 40s in small towns we know it's the cpu. While less direct evidence, we can also note that we know the x1x gpu smokes my 970 on paper and yet the machine can't hold 60fps where mine can.
I just purchased the Witcher 3 and patched it with the X enhanced update.
Next to a great detail in shadow, draw distance and overal stability I am a bit dissapointed with the patch. It is missing a wow factor other Enhanced games do posses. I think the soupy and inconssistent textures are to blame...
These consoles are weak as hell. I'm glad I don't have to deal with the console version of W3.
Gaming on consoles is truly painful. From the subpar controls (how the **** can anyone play a shooter with a controller?) to the muddy textures and slideshow fps, I really don't know how people do it.
So the performance mode runs under 1440p resolution, while 980ti/1070 can run at 60 at said resolution while having higher settings as well and before someone clings to cpu stuff again it has no impact on resolution
Digital Foundry stated resolution is dynamic running native 4k with drops to 1800p. FPS is solid 30fps showing obvious headroom. 60fps mode suffers in novigrad and crookback bog. Best console version.
@howmakewood: Your comment is contradicting. FPS only drop by CPU bound areas. Textures and draw distance are admitedly dissapointing on the X. The 4K version has a lot of overhead it seems ,the X has 3.5gb more Vram available in comparison to the pro and I am surprised it didn't reach PC's max texture setting or has increased object draw distances.
@howmakewood: Fair point. But in all honesty the patch isn't one that calls for optimization. It's hard to say how much overhead there is here, but it's easy to spot that this patch isn't one of wonderful optimizations efforts done by CD Projekt, but more of a few parameter adjustments in comparison to the Xbox one OG version f.e.
Log in to comment