Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,329
- 126
Fine for this game to be demanding. Taken as a whole, this is the best looking game I've played. The lighting is incredibly good. HBAO+ is not that hard on performance, it's the other shadow settings with PCSS and that new one that cost a lot of FPS to activate. I ended up leaving that one on ultra to get a mostly steady 90+ fps.
Wow, didn't know it was that easy.
Might have to start doing bench runs with my HD7950 and R9 290.
http://pclab.pl/art68756-6.html
pclab test results. Fury X and 980 Ti evenly matched at 1440p and 4k. R9 390X and R9 390 are impressive at 1440p. R9 380X beating ref GTX 780. 780 Ghz matching R9 290. R9 380 is significantly faster than GTX 960.
pclab test results. Fury X and 980 Ti evenly matched at 1440p and 4k. R9 390X and R9 390 are impressive at 1440p. R9 380X beating ref GTX 780. 780 Ghz matching R9 290. R9 380 is significantly faster than GTX 960.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Definitely go for it and have fun
Might do a comparison of the midrange for the last 3 gens using Sapphire cards (best coolers).
AMD should change their reference card system.
They should dub a card the reference card. Someone will make a blower card for OEMs/WC enthusiasts. If there is a market it for it, it will be made. Although I see better coolers than reference blower coolers for cheaper than the blower cooler cards ANYWAY, so really I think that argument that we need blower cards for WC enthusiasts is a joke.
xthetenth
Golden Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 1,800
- 529
- 106
MBrown
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2001
- 5,726
- 35
- 91
I haven't noticed much difference in game play with the SSD even though the benchmark suggests I am getting almost 10 extra frames per second.
Even though my system plays the game decently at ultra settings, I've been playing the game at lower settings. I actually used the GeForce Experience optimized presets (I know, I know...) and honestly, there is not that much of a difference in graphics quality between the ultra preset and the settings I am using now. It actually looks cleaner and clearer IMO. But the game play is smooth as butter anywhere between 120 to 80 fps. I am going to make some more based off of the GE optimized settings though.
Techspot results:
You can find which models they used by clicking on the list of GPUs tested in the first page.
The 970 and 980 are Gigabyte G1 models that are known to boost to ~1.4ghz out of the box. The 960
The 390 and 390X are clocked at the stock 1050mhz. The 380 is clocked at a stock 1ghz.
CPU test: amazing that an open world game with really good environmental destruction and bullet physics is so very light on CPUs.
You can find which models they used by clicking on the list of GPUs tested in the first page.
The 970 and 980 are Gigabyte G1 models that are known to boost to ~1.4ghz out of the box. The 960
The 390 and 390X are clocked at the stock 1050mhz. The 380 is clocked at a stock 1ghz.
CPU test: amazing that an open world game with really good environmental destruction and bullet physics is so very light on CPUs.
Last edited:
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
thanks for the link,
@1080p High settings my overclocked gtx960/ i3 6100 should be good for 40 to 50 fps. Good enough for me.:thumbsup:
I feel stupid for selling my 7950 for peanuts.
Heh, amazing that such an old card is still capable in modern games with good settings.
High actually looks 99% identical to Ultra when you watch comparisons. And the 7950 has a massive OC potential to boot, bringing up above 7970 Ghz performance and more. My old 7950 @ 1.1ghz = 7970Ghz ed in performance.
This is definitely the best looking game I've ever played. The lighting plus the amount of detail is extremely impressive at times.
DarkKnightDude
Senior member
- Mar 10, 2011
- 981
- 44
- 91
It looks way better in motion honestly. The weather effects are astounding at times. The fog, the heavy blizzards, the sunlight in the morning, really add to the game.
For me at least, that is a non issue. I already have to back down a few settings to maintain ~60fps on my 980ti @ 1440p. I don't think my system could handle any more eye candy.
The game really looks absolutely fantastic. I'm blown away by how low the CPU requirements are by the graph. Especially because the object density in the game is the highest I've ever seen by a mile. There must be sorcery at work in their engine. And it still looks great and runs great at lower settings if you dont have the grunt. Had a buddy with a 2x270 CF w/ 2GB VRAM though that was really struggling at times so it may need a good amount of VRAM (3+) for even medium settings
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
Seriously?? This looks nothing like their promo videos. The original crysis looked almost as good as this and that was 10 years ago.
ALso its a little unrealistic, you gotta shoot guys like 20 times to kill them.
Looks a little cartoony for me graphically.
It's more of a rail shooter, I like open more explorable worlds.
ALso its a little unrealistic, you gotta shoot guys like 20 times to kill them.
Looks a little cartoony for me graphically.
It's more of a rail shooter, I like open more explorable worlds.
Last edited:
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
You should play the game. Almost none of what you are saying is correct.
Some guys do take a long time to kill but that is a design decision because it is a Destiny/mmo style game.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter