Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Corsair Void RGB Elite Wireless Headset review
Team Group PD400 Portable SSD review
AMD Athlon 3000G review
Team Group T-Force Delta Max 1 TB SSD review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - November 2019
ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme Encore review
Toshiba RC500 500GB NVMe M.2 SSD review
Promo: URcdkey Black Friday Windows 10 Pro for $12
The Witcher 3 Graphics Performance Review
Posted by: on: 05/20/2015 01:45 PM [
116 comment(s) ]
In this article we benchmark The Witcher III on the PC - many graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at DX11 performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
graphics performance
pages 1 2 3 4 5
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36461
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36461
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:00 PM
I'll have a look tomorrow, Hairworks is a NV feature and was disabled for fair comparison. This article is work in progress and I wanted the initials number out.
Basically I was waiting (hoping) on AMD for a driver ... but well.
I'll have a look tomorrow, Hairworks is a NV feature and was disabled for fair comparison. This article is work in progress and I wanted the initials number out.
Basically I was waiting (hoping) on AMD for a driver ... but well.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:01 PM
HW is off for the test.
Oh, are you just asking for a comparison?
980 is 40% faster than a 780Ti in the QHD test compared to the 10-15% when the 980 launched. Nvidia posted on their forums that they are looking into it. I wonder if a 6GB 780Ti would perform better in the test? Also seems weird that the 780Ti only performs ~8% better than a 780. I wonder if it's a driver bug or something with the 780Ti
Nice review HH, like always. I was just expecting you do HW/off benchmark to compare. Its really taxing the AMD hardware. One of the articles said 290 is 77% faster with HW/off.
HW is off for the test.
Everything is set to Ultra, AA is enabled, Nvidia Hairworks is disabled and we use SSAO. The graphics cards used in this specific article are:
Oh, are you just asking for a comparison?
980 is 40% faster than a 780Ti in the QHD test compared to the 10-15% when the 980 launched. Nvidia posted on their forums that they are looking into it. I wonder if a 6GB 780Ti would perform better in the test? Also seems weird that the 780Ti only performs ~8% better than a 780. I wonder if it's a driver bug or something with the 780Ti
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:02 PM
Aaaand yet another benchmark that shows what all other benchmarks has shown - kepler having been seriously downgraded (intentional or accidental - im leaning towards intentional).
Some people claim its simply because Maxwell has been optimized, but if that was the case, then a gtx 980 should be MILES ahead of a 290x, and a 780 ti should still be on par with the 290x, but it isnt.
The gtx 980 is a tad ahead of the 290x as usual, while the 780 ti is waaaaay behind the 290x - the same can be seen with all the other kepler Cards, with the 780 almost performing the same as a freaking 960...
Aaaand yet another benchmark that shows what all other benchmarks has shown - kepler having been seriously downgraded (intentional or accidental - im leaning towards intentional).
Some people claim its simply because Maxwell has been optimized, but if that was the case, then a gtx 980 should be MILES ahead of a 290x, and a 780 ti should still be on par with the 290x, but it isnt.
The gtx 980 is a tad ahead of the 290x as usual, while the 780 ti is waaaaay behind the 290x - the same can be seen with all the other kepler Cards, with the 780 almost performing the same as a freaking 960...
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:20 PM
Aaaand yet another benchmark that shows what all other benchmarks has shown - kepler having been seriously downgraded (intentional or accidental - im leaning towards intentional).
Some people claim its simply because Maxwell has been optimized, but if that was the case, then a gtx 980 should be MILES ahead of a 290x, and a 780 ti should still be on par with the 290x, but it isnt.
The gtx 980 is a tad ahead of the 290x as usual, while the 780 ti is waaaaay behind the 290x - the same can be seen with all the other kepler Cards, with the 780 almost performing the same as a freaking 960...
Idk, honestly I'd like to see a 980's 3DMark scores over the last several driver releases.
I mean basically it seems like Maxwell on average is performing 20% faster than it was at launch. At launch a 980 was on average about 10-15% faster then a 780Ti. Now it seems like it's about 30-40% faster then a 780Ti in most recently released games.
A 960 was also about 20% slower then a 780. Now it seems like a 960 is about 2-5% slower.
The only real way to see if Nvidia is "downgrading" performance is to either A. Show me a driver where a Kepler series card performs 20% slower.
Or
B. Show me the 3DMark/Any Benchmark between release drivers of Maxwell and current drivers of Maxwell.
I think more than likely Maxwell is just getting the better end of the deal with drivers. Driver improvements slowed with Kepler by the time it was finished anyway. The 680 showed a 25% increase in performance from drivers over it' lifetime. 780 only showed a ~8-10% increase during it's lifetime. It's pretty clear that Kepler performance was maxed.
Regardless, ManuelG posted on the Nvidia forums that the driver teams are looking into it. So if there is an issue I'm sure it will be corrected.
Aaaand yet another benchmark that shows what all other benchmarks has shown - kepler having been seriously downgraded (intentional or accidental - im leaning towards intentional).
Some people claim its simply because Maxwell has been optimized, but if that was the case, then a gtx 980 should be MILES ahead of a 290x, and a 780 ti should still be on par with the 290x, but it isnt.
The gtx 980 is a tad ahead of the 290x as usual, while the 780 ti is waaaaay behind the 290x - the same can be seen with all the other kepler Cards, with the 780 almost performing the same as a freaking 960...
Idk, honestly I'd like to see a 980's 3DMark scores over the last several driver releases.
I mean basically it seems like Maxwell on average is performing 20% faster than it was at launch. At launch a 980 was on average about 10-15% faster then a 780Ti. Now it seems like it's about 30-40% faster then a 780Ti in most recently released games.
A 960 was also about 20% slower then a 780. Now it seems like a 960 is about 2-5% slower.
The only real way to see if Nvidia is "downgrading" performance is to either A. Show me a driver where a Kepler series card performs 20% slower.
Or
B. Show me the 3DMark/Any Benchmark between release drivers of Maxwell and current drivers of Maxwell.
I think more than likely Maxwell is just getting the better end of the deal with drivers. Driver improvements slowed with Kepler by the time it was finished anyway. The 680 showed a 25% increase in performance from drivers over it' lifetime. 780 only showed a ~8-10% increase during it's lifetime. It's pretty clear that Kepler performance was maxed.
Regardless, ManuelG posted on the Nvidia forums that the driver teams are looking into it. So if there is an issue I'm sure it will be corrected.
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:23 PM
Idk, honestly I'd like to see a 980's 3DMark scores over the last several driver releases.
I mean basically it seems like Maxwell on average is performing 20% faster than it was at launch. At launch a 980 was on average about 10-15% faster then a 780Ti. Now it seems like it's about 30-40% faster then a 780Ti in most recently released games.
A 960 was also about 20% slower then a 780. Now it seems like a 960 is about 2-5% slower.
The only real way to see if Nvidia is "downgrading" performance is to either A. Show me a driver where a Kepler series card performs 20% slower.
Or
B. Show me the 3DMark/Any Benchmark between release drivers of Maxwell and current drivers of Maxwell.
You seem to miss my point though.
I get that Maxwell will recieve more achitectural improvements, that is to be expected, but that would mean that Maxwell should increase in performance in comparison to amd, and that kepler should stay where it is, so to speak.
But Maxwell performance in comparison to amd is the same as at launch, while kepler performance has taken a huge dive in comparison to amd.
Seems "odd", no?
Idk, honestly I'd like to see a 980's 3DMark scores over the last several driver releases.
I mean basically it seems like Maxwell on average is performing 20% faster than it was at launch. At launch a 980 was on average about 10-15% faster then a 780Ti. Now it seems like it's about 30-40% faster then a 780Ti in most recently released games.
A 960 was also about 20% slower then a 780. Now it seems like a 960 is about 2-5% slower.
The only real way to see if Nvidia is "downgrading" performance is to either A. Show me a driver where a Kepler series card performs 20% slower.
Or
B. Show me the 3DMark/Any Benchmark between release drivers of Maxwell and current drivers of Maxwell.
You seem to miss my point though.
I get that Maxwell will recieve more achitectural improvements, that is to be expected, but that would mean that Maxwell should increase in performance in comparison to amd, and that kepler should stay where it is, so to speak.
But Maxwell performance in comparison to amd is the same as at launch, while kepler performance has taken a huge dive in comparison to amd.
Seems "odd", no?
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:28 PM
You seem to miss my point though.
I get that Maxwell will recieve more achitectural improvements, that is to be expected, but that would mean that Maxwell should increase in performance in comparison to amd, and that kepler should stay where it is, so to speak.
But Maxwell performance in comparison to amd is the same as at launch, while kepler performance has taken a huge dive in comparison to amd.
Seems "odd", no?
Idk, you would also need to examine AMD's performance increases as well. You have to remember that AMD is actually better suited at driver increases than Nvidia due to the nature of their architecture.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that something could be going on. Could be a driver issue/bug, could be Nvidia is intentionally crippling performance, I'm not sure. It just bothers me that people are throwing out all notions of actual testing and just bandwagoning based on circumstantial evidence at best. No one is actually doing any tests or looking at all possible reasons as to why this could be happening.
I guess when I get home I'll do some A/B tests between launch drivers and current drivers on various games to see the % impact in performance on the 980. Someone would probably also do the same with a 290x, between the AMD drivers that were used on the 980 launch day, compared to current.
Edit: So launch 980 drivers were 14.3 for the 290x. Most of the comparisons used that. The Catalyst Omega Driver (14.12? I think) came out in Dec, after the launch of the 980 and increased 290x performance by up to 19% in some games.
Again, this isn't anything definitive but it definitely goes to show you that just comparing things to the past isn't as simple as you would think. Both sides are making significant strides in performance via drivers.
You seem to miss my point though.
I get that Maxwell will recieve more achitectural improvements, that is to be expected, but that would mean that Maxwell should increase in performance in comparison to amd, and that kepler should stay where it is, so to speak.
But Maxwell performance in comparison to amd is the same as at launch, while kepler performance has taken a huge dive in comparison to amd.
Seems "odd", no?
Idk, you would also need to examine AMD's performance increases as well. You have to remember that AMD is actually better suited at driver increases than Nvidia due to the nature of their architecture.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that something could be going on. Could be a driver issue/bug, could be Nvidia is intentionally crippling performance, I'm not sure. It just bothers me that people are throwing out all notions of actual testing and just bandwagoning based on circumstantial evidence at best. No one is actually doing any tests or looking at all possible reasons as to why this could be happening.
I guess when I get home I'll do some A/B tests between launch drivers and current drivers on various games to see the % impact in performance on the 980. Someone would probably also do the same with a 290x, between the AMD drivers that were used on the 980 launch day, compared to current.
Edit: So launch 980 drivers were 14.3 for the 290x. Most of the comparisons used that. The Catalyst Omega Driver (14.12? I think) came out in Dec, after the launch of the 980 and increased 290x performance by up to 19% in some games.
Again, this isn't anything definitive but it definitely goes to show you that just comparing things to the past isn't as simple as you would think. Both sides are making significant strides in performance via drivers.
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:33 PM
Idk, you would also need to examine AMD's performance increases as well. You have to remember that AMD is actually better suited at driver increases than Nvidia due to the nature of their architecture.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that something could be going on. Could be a driver issue/bug, could be Nvidia is intentionally crippling performance, I'm not sure. It just bothers me that people are throwing out all notions of actual testing and just bandwagoning based on circumstantial evidence at best. No one is actually doing any tests or looking at all possible reasons as to why this could be happening.
I guess when I get home I'll do some A/B tests between launch drivers and current drivers on various games to see the % impact in performance on the 980. Someone would probably also do the same with a 290x, between the AMD drivers that were used on the 980 launch day, compared to current.
You are ofc right that AMD's performance needs to be taken into consideration.
I am all for an indepth analys of the improvements in the various achitectures over time in both nvidia and amd - should cast some light on this.
Hopefully someone will have the time and resources to do it properly
Idk, you would also need to examine AMD's performance increases as well. You have to remember that AMD is actually better suited at driver increases than Nvidia due to the nature of their architecture.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that something could be going on. Could be a driver issue/bug, could be Nvidia is intentionally crippling performance, I'm not sure. It just bothers me that people are throwing out all notions of actual testing and just bandwagoning based on circumstantial evidence at best. No one is actually doing any tests or looking at all possible reasons as to why this could be happening.
I guess when I get home I'll do some A/B tests between launch drivers and current drivers on various games to see the % impact in performance on the 980. Someone would probably also do the same with a 290x, between the AMD drivers that were used on the 980 launch day, compared to current.
You are ofc right that AMD's performance needs to be taken into consideration.
I am all for an indepth analys of the improvements in the various achitectures over time in both nvidia and amd - should cast some light on this.
Hopefully someone will have the time and resources to do it properly
zer0_c0ol
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:34 PM
something is very wrong with the 7 series. the 780ti should be on par with the 290x
something is very wrong with the 7 series. the 780ti should be on par with the 290x
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36461
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36461
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:43 PM
Added: GTX 770 image quality settings scaling on last page.
Added: GTX 770 image quality settings scaling on last page.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9762
Senior Member
Posts: 9762
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:45 PM
I went through configs, one can change hairworks AA level. Too bad it is not possible to change tessellation level of it too. Because limiting tessellation via CCC limits it everywhere and ocean water tessellation is 8x - low; 64x - ultra.
I am working xml menu config (and settings below each settings) so low settings which not many will use will provide very reasonable performance and IQ.
I went through configs, one can change hairworks AA level. Too bad it is not possible to change tessellation level of it too. Because limiting tessellation via CCC limits it everywhere and ocean water tessellation is 8x - low; 64x - ultra.
I am working xml menu config (and settings below each settings) so low settings which not many will use will provide very reasonable performance and IQ.
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:51 PM
All of these architectures suck to play latest console ports, must wait for that 8800gt moral sucessor that´s gonna demolish all these cheap ports with their xboxone graphics and unoptimized shaders, probably volta or next AMD.
Btw this needs some serious frame pacing tests, it´s like they forgot to add frame smoothing or something, it´s breaking immersion for a lot of folks (even with maxwell cards).
All of these architectures suck to play latest console ports, must wait for that 8800gt moral sucessor that´s gonna demolish all these cheap ports with their xboxone graphics and unoptimized shaders, probably volta or next AMD.
Btw this needs some serious frame pacing tests, it´s like they forgot to add frame smoothing or something, it´s breaking immersion for a lot of folks (even with maxwell cards).
Major Melchett
Senior Member
Posts: 2456
Senior Member
Posts: 2456
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:53 PM
Kepler not doing as well as it should be on Nvidia, an R9 285 getting better FPS over the 7970ghz edition/R9 280x on AMD - what the heck is going on?.
Kepler not doing as well as it should be on Nvidia, an R9 285 getting better FPS over the 7970ghz edition/R9 280x on AMD - what the heck is going on?.
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:54 PM
I went through configs, one can change hairworks AA level. Too bad it is not possible to change tessellation level of it too. Because limiting tessellation via CCC limits it everywhere and ocean water tessellation is 8x - low; 64x - ultra.
I am working xml menu config (and settings below each settings) so low settings which not many will use will provide very reasonable performance and IQ.
I did fall over the same thing, that i wasnt able to alter tesselation settings.
Nvidia claims in their witcher 3 guide, that Maxwell is 3 times faster at doing tesselation than kepler... so if all benchmarks are done at ultra (Thus 64x tesselation), that might contribute (if not all together explain) to why kepler is struggeling.
I went through configs, one can change hairworks AA level. Too bad it is not possible to change tessellation level of it too. Because limiting tessellation via CCC limits it everywhere and ocean water tessellation is 8x - low; 64x - ultra.
I am working xml menu config (and settings below each settings) so low settings which not many will use will provide very reasonable performance and IQ.
I did fall over the same thing, that i wasnt able to alter tesselation settings.
Nvidia claims in their witcher 3 guide, that Maxwell is 3 times faster at doing tesselation than kepler... so if all benchmarks are done at ultra (Thus 64x tesselation), that might contribute (if not all together explain) to why kepler is struggeling.
zer0_c0ol
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:56 PM
i have to say amd card do age better
i have to say amd card do age better
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12002
Senior Member
Posts: 12002
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:58 PM
Look again, Kepler isnt even close to Maxwell. When we talk AMD, GCN 1.2 cards are getting better driver support/optimizations. Tahiti cards still good but getting old...
Kepler beating Maxwell on Nvidia, R9 285 getting better FPS over the 7970ghz edition/R9 280x on AMD - what the heck is going on?.
Look again, Kepler isnt even close to Maxwell. When we talk AMD, GCN 1.2 cards are getting better driver support/optimizations. Tahiti cards still good but getting old...
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:58 PM
There can be no doubts about that.
Ill likely go CF and freesync next time i upgrade... lower prices and apparently better longevity.
i have to say amd card do age better
There can be no doubts about that.
Ill likely go CF and freesync next time i upgrade... lower prices and apparently better longevity.
bigfutus
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Posted on: 05/20/2015 02:58 PM
Drivers getting better? I gained 9 FPS on Metro LL and 28 on Thief, when i compare 344.11 and 352.86.
I mean basically it seems like Maxwell on average is performing 20% faster than it was at launch.
Drivers getting better? I gained 9 FPS on Metro LL and 28 on Thief, when i compare 344.11 and 352.86.
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:00 PM
Largely explained by the lower cpu overhead in the newer drivers, and your very old cpu.
Drivers getting better? I gained 9 FPS on Metro LL and 28 on Thief, when i compare 344.11 and 352.86.
Largely explained by the lower cpu overhead in the newer drivers, and your very old cpu.
go4brendon
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:00 PM
Absolute joke. Those R295x2 results are disgraceful
Kepler not doing as well as it should be on Nvidia, an R9 285 getting better FPS over the 7970ghz edition/R9 280x on AMD - what the heck is going on?.
Absolute joke. Those R295x2 results are disgraceful
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:00 PM
I did fall over the same thing, that i wasnt able to alter tesselation settings.
Nvidia claims in their witcher 3 guide, that Maxwell is 3 times faster at doing tesselation than kepler... so if all benchmarks are done at ultra (Thus 64x tesselation), that might contribute (if not all together explain) to why kepler is struggeling.
But Kepler itself is several times faster at tessellation than the 290x. Which was the whole argument behind the Crysis tesselation-gate thing. So if tessellation is really a factor here, why is the 290x also not struggling? Did AMD unlock tessellation performance in a recent driver? Is it more optimized towards their method of tessellation?
I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to understand why there is such a performance difference with Kepler here.
I did fall over the same thing, that i wasnt able to alter tesselation settings.
Nvidia claims in their witcher 3 guide, that Maxwell is 3 times faster at doing tesselation than kepler... so if all benchmarks are done at ultra (Thus 64x tesselation), that might contribute (if not all together explain) to why kepler is struggeling.
But Kepler itself is several times faster at tessellation than the 290x. Which was the whole argument behind the Crysis tesselation-gate thing. So if tessellation is really a factor here, why is the 290x also not struggling? Did AMD unlock tessellation performance in a recent driver? Is it more optimized towards their method of tessellation?
I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to understand why there is such a performance difference with Kepler here.
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:04 PM
But Kepler itself is several times faster at tessellation than the 290x. Which was the whole argument behind the Crysis tesselation-gate thing. So if tessellation is really a factor here, why is the 290x also not struggling? Did AMD unlock tessellation performance in a recent driver? Is it more optimized towards their method of tessellation?
I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to understand why there is such a performance difference with Kepler here.
Yeah, im just trying to understand it aswell - the tessellation thing was the only thing i could really think of causing it, aside of carelessness (or possibly malicious intent) from nvidia.
The fact that amd is that much slower at tesselation than kepler makes it even wierder actually.
But Kepler itself is several times faster at tessellation than the 290x. Which was the whole argument behind the Crysis tesselation-gate thing. So if tessellation is really a factor here, why is the 290x also not struggling? Did AMD unlock tessellation performance in a recent driver? Is it more optimized towards their method of tessellation?
I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to understand why there is such a performance difference with Kepler here.
Yeah, im just trying to understand it aswell - the tessellation thing was the only thing i could really think of causing it, aside of carelessness (or possibly malicious intent) from nvidia.
The fact that amd is that much slower at tesselation than kepler makes it even wierder actually.
TheSeekingOne
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:04 PM
The 290x normally beats both the 780TI and GTX970.
What Nvidia is doing with their Gameworks is not ethical, and it's not helping the video game industry move forward. Why not make the source code available like AMD does and enable all developers to implement these visual and physics effects in their games. That way, the source code can be updated and optimized more frequently and all games regardless of how big the studio is will be able to implement these effects without having to worry about the code not running properly on one vendor's GPUs and what not.
This is such a mess! I watched a video of the PC version maxed out on YT and I have to say...the game doesn't look anything special at all. I don't think it looks much different from the Witcher 2.
something is very wrong with the 7 series. the 780ti should be on par with the 290x
The 290x normally beats both the 780TI and GTX970.
What Nvidia is doing with their Gameworks is not ethical, and it's not helping the video game industry move forward. Why not make the source code available like AMD does and enable all developers to implement these visual and physics effects in their games. That way, the source code can be updated and optimized more frequently and all games regardless of how big the studio is will be able to implement these effects without having to worry about the code not running properly on one vendor's GPUs and what not.
This is such a mess! I watched a video of the PC version maxed out on YT and I have to say...the game doesn't look anything special at all. I don't think it looks much different from the Witcher 2.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12002
Senior Member
Posts: 12002
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:06 PM
Tessellation is improved alot on AMD. They are in pair since HD 5000/6000 series. I dont think thats the issue here.
Tessellation is improved alot on AMD. They are in pair since HD 5000/6000 series. I dont think thats the issue here.
Dorlor
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Senior Member
Posts: 1708
Posted on: 05/20/2015 03:08 PM
The 290x normally beats both the 780TI and GTX970.
What Nvidia is doing with their Gameworks is not ethical, and it's not helping the video game industry move forward. Why not make the source code available like AMD does and enable all developers to implement these visual and physics effects in their games. That way, the source code can be updated and optimized more frequently and all games regardless of how big the studio is will be able to implement these effects without having to worry about the code not running properly on one vendor's GPUs and what not.
This is such a mess! I watched a video of the PC version maxed out on YT and I have to say...the game doesn't look anything special at all. I don't think it looks much different from the Witcher 2.
While i agree that witcher 3 looks no better than witcher 2, despite being crazy amounts more demanding, i dont agree with your first statement.
If you go through reviews from other games, in more or less all the reviews, the 780 ti and 290x trade blows throughout.
The 290x normally beats both the 780TI and GTX970.
What Nvidia is doing with their Gameworks is not ethical, and it's not helping the video game industry move forward. Why not make the source code available like AMD does and enable all developers to implement these visual and physics effects in their games. That way, the source code can be updated and optimized more frequently and all games regardless of how big the studio is will be able to implement these effects without having to worry about the code not running properly on one vendor's GPUs and what not.
This is such a mess! I watched a video of the PC version maxed out on YT and I have to say...the game doesn't look anything special at all. I don't think it looks much different from the Witcher 2.
While i agree that witcher 3 looks no better than witcher 2, despite being crazy amounts more demanding, i dont agree with your first statement.
If you go through reviews from other games, in more or less all the reviews, the 780 ti and 290x trade blows throughout.
pages 1 2 3 4 5
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 12002
Nice review HH, like always. I was just expecting you do HW/off benchmark to compare. Its really taxing the AMD hardware. One of the articles said 290 is 77% faster with HW/off.