Netgear Nighthawk AX12 Wi-Fi 6 router review
Corsair HS60 PRO Surround Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 Gaming X review
Team Group Cardea II NVMe 1 TB SSD Review
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming ITX/TB3 review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Patriot P200 1TB SATA3 SSD Review
ASRock Radeon RX 5700 XT Taichi OC+ review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - September 2019
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2070 Super EX Gamer Black review
The Witcher 3 - GTX 780Ti Could Push 35-45 FPS At Max?
If it is up to Gametechs claims then The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt will be a harsh on the GPU title, so much that One 550 USD GTX 780 Ti already has a hard time to keep up with the game engibe, under the condition that higher levels of AA are enabled. The website mentions that the PC version runs HQ and 8xMSAA at 35-45fps on a GTX 780Ti at 1080p.
Naturally, a single 780Ti is able to hit the 60fps sweet spot in its current form provided MSAA is lowered. Moreover, it is said that the PS4 version will run at 900p/30fps while the Xbox One version will run at 720p/30fps. What's also interesting is that the console versions of the game will meet the minimum graphics settings of the PC version. Gametech claimed that The Witcher 3 on consoles will look similar to The Witcher 2.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Screenshots - 01/29/2014 10:04 AM
Three new screenshots from CD Projekt RED's upcoming RPG have surfaced, showcasing the game's mind-blowing visuals. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is planned for a 2014 release on PC, Xbox One and PS4....
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - TGS 2013 Trailer - 09/21/2013 09:15 AM
Some fight for glory, justice, or gold. Geralt of Rivia, the Witcher, fights for those he holds dear in this trailer from TGS 2013 for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. ...
The Witcher 3 Screenshots - 08/22/2013 06:33 PM
CD Projekt released some new Witcher 3 screenshots at Gamescom 2013. The game is planned for a 2014 release on PC, Xbox One and PS4. Check them out after the break....
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - Killing Monsters Cinematic Trailer - 08/15/2013 08:27 AM
CD Projekt RED is proud to present The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt "Killing Monsters" cinematic trailer to the public for the first time, offering a thrilling glimpse into the morally ambiguous u...
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Screenshots - 03/02/2013 11:20 AM
I have some screenshots from The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt along with some official details about their upcoming RPG sequel: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is an unprecedented combination of story-driven RPG an...
main_shoby
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 2006-02-06
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 2006-02-06
#4800676 Posted on: 04/14/2014 03:48 PM
So articles only concerned about Nvidia or only focus on Green site?
Nice, then i'll avoid this Nvidia game and stick to games that made with both cards in mind or only AMD
At least i have more Vram then 780 ti
I think nvidia spend additional cash in game development which concludes in their product's cost of production. hence more expensive hardware
while you enjoy similar \ same performance for 100-150$ less, at least let us enjoy our 150$ difference worth of propaganda
So articles only concerned about Nvidia or only focus on Green site?
Nice, then i'll avoid this Nvidia game and stick to games that made with both cards in mind or only AMD
At least i have more Vram then 780 ti
I think nvidia spend additional cash in game development which concludes in their product's cost of production. hence more expensive hardware
while you enjoy similar \ same performance for 100-150$ less, at least let us enjoy our 150$ difference worth of propaganda
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1317
Joined: 2012-10-07
Senior Member
Posts: 1317
Joined: 2012-10-07
#4800683 Posted on: 04/14/2014 03:56 PM
I agree, MSAA (x4) and CSAA (x8) are the only ones I use. No blurriness to textures with those. FXAA and TXAA just make everything blurry & decrease the sharpness of the appearance & textures.
Am I the only one around here who never uses AA? I hate how blurry it makes everything look. Same goes for motion blur, ugh! MSAA all the way
I agree, MSAA (x4) and CSAA (x8) are the only ones I use. No blurriness to textures with those. FXAA and TXAA just make everything blurry & decrease the sharpness of the appearance & textures.
RealNC
Senior Member
Posts: 3071
Joined: 2011-11-24
Senior Member
Posts: 3071
Joined: 2011-11-24
#4800693 Posted on: 04/14/2014 04:10 PM
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
southamptonfc
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 2006-04-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 2006-04-10
#4800701 Posted on: 04/14/2014 04:24 PM
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
The Postman
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: 2008-09-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: 2008-09-10
#4800703 Posted on: 04/14/2014 04:26 PM
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
What?
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
What?
HeavyHemi
Senior Member
Posts: 6261
Joined: 2008-10-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6261
Joined: 2008-10-27
#4800732 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:02 PM
AA is typically the first thing I turn off. High AA can make a game look nearly photo-real, it's just so computationally demanding it's usually not worth it.
I'd like to see a discreet graphics chip that does nothing but calculate AA, if such a thing is possible (and does not require a dual-GPU-ready motherboard). A discreet card was used to calculate physics (Physx, by AGEIA), and for various reasons that failed, but anti-aliasing is very different than physics simulation. AA just serves to enhance what is already there, which means it could potentially enhance every game, not just ones that are built specifically for it, as with the Physx card.
You can run SLI AA for games...
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/whitepapers/2011/SLI_Best_Practices_2011_Feb.pdf
AA is typically the first thing I turn off. High AA can make a game look nearly photo-real, it's just so computationally demanding it's usually not worth it.
I'd like to see a discreet graphics chip that does nothing but calculate AA, if such a thing is possible (and does not require a dual-GPU-ready motherboard). A discreet card was used to calculate physics (Physx, by AGEIA), and for various reasons that failed, but anti-aliasing is very different than physics simulation. AA just serves to enhance what is already there, which means it could potentially enhance every game, not just ones that are built specifically for it, as with the Physx card.
You can run SLI AA for games...
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/whitepapers/2011/SLI_Best_Practices_2011_Feb.pdf
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4413
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4413
Joined: 2012-11-10
#4800754 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:34 PM
I too think AA makes things a bit blurry at times. If I enable it, I only keep it at 2x or 4x. The performance vs visual result ratio is not worth it to me to use AA, so I've been getting away with using mid-range GPUs for a while. Besides, it's pretty easy to get used to no AA at all. There are plenty of old games you can play today and cringe at how ugly they are but after a couple hours you quickly learn to accept the look. It's almost as though your brain fills in the gaps in the details.
I agree with one of the earlier posters though - it would be nice to see a piece of hardware dedicated to processing AA, and maybe the smoothing of shadows too (as far as I'm aware, it's a similar calculation).
I too think AA makes things a bit blurry at times. If I enable it, I only keep it at 2x or 4x. The performance vs visual result ratio is not worth it to me to use AA, so I've been getting away with using mid-range GPUs for a while. Besides, it's pretty easy to get used to no AA at all. There are plenty of old games you can play today and cringe at how ugly they are but after a couple hours you quickly learn to accept the look. It's almost as though your brain fills in the gaps in the details.
I agree with one of the earlier posters though - it would be nice to see a piece of hardware dedicated to processing AA, and maybe the smoothing of shadows too (as far as I'm aware, it's a similar calculation).
vazup
Senior Member
Posts: 289
Joined: 2013-09-05
Senior Member
Posts: 289
Joined: 2013-09-05
#4800763 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:43 PM
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
Nobody is forcing you to run the game on max possible settings, you can mess with options and get the visuals/performance how ever you want - its not like the game will be an ugly mess if its not maxed out!
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
Nobody is forcing you to run the game on max possible settings, you can mess with options and get the visuals/performance how ever you want - its not like the game will be an ugly mess if its not maxed out!
main_shoby
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 2006-02-06
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 2006-02-06
#4800776 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:59 PM
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
well, thing is, playing in highest end graphics, is a luxury. And for luxury my friend, you have to pay
If one 780ti is not enough for max graphics, I am sure, two will be enough. If not, i will still be happy that something is out there which justifies my investment in two 780ti.
No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.
Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.
And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.
Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.
The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
well, thing is, playing in highest end graphics, is a luxury. And for luxury my friend, you have to pay
If one 780ti is not enough for max graphics, I am sure, two will be enough. If not, i will still be happy that something is out there which justifies my investment in two 780ti.
Lowki
Senior Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 2011-11-26
Senior Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 2011-11-26
#4800778 Posted on: 04/14/2014 06:07 PM
I hate aa anyways. always feels like I'm trading fps for a worse image quality. I'll keep my crisp jaggies over blurry vision any day.
I hate aa anyways. always feels like I'm trading fps for a worse image quality. I'll keep my crisp jaggies over blurry vision any day.
Slikar
Senior Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 2012-08-22
Senior Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 2012-08-22
#4800784 Posted on: 04/14/2014 06:17 PM
But this is year before game is out, when its finished and when drivers for the game are made. It must run at least 10-15 fps more...
But this is year before game is out, when its finished and when drivers for the game are made. It must run at least 10-15 fps more...
sw1000xg
Senior Member
Posts: 287
Joined: 2009-02-10
Senior Member
Posts: 287
Joined: 2009-02-10
#4800802 Posted on: 04/14/2014 06:41 PM
They having a laugh? Console un-optimized tosh... I know what you lot will say, but if it works on console then it's not a PC game.
This **** is getting old, getting so bored with games today running at such low fps on top end cards!
We all saw that Unreal demo on a 680 and that looks much better than this. Why can't they just develop games properly today?
They having a laugh? Console un-optimized tosh... I know what you lot will say, but if it works on console then it's not a PC game.
This **** is getting old, getting so bored with games today running at such low fps on top end cards!
We all saw that Unreal demo on a 680 and that looks much better than this. Why can't they just develop games properly today?
sw1000xg
Senior Member
Posts: 287
Joined: 2009-02-10
Senior Member
Posts: 287
Joined: 2009-02-10
#4800808 Posted on: 04/14/2014 06:52 PM
What's bugging me with AA is people complain about it, but yet they still haven't in my opinion allowed for two cards to deal with this?
I have a 660ti old a bit slow but games today are a joke in terms of graphical progression, and there is no need for me to upgrade to upscaled console games. But yet why can't I use my old 560 Ti to do the work of AA and let my 660Ti do everything else? Or is this to easy? You can do it with a physX card and what ever you are using why not do the same with AA?
What's bugging me with AA is people complain about it, but yet they still haven't in my opinion allowed for two cards to deal with this?
I have a 660ti old a bit slow but games today are a joke in terms of graphical progression, and there is no need for me to upgrade to upscaled console games. But yet why can't I use my old 560 Ti to do the work of AA and let my 660Ti do everything else? Or is this to easy? You can do it with a physX card and what ever you are using why not do the same with AA?
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Joined: 2005-12-10
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Joined: 2005-12-10
#4800812 Posted on: 04/14/2014 06:54 PM
I think nvidia spend additional cash in game development which concludes in their product's cost of production. hence more expensive hardware
while you enjoy similar \ same performance for 100-150$ less, at least let us enjoy our 150$ difference worth of propaganda
My 780ti were cheaper than the 290x when I bought them. A big LOL boycotting an nvidia game.
I think nvidia spend additional cash in game development which concludes in their product's cost of production. hence more expensive hardware
while you enjoy similar \ same performance for 100-150$ less, at least let us enjoy our 150$ difference worth of propaganda
My 780ti were cheaper than the 290x when I bought them. A big LOL boycotting an nvidia game.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 2006-04-10
But just 1000 or 1100 euro, and hopefully they name it the gtx 795 or 790 ultra or what so ever.
Good luck with that! I think the 295x2 is the only thing that will fit that bill.