Probably this. Anyway. It was ok on 1.03 with 30 fps lock (45 avrage, if unlocked). But 1.04 messed things up.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]
- Thread starter Deleted member 11852
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Probably this. Anyway. It was ok on 1.03 with 30 fps lock (45 avrage, if unlocked). But 1.04 messed things up.
Link?
Have you performed a clean start? Maybe that doesn't matter anymore and a benchmark of a given machine is going to give exactly the same results in every PC with that configuration, but when I had a good PC gaming rig it was important to shave a few FPS and better speed overall.
Tricks like a clean start, antivirus off -or using a light one-, no background programs...
It doesn't matter, and it should not matter on properly handled machine.
Anyway, obviously DF average fps too much. That's why they get these results.
I think dynamic scaling would be the best technology to ever come to the PC if it were more used in games. When I play PC games the fps chart moves everywhere, up, down, down, up, up, down, in front of my eyes. If we were talking about a range of 3 fps or so, that makes no difference, but sometimes you get 90 fps and then after a moment 25 fps in some situations.
60 fps are there in an instant and gone in a flash. That's a gripe that I have with PC gaming.
Last edited:
How does that compare with PS4 1.03?
We don't know as it's the first time anybody test the GPU heavy sections. Another good thing about having several source of fps analysis.
And you can arrive in a rainy swamp, or in any other GPU heavy section like caves with tons of alphas (fog) or areas with tons of vegetation, pretty early in the game. None of those very frequent scenes were selected in the DF video.
My machine. Do you want FRAPS frame time graph?
A video from the same section of the game that DF tested showing the settings that are used with RTSS running (at a 30fps lock) in the corner showing framerate and frametime would be better. How else would you definitively prove that DF have lied?
Hell, do that and you could even post it on the DF comments for that article and cause an internet storm "DF fake their results and here's the proof!" just think of the fame.
My machine. Do you want FRAPS frame time graph?
Maybe your PC is running with OoOE disabled, to try and please you?
My machine. Do you want FRAPS frame time graph?
Whats your system stats? How much ram and what is your hard drive, ssd or spinner?
That's the nature of DX11 (or 10, or 9, things started going downhill approx. from the time that pixel shaders were introduced, for obvious reasons), DX12 should help here.
I don't need any proof, I'm certainly a better authority than DF. Just think about it.
Pointless. As if "proof" for something on interenet ever worked.
4790/16GB/970/SSD
I think there's a little exaggeration going on here guys. I think we can all agree that Assassins Creed Unity is widely accepted as a pretty badly optimised game on the PC (and all other platforms for that matter). So here's a quick video of it running on my PC.
This is with vsync on but no frame limiter (which I usually use at 30fps). I lose about 4-5fps from recording the video so I've dropped HBAO to SSAO and Environment detail from Ultra to Very High to compensate (I usually have those and all other settings besides sift shadows maxed out). I'm also running at 1080p + FXAA on the system below.
Note the wildly varying frame rate as described by you above...
Obviously you cannot see it on the frame-reate indicator. If the indicator was not smoothing the frame rates you won't be able to decipher the numbers. And smoothing = averaging over some time, i.e. you are seeing average frame-rate there.
Very similar to mine. I7 3770 vpro/16GB/MSI9704G/SSD for OS, regular 2TB HD for games.
Yes, and frame times will vary when frame rate is unclocked (just like they will on console). But that's not what was said above. As a reminder, Cyan said the following:
"When I play PC games the fps chart moves everywhere, up, down, down, up, up, down, in front of my eyes. If we were talking about a range of 3 fps or so, that makes no difference, but sometimes you get 90 fps and then after a moment 25 fps in some situations."
To which you responded:
"That's the nature of DX11 (or 10, or 9, things started going downhill approx. from the time that pixel shaders were introduced, for obvious reasons),"
Even if you weren't, Cyan was certainly referring to the average framerate and not individual frame times. I won't deny that some (very badly optimised) games will display strange, seemingly unjustified average frame rate fluctuations (CoD:Ghosts springs to mind as the obvious example). But this is absolutely the exception and not the rule as implied above, and can also apply to console games occasionally as well.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...e-witcher-3-patch-103-fix-console-performance
Digital Foundry and patch 1.03 on Xbox One and PS4 framerate is a bit more stable on Xbox One the biggest difference is visible in cutscene.
I hope they will continue to improve performance on both sides.
Digital Foundry and patch 1.03 on Xbox One and PS4 framerate is a bit more stable on Xbox One the biggest difference is visible in cutscene.
I hope they will continue to improve performance on both sides.
I have analysed the frame-time values of both versions, obviously only of the gameplay scenes (because cutscenes are capped at 20fps on PS4 when the engine drops):
- 1 first gameplay scene (combat scene) 0:00 to 0:38: PS4 runs slighlty better than XB1 (XB1 has ~2 times more >33ms frame-time values).
- 2nd gameplay scene (combat) 1:51 to 2:21: XB1 runs slightly better than PS4 (PS4 has ~2 times more >33ms frame-time values), but here the PS4 gamer often uses the camera very quickly when the camera on XB1 is used more slowly. Many >33ms frame-time values on PS4 were during the constant very quick camera panning which were oddly never used on XB1.
- 3rd gameplay scene in city, XB1 runs better than PS4 (PS4 has roughly 3 times more >33ms values), but XB1 has the bigger "freeze" seen in the whole video, with a ~90ms frame-time value at 3:24.
The DF conclusion seems to take into account only the gameplay in the very big city. But in reality, during combat scenes, both games performance are virtually pretty similar and XB1 has its own big problem in the city apparently with some big freezes not seen in the PS4 version here.
And finally we know that the big city drops are probably due to streamed loading as usual in those kind of environments and it's being known that PS4 had more trouble than XB1 in this case (different API?, worse HDD on PS4?).
Overall I find the DF conclusion pretty much questionable. Do you spend most of your time on your horse in the very big cities? And considering the famous camera stutter 'bug' seen in this game (that can be triggered depending of how you use the camera and that should be fixed normally by the devs) that second gameplay scene is odd to say the least.
Last edited:
Billy Idol
Legend
Confirms the issues I have in the city...again my question, can the streaming problems in the city be improved with a SSD?
- Status
Similar threads
