The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Benchmarked, Performance Review

[Guest]

I7-3930k and 780 Ti sc allows me to play a solid 30 fps at 3440x1440p. Unlike many titles, this game feels surprisingly smooth and responsive when limiting the frame rate to 30.

Turned off all post fx except SSAO and light shafts. Graphical settings are all ultra except shadows and foliage distance are high.

At 1080p, these settings hit 55 -- 90 fps with vsync off on my 144Hz monitor.

 

[Jad Chaar]

I really wonder if the bad performance is a matter of bad optimization, or the game is just crazy demanding. It has been in development for years, so I bet they added in a ton of eye-candy!

It stinks that this game plays so badly on AMD GPUs; hopefully Catalyst 15.5 fixes this a bit.

What exactly is the difference between TressFX and HairWorks?! I think nVidia and AMD should make a unified version of this... but hey, that ain't gonna happen .

 

[noel24]

Ugh. I thought I would be fine with my 760s for a few years, but it looks like they're becoming has beens pretty quickly. Oh well, I still have my PS4 and Xbox One. :-(

C'mon, You're serious or trolling? XO/PS4 is something like what? 720p, 900p, 1080p max with low to medium settings, limited to 30fps (with some annoying drops I read, at least till maybe a patch). You're GTX760 is still lots of firepower for medium settings in this game. And probably enough for all the future games ported from NexGen. I'm not changing my current PC till next generation of consoles.

 

[Guest]

Uh, I get constant 60fps at ultra setting HBAO+ 1080p with my 290x. There must be something wrong with your setup, like something called Nvidia Cash, wink wink

 

[amstech]

While I can understand the need for an attractive headline , make no mistake : The Witcher 3 is not the new Crysis.

It's a pretty close example.

Crysis is an 8 year old game that puts modern games to shame even today in many aspects.

Not really, driver updates and newer tech run it pretty easily.

Uh, I get constant 60fps at ultra setting HBAO+ 1080p with my 290x. There must be something wrong with your setup, like something called Nvidia Cash, wink wink

There must be something wrong with your setup.
I get 120FPS at Ultra Settings @ 1600p with my 670.
In fact my 670 is beating the Titan X.

 

[Guest]

"After some preliminary testing, we've observed mild performance improvements in the order of 5% to 15% which will help to run the game at smoother frame rates."

Version 1.02: I saved a scene, loaded it, note frame rates, loaded it again 2 times, noted frame rates.

I installed 1.03, loaded it 3 times, noted frame rates. I seriously didn't see any difference at all.

 

[Guest]

I just learnt what CTRL+C and CTRL+V does ... SO LET ME USE IT!!!

People like you shouldn't even be working for a site like this....sigh

 

[cliffordcooley]

People like you shouldn't even be working for a site like this....sigh

People like you need to learn to take a joke. I admit sometimes I'm slow. But come on it was easy to see the humor in what he said.

 

[Guest]

Seeing this benchmark makes me so happy I quit pc gaming my pc with gtx970 and fx8320 that I sold for $400 cant handle ultra settings I dont miss the pc at all I was brainwashed into thinking I was saving money with pc gaming

 

[Guest]

Compare screens of ultra on pc to ps4 there is no difference.

 

[madboyv1]

I just learnt what CTRL+C and CTRL+V does ... SO LET ME USE IT!!!

People like you shouldn't even be working for a site like this....sigh

The joke, this one doesn't get it. =p

 

[cmbjive]

C'mon, You're serious or trolling? XO/PS4 is something like what? 720p, 900p, 1080p max with low to medium settings, limited to 30fps (with some annoying drops I read, at least till maybe a patch). You're GTX760 is still lots of firepower for medium settings in this game. And probably enough for all the future games ported from NexGen. I'm not changing my current PC till next generation of consoles.

No, not trolling. I value stability and playability above all else. And if I have to turn my 760 onto a lower level to make a game playable then I would prefer to buy that game on PS4. Don't worry, I still game on PC, but I'm not looking to put out more money for a better graphics card at this time.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Ever think the reason AMD is pro open source is because what they've come up with isn't that great and would go nowhere if it was exclusive to AMD? Hairworks vs TressFX? That's like a gorilla fighting a penguin. Mantle? Inconsistent as [expletitive]. MS and Khronos will take low level API's further than AMD ever could on their own.

Tom Peterson from nVIDIA called AMD a component company, and he couldn't have been more right. AMD users have this gimme gimme gimme attitude. Instead of making demands for the competition to "play nice", you should be demanding more from AMD. NOT their competition.

Consumers give AMD praise for their price/performance when in fact it's killing them financially. AMD would LOVE to charge nVIDIA premiums and get nVIDIA money, but they just can't, because they are just focused on one piece of the gaming puzzle... hardware. Gamers want an experience, and nVIDIA offers that. With it they have dominated AMD for the last 4 years and they didn't need the fastest GPU to do it. They didn't need it to achieve record revenue the last two quarters, and they didn't need it to garner 78% of the dGPU market.

If you like AMD, cool, but please stop begging for handouts.

 

[cliffordcooley]

^^^ WOW (not talk'n bout da game)

 

[noel24]

C'mon, You're serious ...

No, not trolling. I value stability and playability above all else...

You don't have to. GTX760 is still able card, Witcher games were always harsh on equipement (W2 Ubersmapling anyone?), and since all cards suffer in tests above, I wouldn't be ashamed if my middle class GPU limit the level of details. Apparently they made those high/ultra setting for future generation of PCs. Never had problems with the way those cookies crumble. I played most of games on medium, never came back when upgraded, except for few, with exceptional replay value, but usually it wasn't about graphics but games' soul. You might say console will give You that, but still I bet GTX760 is some twice more powerfull than castrated & underclocked HD7870 in PS4/XO and the game would look better on your PC at the same level of details.

 

[cmbjive]

You don't have to. GTX760 is still able card, Witcher games were always harsh on equipement (W2 Ubersmapling anyone?), and since all cards suffer in tests above, I wouldn't be ashamed if my middle class GPU limit the level of details. Apparently they made those high/ultra setting for future generation of PCs. Never had problems with the way those cookies crumble. I played most of games on medium, never came back when upgraded, except for few, with exceptional replay value, but usually it wasn't about graphics but games' soul. You might say console will give You that, but still I bet GTX760 is some twice more powerfull than castrated & underclocked HD7870 in PS4/XO and the game would look better on your PC at the same level of details.

I heartily agree, which is why I still buy some games that are more able on PC than on the consoles. For example, I only have Crysis and Far Cry on the PC because it's much better graphically on PC.

 

[cliffordcooley]

There is a third option. Wait!

Three options:

1. Be happy with your gear and lower settings
2. Get better gear
3. Wait till a later date for:
   1. Windows 10 (possibly DX12 enhancements)
      
   2. Driver enhancements
   3. Game revisions
      
   4. Better gear

I'm very curious how "Project Cars" and "Witcher 3" will play on Windows 10 DX12. And which cards still suffer after a final driver and game revision. I think it is a bit early to ***** and moan at the moment. The game (figuratively speaking) is changing after Windows 10 release. And I'm sure the creators of these two games are well aware of that fact.

 

[Guest]

Easily. Im on a 280x with nearly everything on ultra (visibility distance is in high, no hairworks) and getting low 50s to mid 30 fps.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Seeing this benchmark makes me so happy I quit pc gaming my pc with gtx970 and fx8320 that I sold for $400 cant handle ultra settings I dont miss the pc at all I was brainwashed into thinking I was saving money with pc gaming

You should not have such a **** CPU with a GTX970. Well, if you thought you were saving money by buying a GTX970 you were really off the track. This explains everything about you.

Seeing this benchmark makes me so happy I quit pc gaming my pc with gtx970 and fx8320 that I sold for $400 cant handle ultra settings I dont miss the pc at all I was brainwashed into thinking I was saving money with pc gaming

You should not have have such a **** CPU with a GTX970. Well, if you though you are saving money by buying a GTX970 you were really off the track. This explains everything about you.

Not to mention that you sold your PC for only 400 bucks? dude you really have issues.
But I get it, you got enlightened and bought a console, but you are still reading PC game reviews... why is that? lol

Note: Please edit rather than double post.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Compare screens of ultra on pc to ps4 there is no difference.

Keep telling that to yourself and buy glasses buddy.

PLEASE edit your original post if there are no replies rather than double/triple post.

 

[Guest]

Ever think the reason AMD is pro open source is because what they've come up with isn't that great and would go nowhere if it was exclusive to AMD? Hairworks vs TressFX? That's like a gorilla fighting a penguin. Mantle? Inconsistent as [expletitive]. MS and Khronos will take low level API's further than AMD ever could on their own.

That's a great anti-AMD rant, Mr. Troll. I just hope that you'll be really happy if AMD goes bankrupt and leaves the GPU market, Nvidia is left as the only player in that market, and you get slapped in the face by absurd prices because there's no competition so you don't have any other option besides bend over. Isn't that what you guys want, to win the fabled GPU wars and acquire the right to pay absurd monopoly prices?
Also, I really, really do not understand how anyone in their right mind could ever dream of considering Nvidia's atrocious anticompititive measures "good experience" and "what the customers want". I can tell you with all the certainty that any Nvidia user that isn't a petty loyalist or something does NOT want AMD GPUs to be deliberately crippled just to say "lol, I have a better card than you". Also, any Nvidia user with half a brain working understands that Nvidia taking control from the developers, adding their own closed-source code and optimizations to the game that the developers themselves can't touch, and require them not to allow any other company to have a chance to optimize it for their hardware, is not only an incredibly bad move, but also a slippery slope. What's next, will you be happy if we start seeing big releases that are contractully obligated to be exclusive to Nvidia GPUs? Would you be happy if AMD did the same and you got locked out of a game release?
If your argument is that Nvidia's anti-computivive practices are good and it's what the customers want, I don't know what planet or plane of oblivion you live in. AMD users aren't complaining that Nvidia tries to offer a better experience for their customers, they are complaining that Nvidia tries to stop other companies from offering a good experience to theirs. And if you think AMD should start doing the same to Nvidia users, so that everyone gets screwed in half of their games, you're out of your mind.

 

[cliffordcooley]

That's a great anti-AMD rant, Mr. Troll.

 

[hahahanoobs]

That's a great anti-AMD rant, Mr. Troll. I just hope that you'll be really happy if AMD goes bankrupt and leaves the GPU market, Nvidia is left as the only player in that market, and you get slapped in the face by absurd prices because there's no competition so you don't have any other option besides bend over. Isn't that what you guys want, to win the fabled GPU wars and acquire the right to pay absurd monopoly prices?

No, I get it, you like competition as long as you can keep getting cheap hardware (that just barely keeps a company alive), and free software technologies from the competition that pays for them. What would be the point of nVIDIA coming up with anything new if the core technologies they develop can run just as well on their competitions cheaper hardware? Why would anyone buy nVIDIA cards after that? What would drive nVIDIA to innovate? How long do you think nVIDIA would last doing that? Oh right, you don't care, because you are so short-sighted. I have more sense than that of an uneducated consumer. You have no idea what competition even means. When you figure it out, get back to me and the real world. We'll be glad to talk to you then.

Monopoly is thrown around too freely it's lost all meaning. Is Apple a monopoly? Because they charge more than anyone else for their stuff. Windows is a supposed monopoly, but I don't remember them charging unreasonable prices for their software. Same goes for Intel. Hardware can only go so far, but everyone forgets without complimenting software, there is no hardware, or reason to push the limits of it. It's funny too, because everyone is screaming DX12, but still want more from the hardware before the software is even available.

 

[Guest]

What would be the point of nVIDIA coming up with anything new if the core technologies they develop can run just as well on their competitions cheaper hardware? Why would anyone buy nVIDIA cards after that? What would drive nVIDIA to innovate? How long do you think nVIDIA would last doing that? Oh right, you don't care, because you are so short-sighted.

First, you state that both companies should build walled gardens, each screwing over the other's customers, instead of keeping the PC platform open. Then, you call me short-sighted. This is absolutely hilarious.

Monopoly is thrown around too freely it's lost all meaning.

That's not freely throwing around a word. If AMD goes bankrupt or leaves the dGPU market, that's going to be an actual, literal monopoly for Nvidia. There will be nobody else, and I assume you have the least ammount of intelligence to understand why that's a very bad thing for customers, don't you?
Also, you don't even need to go as far a literal monopoly to see why the effects of no competition are bad. Could you imagine if, for example, a company charged a $450 premium for a CPU for a 100 MHz increase in frequency on the exact same silicon? Look at the i7-4930K vs. i7-4960X. The only reason Intel can do ridiculous stuff like this is because they don't have anyone to keep them in check at that performance range, so if you need that kind of power you have no choice. Do you think that's a good thing for the customers?

Is Apple a monopoly? Because they charge more than anyone else for their stuff. Windows is a supposed monopoly, but I don't remember them charging unreasonable prices for their software.

Monopolies have nothing to do with charging more than the competition. Apple has plenty of competition, in fact. If you need a phone, you also have Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola, Microsoft, Blackberry, Xiaomi and several others. If you need computers, you have Microsoft, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, MSI and several others, including the option to build your own. Microsoft is not a monopoly either, because they not only have competition from other OSes (OS X, Chrome OS, other Linux distros, BSD), but some of them are actually free. On the dedicated GPU market, there's nobody else besides Nvidia and AMD. Take either of them out, and it's a monopoly.

 

[LNCPapa]

Thought I was going to be able to set everything to ultra @ 2560x1440 using 2 970s... nope. Turn down just a couple of things to high though and I get pretty smooth gameplay. http://steamcommunity.com/id/lncpapa/screenshots/