Alan Wake > General Discussions > Topic Details
himmatsj Aug 18, 2014 @ 11:55pm
Holy cow - Watch Dogs has BETTER performance than Alan Wake!
So yeah, Alan Wake hovers around 40-60fps for me. Low-medium settings, 1080p on my GTX 750.

And you know what? Watch Dogs plays at around the same framerate at around the same settings.

I mean, a 2010 game vs a 2014 game. That is so wicked unreal.

Still cannot accept the fact that Alan Wake is the ONLY pre-2014 game that I cannot run on Medium to High settings and get 60fps. Heck, even at all Low settings, Alan Wake doesn't hit 60fps at all times.
Showing 1-15 of 32 comments
< >
Unknown Error Aug 20, 2014 @ 2:48am 
Okay...You know there are other games that came out before watch dogs and still run like crap? Or god forbid actually run worse than Alan Wake. Hell, there are games in 2014 that are considered to be the worst.

Why not? Older games are the suspects of running poor simply becuase there is no way for the game tester programmer to know future programing updates such as drivers and OS updates which may conflit with the game.

Why am I even bothering? You seem to be a graphics ♥♥♥♥♥ simpleton.
Last edited by Unknown Error; Aug 20, 2014 @ 2:48am
Marsson Aug 20, 2014 @ 3:11am 
Alan Wake has some pretty wicked lighting effects though, which pushes your hardware pretty hard. Watch Dogs is not that good looking, even though it performs extremely bad even on my GTX 780.
himmatsj Aug 20, 2014 @ 3:29am 
Actually, I agree. Alan Wake looks sick for a 2010/2012 game. But I still maintain it should be running better at the lowest possible graphics level on my PC.
Zotlerg Aug 20, 2014 @ 6:23am 
I find it crazy the way people compare games, when they are so different. But if you want to do that, then try Thief! Once you get a lot of overlaid transparencies on the screen at once then everybody's GPU starts struggling.
Last edited by Zotlerg; Aug 20, 2014 @ 6:23am
himmatsj Aug 20, 2014 @ 6:30am 
Originally posted by Zotlerg:
I find it crazy the way people compare games, when they are so different. But if you want to do that, then try Thief! Once you get a lot of overlaid transparencies on the screen at once then everybody's GPU starts struggling.

No Thief is also better than Alan Wake. Better than Watch Dogs too, since it is all mostly dark at night. See my post on this some time back: http://steamcommunity.com/app/108710/discussions/0/558754259611621206/#c558754259617668514

Alan Wake to date, when ran on the lowest in-game settings at 1080p, delivers the lowest average FPS when compared to Thief and Watch Dogs and a host of other games.
Zotlerg Aug 20, 2014 @ 6:37am 
Well, that's strange becuase AW runs better than Thief for me on a GTX680. On the city on fire level (whatever) thief just grinds to 20fps.
PCs depend on too many things to find out why sometimes, It's not just the graphics card but the drive connectivity, GPU buss speeds, and RAM speeds and all those things from the motherboard up. Not to mention the CPU. I presume you've updated all your GFX drivers and Motherboard BIOS and Chipset software?
Last edited by Zotlerg; Aug 20, 2014 @ 6:39am
himmatsj Aug 20, 2014 @ 6:43am 
Originally posted by Zotlerg:
Well, that's strange becuase AW runs better than Thief for me on a GTX680. On the city on fire level (whatever) thief just grinds to 20fps.
PCs depend on too many things to find out why sometimes, It's not just the graphics card but the drive connectivity, GPU buss speeds, and RAM speeds and all those things from the motherboard up. Not to mention the CPU. I presume you've updated all your GFX drivers and Motherboard BIOS and Chipset software?

Yeah. All latest. For what it's worth, I have an i5 3330. It may actually not be enough to MAX out Thief and Watch Dogs, but more than enough for Alan Wake. My GPU seems to be the only limiting factor with AW. At higher settings, my CPU becomes an impediment as well in Watch Dogs and Thief.
VNagrand Aug 28, 2014 @ 1:27pm 
Well...I have played AW with almost maxed settings (AA wasn't high cause I didn't need it, don't remember about AF) on GeForce GTX 560TI 1Gb and game worked flawlessy in 1080p (50fps+, generally 60fps). Thief had around 30-40 fps with medium-high settings and Watch_Dogs was playable on low settings with ~30fps (drops to 15fps) on 560Ti. It is really strange than you have so bad performance. AW was one of the most flawlessly working game titles on my old 560Ti.
himmatsj Aug 28, 2014 @ 1:36pm 
Are you serious man? I'm playing Watch Dogs on medium 1080p and it NEVER goes below 35fps for me. Very rarely it goes below 40fps. Otherwise it is usually between 40 to 50 fps for me.

I cannot believe you played AW with almost max settings with reduced AA and got that performance. Like I said, even playing low medium settings, I can't get 60fps.

PS: I agree with you that I don't need high AA. For me, FXaa in most AAA games is enough. Same with SSAO. Always turn that off to maximise performance.

Maybe the 2gb VRAM in your card is what makes the difference in AW?
Nardypants Aug 28, 2014 @ 2:52pm 
What I find amusing is how people gauge the success and quality of a game by its framerate.

I guess gameplay and story are worthless... there are buggy, poorly optimized games out there, but if it has solid other qualities, I'll still play it - without throwing a tantrum.
Last edited by Nardypants; Aug 28, 2014 @ 2:53pm
swenor Sep 8, 2014 @ 10:29pm 
himmatsj
Wow, you again, with another weird issue. Is there anything ok with you? AW ran well at my desktop @ 1366x768 on medium (35 frames) with E2160 @3GHz and GTS 250. How come your hardware works worse? O.O.
Man, stop posting ♥♥♥♥ around steam forums - I can never find a good word from you about anything you post. Always weird issues of various nature. Sort your ♥♥♥♥ out - both technically and personally.
himmatsj Sep 8, 2014 @ 11:10pm 
Originally posted by swenor:
himmatsj
Wow, you again, with another weird issue. Is there anything ok with you? AW ran well at my desktop @ 1366x768 on medium (35 frames) with E2160 @3GHz and GTS 250. How come your hardware works worse? O.O.
Man, stop posting ♥♥♥♥ around steam forums - I can never find a good word from you about anything you post. Always weird issues of various nature. Sort your ♥♥♥♥ out - both technically and personally.

Dude, what is wrong with you? Do you want me to show you screenshot proof? Thief at medium runs 75fps, Watch Dogs at medium at 45fps and Alan Wake at medium at 40fps. You can find an older topic on my comparison with Thief for proof that I am not making this up, and look at the W_D discussion to see the same. I even posted on the AW dev forum but nobody ever responded.

I find this highly odd myself. And yes, you can find a lot of good word from me. See the W_D forum. I defended the game against all those criticizing it unfairly, for example. Look harder. Don't just find faults with me.
Deadbubble Sep 9, 2014 @ 7:25am 
Originally posted by Nardypants:
What I find amusing is how people gauge the success and quality of a game by its framerate.

I guess gameplay and story are worthless... there are buggy, poorly optimized games out there, but if it has solid other qualities, I'll still play it - without throwing a tantrum.

One's enjoyment of a game can be severly reduced if it runs like crap.
Mew Catnip Sep 9, 2014 @ 3:21pm 
Alan Wake is one of the better optimized console ports and it looks fantastic in my opinion.. and yes you need beefy hardware especially for these gorgeous looking God-rays and lighting effects. It plays perfectly at 60Fps in 1440p maxed out for me.
HoneyBadgerOnPC Sep 10, 2014 @ 2:44pm 
It is your hardware/game optimization... I feel my PC is crap because i cant run Battlefield 4, or skyrim with good enough FPS for them to be entertaining... But Alan Wake runs perfectly for me on max everything.
Last edited by HoneyBadgerOnPC; Sep 10, 2014 @ 2:48pm
Showing 1-15 of 32 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50