Does it run with a 970?

[rogermorse]

I ask this because recently I had so many bad experiences....so, given that the game is at the moment for sale on an authorized steam reseller for 16,99€, I thought I should get it. Many bad experiences = I have an i5 2500k @4.5 GHz and a GTX 970 (MSI) that I can overclock a bit, and with my system I really had so many problems recently with Kholat (horribly optimized), Rise of the Tomb Raider (runs really like crap, with minimum of 38 fps on medium-high details) etc etc....

I know that Arkham Knight had (and still has) so many problems. So maybe some GTX 970 owners could tell me if it is possible to play the game at more or less 60fps stable without lowering too much the graphic options? I would play in 2560x1080....or 1920x1080 if really needed.

[M1KE 76]

It runs but you have to lock it to 30 fps....no matter which settings you wont get 60 fps while driving and flying...in 30 fps is ok....ich can run it maxed out with 1440 p with no fps drops....but i pray that some day i can play it in 60 fps.....

[M1KE 76]

And for tomb raider....everything high purehair very high and change the refreshrate to 50 hz....it will run great...

[Trance]

I have a 4790k with a Geforce 970 and with everything maxed except for the Nvidia Smoke stuff it runs at almost constant 60 FPS in 2560x1440p.

If you only play in 1080p you should have no problems getting constant 60 FPS.

[M1KE 76]

Wtf.....show me a video with a fps counter...no way that you can play in 1440p with a steady 60 fps.....thats why they can treat us like s.....with unoptimised games....there are always guys which tell us fairy tales i can run it in 4 k with 1000 fps

[alloncm]

it runs well for me with a gtx 970
i say get the game its worth it

[rogermorse]

Ok then I guess it will be one of my next 'to play' games. I had AC Unity next in list but so disappointed to see that 2560x1080 it stutters like hell....with mininum drops to 40fps....Disabling ambient occlusion helps a lot but it also looks so much worse.

In witcher 3 as well I had to accept a compromise....high details but playing at 2180*920 or similar resolution (to have the same amount of rendered pixels as full hd, but keeping my 21:9 aspect ratio of the monitor).

It is very weird that not even a year old and with not even a cheaper price (my GTX 970 costs now even more than what I paid in november 2014), games still run like crap on one of the most powerful cards on the market. Of course there is 980ti and you could have a SLI 980ti....but I still remember that wenn the 570 came out or the 770 was out (my previous two cards before this one)...EVERYTHING was butter smooth, and you would notice framerate drops only after 1,5 or 2 years. It could partly be the fault of games (in my opinion rise of the tomb raider is also not very well optimized.....AC Unity is obviously not of course, but he is not the only one).

Having demos in these cases is always good....too bad I can't really try Arkham Knight before buying it. I would really love to see specifically how it runs on my system (I also heard it needs 16 GB of ram....and I only have 8) and I'm not spending 50 euros for it with the risk of not receiving a refund later.

[Black Mambo № 5]

Runs absolutely fine on my PC, ignore the dude that says it doesn't run on 60 FPS at max settings. He probably has a baked potato that he's trying to run the game on, or he's just outright lying.

Config: GTX970, FX-6100 OC'ed@4.0Ghz, 16GB RAM, Win7 Ultimate 64Bit & running the game on an SSD(no difference to FPS).

I'm running it on 1920x1080 since I don't have a ultra-wide.

And you can see for yourself: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=609381631

Although be warned Nvidia Fog and Debris will tank your performance(plus don't look good IMO): http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=609399991

[rogermorse]

Well, the minimum of 43 still worries me a little. Is that benchmark heavy? Or did you see drops to that 43fps value also in game? I guess anyway worth to try....17 euros is not a lot, and even if it runs so bad, I could still wait and play it when Pascal comes out.

[Black Mambo № 5]

Originally posted by rogermorse:

Well, the minimum of 43 still worries me a little. Is that benchmark heavy? Or did you see drops to that 43fps value also in game? I guess anyway worth to try....17 euros is not a lot, and even if it runs so bad, I could still wait and play it when Pascal comes out.

Zero drops/stutters/freezes.
That 43 frame was right at the beginning of the benchmark, after that the lowest I saw was maybe a 59, nothing less than that on as many runs I did.

[Black Mambo № 5]

One benchmark video from November Patch, note that the game has improved a decent bit since that patch to the most recent January patch.

Video test is being run at 1080p with V-Sync enabled and FPS at 60, and they are showcasing the actual in-game performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEO_K_xY0A&t=96
So it's pretty clear that the other dude is lying about poor performance, or is running the game on a toaster.

[Robbo99999]

Originally posted by Black Mambo № 5:

One benchmark video from November Patch, note that the game has improved a decent bit since that patch to the most recent January patch.

Video test is being run at 1080p with V-Sync enabled and FPS at 60, and they are showcasing the actual in-game performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEO_K_xY0A&t=96
So it's pretty clear that the other dude is lying about poor performance, or is running the game on a toaster.

Benchmark results don't equal real world gaming, the in-game benchmark is easy on the system in comparison to parts of the game.

[TopperHarley]

Originally posted by Robbo99999:

Originally posted by Black Mambo № 5:

One benchmark video from November Patch, note that the game has improved a decent bit since that patch to the most recent January patch.

Video test is being run at 1080p with V-Sync enabled and FPS at 60, and they are showcasing the actual in-game performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEO_K_xY0A&t=96
So it's pretty clear that the other dude is lying about poor performance, or is running the game on a toaster.

Benchmark results don't equal real world gaming, the in-game benchmark is easy on the system in comparison to parts of the game.

correct, I get great benchmark results and horrible hitching in game

[Selfish Lee Everett]

970 is really bad for this game for some reason. Lots of performance issues.

[Buck]

Originally posted by Selfish Lee Everett:

970 is really bad for this game for some reason. Lots of performance issues.

It's not "bad" at all, it's a great card, but has an effective 3.5GB memory limit. cross that and performancve seriously tanks.

[Charlie]

I have a GTX 970; so I feel pretty confident in answering this. I can run the game at 1920x1080 at max settings (NVIDIA crap off) and maintain a solid 60fps; sometimes it will dip a little but it's perfectly fine.