wth is this benchmark tool?

[Neky]

Whenever I'm getting around 40 FPS it tells me "Good"
wtf is "good" about that? I hope the devs don't use it to collect data and decide whether to optimize the game or not because this rating system is bad af.
Every game that runs below 60 FPS is considered unplayable on PC. With that you feel every frame when turning your mouse. This makes it seem the devs who made the benchmark tool never played any game with keyboard+mouse.

Btw according to the benchmark tool the game just runs on my PC on 1080p somewhere between medium and low quality and DLSS or FSR set to performance (which looks utterly awful).
RTX 2070 Super Gaming x Trio
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
16GB 4000MHz
Samsung 980 PRO NVMe M.2
MSI X570 Gaming Plus

[Khergit Horse Archer]

wat pc gamers complaining about just 40fps being 'good'

back in my days we play at 15fps in black and white

[Kiririn]

The benchmark tool is mostly cutscenes of sand with nothing really going on. If you are getting 40 fps as the average at the end that means you will run the game noticeably worse than that.

[Bongoboy]

Originally posted by Kiririn:

The benchmark tool is mostly cutscenes of sand with nothing really going on. If you are getting 40 fps as the average at the end that means you will run the game noticeably worse than that.

Yeah you are right about that. 2 Cut Scenes and one leisurely stroll have nothing in common with a real hunt of a large monster.

Originally posted by Neky:

RTX 2070 Super Gaming x Trio
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
16GB 4000MHz
Samsung 980 PRO NVMe M.2
MSI X570 Gaming Plus

I think Capcom didn't do the "Recommended" specs correctly. A i5-10400 or i3-12100 with a 2060 is a joke. I have a i7 11700k with a 3080 in here, both Beta's ran like utter garbage. Changing the settings from high to low didn't seem to make any difference.

The Benchmark tells me "Excellent!" when I have 60 fps native for the most part... but there is no action on the Benchmark. Did the Beta run worse then the Release? I don't know, and Capcom released that joke of a "Benchmark" instead to release a proper Demo of the game.
I don't want to dump $70 just to figure out how a game runs on my system, I know I can return it but I had a few times where the Steam representative gave me sass about trying to return a game.

Well that and I have too many games in my back log, and I include World and Rise which I didn't finish all the way.

[Kiririn]

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

Capcom released that joke of a "Benchmark" instead to release a proper Demo of the game.
I don't want to dump $70 just to figure out how a game runs on my system, I know I can return it but I had a few times where the Steam representative gave me sass about trying to return a game.

This is why I think it was a calculated move to not release a demo. They don't want someone to download the beta, see it runs like cheeks, and then not buy the game.

They want you to give into FOMO and buy the game because they know that not everybody is going to refund. A lot will see it runs like crap and just wait for patches. I think it's very dishonest calculating move. Especially when considering they had a demo for their last MH game

[Gaidax]

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

I think Capcom didn't do the "Recommended" specs correctly. A i5-10400 or i3-12100 with a 2060 is a joke. I have a i7 11700k with a 3080 in here, both Beta's ran like utter garbage. Changing the settings from high to low didn't seem to make any difference.

The Benchmark tells me "Excellent!" when I have 60 fps native for the most part... but there is no action on the Benchmark. Did the Beta run worse then the Release? I don't know, and Capcom released that joke of a "Benchmark" instead to release a proper Demo of the game.
I don't want to dump $70 just to figure out how a game runs on my system, I know I can return it but I had a few times where the Steam representative gave me sass about trying to return a game.

Well that and I have too many games in my back log, and I include World and Rise which I didn't finish all the way.

People miss the part in "Recommended" specs that it's targeting 1080p @60FPS with FrameGen.

Which is of course ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on various levels.

IMO, unless you have the minimum of 80 FPS average in the benchmark, you have no business buying this game. That benchmark is very misleading - take whatever result you get there and reduce it by 20FPS and then you'd be somewhat close to the reality.

---

Now, I'd add that mileage varies for different folks. Can lock it at 30FPS and some won't even care for more, but if you want 60FPS and so it won't look like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ - you better bring current or last gen mid-range hardware the least.

IMO, people with Series 20 GPUs or anything less than 3070 need not apply.

[Bongoboy]

Originally posted by Gaidax:

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

I think Capcom didn't do the "Recommended" specs correctly. A i5-10400 or i3-12100 with a 2060 is a joke. I have a i7 11700k with a 3080 in here, both Beta's ran like utter garbage. Changing the settings from high to low didn't seem to make any difference.

The Benchmark tells me "Excellent!" when I have 60 fps native for the most part... but there is no action on the Benchmark. Did the Beta run worse then the Release? I don't know, and Capcom released that joke of a "Benchmark" instead to release a proper Demo of the game.
I don't want to dump $70 just to figure out how a game runs on my system, I know I can return it but I had a few times where the Steam representative gave me sass about trying to return a game.

Well that and I have too many games in my back log, and I include World and Rise which I didn't finish all the way.

People miss the part in "Recommended" specs that it's targeting 1080p @60FPS with FrameGen.

Which is of course ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on various levels.

IMO, unless you have the minimum of 80 FPS average in the benchmark, you have no business buying this game. That benchmark is very misleading - take whatever result you get there and reduce it by 20FPS and then you'd be somewhat close to the reality.

---

Now, I'd add that mileage varies for different folks. Can lock it at 30FPS and some won't even care for more, but if you want 60FPS and so it won't look like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ - you better bring current or last gen mid-range hardware the least.

IMO, people with Series 20 GPUs or anything less than 3070 need not apply.

That is not what I meant. I did read that Recommended was with FrameGen and at 1080p. It also further states that it is to be expected to run under the "medium" settings.

But... looking at my performance in the Beta on a 11700k and a 3080... I can be happy if it runs 60 fps at 1080p with medium settings with Frame Gen. They claim a 2060 can run it on medium... I don't believe that.

I agree the Benchmark is very misleading, that's why I didn't buy it yet. They show two cut scenes and a leisurely stroll through the scenery.
If they released a Demo instead of that trash Benchmark I would have bought it after seeing how it runs in a real fight.

But ah well. I can wait. In a year or two I upgrade my system, when I get my hands on a GPU that is not priced idiotic. I see used 4080s being sold for $1500 and higher... for that price I get a 5080...

[Gaidax]

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

But ah well. I can wait. In a year or two I upgrade my system, when I get my hands on a GPU that is not priced idiotic. I see used 4080s being sold for $1500 and higher... for that price I get a 5080...

Don't expect any improvements on that front anytime soon.

I got 5080, it maxes out this game and gives 80-140 FPS with 1440p Ultrawide full visuals, RT, textures, whatever. [b[But[/b] it is still with FrameGen and DLSS-B.

Frankly 5080 is a disappointment, given the price. But this game is a real ♥♥♥♥♥ to drive too, literally the only game so far, I felt the need to use FrameGen with. Even CP77 with Path Tracing I did not need that.

And it does not help that sometimes for some wild reason FPS drops below 60 in the main camp. I can only imagine what kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ it will be with the new hub coming up next update.

[Kiririn]

Originally posted by Gaidax:

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

But ah well. I can wait. In a year or two I upgrade my system, when I get my hands on a GPU that is not priced idiotic. I see used 4080s being sold for $1500 and higher... for that price I get a 5080...

Don't expect any improvements on that front anytime soon.

I got 5080, it maxes out this game and gives 80-140 FPS with 1440p Ultrawide full visuals, RT, textures, whatever. [b[But[/b] it is still with FrameGen and DLSS-B.

Frankly 5080 is a disappointment, given the price. But this game is a real ♥♥♥♥♥ to drive too, literally the only game so far, I felt the need to use FrameGen with. Even CP77 with Path Tracing I did not need that.

And it does not help that sometimes for some wild reason FPS drops below 60 in the main camp. I can only imagine what kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ it will be with the new hub coming up next update.

80 fps on a 5080 with FG? Wow, that is crummy performance.

The 5080 was disappointing but not that disappointing.

[Gaidax]

Originally posted by Kiririn:

Originally posted by Gaidax:

Don't expect any improvements on that front anytime soon.

I got 5080, it maxes out this game and gives 80-140 FPS with 1440p Ultrawide full visuals, RT, textures, whatever. [b[But[/b] it is still with FrameGen and DLSS-B.

Frankly 5080 is a disappointment, given the price. But this game is a real ♥♥♥♥♥ to drive too, literally the only game so far, I felt the need to use FrameGen with. Even CP77 with Path Tracing I did not need that.

And it does not help that sometimes for some wild reason FPS drops below 60 in the main camp. I can only imagine what kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ it will be with the new hub coming up next update.

80 fps on a 5080 with FG? Wow, that is crummy performance.

The 5080 was disappointing but not that disappointing.

Yes, it is what it is.

This game has some serious performance issues.

[Foe]

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

wat pc gamers complaining about just 40fps being 'good'

back in my days we play at 15fps in black and white

I hope u still use your Nokia phone and don’t use one of these new fancy touch devices.

[Bongoboy]

Originally posted by Gaidax:

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

But ah well. I can wait. In a year or two I upgrade my system, when I get my hands on a GPU that is not priced idiotic. I see used 4080s being sold for $1500 and higher... for that price I get a 5080...

Don't expect any improvements on that front anytime soon.

Yeah I know. Since on the performance lists you see no 1 is a 5090, no 2 is a... 4090... followed by 5080 and 5070. It is "Supposed" that the 5070 already beats a 4090 in performance, but nope.

Originally posted by Gaidax:

I got 5080, it maxes out this game and gives 80-140 FPS with 1440p Ultrawide full visuals, RT, textures, whatever. [b[But[/b] it is still with FrameGen and DLSS-B.

Frankly 5080 is a disappointment, given the price. But this game is a real ♥♥♥♥♥ to drive too, literally the only game so far, I felt the need to use FrameGen with. Even CP77 with Path Tracing I did not need that.

And it does not help that sometimes for some wild reason FPS drops below 60 in the main camp. I can only imagine what kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ it will be with the new hub coming up next update.

Yeah I heard even the 50s cards struggle. I just ran the Benchmark again, and without running MSI Afterburner I get way lower points lol. Funny enough, using Frame Gen, either through FSR ingame or using Lossless Scalings Frame Gen, there is no ghosting in Monster Hunter Wilds. It just looks like trash, flickering everywhere because it was rendered at 720p scaled up to 1080p.
They recommend a 2060 is still cracking me up. This is at the edge of trying to scam consumers.

Sadly I didn't really follow the 40s series release, I just got my hands on that 3080 after trying to get a GPU the whole year 2021, so I didn't plan on buying a newer one that early.
Looking at it now, the 40 series had a pretty good jump up from the 30 series. But the 50 series has nearly a invisible jump. It is a joke that the no 2 GPU right behind the 5090 is the 4090. They trying to pull my leg?

I think that Wilds does something in the background that is either unnecessary or should have been designed differently. The other thing is, no one needed a "open world"... the system they had in World and Rise was fine enough. I would only have wished that you can see other people everywhere running around in the Base Camp.
That being said I would rather have a less fidelity environment with lower polygon counts but in exchange have it have more detail and react to Monsters attacks like Trees and stones that can be broken. I also was a sucker for Iceborne's snow effect.

[Sanquin]

Originally posted by Bongoboy:

Yeah I heard even the 50s cards struggle.

To be fair, the 50 series is terrible. It's barely an upgrade from the 40 series, and they "make up" for that with fake frames and the like. Basically the 50 series gives you less power for more money. So ANY benchmark using the 50 series is kinda pointless imo.

All these big tech companies invesing in and heavily promoting AI tech. Meanwhile most of us users want actual power increases. Not ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ "fake frame" AI tech, that performs very differently depending on what version of DLSS and frame gen you use, and will ALWAYS give worse image quality. It's like GPUs are evolving backwards now.

[FWDKILLER]

gtx 460 here and q6600 i average around 80 to 100fps with frame gen . frame gen off i get 50 to 70 fps if you hsve a better pc then me then yes you can play it well. i also use REframeworks to reduce the stutter.