There's little to no performance improvement over previous beta

[Snidepeppe]

During the previous beta I did a bunch of testing, unfortunately I did not save the results and the discussion where I posted them is gone, however I remember getting about 80 fps on average at 1080p native lowest settings and the results this time around are:
Average framerate : 80.8 FPS
1% low framerate : 61.5 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 37.7 FPS

Rtx 3080 12gb
Ryzen 7800x3D
32gb ddr5 6000

This is just from the section of the benchmark in the open map, excluding cutscenes since those run much better than gameplay and skew the results; also the fps would drop below 60 when fighting Ray Dau and I would expect the same in the final product.
Regardless of how it compares with the beta this is a terrible running, terrible loocking game.

These are some tests I did some time ago on other games at lowest settings 720p during gameplay in the most demanding area I could find(no built-in benchmark), I was testing ram speeds/timings so they are fully cpu bound:
Cyberpunk
Average: 186.12
1% lows: 115.04
0.1% lows: 71.1

Dragon's dogma 2
Average: 109.82
1% lows: 55
0.1% lows: 35.48

The Witcher 3:
Average: 197.08
1% lows: 104.94
0.1% lows: 57.24

Elden Ring
Average: 149.06
1% lows: 103.88
0.1% lows: 63.26

Baldur's gate 3
Average: 117.82
1% lows: 75.72
0.1% lows: 53.54

Shadow of the tomb rider
Average: 313.34
1% lows: 195.3
0.1% lows: 119.84

And then MH wilds I couldn't even get it to be cpu bound at 720p:
Average framerate : 95.1 FPS
1% low framerate : 72.5 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 47.7 FPS
I did this same comparison during the beta and just like then it berely runs better than DD2, and just like then it seems to not use the GPU to the fullest, my card only pulls 200ish Watts in MH wilds, in other demanding games it pulls around 350 and close to 400 in Cyberpunk with RT.

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

During the previous beta I did a bunch of testing, unfortunately I did not save the results and the discussion where I posted them is gone, however I remember getting about 80 fps on average at 1080p native lowest settings and the results this time around are:
Average framerate : 80.8 FPS
1% low framerate : 61.5 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 37.7 FPS

I think you do remember something quite wrong or a driver update did backfire for you.
When i did a little benchmark test in the beta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIWjgo88_WI

and compare familiar scenes like the "open field" with the new Benchmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uricga09EA

There is a nice improvement of overall 10-20%. Where i got ~70fps in the beta, i now get close to 90fps in the benchmark.

So you are sure its not a system or driver update that resulted in "no improvement"?

[Cadaver]

The yalready said this beta is not going to have the perofrmance improvements theyve been working on.

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Cadaver:

The yalready said this beta is not going to have the perofrmance improvements theyve been working on.

I think he means the Benchmark tool that does have them.

[del_bosque_dol]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

During the previous beta I did a bunch of testing, unfortunately I did not save the results and the discussion where I posted them is gone, however I remember getting about 80 fps on average at 1080p native lowest settings and the results this time around are:
Average framerate : 80.8 FPS
1% low framerate : 61.5 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 37.7 FPS

I think you do remember something quite wrong or a driver update did backfire for you.
When i did a little benchmark test in the beta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIWjgo88_WI

and compare familiar scenes like the "open field" with the new Benchmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uricga09EA

There is a nice improvement of overall 10-20%. Where i got ~70fps in the beta, i now get close to 90fps in the benchmark.

So you are sure its not a system or driver update that resulted in "no improvement"?

Do you notice that requirements changed since OBT. Lowered a bit.

[NeoX]

Originally posted by del_bosque_dol:

Originally posted by NeoX:

I think you do remember something quite wrong or a driver update did backfire for you.
When i did a little benchmark test in the beta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIWjgo88_WI

and compare familiar scenes like the "open field" with the new Benchmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uricga09EA

There is a nice improvement of overall 10-20%. Where i got ~70fps in the beta, i now get close to 90fps in the benchmark.

So you are sure its not a system or driver update that resulted in "no improvement"?

Do you notice that requirements changed since OBT. Lowered a bit.

Yeah thats true, but i still miss the "requirement for this settings level and resolution" info they added to the old ones. That would be a better line to compare it to.

[Snidepeppe]

I've looked quickly at your video and the grass zone you're getting 70-75 fps in the beta and now 80ish, i guess that's something but not even close to good performance.

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

During the previous beta I did a bunch of testing, unfortunately I did not save the results and the discussion where I posted them is gone, however I remember getting about 80 fps on average at 1080p native lowest settings and the results this time around are:
Average framerate : 80.8 FPS
1% low framerate : 61.5 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 37.7 FPS

I think you do remember something quite wrong or a driver update did backfire for you.
When i did a little benchmark test in the beta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIWjgo88_WI

and compare familiar scenes like the "open field" with the new Benchmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uricga09EA

There is a nice improvement of overall 10-20%. Where i got ~70fps in the beta, i now get close to 90fps in the benchmark.

So you are sure its not a system or driver update that resulted in "no improvement"?

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

I've looked quickly at your video and the grass zone you're getting 70-75 fps in the beta and now 80ish, i guess that's something but not even close to good performance.

Originally posted by NeoX:

I think you do remember something quite wrong or a driver update did backfire for you.
When i did a little benchmark test in the beta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIWjgo88_WI

and compare familiar scenes like the "open field" with the new Benchmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uricga09EA

There is a nice improvement of overall 10-20%. Where i got ~70fps in the beta, i now get close to 90fps in the benchmark.

So you are sure its not a system or driver update that resulted in "no improvement"?

What are you aiming for? Maybe there is some settings middleground that could please you. (many report shadows is a frame killer, next to "weak" CPU's).

[Snidepeppe]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

I've looked quickly at your video and the grass zone you're getting 70-75 fps in the beta and now 80ish, i guess that's something but not even close to good performance.

What are you aiming for? Maybe there is some settings middleground that could please you. (many report shadows is a frame killer, next to "weak" CPU's).

For me good performance is rock solid 60fps 1080p native on a ps5, on my pc I'd like 1440p dlls quality low/medium settings 120 fps. Maybe I'm asking to much but that's what I get in other games like cyberpunk, elden ring, poe 2 and the list goes on

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

Originally posted by NeoX:

What are you aiming for? Maybe there is some settings middleground that could please you. (many report shadows is a frame killer, next to "weak" CPU's).

For me good performance is rock solid 60fps 1080p native on a ps5, on my pc I'd like 1440p dlls quality low/medium settings 120 fps. Maybe I'm asking to much but that's what I get in other games like cyberpunk, elden ring, poe 2 and the list goes on

With DLSS this should not be a dream. If it is, how is your FSR/FrameGen experience? Should shoot way above 120fps with that for sure.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

For me good performance is rock solid 60fps 1080p native on a ps5, on my pc I'd like 1440p dlls quality low/medium settings 120 fps. Maybe I'm asking to much but that's what I get in other games like cyberpunk, elden ring, poe 2 and the list goes on

With DLSS this should not be a dream. If it is, how is your FSR/FrameGen experience? Should shoot way above 120fps with that for sure.

if DLSS does not give quality use AMD framegen, even on an NVIDIA card.

[del_bosque_dol]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by del_bosque_dol:

Do you notice that requirements changed since OBT. Lowered a bit.

Yeah thats true, but i still miss the "requirement for this settings level and resolution" info they added to the old ones. That would be a better line to compare it to.

Oh yeah graphic settings. That surely helps.

I got one good info from a poster called Goblin, and I really liked what he said and even copied the settings for the later test for 1440p.

[Snidepeppe]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

For me good performance is rock solid 60fps 1080p native on a ps5, on my pc I'd like 1440p dlls quality low/medium settings 120 fps. Maybe I'm asking to much but that's what I get in other games like cyberpunk, elden ring, poe 2 and the list goes on

With DLSS this should not be a dream. If it is, how is your FSR/FrameGen experience? Should shoot way above 120fps with that for sure.

Frame gen is a no go for me I want 120 fps for the latency I don't really care about smoothness, it also means using fsr intead of dlss in a game where neither looks great, there's a lot of dithering and blurriness wich I really dislike. If I get 95 average at 720p dlls will not get me to 120.

[Hitogoroshi]

just get better gpu.
Average 151 fps on ultra settings+ray tracing on.
4070ti

> Frame gen is a no go for me I want 120 fps for the latency
LMAO. even more reasons to get better gpu.

[Snidepeppe]

Originally posted by Hitogoroshi:

just get better gpu.
Average 151 fps on ultra settings+ray tracing on.
4070ti

That gpu is barely 20% faster than a 3080... you have frame gen on

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Snidepeppe:

Originally posted by NeoX:

With DLSS this should not be a dream. If it is, how is your FSR/FrameGen experience? Should shoot way above 120fps with that for sure.

Frame gen is a no go for me I want 120 fps for the latency I don't really care about smoothness, it also means using fsr intead of dlss in a game where neither looks great, there's a lot of dithering and blurriness wich I really dislike. If I get 95 average at 720p dlls will not get me to 120.

i have to say at least in 1080P that FSR did not change that much of the quality compared to native (see benchmark video above). Also are you sure the 120fps will truly help against input delay? I am not sure anymore where i did find that interview info (was it the gamecon presentation?) where it was stated the logical fps of the game are 60 maximum (30 standard), anything above is just visuals (because of console core design). Why not make 2 screenshots of a scene in native adn and one in FSR and see if the small differences are true dealbreaker for you. Maybe you can adjust.