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.

[Hitogoroshi]

NeoX lähetti viestin:

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

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.

nah, dude is just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. If he will get better gpu then he will happily post about 150+ fps :D

[Snidepeppe]

NeoX lähetti viestin:

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

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.

Thanks for the effort you're putting into answering me, but I'll just wait a few years to play with the expansion and maybe a better GPU that's worth buying, got plenty of patience.

[NeoX]

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

NeoX lähetti viestin:

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.

Thanks for the effort you're putting into answering me, but I'll just wait a few years to play with the expansion and maybe a better GPU that's worth buying, got plenty of patience.

Thats fair, also a wise move, since back in MHWorld times, the release of Uceborne was avery noticeable performance hit on the game. Could happen here too again. I wish you well!

[Snidepeppe]

NeoX lähetti viestin:

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

Thanks for the effort you're putting into answering me, but I'll just wait a few years to play with the expansion and maybe a better GPU that's worth buying, got plenty of patience.

Thats fair, also a wise move, since back in MHWorld times, the release of Uceborne was avery noticeable performance hit on the game. Could happen here too again. I wish you well!

Thanks, have fun playing.

[Black_Rose_Boy]

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

Hitogoroshi lähetti viestin:

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

100% Agree with you on this, I am running a 4080 & Ryzen 9 7950x. 4k DLSS balanced, Raytracing on + framgen and hitting average of 109, no way that person doesn't have FG on

[furfrou7071]

I blame capcom for releasing the same beta build. It runs well decently for me, but a lot of people are reporting issues. I still think it would've been better for capcom to have just held off and released a demo for the most current build for the game upon release. I also think some people need to realize that not everything has to be on ultra or high settings, somethings medium is fine too. I would just be honest with people, if your PC is struggling or barely running now, it will get much worse during the flooded forest area or in the volcano area.

[savageseal]

Hitogoroshi lähetti viestin:

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.

Maybe it's cpu issue I have 4070ti can barely get 60 on medium.

Cpu is 14700k

[BEEP!]

Yea it's not looking good at all so far I can run World max settings at like two times more fps compared to Wilds at the the lowest setting that's crazy bad like a RX6800 & 5800x3d shouldn't be dropping to the low 40s at the lowest setting in a game straight up at this point World looks better and plays better.

I've literally bought every MH game at launch for over 20years since the fist game but I actually might end up skipping Wilds for a good year.

[OFF]

Cadaver lähetti viestin:

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

Source ?

Everyone is saying that the beta is from old build 2023-2024 blabla but absolutely 0 source.

[Cadaver]

OFF lähetti viestin:

Cadaver lähetti viestin:

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

Source ?

Everyone is saying that the beta is from old build 2023-2024 blabla but absolutely 0 source.

The Community update they posted to update people about what they are doing with the feedback that was given

https://youtu.be/tWqiYSA-t8E?t=771

[Fentbob Tweakerpants]

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

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.

I'm not reading all of that
I'm happy for you
or sorry that happened

[milo]

I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere the new optimizations weren't in the beta, but may be present in the benchmark. I can say for a fact that my performance in the benchmark is leagues above the beta at the moment, but this might be a weird "based on your system" type of thing.

[Echorion]

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

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.

They said none of the engine fixes/improvements are in the beta test.

[nightowl]

Snidepeppe lähetti viestin:

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.

For what it's worth though they said that there was to be no improvements to the performance of the beta only that new monsters would be there. Performance increases will be Seen in the full release

[Rem Best Girl]

It really confused me because just like last beta, with a 3060ti I'm playing just fine on 2k 60+ fps with most things medium/high