Witcher 3-Performance on mobile GPUs

+
Oh, thank the heavens there's a thread about it here.

Anywho, I'm thinking about buying the game, but I'm not sure if my 670MX can handle this beast. I generally only play PC games when I can at the very least get it running in medium to high specs, and I'm not sure if my GPU can handle it. It is mildly overclocked by using nvidia inspector (base clock offset+135 MHz, memory clock offset +350MHz). I'm hesitant because I thought Witcher 2 was already not very well optmized (it didn't look as good for the way it ran) and Dragon Age: Inquisition runs with some FOV, pop-up and stuttering cutscenes issues (though I suspect the game was just poorly coded and optmized from the get-go).

Anyone here would know more about how 670MX perfoms? I'm reading through the net that Witcher 3 also does not feature the best optimization around.
 
@uthvag Lowest resolution but when i change it to for example 1280x1024 i am getting...like 2-3fps loss. Also about RAM. I have clean OS with no processes and almost none services run(disabling them when i play games). Afterburner shows that RAM usage never goes above 3100MB and my OS is running stable when i ALT+TAB the game.


Dude.... your laptop has a GT 620m. That is an incredibly weak GPU and performs substantially worse than The Witcher 3's minimum recommended specs, which is a GTX 660. Additionally, the minimum CPU is an i5-2500k, which is also much more powerful than what you have.

There needs to be a disclaimer with the system specs that says "Not recommended for laptop use" considering there are very few laptops made that can meet the PC specs.
 
I'm currently playing the game on MSI GS 60 Ghost Pro and I'm getting between 45-55 fps on 1080p with everything on Ultra except Hairworks, foliage visibility on high and shadows on medium since the quality of the shadows seems negligible for me. The only big frame drops I see are during cutscenes and it drops to around 30-35 sometimes.
The specs are:
i7 4710HQ 2.5 Ghz
16 gigs of ram
Geforce 970m gtx with the latest Nvidia Drivers
 
Something is also wrong with CPU usage,it never goes above 60%.
No it's not. GPU and CPU work together, hand in hand, to create your graphics by calculating an insame amount of things. In your case, given that the GPU is too weak, the CPU doesn't get to use its full power: Your CPU is limited by the GPU. This phenomenon is often refered to as "Bottleneck".

To JuStFrEaKoN: Given that the 970M is the equivalent of a desktop 760, your result pretty much make sense.
 
Last edited:
This game is not CPU bound; do not expect to see anything but low CPU usage unless you are running a low-end CPU. It is heavily GPU bound, and low-range nVidia products like the 620m and 640m just don't have enough hamsters to turn the wheels. Low-range AMD products are generally more powerful.

You're in deep sub-minimum territory, far below anything CDPR said the game would support, and the community that is working with sub-minimum configurations is just getting started. You will have to be patient.

They still have better than me LOL, mine is only an 555M (which is in fact, not a true 555, just a turbod 550, good thing I realized it after 4 years XD). I managed to squeeze out 20 fps at 1024 with one of the ini configs made by kosa89. This can only get better later, especially if CDPR releases another patch but even if I really can't squeeze out more I can settle with it, at least it's playable now, an extra 5-10 fps would be nice though. Death March diff just got like 5x more challening, challenge accepted.
 
I have a Lenovo Y580, i7 3610QM @ 2.30Ghz, 16 GB RAM and a Geforce GTX 660M. Right now I'm reading some tweaks and fixes to improve my performance. I was naive enough to think my mobile gpu was falling at least inside the "minimum requirements" zone, but if the information regarding the gpus equivalents is true, then I'm somehow screwed.It's a fact that until I get a better pc or laptop I won't be able to run the game at its maximum capabilities, but right now I would settle with the "not so nice views but steady performance" option. So if anyone has a recommendation that I could take into account, I'm willing to read it.

It's true, mobile videocards are NOT equivalent to their desktop counterparts - you can easily google the difference between mobile specs and the benchmarks.
 
@uthvag : I did not read the entire thread ;) but here is my config:

Alienware 17
880M GTX 8GB gpu ram
8GB
i7-4710

I did not overlock or anything. My graphic-setup ingame is the following (after really playing a long while with it ... ):

- Postprocessing: Everything ON (and HBAO+ on max)
-Graphics:
Max Frames set to 30
Nvidia Hairworks completely off
Number of characters: HIGH/ULTRA (doesn't matter, as already stated by nvidia themselve, because ULTRA means 150 NPCS and there is no such place)
Shadow Quality: HIGH
Water Quality: ULTRA
Grass Density: ULTRA
Texture Quality: ULTRA
Foliage Visibility Range: HIGH (I set to ULTRA FPS drop is really dramatic, runs then around 24 FPS all around, of course without enemies etc 30, but in a fight noway)
Detail Level: ULTRA
(I did not include Terrain Quality as it's bugged at the moment (nvidia statement, but I can confirm this myself, setting it to ULTRA does not change any FPS )

I did a benchmark recording FPS, of course max is 30 as set by myself in the options, min was 29, and average was ~30. So from my perspective it runs really fine and I'm more than happy ...

Hopefully it was helpful, if any question accure just ask

P.S.: switching nvidia hairworks on drops the FPS to 20, with 5 wolf on screen even less ... so no hairworks for me ;)
P.P.S.: Playing at 1600x900 resolution, as this is my panel, at the weekend gonna try my TV with 1080, but I think it will just run quite the same ...

Edit-PPPS: Setting Max FPS to 30 helped me a lot, it just looks much more fluently for me ... because without setting max FPS to 30 I experience some drops from 50 FPS to 27, with max FPS to 30 it just stays 30
 
Last edited:
@AndrewLB Yes i know and i understand that clearly. But this shit laptop managed to get nice playable fps (something between 20-35fps! even I was suprises) in AC:Unity which is unoptimized/bugged as shit mess and also other games which mine laptop minimal req didn't met . I just don't understand why when i am playing on LOW i am getting 9-20fps and game looks nice and when i will up everything to Medium i clearly see the difference in foliage,grass density,everything but Fps almost the same,like 1-3fps max loss. @papnaruto I know what's bottlenecking is. This happens only in Witcher 3 for example AC:U/GTA V uses 80-90% of my CPU all the time when W3 reaches barely 50% in battles when riding on horse usage is about 5-15percent or less for all cores. Also theres massive difference in feeling between 19fps and 20...i feel like the game would be pretty playable with 20fps at least for me. lol guys dont bash me or something like that i just wanted to share my impressions on how the game works on laptop like mine for example to save people's with similar setup time of downloading over 25gigabytes I know that's internetz and everyone is IT expert right now but don't treat me like im retarded.
 
Acer Aspire V15 Nitro - Black Edition

i7-4720 HQ 2.60GHz
12GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M 4GB

Had to lower the resolution a bit, but the game runs on medium-high settings on stable 20-30+ FPS.

However, while fighting and roaming around is a very smooth experience, cutscenes are really choppy, especially when the camera focuses on someone's face with a forest or tons of grass behind them (falls to 10-15 FPS).

resolution?
 
I use HP envy with i7-4712HQ CPU at 2.3GHz, 16 GB RAM, GTX 850M

resolution: 1920x1080/Fullscreen
Vsync On
i set framerate at 60 fps (how do you check if it goes up or down while playing?)
Graphics set to High with hairworks off
prost processing effects: ON except motion blur
ambient occlusion: ssao (no idea what this is or what hbao+ means)

well, game runs well for me with these settings, so far. haven't really been to the large cities. avoiding them right now.
 
Repost from general benchmark thread, since it makes more sense to be here:

Laptop user here.
Dell Inspiron 15R SE Core i5-3210M. 2.5GHz
6GM RAM
7730M Radeon

I need to "congratulate" CD Project Red for creating first game that is not by definition playable on this laptop. With low details and 1280x768 resolution I get around 20-22fps. What is surprising it that on same resolution and ultra, minus hairworks, game works at 10fps. That is IMHO, very low performance difference between high and low detail settings (only x2). I'm really disappointed in that regard. This was all tested only in starting tower area (inside and balcony). Have no idea how performance would be later in the game.

I will attempt playing on these settings:
Postprocess: default Low preset
Graphics: customized Medium preset
*low foliage view distance
*low shadows
*ultra textures

With these settings I did not see any difference compared to true Low preset in performance.

---------- Updated at 05:13 AM ----------

Note that I will consider buying better 15" laptop soon, to replace this one.

As far as I see, only playable options for Witcher 3 are those with GTX 850M. 860M, 950M or 960M, as far as 15" size allows.

Right?
 
I use HP envy with i7-4712HQ CPU at 2.3GHz, 16 GB RAM, GTX 850M

resolution: 1920x1080/Fullscreen
Vsync On
i set framerate at 60 fps (how do you check if it goes up or down while playing?)
Graphics set to High with hairworks off
prost processing effects: ON except motion blur
ambient occlusion: ssao (no idea what this is or what hbao+ means)

well, game runs well for me with these settings, so far. haven't really been to the large cities. avoiding them right now.

use a software called FRAPS , its free.Can you use it and measure your framerate and post it here?

---------- Updated at 05:23 AM ----------

@player one fanatic - the 680m 770m 780m can also do it
 

Attachments

  • specs.png
    specs.png
    8.2 KB · Views: 90
It should perform better then my 7730M.
Not too much better, but maybe enough for 30fps on 1366x768 and low/medium settings?
 
I have i5 3210m, gtx640m and 6gb. That config can provide only 18 fps at lowest options, that is awful. I suspect, that only Nvidia mobile card has such low performance, as at i5 2410m and radeon 6650m it is 30 fps. That is just lame, since the second config is worse. Hope they will fix this, and I can play the game I have been waiting for 2 years at least with 25 fps.

Wait... what?

I was only getting 22fps with 7730M, in starting area, which is significantly stronger then 6650M.
Reolution used 1280x768.
 
@uthvag

my framerate at high settings is at 20-24 fps
so i changed most into medium to raise the fps and find that medium settings are the lowest setting i can accept without sacrificing the view of the beautiful countryside.(fps 27-30)

although i cant truly notice the difference in gameplay between medium and high. it feels the same to me. i must be easy to please. :D
someday though, i'd convince my husband to build me a pc that can "stand the test of time". I've only played pc games on laptop since forever.


---edit---

well, this topic actually made me try to find the best option for me. normally my husband does it...but today he said NO. reasoning that i have to learn on my own. :(

anyway, this the setting i'll be using all throughout, great to look at and a little bit smoother.

Graphics
Resolution: 1600x900/Full screen
Hairworks off
Shadow Quality/Water Quality: low (these arent too important to me, not spending too much time in water)
Terrain Quality/Grass Density/Foliage Visibility: Medium
Detail Level/Texture Detail: Ultra (ultimately, Geralt is the most important thing in this game, he needs the details. i can actually see the details of his chainmail, amazing!)
Num of Background Char: Ultrra (might change when I get to novigrad)

Post Processing
Sharpening and Light shaft ON.
The rest are OFF.

FPS is now at 30 more or less.
 
Last edited:
resolution?
Right now after turning Hairworks completely off, I can play on full, native 1080p resolution (1920x1080) on medium-high with all post-processing effects on.
Getting a stable 35-45+ FPS with no major dips so far, but I haven't yet reached Novigrad or other supposedly HW demanding places, so it could get worse and I'll have to downgrade. We'll see.

For me the main FPS crippler was definitely the NVIDIA Hairworks, so maybe it could be the same to others. Dunno.

Here are my settings for anyone interested:


Motion blur: on
Blur:on
Anti-aliasing: on
Bloom: on
Sharpening: on
Depth of Field: on
Chromatic Aberration: on
Vignetting: on
Light Shafts: on
NVidia HairWorks: off
VSync: off


Ambient Occlusion: SSAO
Maximum Frames Per Second: Unlimited
Resolution: 1920x1080
Display mode: Full Screen
Number of Background Characters: High (thinking of switching to Ultra to see what it does)
Shadow Quality: Medium
Terrain Quality: High
Water Quality: Medium
Grass Density: Medium
Texture Quality: High
Foliage Visibility Range: Medium
Detail Level: High
Hardware Cursor: no
 
Last edited:
Clevo W230SS,
I7-4710MQ,
8GB RAM,
GTX 860M 2 GB VRAM.

35-45 FPS on a mixture of medium and high settings @ FHD 1080p. I have a lot of post-processing turned on, and most of them barely affect frame rate anyway. At least SSAO and AA are absolutely necessary or else the game looks terrible. I did not bother with HairWorks.

Speaking of which, I think GTA V looks and performs much better. TW3 is really badly optimised...
 
Last edited:
Im getting pretty terrible performance on my Lenovo y510p. Cant get a steady 30 fps with everything turned down to the bear minimum. It has a 755m sli, i5-4200, 6gb Ram
 
Top Bottom