Witcher 3-Performance on mobile GPUs

+

vladgiurgiubv

Guest
Correction:
900p, low, version 1.02, (only day 1 patch), 30fps stable, phsyx on CPU
i7 3630qm
675mx OCed (797 Mhz, 2200Mhz)
 
Guys, I have seen there alot of optimistic stuff about GTX 860m card, and I'm glad that the game does not look ugly on low and is playable with this stuff, but is there anything about fps on 860m card in 1920x1080 resolution? My laptop is Asus G771J, everything there is very similar to very popular lenovo y50-70, but my laptop has 17,3 screen. I'm ready to play on low graphic settings, but not in lower resolution. Anyone tried this card (860m) in 1920x1080 resolution?
 

vladgiurgiubv

Guest
Only 1 thing missing... medium foliage distance...I would love to have that :) ... low foliage distance is really really bad
 
Nvidia coughing up why kepler cards (all of them) run worse than cards that they usually beat handily would help out a lot of the people with dGPUs, as a large amount of them are Kepler based (6xx 7xx).
 
Guys, I have seen there alot of optimistic stuff about GTX 860m card, and I'm glad that the game does not look ugly on low and is playable with this stuff, but is there anything about fps on 860m card in 1920x1080 resolution? My laptop is Asus G771J, everything there is very similar to very popular lenovo y50-70, but my laptop has 17,3 screen. I'm ready to play on low graphic settings, but not in lower resolution. Anyone tried this card (860m) in 1920x1080 resolution?

look at thr first post mate.

3 different 860ms(all maxwell , no kepler variant) all tested to give 30+ @ 1080p high - medium settings.

---------- Updated at 03:07 AM ----------

Any of you guys experiencing crashes?
 
I have an i7 4700 MQ @ 2.4 GHz (3.4 GHz turbo), 16 GB RAM, 4 GB Radeon HD8970M, and a Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250 GB. With this set-up, The Witcher 3 runs poorly. At 1024x768 and everything at LOW, I get 8-12 FPS. With the user.setting file posted in this thread and resolution at 640x480, I get a range of 14-30 with averages around 18 or 19.

I don't know what to say, but I grabbed the AMD driver beta update for the Witcher 3 (Catalyst 15.5), and with nothing else changed -- still everything set to LOW, still running 1.03, resolution still at 1024x768 -- my frame rate went from about 8-12 to 106. Yes, 106.

In fact, I can set post processing and graphics to high, and resolution to 1920x1080, and I'm getting 23 or 24 FPS.

I can't even. But this makes me very happy. :)
 
Just bough Asus G551JW to replace this rig.
Core i7-4720HQ, 2.6GHz
8GR RAM
GTX 960M, 4GB VRAM


Now same starting tower section gives around 30fps on medium graphics (high post-process) and 1080p resolution.

Pretty nice upgrade over my old rig.


But I'll change my preset with following, which also gives around 30fps:

Postprocess: default High preset (with SSOA)
Graphics: customized Ultra preset (with old big hitters turned off)
*disabled hairworks
*medium foliage view distance
*low shadows


Interestingly enough, if I use same settings as in my old rig, I can get around 50-60fps in starting area.

I have eventually switched to 1600x900, in order to always have fps above 30fps, instead hovering around 30fps with these settings.


Anyway, for fun, here are my settings for MAX performance.

Postprocess: default Low preset
Graphics: customized Low preset
*ultra textures (no performace impact, and there is VRAM to spare)

With this setup, 1366x768 resolution can pull between 50-70fps, so that is something for those two prefer fluidity over graphics.
 
Asus G751JT with GTX 970m overclocked, i7 4710HQ
1080p maximum settings (except hairworks disabled) 40 FPS average on v 1.03
 
it seems that someone on youtube claims to have managed to play on youtube with a GT 740m , a i5-4200M and 4GB ram , and it seems he managed to get decent fps with a medium/low settings @1366*768.
[video=youtube;nnIO_h-ONpo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnIO_h-ONpo[/video]

if this is the case, then i assume someone with an i7 and 8GB ram might be able to play this game at medium with a 30 fps easily, on the condition that he'll have enough patience to tweak the game and take his time.

i would've tried to do it since i have the same GPU, an i7 @3.4 Ghz (turbo mode) and 8GB ram, but i didn't buy the game and don't plan to anytime soon untili make myself a good rig sometime in the future. (even though it's like torture to not be able to play it)
 
Last edited:
My old laptop had Radeon 7730M, and it could play Witcher 3 at 20-22fps, with 1280x768 resolution.

GT 740M is stronger (but not much), then 7730M, so there is possibility that it can be played. Of course at minimum, plus higher textures.

Truth to be told, Witcher 3 graphics at low with high textures still look great, with exception of low draw distance, but that one is unavoidable, if you want to save on performance.
 
660m - almost everything on low (medium textures) - getting pretty stable 30 fps on 1280x768, apart from speeding on Roach through some heavy populated places
 
Last edited:
Funny thing about cores.

I did following test with my Core i7.

I set affinity to just 2 cores for witcher3.exe process (from my 8 total). There was no performance loss at all. Only if set to single core there would be performace drop and surprisingly, while noticeable it was not huge. It was around 20% at tops.

So definitely, mobile Core i5 (4 virtual cores) will handle Witcher 3, if they match Core i7 in single core speed.

.

Another test, using power options to down-clock CPU to 50%. With all 8 cores running at 1.3GHz, there was no performance drop at all. This is really weird, since on my old Core i5, such downclock would affect almost every other game.

50% CPU power with just 4 cores working on the game. Same thing, no performance effect.
50% CPU power with just 2 cores. -> Finally drop in performance.

So, for CPU to not be bottle-necked, Witcher 3 requires either 2 powerful cores, or 4 weaker cores.
This should be doable with any modern Core i3 mobile processor, or greater, with maybe exception of low powered variants that have very low clock values (and small number of cores also).
 
Last edited:
Funny thing about cores.

I did following test with my Core i7.

I set affinity to just 2 cores for witcher3.exe process (from my 8 total). There was no performance loss at all. Only if set to single core there would be performace drop and surprisingly, while noticeable it was not huge. It was around 20% at tops.

So definitely, mobile Core i5 (4 virtual cores) will handle Witcher 3, if they match Core i7 in single core speed.

.

Another test, using power options to down-clock CPU to 50%. With all 8 cores running at 1.3GHz, there was no performance drop at all. This is really weird, since on my old Core i5, such downclock would affect almost every other game.

50% CPU power with just 4 cores working on the game. Same thing, no performance effect.
50% CPU power with just 2 cores. -> Finally drop in performance.

So, for CPU to not be bottle-necked, Witcher 3 requires either 2 powerful cores, or 4 weaker cores.
This should be doable with any modern Core i3 mobile processor, or greater, with maybe exception of low powered variants that have very low clock values (and small number of cores also).

Consoles .


they have really weak apus .

---------- Updated at 03:28 PM ----------

a suggestion to kepler guys

“And how much complexity you’re generating is called your tessellation factor. It goes from 2X to 64X or higher. And Hairworks, judging by the analysis of the title, is using 64X tessellation factor. But comments from the community have pointed out that even if you scale it back to 16X, there is no change in the quality but the performance is substantially improved. Not just on Radeon hardware, but on NVIDIA’s own Kepler architecture as well.

Of course Maxwell has more powerful tessellation than Kepler does, and of course they want to promote their newest graphics cards but it’s coming at the expense not just of Radeon, but the previous generation of NVIDIA’s hardware as well.”


can anyone try this out?

this is from the interview with AMD posted on DSOG
 
can anyone try this out?

Hairworks is not the only issue for the Kepler performance, considering everyone here with 600M/700M has it disabled anyway. It's understandable to have Maxwell perform better than Kepler for the tessellation imposed by enabling Hairworks, but those discrepancies between architectures shouldn't exist with the effect disabled.
 
Hairworks is not the only issue for the Kepler performance, considering everyone here with 600M/700M has it disabled anyway. It's understandable to have Maxwell perform better than Kepler for the tessellation imposed by enabling Hairworks, but those discrepancies between architectures shouldn't exist with the effect disabled.

that is gerally bad optimizations on nvidias part .

it is really hard for me to believe that they made a honest mistake , knowing how they market things.....

the 960m is a factory OCd (maybe binned) 860m... Aaaand when the users started figuring it out...CLOCKBLOCK on maxwells

---------- Updated at 03:49 PM ----------

@web-head91 what rig do you have? if i remember correctly you were eagerly waiting for mobile gpu benchies
 
Yup :(. I really hope these drivers they are now working on will bring the 770M on par with a Maxwell 860M, or at least closer to it.

atleast you can OC you gpu....

anyway do you see a perf increase when physix is set to cpu?


.....................................................................................................................................................
to all the maxwell users who overclocked their rig , do you use a modded vbios/older drivers?
 
Top Bottom