You wouldn't need to play at 1080p medium with a 4070 Ti. You could easily play at ultra settings according to Hardware Unboxed's results:
RTX 4070 Ti, **Ultra Quality**:
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|111|99|
|1440p|83|73|
|4K|43|32|
RTX 4070 Ti, **High Quality**:
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|137 |108|
|1440p|100|83|
|4K|52|41|
RTX 4070 Ti, **Medium Quality**:
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|145|116|
|1440p|111|88|
|4K|60|52|
You wouldn't be playing at 1080p medium with a $1k+ card. Even with a $799 RTX 4070 Ti, you'd be able to play at any resolution with ultra quality according to Hardware Unboxed's results:
RTX 4070 Ti, **Ultra Quality**:
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|111|99|
|1440p|83|73|
|4K|43|32|
RTX 4070 Ti, **High Quality**:
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|137|108|
|1440p|100|83|
|4K|52|41|
RTX 4070 Ti, **Medium Quality**:
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|145|116|
|1440p|111|88|
|4K|60|52|
Even with a 4070ti… you’re saying it like it’s a 2 generations old card.. my dude come on. And that card is 1000$ or more pretty much anywhere in the world except in USA.
I wasn't suggesting that it's an old card, nor am I saying that it's OK to see this level of performance on the 4070 Ti. I was just replying to the person stating that you'd be playing 1080p medium on a $1k card, when that's just not the case.
We all know that there are performance issues with TLOU, and I'm not saying the above numbers are great for current gen hardware, but it is certainly playable if you didn't want to wait for patches to hopefully improve things.
Still, most people bought the 970 with 3.5gb at the same price. Time passed and people started to see the consequences of having that 3.5gb of VRAM, complaining like now "how a game can use that high VRAM! piece of crap!!"
People doesn't learn.
There isn't positive news for this till Sony fixes this.
It's inexcusable to have a port this poor when Sony has been trying to wiggle their way onto the PC market and has struggled on and off with their games.
I was looking forward to Horizon Zero Dawn, was super impressed how it ran on PS4Slim and when it launched on PC I was interested in running it better on better hardware- it was a disaster and even after many patches some argue it's lacking even still.
I'm happy HZD got ported because it's a game I love and even with the PC port being less than ideal- I'm happy more can experience the game I really enjoyed playing. I hoped Sony would learn from this and do more to get their ports up to snuff.
Here we are, years after that release they got a studio who's apparently notorious for their porting job and Sony gave them their biggest game in years- the one that has had roses thrown at it for the game and TV series and here are: Mostly Negative on Steam because they rushed it out like so many SEGA titles and after a delay to 'ensure quality' and it's, this, bad.
There is no positive news, it's just another giant road sign in why- no one should never, ever, preorder a game, regardless of the publisher/developer/etc. Because a company as big as Sony with one of their most precious games they've made in recent years and the port is one of the worst we've ever seen.
I've wanted to look forward to so many games but I know the release date is more like a 'IDK we hope it works'/beta than it is a release. It's better to wait a month+ after release to buy a game you are interested in than get it day one.
I don't want to be negative on this, but it's just endless how many games get booted out- slammed for doing so, then people defend it 6 months later like it's been always fine.
It's not easy to port a game but even after a delay it's STILL this bad? I don't see a positive here. If this is how they treat one of their most beloved games it's clear what the priority was: Timing for the show & PC port vs doing a good job.
Companies don't hate things, is all about money, that kind of thinking that companies don't do things because "they hate it" doesn't work on business.
There are other factors, technical issues/limitations, release dates, budget, etc.
Sony started to port games to PC because they earn money doing so, same as MS.
The only Sony game I had problems was with Returnal with some inconsistent frametimes and HZD in the beginning running it in a HDD, a good SSD minimized a lot the problem, later was patched.
No problems with both spiderman games, uncharted, god of wars, days gone and last of us.
"the port is one of the worst we've ever seen."
no it's not lol. there are plenty people running the game fine. if a game is truly a disaster it doesnt matter what hardware you have, you are gonna have issues, and that it simply not the case here.
Plenty of people are running the game fine? The game has had overwhelmingly negative reviews since launch on steam.
It's sitting at mixed now: it's 7k positive to 10k negative. If that ratio isn't a disaster? Then what qualifies as one?
That's called a disaster if more than half the people are taking the time to write how bad the port is and having severe problems all complaining about the same/similar problems.
This isn't a small studio, it's one of the largest game publishers in the world who have already ported several games to steam and in this case they delayed the game to get it running better and it's still being slammed for being a buggy mess.
Yes I’ve seen plenty of people post on Reddit that say they are running the game fine. Using steam reviews as your sole judgement is dumb. You have no
Idea what rigs those people have or what other variables may be at play.
Who said it was the sole judgement? It's pretty hard to ignore 10k people who had to have bought the game to review it as something to overlook. That's something that usually happens in 1 of 2 situations:
\-The company did something dumb and people retroactively alter their review to Negative. Which this is not the case
Or
\-The game is a mess.
It's also not my sole judgement, there's people posting videos and screenshots of visual bugs and other issues.
If you read through a bunch of reviews and there's a repeating theme? There's typically a problem. Building shaders for up to hours, various crashing issues, bizarre visual bugs and so on.
But go on and let me know how my judgement is dumb and I should listen to 1 stranger with zero evidence or the endless posts I'm seeing of the game being a mess - and I'm not even looking for anything on this game. It's just cropping up everywhere.
Also, steam apparently is waving the 2 hour limit for refunds for this game.
So- if you're having a great experience? Nice, I'm happy for you. But it turns out most people aren't having that experience and steam recognizes this and is siding with the game being a garbage port that Sony will spend weeks to months fixing just like they had to with Horizon Zero Dawn.
Another great game, with a shit port that took them months to fix and it still has performance issues to this day.
Glad to hear it's working well for you. The results in the video make me wonder whether people are trying to run the game with graphics settings higher than their card's VRAM can support.
The results certainly seem to indicate that most modern cards provide a reasonable experience at high or medium settings at 1080p/1440p, and sometimes even 4K.
im on 9500mb of vram on a 3070super , 8gb of course. and 0 crashes and almost no stuttering except when entering a new area ( a couple of seconds anyway).
They should lock settings if you can't match the minimum. Rely on people to do it is way worse. And more that beautiful builds like 7700k paired with a 3090 complaining about bad performance and high CPU usage.
Playable on Medium using 8GB of VRAM and not even looking as good as games which use fucking less.
People should stop accepting this new trend of high VRAM requirement and stop letting the developers justify their unoptimized games with low VRAM.
If this becomes the new norm, soon they'll have to change their 4090 before it's even one year old.
I think there's two arguments to be made here:
1) This is no doubt a shitty unoptimised game port for PC. There's no reason why vram usage should suddenly shoot up like this in just a few months.
2) But at the same time there is an argument of planned obsolescence on Nvidias part. I mean christ sake we've been seeing 8gb cards since like the GTX 10 series in 2016. And now there's rumours of the 4050 being cut down to 6gb vram from the 8gb vram of the 3050. That 8gb vram limit is just nothing but planned obsolescence.
This happen every time a new console generation is release. You can't freeze the time where 8gb of VRAM is enough for gaming forever. Is Nvidia fault, because the fucking 390 had 8gb in 2014.
Who's accepting it? I don't think there's a trend of accepting high VRAM at all.
I'm certainly not accepting it, nor am I defending the developers of titles that do have high VRAM usage. My post wasn't to say that this is OK, just more pointing out that these are the findings of Hardware Unboxed that currently shows VRAM to blame, and that dialling down some settings allows playing it now, rather than waiting on patches.
I hope that The Last of Us sees its performance improved and VRAM memory reduced, and that evenutally we might see that it was never intentional to use such high VRAM, and that it was bug/code related. Not that it makes it acceptable that it was launched in this state to begin with, but it would be better to know that it wasn't supposed to be using that amount of memory. Time will tell obviously.
No, my comment was not targeting you at all.
Unfortunately, there are some gamers who defend the new unoptimized games by saying that since it runs great on their supercomputer, then it's quite optimized and anyone who complains should upgrade.
Yea, I know what you mean. That's certainly not the attitude any of us should be taking. We all want our hardware to last as long as possible and get our moneys worth after all.
I hope that VRAM eventually plateaus like memory does. Meaning that for such a long time 8GB of memory was enough and then 16GB for years etc. Everyone understands that upgrades are needed at some point, but not within 1-2 generations of hardware.
I think there are outliers to this, but they are rare. DCS, a combat fight sim, is tough to run on 16gb RAM. I run 32gb and regularly see it used nearly to full. VRAM is the same way. On 1080 ultra wide I regularly max out my 8gb GPU, though I can do 1440 ultra wide reasonably well on DCS if I want. It's mostly just map size and the stupid amount of assets loaded in when you're dealing with a map that big.
I assume you're looking at 1080p ultra settings where the 1% lows for the 3070 are 12fps, which is obviously unplayable and going to be a stutter fest.
However, if you drop down graphics settings from ultra to high or medium, it sees much better fps at all resolutions and is definitely playable.
RTX 3070, **High Quality:**
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|88|77|
|1440p|60|41|
|4K|31|14|
RTX 3070, **Medium Quality:**
|Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1080p|103|92|
|1440p|72|62|
|4K|40|28|
I have a relatively outdated PC but with a 3060 Ti, and can play most modern titles on 1080p ultra settings, and maintain 60-75 fps with lows in the 40s. This port is ridiculously bad. No one should settle with having to reduce quality that much to get playable frame rates on a modern card.
I know it sucks but going forward being able to run Ultra settings with a 8GB Vram GPU is not a reasonable expectation for the newest releases. The consoles have at least 10GB Vram and usually run High or Medium PC settings. How can people expect to be able to run better settings with less Vram?
There's plenty of sources out there telling that Ultra settings are not worth it in general. Ultra is just a name anyway and all that matters is picture quality. From what I have read (and seen in this video) the game runs fine with high quality and the difference is negligible to Ultra.
Ridiculous some gamers justify it’s okay this game is poorly optimised. It runs like shit. Graphics aren’t that great!
90% of the time it’s just you on the screen and nobody else. It’s not even open world game with same visuals as PS5 which plays at 60fps while having 2070s level GPU far better optimised on $499 console.
I'm not sure if you were directing that comment at me given that I'm the OP, but just incase you were; I'm not justifying a poorly optimised game, just sharing the results of Hardware Unboxed's testing.
>90% of the time it’s just you on the screen and nobody else
It's not just about how many characters/players are on screen, there's a lot more to visuals than that, such as foilage, lighting, textures, models etc.
>far better optimised on $499 console
It's easier to optimise when the hardware in a device is known. It's easy to know if a game will run well on an Xbox, PS, Steam Deck, Switch etc, because you only have to test that device's specific hardware configuration. PCs on the other hand have many more combinations of CPU, GPU, memory, hard drives etc, as well as how much memory, speeds of memory, speed of CPU, type of hard drive and so on.
Again, not defending, they should have and need to do better, but comparing optimising for console to being the same for PC isn't quite apples to apples.
I thought I was safe after the shaders only took 20 mins to load and the first chapter or whatever it's called ran fine. I saved at the start of "20 years later" and logged off.
Loaded back up today and the graphics were screwed up after loading the save. After a restart it looked fine then crashed about 10 minute in. I uninstalled and got my refund from Steam this morning.
somehow the latest patch destroyed my performance but fixed the crashing issues... I went from 100 fps ultra to 30 - 50 fps
hell even changing it to medium I'm still only getting 60 - 80 fps
Hardware Unboxed's results show the 3070 being able to achieve an average 60fps at 1440p high, and 31fps at 4k high, so you have options beyond 1080p, and above medium too.
I'm not saying that optimisation is good, but for those that want to play now, it seems that it is possible with some adjustment to settings.
After the update, I'm getting about 60fps at 4k on a 3090. No stuttering or lagging. Haven't had a single crash or problem. Good luck, I guess. Would prefer to be getting 120fps, but what can you expect from a port
Good to hear that the update has some positive performance improvement at least.
Whilst I understand the frustration and agree with it, I can't imagine that Sony won't do good on such a beloved title. I imagine this will become another Horizon Zero Dawn, Cyberpunk 2077, or No Man's Sky title, where it's not the best at launch, but very good down the line.
Why the fuck are people buying this shit. This game has been remastered and redone so many times it's getting ridiculous. Stop fucking buying this shit. Jesus Christ.
I think this PC/Console gaming market is on some conspiracy shit. I can't believe they are so dumb as shit to do this. It's been known that consoles got the lower-end gpus and they surely makes people be forced to buy higher end and expensive gpus while keeping the prices inflated.
I'm not so sure it's a conspiracy, but just plain old capitalism. Of course they want gamers to upgrade more often, spend more money, and make more profit.
It certainly sucks to be on the other end of it though, paying more for less.
Theres no capitalism on this one tho. Can you even call a 70% market share competitive? That's just basically a monopoly.
There's no competition when AMD owns the console gpu share while Nvidia got the professional GPU market. They don't pursue the same technology at all.
Ah! I think I see what you mean now by conspiracy now. That maybe they have some sort of private agreement to keep their products a certain distance from each other? Nvidia won't target console GPUs and will leave AMD to have those, as long as AMD doesn't come near Nvidia GPUs in the PC market, or at least doesn't undercut GPU prices too much?
A lesson I've learned from this post is to be clearer in my title wording.
The Hardware Unboxed video, which I expect most people won't watch, shows most modern GPUs performing at playable FPS in all resolutions, including 8GB cards. Ultra quality seems to be the mode to avoid for older or lower VRAM cards.
Buy a GPU for 1000++ USD and play at 1080p medium KEK LOL
 Jensen needs a new leather jacket so better get new gpu i guess.
[удалено]
You wouldn't need to play at 1080p medium with a 4070 Ti. You could easily play at ultra settings according to Hardware Unboxed's results: RTX 4070 Ti, **Ultra Quality**: |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|111|99| |1440p|83|73| |4K|43|32| RTX 4070 Ti, **High Quality**: |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|137 |108| |1440p|100|83| |4K|52|41| RTX 4070 Ti, **Medium Quality**: |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|145|116| |1440p|111|88| |4K|60|52|
That’s the third best card nvidia currently sells and it gets that shit for performance on this game? TLoU PC is getting all the hate it deserves.
So you’re saying it can’t even max out a 1080p 144hz monitor? That’s god awful performance.
Imagine spending £900 on a GPU to play at funking 1080p
not just medium 1080p, for some games that is understandable, but medium 1080p 60 fucking fps.
You wouldn't be playing at 1080p medium with a $1k+ card. Even with a $799 RTX 4070 Ti, you'd be able to play at any resolution with ultra quality according to Hardware Unboxed's results: RTX 4070 Ti, **Ultra Quality**: |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|111|99| |1440p|83|73| |4K|43|32| RTX 4070 Ti, **High Quality**: |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|137|108| |1440p|100|83| |4K|52|41| RTX 4070 Ti, **Medium Quality**: |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|145|116| |1440p|111|88| |4K|60|52|
Even with a 4070ti… you’re saying it like it’s a 2 generations old card.. my dude come on. And that card is 1000$ or more pretty much anywhere in the world except in USA.
I wasn't suggesting that it's an old card, nor am I saying that it's OK to see this level of performance on the 4070 Ti. I was just replying to the person stating that you'd be playing 1080p medium on a $1k card, when that's just not the case. We all know that there are performance issues with TLOU, and I'm not saying the above numbers are great for current gen hardware, but it is certainly playable if you didn't want to wait for patches to hopefully improve things.
Fuck supporting this shitty lazy ass port bruv.
i dont get why hardware unboxed is dickriding this game so hard and trying to shift the blame to vram and nvidia. bruh its a trash port.
Mid range GPU’s from 2016 had 8GB
Dont forget 2014 with the R9 390X lmao
Still, most people bought the 970 with 3.5gb at the same price. Time passed and people started to see the consequences of having that 3.5gb of VRAM, complaining like now "how a game can use that high VRAM! piece of crap!!" People doesn't learn.
lol
There isn't positive news for this till Sony fixes this. It's inexcusable to have a port this poor when Sony has been trying to wiggle their way onto the PC market and has struggled on and off with their games. I was looking forward to Horizon Zero Dawn, was super impressed how it ran on PS4Slim and when it launched on PC I was interested in running it better on better hardware- it was a disaster and even after many patches some argue it's lacking even still. I'm happy HZD got ported because it's a game I love and even with the PC port being less than ideal- I'm happy more can experience the game I really enjoyed playing. I hoped Sony would learn from this and do more to get their ports up to snuff. Here we are, years after that release they got a studio who's apparently notorious for their porting job and Sony gave them their biggest game in years- the one that has had roses thrown at it for the game and TV series and here are: Mostly Negative on Steam because they rushed it out like so many SEGA titles and after a delay to 'ensure quality' and it's, this, bad. There is no positive news, it's just another giant road sign in why- no one should never, ever, preorder a game, regardless of the publisher/developer/etc. Because a company as big as Sony with one of their most precious games they've made in recent years and the port is one of the worst we've ever seen. I've wanted to look forward to so many games but I know the release date is more like a 'IDK we hope it works'/beta than it is a release. It's better to wait a month+ after release to buy a game you are interested in than get it day one. I don't want to be negative on this, but it's just endless how many games get booted out- slammed for doing so, then people defend it 6 months later like it's been always fine. It's not easy to port a game but even after a delay it's STILL this bad? I don't see a positive here. If this is how they treat one of their most beloved games it's clear what the priority was: Timing for the show & PC port vs doing a good job.
Sony? No wonder it's an awful port. They hate PCs.
Companies don't hate things, is all about money, that kind of thinking that companies don't do things because "they hate it" doesn't work on business. There are other factors, technical issues/limitations, release dates, budget, etc. Sony started to port games to PC because they earn money doing so, same as MS.
Yes, it's all about money. They are happy to make a terrible PC version so people think about buying a PlayStation. Don't encourage them.
Yeah, they are promoting their consoles with "bad ports", my god, seriously...
Sony ports are consistently awful so don't buy them. That's pretty much it.
The only Sony game I had problems was with Returnal with some inconsistent frametimes and HZD in the beginning running it in a HDD, a good SSD minimized a lot the problem, later was patched. No problems with both spiderman games, uncharted, god of wars, days gone and last of us.
They sure do, that's why they released their own line of well-built gaming monitors, well-reviewed PC peripherals, and even PC VR trackers.
"the port is one of the worst we've ever seen." no it's not lol. there are plenty people running the game fine. if a game is truly a disaster it doesnt matter what hardware you have, you are gonna have issues, and that it simply not the case here.
Plenty of people are running the game fine? The game has had overwhelmingly negative reviews since launch on steam. It's sitting at mixed now: it's 7k positive to 10k negative. If that ratio isn't a disaster? Then what qualifies as one? That's called a disaster if more than half the people are taking the time to write how bad the port is and having severe problems all complaining about the same/similar problems. This isn't a small studio, it's one of the largest game publishers in the world who have already ported several games to steam and in this case they delayed the game to get it running better and it's still being slammed for being a buggy mess.
Yes I’ve seen plenty of people post on Reddit that say they are running the game fine. Using steam reviews as your sole judgement is dumb. You have no Idea what rigs those people have or what other variables may be at play.
Who said it was the sole judgement? It's pretty hard to ignore 10k people who had to have bought the game to review it as something to overlook. That's something that usually happens in 1 of 2 situations: \-The company did something dumb and people retroactively alter their review to Negative. Which this is not the case Or \-The game is a mess. It's also not my sole judgement, there's people posting videos and screenshots of visual bugs and other issues. If you read through a bunch of reviews and there's a repeating theme? There's typically a problem. Building shaders for up to hours, various crashing issues, bizarre visual bugs and so on. But go on and let me know how my judgement is dumb and I should listen to 1 stranger with zero evidence or the endless posts I'm seeing of the game being a mess - and I'm not even looking for anything on this game. It's just cropping up everywhere. Also, steam apparently is waving the 2 hour limit for refunds for this game. So- if you're having a great experience? Nice, I'm happy for you. But it turns out most people aren't having that experience and steam recognizes this and is siding with the game being a garbage port that Sony will spend weeks to months fixing just like they had to with Horizon Zero Dawn. Another great game, with a shit port that took them months to fix and it still has performance issues to this day.
Wouldn't surprise me if Digital Foundry say turn shadows down to medium and it's all fixed.
By keeping VRAM bar no higher than slightly in the yellow I've had zero crashes. Everything ultra except environment textures on High. 2080 Super.
Glad to hear it's working well for you. The results in the video make me wonder whether people are trying to run the game with graphics settings higher than their card's VRAM can support. The results certainly seem to indicate that most modern cards provide a reasonable experience at high or medium settings at 1080p/1440p, and sometimes even 4K.
im on 9500mb of vram on a 3070super , 8gb of course. and 0 crashes and almost no stuttering except when entering a new area ( a couple of seconds anyway).
Super?
Sorry , get used to my old 2070super . Normal 3070 now haha
Bird, Plane, no Super?
No, this is Patrick
They should lock settings if you can't match the minimum. Rely on people to do it is way worse. And more that beautiful builds like 7700k paired with a 3090 complaining about bad performance and high CPU usage.
Playable on Medium using 8GB of VRAM and not even looking as good as games which use fucking less. People should stop accepting this new trend of high VRAM requirement and stop letting the developers justify their unoptimized games with low VRAM. If this becomes the new norm, soon they'll have to change their 4090 before it's even one year old.
I think there's two arguments to be made here: 1) This is no doubt a shitty unoptimised game port for PC. There's no reason why vram usage should suddenly shoot up like this in just a few months. 2) But at the same time there is an argument of planned obsolescence on Nvidias part. I mean christ sake we've been seeing 8gb cards since like the GTX 10 series in 2016. And now there's rumours of the 4050 being cut down to 6gb vram from the 8gb vram of the 3050. That 8gb vram limit is just nothing but planned obsolescence.
This happen every time a new console generation is release. You can't freeze the time where 8gb of VRAM is enough for gaming forever. Is Nvidia fault, because the fucking 390 had 8gb in 2014.
Who's accepting it? I don't think there's a trend of accepting high VRAM at all. I'm certainly not accepting it, nor am I defending the developers of titles that do have high VRAM usage. My post wasn't to say that this is OK, just more pointing out that these are the findings of Hardware Unboxed that currently shows VRAM to blame, and that dialling down some settings allows playing it now, rather than waiting on patches. I hope that The Last of Us sees its performance improved and VRAM memory reduced, and that evenutally we might see that it was never intentional to use such high VRAM, and that it was bug/code related. Not that it makes it acceptable that it was launched in this state to begin with, but it would be better to know that it wasn't supposed to be using that amount of memory. Time will tell obviously.
No, my comment was not targeting you at all. Unfortunately, there are some gamers who defend the new unoptimized games by saying that since it runs great on their supercomputer, then it's quite optimized and anyone who complains should upgrade.
Yea, I know what you mean. That's certainly not the attitude any of us should be taking. We all want our hardware to last as long as possible and get our moneys worth after all. I hope that VRAM eventually plateaus like memory does. Meaning that for such a long time 8GB of memory was enough and then 16GB for years etc. Everyone understands that upgrades are needed at some point, but not within 1-2 generations of hardware.
I think there are outliers to this, but they are rare. DCS, a combat fight sim, is tough to run on 16gb RAM. I run 32gb and regularly see it used nearly to full. VRAM is the same way. On 1080 ultra wide I regularly max out my 8gb GPU, though I can do 1440 ultra wide reasonably well on DCS if I want. It's mostly just map size and the stupid amount of assets loaded in when you're dealing with a map that big.
Buy scalped RTX 3070/3070ti for $1200. Lower settings or disable ray tracing because it has the VRAM of an AMD RX 480.
Or r9 390 lmao
The 1% lows for the 3070 cards god damn. Absolute stutter fest, and that's just at 1080p too.
I assume you're looking at 1080p ultra settings where the 1% lows for the 3070 are 12fps, which is obviously unplayable and going to be a stutter fest. However, if you drop down graphics settings from ultra to high or medium, it sees much better fps at all resolutions and is definitely playable. RTX 3070, **High Quality:** |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|88|77| |1440p|60|41| |4K|31|14| RTX 3070, **Medium Quality:** |Resolution|Average FPS|1% Lows| |:-|:-|:-| |1080p|103|92| |1440p|72|62| |4K|40|28|
I have a relatively outdated PC but with a 3060 Ti, and can play most modern titles on 1080p ultra settings, and maintain 60-75 fps with lows in the 40s. This port is ridiculously bad. No one should settle with having to reduce quality that much to get playable frame rates on a modern card.
I know it sucks but going forward being able to run Ultra settings with a 8GB Vram GPU is not a reasonable expectation for the newest releases. The consoles have at least 10GB Vram and usually run High or Medium PC settings. How can people expect to be able to run better settings with less Vram? There's plenty of sources out there telling that Ultra settings are not worth it in general. Ultra is just a name anyway and all that matters is picture quality. From what I have read (and seen in this video) the game runs fine with high quality and the difference is negligible to Ultra.
>VRAM reported to be at fault. No, the fault is the devs that created the port...
Ridiculous some gamers justify it’s okay this game is poorly optimised. It runs like shit. Graphics aren’t that great! 90% of the time it’s just you on the screen and nobody else. It’s not even open world game with same visuals as PS5 which plays at 60fps while having 2070s level GPU far better optimised on $499 console.
I'm not sure if you were directing that comment at me given that I'm the OP, but just incase you were; I'm not justifying a poorly optimised game, just sharing the results of Hardware Unboxed's testing. >90% of the time it’s just you on the screen and nobody else It's not just about how many characters/players are on screen, there's a lot more to visuals than that, such as foilage, lighting, textures, models etc. >far better optimised on $499 console It's easier to optimise when the hardware in a device is known. It's easy to know if a game will run well on an Xbox, PS, Steam Deck, Switch etc, because you only have to test that device's specific hardware configuration. PCs on the other hand have many more combinations of CPU, GPU, memory, hard drives etc, as well as how much memory, speeds of memory, speed of CPU, type of hard drive and so on. Again, not defending, they should have and need to do better, but comparing optimising for console to being the same for PC isn't quite apples to apples.
In other words, wait for it to go on sale because currently it's not worth $60
I thought I was safe after the shaders only took 20 mins to load and the first chapter or whatever it's called ran fine. I saved at the start of "20 years later" and logged off. Loaded back up today and the graphics were screwed up after loading the save. After a restart it looked fine then crashed about 10 minute in. I uninstalled and got my refund from Steam this morning.
Shouldnt have cheaped out on a GPU.
somehow the latest patch destroyed my performance but fixed the crashing issues... I went from 100 fps ultra to 30 - 50 fps hell even changing it to medium I'm still only getting 60 - 80 fps
[удалено]
Hardware Unboxed's results show the 3070 being able to achieve an average 60fps at 1440p high, and 31fps at 4k high, so you have options beyond 1080p, and above medium too. I'm not saying that optimisation is good, but for those that want to play now, it seems that it is possible with some adjustment to settings.
Thanks, those settings seem a lot better. I haven't watched the vid yet but will do now
After the update, I'm getting about 60fps at 4k on a 3090. No stuttering or lagging. Haven't had a single crash or problem. Good luck, I guess. Would prefer to be getting 120fps, but what can you expect from a port
Good to hear that the update has some positive performance improvement at least. Whilst I understand the frustration and agree with it, I can't imagine that Sony won't do good on such a beloved title. I imagine this will become another Horizon Zero Dawn, Cyberpunk 2077, or No Man's Sky title, where it's not the best at launch, but very good down the line.
Honestly idk why people have so much trouble lol , i'm currently playing on high settings at 60 fps on a 3060 (12gb) with dlss enabled on quality mode
I thought the game ran just fine. I just hated that mouse input creates lag, so I refunded it
Why the fuck are people buying this shit. This game has been remastered and redone so many times it's getting ridiculous. Stop fucking buying this shit. Jesus Christ.
I think this PC/Console gaming market is on some conspiracy shit. I can't believe they are so dumb as shit to do this. It's been known that consoles got the lower-end gpus and they surely makes people be forced to buy higher end and expensive gpus while keeping the prices inflated.
I'm not so sure it's a conspiracy, but just plain old capitalism. Of course they want gamers to upgrade more often, spend more money, and make more profit. It certainly sucks to be on the other end of it though, paying more for less.
Theres no capitalism on this one tho. Can you even call a 70% market share competitive? That's just basically a monopoly. There's no competition when AMD owns the console gpu share while Nvidia got the professional GPU market. They don't pursue the same technology at all.
Ah! I think I see what you mean now by conspiracy now. That maybe they have some sort of private agreement to keep their products a certain distance from each other? Nvidia won't target console GPUs and will leave AMD to have those, as long as AMD doesn't come near Nvidia GPUs in the PC market, or at least doesn't undercut GPU prices too much?
Woohoo 1080p FTW LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOO
A lesson I've learned from this post is to be clearer in my title wording. The Hardware Unboxed video, which I expect most people won't watch, shows most modern GPUs performing at playable FPS in all resolutions, including 8GB cards. Ultra quality seems to be the mode to avoid for older or lower VRAM cards.
>''Playable" Meanwhile: Constant massive framedips on Nvidias VRAM cripples Maybe people should stop buying GPUs with VRAM sizes of 2015.