Jump to content

CarlosV

Cows
  • Content count

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

CarlosV last won the day on November 1 2017

CarlosV had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25

About CarlosV

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

157 profile views
  1. All I’m saying is that with this game X1X is much much closer to a 1070 FOunders Edition at Stock Settings than it is to any 1060. And with minimum frame rates one could make the argument that it’s on par with a 1070 FE: and I do believe this will likely continue to be the case with big budget titles from here on out, now that Devs have had more time with The X1X
  2. By the way. PC Ultra Settings details to MSAA and motion blur off doesn’t it? Did you account for the math there? X1X uses TAA with motion blur On.
  3. Not sure why your going by average framerates instead of minimum. X1X never drops a frame below 30, which is a huge advantage on 60 or 120hz Displays. Perfect frame times and frame Rates is better than 26-36 FPS
  4. X1X never drops below 30. You also asked why not raise the Low Settings a bit more? Because it can’t of course, low in Terrain and Volumetric Fog is what it took for frame rates to never drop below 30 FPS, and since these two Settings have the lowest impact in visuals it’s the right choice every frame above 30 is pointless if the minimum drops below 30, it’s not like anyone has 4K Gsync Monitors
  5. AF : High or Ultra Shadow : High Environment : High Geometry and Vegetation : High Terrain : Low Volumetric : Low those are X1X settings Since those are X1X Settings it makes your statement about “environment” on low irrelevant. Texture Filtering: Adjusts the quality of texture filters. Most modern GPUs easily handle anisotropic filtering at maximum quality with little impact to performance, with a two percent increase in performance by dropping to minimum. (I assume this is AF?) so zero sifference between PC Ultra and X1X Shadows: This mostly affects the quality of soft shadows, and the distance for the detailed shadows. Even at low, you still get decent looking shadows, which explains the relatively small six percent increase in performance. 1-2% performance hit between High (X1X) and Ultra? Geometry and Vegetation: Adjusts the complexity of world geometry and vegetation, including increased LOD (level of detail) and more branches in trees at higher settings. Again, the impact on performance and visuals is relatively small, with a four percent increase using the low setting. 1-1.5% performanc hit between High (X1X) and Ultra? Environment: This adjusts the graphical details of the environment, which is a very nebulous description. However, looking at the screenshots, this appears to adjust reflections and ambient occlusion, making it the single most demanding setting you can adjust. You can boost performance by 13 percent by using the low setting, but water in particular looks much worse. 3-4% performance hit between Ultra and High? (X1X) Water: This is supposed to affect the quality of the water, but the environment setting has a far greater impact. Dropping this to low does improve performance by nine percent, though, so if you're looking for good ways to boost framerates without impacting visuals, this is a good one. 3% performance hit between Ultra and High? (x1X) Terrain: Sets the size (quality) of the textures used for the terrain, with a negligible impact on performance. Performance improves by just one percent going from high to low. Even at 4k ultra, Far Cry 5 only uses about 4GB of VRAM. 1% perf Romance hit between Ultra and Low (X1X) Volumetric Fog: Adjusts the quality of volumetric fog, including things like light shafts. Dropping to low only yields a three percent increase, however, and it's difficult to tell what has changed in the screenshots 3% Performance Hit between Ultra and Low (X1X) . Anti-Aliasing: Sets the AA mode to either off, SMAA, or TAA (Temporal AA). TAA gives the best results, with SMAA missing many jaggies in my screenshot comparisons. Using SMAA instead of TAA increases performance by about 2.5 percent, while turning off AA gives a five percent improvement. Every PC Benchmark uses SMAA or no AA, X1X actually uses something more taxing by 2.5-5% Motion Blur: Enables/disables motion blur. Negligible one percent increase in performance. PC Benchmarks turn this off, on with X1X So the above means that X1X settings instead of Ultra Settings will gain PC’s 5-7% gains over the typical benchmarks were seeing that use No AA, SMAA, and No Motion Blur And I just watched a 1060 video on all Medium Settings and a i7 7700k do this: plus DF literally said a 1060 can’t do 4K at X1X Settings lol
  6. No, it’s clearly showing GTX 1070 FE performance. Why would Pcgamer.com post performance impacts for each setting asset if it wasn’t pretty accurate ? I’m not sure why you guys are so shocked about this, 4K performance is hardly ever CPU Limited. Accrding to DF the GTX 1060 was around PS4 performance and Settings. Which is why they suggest Ultra Settings, Prefered Settings or X1X Settings at 1620p. if the 1060 could have hit X1X Settings at 1780P or whatever the next resolution is they would have suggested it or at least said it’s possible. But the performance hit going up to the next resolution setting at X1X assets was greater than the performance hit that occurs at 1620p @ Ultra Assets
  7. Why would you think that? I posted X1X Settings and I posted the performance hit you get going from Low to Ultra according to pcgamer.com The math adds up to 7-10% performance gains dropping from Ultra to X1X Settings
  8. You should see my Far Cry 5 thread at gamespot. Around 450 replies lmao i still got it
  9. Wrong dumbshit Digtal Foundry suggested 2880x1620 resolution if using a RX 580, even with X1X Settings According to DF these are X1X Settings: AF : High or Ultra Shadow : High Environment : High Geometry and Vegetation : High Terrain : Low Volumetric : Low And the performance hit from various settings are as follows Texture Filtering: Adjusts the quality of texture filters. Most modern GPUs easily handle anisotropic filtering at maximum quality with little impact to performance, with a two percent increase in performance by dropping to minimum. Shadows: This mostly affects the quality of soft shadows, and the distance for the detailed shadows. Even at low, you still get decent looking shadows, which explains the relatively small six percent increase in performance. Geometry and Vegetation: Adjusts the complexity of world geometry and vegetation, including increased LOD (level of detail) and more branches in trees at higher settings. Again, the impact on performance and visuals is relatively small, with a four percent increase using the low setting. Environment: This adjusts the graphical details of the environment, which is a very nebulous description. However, looking at the screenshots, this appears to adjust reflections and ambient occlusion, making it the single most demanding setting you can adjust. You can boost performance by 13 percent by using the low setting, but water in particular looks much worse. Water: This is supposed to affect the quality of the water, but the environment setting has a far greater impact. Dropping this to low does improve performance by nine percent, though, so if you're looking for good ways to boost framerates without impacting visuals, this is a good one. Terrain: Sets the size (quality) of the textures used for the terrain, with a negligible impact on performance. Performance improves by just one percent going from high to low. Even at 4k ultra, Far Cry 5 only uses about 4GB of VRAM. Volumetric Fog: Adjusts the quality of volumetric fog, including things like light shafts. Dropping to low only yields a three percent increase, however, and it's difficult to tell what has changed in the screenshots. Anti-Aliasing: Sets the AA mode to either off, SMAA, or TAA (Temporal AA). TAA gives the best results, with SMAA missing many jaggies in my screenshot comparisons. Using SMAA instead of TAA increases performance by about 2.5 percent, while turning off AA gives a five percent improvement.
  10. Pretty impressive X1X is performing on par or better than GTX 1070 FE
  11. You’re a perfect example. Of # 1 GTX 660 in 2013, upgraded to a GTX 960 in 2016, still on the same i5 CPU from 2012. wow you sure showed us pS. I never bought an XB1 or PS4 and I’m now getting old games like UC4, Witcher 3, Forza H 3,, HZD, and others cheap AF. Payed $370 for my X1X brand new, and $320 for my Pro.
  12. I automatically assumed X1X enhanced, my bad!
×