12
13

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands - Benchmarks (self.pcgaming)

gavy101 が 投稿

So with the Beta coming to an end tomorrow, i though it would be a good idea to post benchmarks for others to see who have not download the beta, but are interested in the game and would like an idea of how their system will perform, please post yours if you can.

Beta is still open and is about a 22GB download

Opinion varies on how good this game is, but one thing is for sure, it should get a lot of attention and praise for just how good the benchmarking is in this game that is for sure.

System

I3-6100 @ 3.7GHz

Radeon RX470 Black Edition

8GB Ram

Benchmark Results @1080p

Low Preset - 60.18 Average FPS

Medium Preset - 45.49 Average FPS

High Preset - 41.42 Average FPS

Very High Preset - 37.79 Average FPS

Ultra Preset - 27.30 Average FPS

Benchmark Statistics

Low Preset

Medium Preset

High Preset

Very High Preset

Ultra Preset

For comparison, my system will run GTA 5 on max settings and not dip below 67+FPS, apart from grassy areas where it will go down to 55FPS

全 28 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]RDThorne 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Is ultra settings at 30 fps considered acceptable? I'm genuinely curious.

[–]gavy101[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (9子コメント)

No, not for PC gaming.

For instance Battlefield 1 one is 65+FPS max settings 1080p on my budget system.

[–]goattt- 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't know why not. I see this sentiment for lots of games on /r/pcgaming. Why shouldn't a developer reserve the highest preset(s) for gamers with high end systems who don't really care about framerate? Why shouldn't the nominally "ultra" preset be one for future generations of hardware to run at 60+ FPS?

I can go back to games 5+ years old with my current hardware, max them out, and get triple digit FPS. Those same visual quality options would have netted sub-60 FPS on contemporary hardware when those games came out, but it's undeniably a good thing the developers put them there. The game looks better now for it.

I wish that more developers spent time optimizing their games for framerate, but that's really a different argument. It benefits even well optimized games to include quality options out of reach for current hardware at release.

[–]gavy101[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why shouldn't a developer reserve the highest preset(s) for gamers with high end systems who don't really care about framerate?

The problem is the game doesn't look that great for the frame rates you get, you can stick this game on ultra preset and it looks massively inferior to games such as Battlefield 1, GTA5, MGSTPP etc when they are on medium presets

[–]No_Aim_No_Shame [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Really? I think the game looks incredible when everything is put on ultra. Almost like the E3 trailer even from 2 years ago.

[–]connecteduser -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think this game has a different artistic direction. Battlefield 1 goes for realism. This has a bit more of a GTA5 type color palette. On very high and ultra it does not in any way look inferior to GTA5.

[–]article10ECHR 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Doesn't Wildlands have inferior textures, interiors and shadows to GTA 5?

[–]JOHN_FUCKING_TITORNvidier 1060, i7 6700 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think crysis 2 couldn't be played maxed out at the time because there wasn't a powerful enough GPU.

[–]Kovi34 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

a game the performs (barely) half as well while not looking as good as lots of other titles is acceptable because "in 5 years you'll get 60 fps"?

[–]goattt- 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not the argument I was responding to. Nowhere in OP's post did they specify they were comparing visual quality across games, only the nominal settings.

[–]badcookies 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

PCGH did a huge test here: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Tom-Clancyxs-Ghost-Recon-Wildlands-Spiel-55716/Specials/Ghost-Recon-Wildlands-Open-Beta-Benchmarks-1221572/

They are getting 47 fps at very high on a 470.

[–]gavy101[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The difference appears to be a vastly better CPU (Core i7-6800K @ 4,4 GHz) and they disabled enhanced godrays

The fact that it is under 60fps even on high is unacceptable really.

[–]badcookies 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh yeah the performance is garbage

[–]Thaeus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i7 4770k @ 4.5GHz with an GTX 980ti - everything ultra w/o God Rays and Motion Blur

[–]wilder782 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i5 4690k @ 4.2GHz

R9 280x

8GB RAM

Low Preset - 52.38fps average

Medium Preset - 39.33fps average

High Preset - 36.57fps average

Very High Preset - 33.03fps average

Ultra Preset - 19.20fps average

Gotta say, I'm not very impressed at all.

[–]wjisk 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A GTX960 benchmark: https://youtu.be/2rN-KxMDOO0

At 15s there is a comparison of results

[–]connecteduser 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I7 6700 3.5ghz, Gtx 1070, 8GB. MEMORY, SSD.

If I crank everything up to as high as possible I get around 40 FPS. I dropped ultra shadows and epic god rays to get around 58-62fps at 1440p.

I am fine with this because the game looks great in action. I have abiut 6hrs in the demo and plan to buy the final release because of all the fun I have had with it.

[–]Maverick_8160 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You get better results than my i7 6700k/Fury X setup.

Optimization in Wildlands is a serious problem.

[–]gobikerideri5 6600K 4.5Ghz - GTX 1060 6Gb - 16Gb DDR4 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Looks right to me considering you only have dual cores and this isn't a optimized game.

[–]bert_lifts| i5 4670k | Palit SJS GTX 980 Ti | 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

yeah probs hits the CPU super hard in that case. An i7 would make a huge difference.

[–]gavy101[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i5 6500 with an RX470 8gb Nitro, gets 5 to 8FPS more than what i have, that might be down to a slightly better GPU though.

Still unacceptable either way, they have a lot of work to do before the release date.

With a Core i7-6800K @ 4,4 GHz, it seems to be 46FPS, but according to Hardware Unboxed who tested with a i7-7700K @ 4.5GHz, they got an average 40FPS

[–]Kables07MSi Gaming X GTX 1080 - i7 6700k - 16GB DDR4 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at my flair for specs. I run the game maxed out @ 1080p.

During the closed beta, I had an average of 70FPS and it would go as low as 35FPS whilst driving any vehicle.

Now for the open beta, I have an average of 85FPS and it never goes under 65FPS.

I did not run any benchmark, it's just observations from the FPS counter.

[–]gamerkidx 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is something about this game. I get about 40 fos on my computer, but yet it is still very playable for me. I normally get around 60-80 so that is a signifigant difference, but it still seems smooth in this game

[–]RDThorne 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's what i was meaning. I have a gtx 1050 ti , i5 6400 and 8gb ram. I have everything ultra/very high except long range shadows and shadows set to medium. I locked it at 30 fps amd it was very smooth. I turned vsync on and it sits around 45-50 fps and is still smooth.

[–]ttubehtnitahwtahw1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't like the game having played the closed beta, so my numbers might be different. I was able to turn everything up minus the grass and get 50+fps. I noticed the grass was the major frame killer for me.

I5 3570k

RX 480

[–]Va5h 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://imgur.com/a/lo6En i5 2500k @ 4.3ghz, GTX1080, 2560x1440