Jump to content

Arkham Knight PC tech-talk: settings, performance etc


Mortis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Played with it a bit more - everything maxed at 1080p with no nvidia gameworks stuff on at all. Film grain off and CA off (no perf differences, but I think they don't look good here). Game mostly stays at 60fps, occasions dips to around 50ish when driving around the city. If it was like this at the interim patch, dunno why I bothered waiting but at least it works ok now and looks nice. I have a GTX 980 so it should fucking work ok and look nice anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys really think they'd put the game back on sale without the patch? Why re-release the game in the same state that they pulled it from sale in the first place. Specific patch notes will probably come with the release.

Also - hi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There appears to be another patch for this. I started steam up this morning & it began auto-downloading yet another 8.5gb patch. Maybe they've finally fixed it & the 12GB comment was just a joke right? ....right?

That's dlc content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still runs better and is far cheaper than the console version if you have decent hardware. I mean I still got the game and season pass for less than 25 quid and it now runs fine at 1080p 60fps for the most part. It should however be running even better and actually be able to use the nvidia game works stuff that was advertised with it and it shouldn't have been release on pc when it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still runs better and is far cheaper than the console version if you have decent hardware.

Does that still not depend largely on pot luck? I've got a 4690k, a GTX 960 and 8gb RAM which I would've thought is 'decent' in terms of playing stuff out on current gen consoles (can run MGSV with downsampling and almost everything cranked at 60fps, The Witcher 3 with a couple of settings slightly lowered at 60fps) but it still both ran like shit and looked worse than the console versions (due to poor antialiasing and low quality textures) even at my TV's native 720p and locked to 30fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get what people are moaning about. It ran great on my PC.

(After using nearly 9GB of VRAM :lol:)

I can sympathise with them suggesting having at least 12GB of memory. 8 is really not enough these days, as background crap takes a gig or so minimum and RAM is cheap as (memory) chips.

Another game that may cause tears is Fable Legends, I've seen over 8GB VRAM used in the current beta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still runs better and is far cheaper than the console version if you have decent hardware. I mean I still got the game and season pass for less than 25 quid and it now runs fine at 1080p 60fps for the most part. It should however be running even better and actually be able to use the nvidia game works stuff that was advertised with it and it shouldn't have been release on pc when it did.

Now it does, sure. But I love the Arkham games and have caned all of them on release. This one is sitting unfinished 4 months after release because I was waiting on a patch that has turned out to be a load of DLC nonsense.

It's stuff like this (and an ageing GPU) that is seeing me move away from PC gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played through this on PC on release, and my PC's certainly not a monster. It's definitely the luck of the draw.

But I'm also probably the only person who's quite glad of the DLC in this patch. Been looking forward to more Batmanning for months...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to being poorly optimised to run on modest specs, It's fair to say that this needs a fairly high end spec to run well. I'm expecting greatness from my 980ti. I may give it a try tonight.

Im not too bothered about the Nvidia game works stuff but it would be a nice bonus if I can use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that still not depend largely on pot luck? I've got a 4690k, a GTX 960 and 8gb RAM which I would've thought is 'decent' in terms of playing stuff out on current gen consoles (can run MGSV with downsampling and almost everything cranked at 60fps, The Witcher 3 with a couple of settings slightly lowered at 60fps) but it still both ran like shit and looked worse than the console versions (due to poor antialiasing and low quality textures) even at my TV's native 720p and locked to 30fps.

Does the 960 have 2gb of video ram?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do yeah, but that's at low settings which account for that so according to the game I have video RAM to spare. All the Nvidia stuff off etc. Only 720p remember.

That it even needs 4gb VRAM to have anything other that terrible-looking textures is pretty poor in itself anyway but I imagine that's probably inherent in how the thing's built and not likely to be improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said ages ago, the consoles don't have the problem of the PCIe bus being the slow boat to China, they designed around that problem and this is a game designed around the PS4.

Maybe somebody else will do some further testing to see what the lowest amount of VRAM is for this game not to have to start paging back out to main RAM during high stress situations. Some mobile variants of Maxwell have 8GB of VRAM, which is starting to look like a good contender for sensible VRAM amount for these sorts games as even 6GB is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to being poorly optimised to run on modest specs, It's fair to say that this needs a fairly high end spec to run well. I'm expecting greatness from my 980ti. I may give it a try tonight.

Im not too bothered about the Nvidia game works stuff but it would be a nice bonus if I can use it.

The only nividea effect that really hammers performence is the smoke....yes it does look just lovely, but, it can be the difference between over 60 fps, and high 40's! (on a 970, i74960k, 32ram) turn the rest on though, especially the light shafts! and i think i might be going a bit blind, as i cant see the difference between normal and high textures... :/

although...you could argue that with everything on, it still runs better that n the consoles!

PPS...ive had worse performence since the latest patch...dont know why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, the 4gb 970 is what im using, for the very most part, it actaully runs fine, pretty much locked at 50fps if im playing on my tv, as that runs at 50hz. UNless, i have the smoke on...and then do donuts in the batmobile...yeah

in fact, ive just done a couple of "performence tests" with smoke, it dropped as low as 38, for the most part ran a 60, but when smoke became a factor, massive hit, then turned off and unlocked the reame rate and it ran at 80ish...so, if you have the hardware, it can run very well, just not with interactive smoke...which is a shame, because its one of the most engrossing visual effects i think ive ever seen...oddly interactive smoke really "feels" next gen lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said ages ago, the consoles don't have the problem of the PCIe bus being the slow boat to China, they designed around that problem and this is a game designed around the PS4.

Oh this again.

Like I said, just give it enough VRAM so you don't have to piss about with swapping and it's golden, if you don't you can still lock the framerate and have a superior to the PS4 experience. It still having issues with 6GB cards just stinks of absolute piss poor coding, as that is still more VRAM than the next gen consoles have total RAM available to run non OS code. Then again random internet people were able to tweak the config files enough to iron out the vast majority of the issues. Perhaps it shouldn't have been farmed out to a console code sweat shop who have nothing but middling console ports to their name.

Given that pretty much every other multi platform title runs better on mid range PC hardware, it indicates that something fundamental is amiss with this 'port'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I have given up on a new patch to fix more issues so i have just turned my resolution down to 1600 x 900 and have changed some of the settings down a little lower (textures etc). I'm still getting dips into the 20s every so often but at least its pretty playable on my gtx970 now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.