[quote="tehace"]if this would be fixed in real 3d I would acctually play it :) Will somebody attempt to try and fix it? [/quote]That question has already been answered twice in this thread.
There is some discussion that SLI profile may not be set up properly.
[url]http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/157719-watch-dogs-performance-sli-improvements/[/url]
Worth first trying AC3 profile on the game, and if that doesn't work, try the copy/paste bits.
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]card 1 goes to about 85% usage[/quote]if your cpu can't even max out one gpu (99 % usage) then adding a 2nd gpu will only lower the gpu usage.
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html
The benchmark above seems to suggest CPU isn't a bottleneck here.[/quote]that benchmark is obviously gpu bound at 82 fps.
Pirateguybrush said:card 1 goes to about 85% usage
if your cpu can't even max out one gpu (99 % usage) then adding a 2nd gpu will only lower the gpu usage.
Pirateguybrush said:http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html
The benchmark above seems to suggest CPU isn't a bottleneck here.
that benchmark is obviously gpu bound at 82 fps.
NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal), Intel Core i7-6900K, Win 10 Pro,
ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10, G.Skill RipJaws V 4x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34,
ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, Acer Predator XB280HK, BenQ W710ST
Amazing![quote="DAT-13"]Watch Dogs looks amazing with this sweetfx preset.
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1686/[/quote]
That's amazing.
I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.
Why couldn't Ubisoft do this?
[quote="andysonofbob"]I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.[/quote]
SweetFX is very simple to use. Someone with experience could knock out a preset like this in minutes.
But I agree, it looks much better than the default :)
[quote="bo3b"][quote="tehace"]if this would be fixed in real 3d I would acctually play it :) Will somebody attempt to try and fix it? [/quote]That question has already been answered twice in this thread.[/quote] ah back to reading than :D
Thanks DAT-13, those sweetfx comparisons are nice.
I'm not sure if I necessarily like all of the sweetfx shots though. The look is very different, and screenshots are not necessarily the best judge. Sometimes things which are nice in small doses aren't good in large doses.
For example, Pepsi beats Coca-cola in single sip taste tests because it's sweeter. In the past, Coca-cola panicked and made New Coke, which was sweeter. Despite the taste tests, it turned out that people didn't like the New Coke. Sweet is good if you only have one sip, but when you actually drink a whole can or bottle, that sweetness gradually becomes overwhelming and you get sick of it.
Thanks DAT-13, those sweetfx comparisons are nice.
I'm not sure if I necessarily like all of the sweetfx shots though. The look is very different, and screenshots are not necessarily the best judge. Sometimes things which are nice in small doses aren't good in large doses.
For example, Pepsi beats Coca-cola in single sip taste tests because it's sweeter. In the past, Coca-cola panicked and made New Coke, which was sweeter. Despite the taste tests, it turned out that people didn't like the New Coke. Sweet is good if you only have one sip, but when you actually drink a whole can or bottle, that sweetness gradually becomes overwhelming and you get sick of it.
[quote="andysonofbob"]Amazing![quote="DAT-13"]Watch Dogs looks amazing with this sweetfx preset.
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1686/[/quote]
That's amazing.
I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.
Why couldn't Ubisoft do this?[/quote]
SweetFx is basically the equivalent of putting a very advanced filter over an image. Like another poster said, it can be done in minutes and works for almost all games.
Also, that SweetFx profile seems to just up the contrast and add more red to the image.
I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.
Why couldn't Ubisoft do this?
SweetFx is basically the equivalent of putting a very advanced filter over an image. Like another poster said, it can be done in minutes and works for almost all games.
Also, that SweetFx profile seems to just up the contrast and add more red to the image.
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]Yep, win8.I'm not aware of performance issues with 8 though, and we're probably at a point where win8 is if not the standard, at least something they'd be testing on. Kingpin, I see the same result with high settings. [/quote]My best guess here is that this game is VRAM limited, and Win8 does make this worse. Here's a graph from Tom's (8.1 and 8.0 are same in this case):
[img]http://media.bestofmicro.com/J/D/412825/original/Win_VRAM.png[/img]
Win8 burns 250M of VRAM, and cannot be disabled like Aero. If you are short on memory already, this is going to matter. Running out of VRAM forces the system to page textures over PCI, which can lead to stutters.
You can lower VRAM consumption by disabling or lowering AA, (or use FXAA), lower resolution, triple-buffering off, lowered texture resolution.
Measure your VRAM usage (NVidia Inspector can do this) and see if you are topping out.
Pirateguybrush said:Yep, win8.I'm not aware of performance issues with 8 though, and we're probably at a point where win8 is if not the standard, at least something they'd be testing on. Kingpin, I see the same result with high settings.
My best guess here is that this game is VRAM limited, and Win8 does make this worse. Here's a graph from Tom's (8.1 and 8.0 are same in this case):
Win8 burns 250M of VRAM, and cannot be disabled like Aero. If you are short on memory already, this is going to matter. Running out of VRAM forces the system to page textures over PCI, which can lead to stutters.
You can lower VRAM consumption by disabling or lowering AA, (or use FXAA), lower resolution, triple-buffering off, lowered texture resolution.
Measure your VRAM usage (NVidia Inspector can do this) and see if you are topping out.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Okay, I've been doing some more testing (thanks for all the helpful suggestions!), and it's looking more and more like this is a CPU bottleneck. Might have to throw a little money at the problem. :)
Okay, I've been doing some more testing (thanks for all the helpful suggestions!), and it's looking more and more like this is a CPU bottleneck. Might have to throw a little money at the problem. :)
[quote="Alo81"][quote="andysonofbob"]Amazing![quote="DAT-13"]Watch Dogs looks amazing with this sweetfx preset.
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1686/[/quote]
That's amazing.
I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.
Why couldn't Ubisoft do this?[/quote]
SweetFx is basically the equivalent of putting a very advanced filter over an image. Like another poster said, it can be done in minutes and works for almost all games.
Also, that SweetFx profile seems to just up the contrast and add more red to the image. [/quote]
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1675/
I like this one more. Its enriches colors/gets rid of the grey.
The other one kind of replaces with a red/dark tint. I kind of dislike any sweetfx that can completely change the colors.
I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.
Why couldn't Ubisoft do this?
SweetFx is basically the equivalent of putting a very advanced filter over an image. Like another poster said, it can be done in minutes and works for almost all games.
Also, that SweetFx profile seems to just up the contrast and add more red to the image.
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1675/ I like this one more. Its enriches colors/gets rid of the grey.
The other one kind of replaces with a red/dark tint. I kind of dislike any sweetfx that can completely change the colors.
[quote="DAT-13"]Watch Dogs looks amazing with this sweetfx preset.
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1686/[/quote]
Each to their own, but that just looks cheap to me. Ramping up saturation and contrast is like adding high fructose corn syrup to a meal: it'll give it more punch initially, but will usually make it taste more cloying and monotonous in the long run.
People love to increase the saturation with SweetFX, because it's so ultra easy to do, and seems to have an instant payoff. But even if you put pictures of the Sistine Chapel into Photoshop and increase the saturation, I guarantee it'll look punchier. But that doesn't mean it'll actually look better and that you've somehow outdone Michelangelo.
[quote="bo3b"]For benchmarking, I saw that Forbes article, and I really don't agree with him. It's also the laziest possible answer to call the game un-optimized. I don't think I've seen a game release in the last 10 years when that wasn't bandied about. It's always "well, I can't figure it out, so it must be unoptimized console port junk."[/quote]Glad I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing that every single time. Especially with open-world games.
If a game looks like shit and runs like shit, then you can confidently call it poorly optimised. But most games do one or the other, if anything, and it's rare that a game does both. Cryostasis is the last one I can remember to really be guilty of both.
[quote="bo3b"]In my case, the bottleneck was pretty clearly VRAM. You can't run Ultra textures here unless you have 4G cards.[/quote]Woohoo! Turns out that when I was banging on last year about how VRAM was going to become important this year, I actually knew what I was talking about! Who knew? :)
Each to their own, but that just looks cheap to me. Ramping up saturation and contrast is like adding high fructose corn syrup to a meal: it'll give it more punch initially, but will usually make it taste more cloying and monotonous in the long run.
People love to increase the saturation with SweetFX, because it's so ultra easy to do, and seems to have an instant payoff. But even if you put pictures of the Sistine Chapel into Photoshop and increase the saturation, I guarantee it'll look punchier. But that doesn't mean it'll actually look better and that you've somehow outdone Michelangelo.
bo3b said:For benchmarking, I saw that Forbes article, and I really don't agree with him. It's also the laziest possible answer to call the game un-optimized. I don't think I've seen a game release in the last 10 years when that wasn't bandied about. It's always "well, I can't figure it out, so it must be unoptimized console port junk."
Glad I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing that every single time. Especially with open-world games.
If a game looks like shit and runs like shit, then you can confidently call it poorly optimised. But most games do one or the other, if anything, and it's rare that a game does both. Cryostasis is the last one I can remember to really be guilty of both.
bo3b said:In my case, the bottleneck was pretty clearly VRAM. You can't run Ultra textures here unless you have 4G cards.
Woohoo! Turns out that when I was banging on last year about how VRAM was going to become important this year, I actually knew what I was talking about! Who knew? :)
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/157719-watch-dogs-performance-sli-improvements/
Worth first trying AC3 profile on the game, and if that doesn't work, try the copy/paste bits.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
that benchmark is obviously gpu bound at 82 fps.
NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal), Intel Core i7-6900K, Win 10 Pro,
ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10, G.Skill RipJaws V 4x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34,
ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, Acer Predator XB280HK, BenQ W710ST
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1686/
Asus VG23AH Passive - GTX 660 - i5-4670K@4.6Hz - 8GB RAM - Win7x64
That's amazing.
I would argue each one of those shots looks better. It took less than two days for a couple(?) of guys to improve the graphics.
Why couldn't Ubisoft do this?
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.-------------------Vitals: Windows 10 64bit, Ryzen 5 2600x, GTX 1070, 16GB, 3D Vision, CV1
Handy Driver DiscussionHelix Mod - community fixes Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes
SweetFX is very simple to use. Someone with experience could knock out a preset like this in minutes.
But I agree, it looks much better than the default :)
Acer H5360 / BenQ XL2420T + 3D Vision 2 Kit - EVGA GTX 980TI 6GB - i7-3930K@4.0GHz - DX79SI- 16GB RAM@2133 - Win10x64 Home - HTC VIVE
I'm not sure if I necessarily like all of the sweetfx shots though. The look is very different, and screenshots are not necessarily the best judge. Sometimes things which are nice in small doses aren't good in large doses.
For example, Pepsi beats Coca-cola in single sip taste tests because it's sweeter. In the past, Coca-cola panicked and made New Coke, which was sweeter. Despite the taste tests, it turned out that people didn't like the New Coke. Sweet is good if you only have one sip, but when you actually drink a whole can or bottle, that sweetness gradually becomes overwhelming and you get sick of it.
SweetFx is basically the equivalent of putting a very advanced filter over an image. Like another poster said, it can be done in minutes and works for almost all games.
Also, that SweetFx profile seems to just up the contrast and add more red to the image.
Win8 burns 250M of VRAM, and cannot be disabled like Aero. If you are short on memory already, this is going to matter. Running out of VRAM forces the system to page textures over PCI, which can lead to stutters.
You can lower VRAM consumption by disabling or lowering AA, (or use FXAA), lower resolution, triple-buffering off, lowered texture resolution.
Measure your VRAM usage (NVidia Inspector can do this) and see if you are topping out.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/1675/
I like this one more. Its enriches colors/gets rid of the grey.
The other one kind of replaces with a red/dark tint. I kind of dislike any sweetfx that can completely change the colors.
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
I think the original colours look too saturated. It's like the devs were scared to add contrast in case the game became too dark.
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.-------------------Vitals: Windows 10 64bit, Ryzen 5 2600x, GTX 1070, 16GB, 3D Vision, CV1
Handy Driver DiscussionHelix Mod - community fixes Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes
I, as hard as it gets, wait for a real 3D fix. I really hope you can make it.
Each to their own, but that just looks cheap to me. Ramping up saturation and contrast is like adding high fructose corn syrup to a meal: it'll give it more punch initially, but will usually make it taste more cloying and monotonous in the long run.
People love to increase the saturation with SweetFX, because it's so ultra easy to do, and seems to have an instant payoff. But even if you put pictures of the Sistine Chapel into Photoshop and increase the saturation, I guarantee it'll look punchier. But that doesn't mean it'll actually look better and that you've somehow outdone Michelangelo.
Glad I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing that every single time. Especially with open-world games.
If a game looks like shit and runs like shit, then you can confidently call it poorly optimised. But most games do one or the other, if anything, and it's rare that a game does both. Cryostasis is the last one I can remember to really be guilty of both.
Woohoo! Turns out that when I was banging on last year about how VRAM was going to become important this year, I actually knew what I was talking about! Who knew? :)