Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
With a Pentium G4560 / 8 Gb Ram / 2 Gb 64 bit Radeon 550.

On Vulkan I got 25 FPS average at very low 720p.

On DX11 it went up to 70+, and then 33 FPS average at 1080p also at very low.

Low settings was averaging at 22 FPS, slightly playable.

Medium tanked to 15 FPS.

Even at medium settings there was only 1.5 Gb Vram usage, but the 64 bit vram is the main thing that cripples it.

Also I got my Radeon 550 for £53 just to add the monitor outputs to my backup PC, looking at prices now its a complete joke at £90+ (Radeon 570 and GTX 1050 can be bought for £130).

Quad core CPUs can also be had for really cheap now, my G4560 was also £50 when I got it to make a backup PC.

Low settings are a huge step up from very Low as well and perfectly enjoyable. Very Low is a pixelated mess.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 15/10/20 10:40 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
wth is vulkan anyhow?

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Oldnight
wth is vulkan anyhow?


The setting when you launch the game, Vulkan or DX11. Vulkan is meant to be a universal graphics API that works across modern PCs and consoles.

On my main PC with a 1080 Ti everything maxed in Vulcan is at a comfortable 80 FPS average, albeit crashes and memory dump problems still being abundant.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
I'd also discovered that the game runs -- slightly -- faster on my GTX 1050ti, albeit not much. Having played the game for so much now, I think they should be more inclusive here given that cards popularity in their specs. A GTX 1050ti is perfectly fine for playing the game at 1080p (albeit not at 60fps, naturally).

Recently seen this vid of somebody actually playing this on a 940 Mobile (albeit on lowest settings, which is not particularly pretty -- nor performant at such fps). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBwsEciUmIg

Last edited by Sven_; 15/10/20 10:48 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_
I'd also discovered that the game runs -- slightly -- faster on my GTX 1050ti, albeit not much. Having played the game for so much now, I think they should be more inclusive here given that cards popularity in their specs. A GTX 1050ti is perfectly fine for playing the game at 1080p (albeit not at 60fps, naturally).

Recently seen this vid of somebody actually playing this on a 940 Mobile (albeit on lowest settings, which is not particularly pretty -- nor performant at such fps). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBwsEciUmIg


Someone did a really good recording on a 3200G using the Vega 8 graphics, it was mostly 27-28 FPS at 1080p very low but with Vulcan so that's a bit better than mine.

I've seen the 3200G at £80, and currently cannot find any discreet GPU worth buying at that price point (GT 1030s dont have Display Port, Radeon 550s are currently inflated as they have always been the best cheapo card for a while now with modern outputs).

The Intel 9100F can be bought for £65 for a very strong quad core CPU, but without a GPU it is useless for gaming compared to the 3200G.

I wouldn't advise a 2c/4t anymore instead of a 3200G or 9100F for a new budget build.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 15/10/20 11:00 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
[quote=Sven_]
I've seen the 3200G at £80, and currently cannot find any discreet GPU worth buying at that price point (GT 1030s dont have Display Port, Radeon 550s are currently inflated as they have always been the best cheapo card for a while now with modern outputs).

The Intel 9100F can be bought for £65 for a very strong quad core CPU, but without a GPU it is useless for gaming compared to the 3200G.

I wouldn't advise a 2c/4t anymore instead of a 3200G or 9100F for a new budget build.



The 9100f is also much better than the required FX 4350. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-9100F-vs-AMD-FX-4350/4054vs2880

Maybe a 9100f plus a GTX 1050 would be actually quite a decent enough entry point build for better graphics and performances at 1080p.



Last edited by Sven_; 15/10/20 11:08 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I've been running on Ultra settings at 4K with a RTX 2080ti. I haven't seen frames dip below 75fps using Vulcan. Haven't crashed once with 50 hours invested. I think anything in the 1000 series or better should be playable for 1080p.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
The main difference I've noticed is that Vulkan tends to pause and stutter quite a lot. Though my R9 390X is getting a bit long in the tooth, I should really upgrade it. I like the idea of an API that isn't Direct-X but I like the performance... of the sort of design that tends to cause blue screens...

Oh, and Fraps doesn't work with Vulkan, which is the other reason I switched to DX11.


J'aime le fromage.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5