This is bizzare and seems like some kind of oversight, I will ask the developers what the hell is up with that. They didn't want denuovo and know that torrented version is already out anyway so it makes no sense.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance PC performance thread
- Thread starter GrrImAFridge
- Start date
Tried asking them everywhere. I see others have done it as well. Some angry Steam users out there. They just totally ignore answering.
Those are prerendered videos as opposed to ingame cutscenes though so its understandable
I get around 30-40fps on my rig (1600x, 16GB, GTx970) at high and textures and physics set to ultra
I heard back, the answer was verbatim "We know about it and we will resolve it."
He didn't go into detail but I really think it is some kind of steamworks fuck up oversight. Logically it makes no sense. But at least it will get removed.
Yeah but it looks as if AMD GPUs are having issues running at Ultra High preset in any resolution as this is where NV GPUs seem to catch up.
I just set shaders and shadows to medium on my GFs pc with a 970 with the very high preset and ultra textures (game doesn't ever use more then 2gb vram for me),This brings me to 50-60 fps at 1080p most of the time and i cant even tell what shaders does (i mean i know what it should do of course), there is no visual difference as far as i can see but it eats fps like mad above medium, shadows do make a difference but it's very negligible i can only tell if i look really close, every other settings impact seems to be very minor compared to those 2.
Ryzen 7 1800X
GTX 1080
1080p but with 1,20 DSR
Max Settings
Fps vary from 45 to 80+. Strange: during convos the fps are dropping to 45-50 all the time, no matter whats on the screen. Inside my house from the starting area i got 45 fps and i was like "dafuq", but the moment i was outside fps where at 70-80 again. Something isn't right. :D
GTX 1080
1080p but with 1,20 DSR
Max Settings
Fps vary from 45 to 80+. Strange: during convos the fps are dropping to 45-50 all the time, no matter whats on the screen. Inside my house from the starting area i got 45 fps and i was like "dafuq", but the moment i was outside fps where at 70-80 again. Something isn't right. :D
Weird, the ingame cutscenes aren't locked 30fps for me and i didn't touch any ini settings
do you have the game? what config files does ultra spec change? that would give us some info.
are there any benches that test higher resolutions at ultra?
edit - just checked gamegpu and at 1440p+ amd is ahead even at ultra and ultra+. seems to just be a cpu limitation
Has anyone been experiencing occasional hitching?
On medium-high settings it seems to be running fine on my 970, frame rate is good, but it will suddenly hitch occasionally for like 5-10 seconds, it's really annoying. I've downed my settings mostly to low now, and it still hitches, the hitch just isn't as long with tlower settings but it still does it.
I just don't understand what's causing the intermittent hitches, it's the worst during combat.
On medium-high settings it seems to be running fine on my 970, frame rate is good, but it will suddenly hitch occasionally for like 5-10 seconds, it's really annoying. I've downed my settings mostly to low now, and it still hitches, the hitch just isn't as long with tlower settings but it still does it.
I just don't understand what's causing the intermittent hitches, it's the worst during combat.
Whats your 2600k clocked at? I'm running the game on 2500k @ 4.6ghz with a 1070 stock and I get 50-60fps on high settings with only shadows set to medium. I think you may need to overlock your 2600k a bit. But yeah I get the hitching issue as well.
Last edited:
1080ti, 4790k running at 4.4, 16gb of DDR3, everything maxed out at 2560x1440...generally get good FPS. Fluctuates quite a bit though, I can usually get 60 outdoors if not too much is happening, usually hovers around 50 in what you would call regular gameplay, never below 30. I've tried running it at 4k, but it doesn't go so well with everything maxed. It looks clear enough at 1440.
When I first started running it, it ran really awful, but then I discovered that I didn't have the newest drivers for my card.
When I first started running it, it ran really awful, but then I discovered that I didn't have the newest drivers for my card.
Slightly off-topic, but I'm stuck in an infinite download loop in Steam. It keeps downloading a 14.7MB patch and then verifying the game files. I tried deleting the contents in the downloading folder, but that didn't help. Any other tips?
EDIT: Figured it out. Avast claims that KingdomCome.exe is malicious :/
EDIT: Figured it out. Avast claims that KingdomCome.exe is malicious :/
Last edited:
i7 8700k OC @ 4.7 GHz
GTX 1080 TI
16 GB DDR4 Ram
4K Ultra Settings Average 30 FPS. Lows down to 21 (when raining in city) ad as high as 45 FPS in open farmlands.
I'm interested in seeing what someone running two 1080 TIs gets.
GTX 1080 TI
16 GB DDR4 Ram
4K Ultra Settings Average 30 FPS. Lows down to 21 (when raining in city) ad as high as 45 FPS in open farmlands.
I'm interested in seeing what someone running two 1080 TIs gets.
Amazing. Would 60fps be possible in Witcher 3 with those specs? I'm guessing so.
What's with KC:D that's different? Poorly optimised/ needs more dev time?
dont have the game but going off benches youd probly need low if its possible at all
Are you sure that's it, because I remember a couple of years ago they showed a before/after with GI enabled and disabled and the performance cost wasn't that much.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/wcc...ff-comparison-performance-hit-is-minimal/amp/
So I put it from High to Ultra High and I couldn't see much or any difference, besides the huge reduction in frame rate.
Last edited:
So I put it from High to Ultra High and I couldn't see much or any difference, besides the huge reduction in frame rate.
Edit: sorry for double post. Mods can delete and I will update the post above.
Edit: sorry for double post. Mods can delete and I will update the post above.
So capping the framerate to 60 and turning vsync off I was able to get a consistent 60FPS across all scenarios including indoors. This is on a GTX1070 Founder Edition, Ryzen 7 1700 factory standard, 16GB DDR4 3000 and installed on an SSD.
I have everything on 'Very High' besides textures at 'Ultra High' with shaders and shadows on 'Low'. This seemed to work the best and makes the game look gorgeous.
Oh, and motion blur off. Because its shit.
I have everything on 'Very High' besides textures at 'Ultra High' with shaders and shadows on 'Low'. This seemed to work the best and makes the game look gorgeous.
Oh, and motion blur off. Because its shit.
Really expensive rendering techniques as far as I know. That is the difference.
How DARE YOU?! :D
Nah that's the most extreme part i've come across so far you really need a monster pc to get anywhere near 60 fps on any higher quality settings there.
That's not a 4-core CPU down there that's a 2-core CPU with HT and from what i can see the game really hates HT and performs better on my I7 if i disable it which makes it just a quad core, as you can see from graph there are no big gains from anything higher then 4-cores.
Last edited:
The 2nd and 4th graph has figures for core i5 6600K.That's not a 4-core CPU down there that's a 2-core CPU with HT and from what i can see the game really hates HT and performs better on my I7 if i disable it which makes it just a quad core, as you can see from graph the game has almost no gain from anything higher then 4-cores.
There is a bit more difference between those CPUs then just the core count, the higher clock,cache and general way higher ipc are what really makes a difference here, the test was performed on stock CPUs after all.
Last edited:
I know very well there are difference between CPUs architectures, but in my opinion they are not what make the big difference here. The 6600k at stock has max boost at 3.9Ghz, the 1700x 3.8Ghz for example, and they have a gap of over 30fps at 720p with the biggest difference in cores count.
Interpret the data however you want, but unless there are data showing the all the CPUs running at the same clock, same amount of cores, arguing about how the difference in architectures and other specs affect the performance is futile.
Edit: also, the 1st graph which you linked is performed on one CPU, and you can see clearly how core/thread counts affect the performance, that's as close as we are gonna get regarding how core counts scale here with this limited data.
Last edited:
Do you know what shaders do? Cause i struggle to find a difference
Nope, no clue but it tanks performance for me having them on and can't see any real difference. I think from memory it adds depth to textures but don't quote me on that. Otherwise everything is going well.