The Division - Screenshots With Max Settings From PC Beta Build, GTX970 Not Enough For 60FPS

DSOGaming writes: "The beta build of Tom Clancy’s The Division is currently available on the PC, and below you can find some screenshots on max settings. Do note that we increased the Object Detail to 100% (something that is not enabled via the Ultra preset), and that we also enabled NVIDIA’s PCSS shadows and HBAO+. We’ve also removed chromatic aberration and Vignette in order to provide you with more crisp images."

[Neonridr]

PC version looks nice.

[ABizzel1]

It's a slight upgrade to the consoles, I have the beta on both, and the PC version simply has better, textures, lighting, effects, res/fps, and post processing... which is pretty much the same for all PC games if you have a good GPU.

The majority of console games have been the PC's medium settings, with a few high setting thrown in, or vice-versa.

[Neonridr]

you list a lot of things for it to only be considered a "slight" upgrade, ;)

I wasn't downplaying the consoles at all. Even the Xbox One version looks pretty darn good.

[john2]

The most disappointing thing is that GI has been greatly reduced or even completely removed. This is why the lighting feels so flat (compared to the earlier E3 demos)

[killer876]

@ABizzel1

lol. so insecure
all he said was the PC version looks nice

And i think youre forgetting something important...doubling and even tripling the FPS is not a slight upgrade

He should have said the PC version looks way better and runs at 60FPS

"better, textures, lighting, effects, res/fps, and post processing" = slight upgrade XDXDXDXDXD

[Neonridr]

well in all fairness he did say "res/fps" in the same point.

[kraenk12]

slight...you must be joking. Have been watching streams all day and it's obvious at the first glance even with all that compression.

[Unspoken]

It's a slight upgrade to consoles if you are blind.

[ABizzel1]

@neonridr

"Even the Xbox One version looks pretty darn good."

Then your standards are lower than mine. It's a solid looking game, but it's not a graphic powerhouse at all, and you're acting as if those things I listed aren't standard things PC versions have over the console counterpart anyway.

It looks better on PC, but it's still in the realm of not being a GOTY best graphics winner.

@killer876

What do I need to be insecure for. That's you hiding behind a troll account, because you're too cowardly.

I have a gaming PC, I have the division beta on XBO and PC. It looks better on PC, but it's the same standard that every other PC game has over their console version, and the core graphics of the Division isn't going to allow it to look massively better than the console version.

@kraken12

What do I need to watch it for when I'm playing it. Once again it looks better, but it's not a showcase on any platform.

@Unspoken

Hopefully we can pool our money and resources together to get you a new set of eyes.

I even spent the time to dig up the closest matches I could find since everyone now has a SLI GTX 980 Ti PC, yet can't spend $5 to pre-order a game or simply get a free code to test it for themselves.
http://img.memecdn.com/rmx-...

XBO
http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.c...
PC
http://i2.wp.com/gearnuke.c...

XBO
http://i2.wp.com/gearnuke.c...
PC
http://i0.wp.com/gearnuke.c...

XBO (different time of day)
http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.c...
PC
http://www.dsogaming.com/wp...

HUGE NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE
http://memesvault.com/wp-co...

This game is not pushing PC graphically, and once again it's a slight improvement over the console version (less so than most other PC games, now that I'm looking at it). The biggest improvement is the lighting and higher resolution textures, but it's still the same base game.

Now have a mice day you guys

@john2

Global Illumination is still there, it's just weird, in some places it's more abundant and in others is incredibly low, and Anisotropic Filtering seems to be bugged as well as some places are just flat, while others are fine, but it is a beta. I have problems with other aspects of it.

[ABizzel1]

@neonridr

I never said you did, nor was I coming from a console vs PC mindset, I was simply giving my opinion on the matter because I've played both of them, and as I said it looks better on PC, but it's not as much as you would think considering a GTX 970 is over 3x more powerful than an XBO.

However, I did misread your second comment. For some reason I thought you said even the XBO looks like the E3 demos, but I guess I mixed the ending of your comment and @john2 comment below yours.

It's a solid looking game, but it's not a graphics powerhouse, and on PC it looks better, but it's still not impressive compared to many other games that are YEARS older.

[SniperControl]

@abizz

Totally agree with your assessment, The Division is nothing special in the graphics department, there have been far better looking PC games in the past.
What urks me the most, is that i spent £600 on two gtx970's to play games with a slight upgrade on visuals over the consoles. Tomb Raider is another game gimped on PC due to limitations on consoles.

Dont get me wrong, i love my PS4 to bits, it truly has some breath taking games visually, just getting sick and tired of poorly optimised and gimped ports on PC, i remember 10 years ago it was PC first then port to consoles, these days it's the other way round.

[ABizzel1]

@SniperControl

I don't know what it is honestly. It's like no one wants to step out and push PC hard, instead they just build the game for console, and then add extra settings and effects for the PC versions.

I'm waiting for the next "Crysis style" game, a game that pushes past current PC hardware, for the next couple of years.

[SniperControl]

@abizz
I was just telling a friend this, i remember games from 10 years ago that would bring a new card to it's knees begging for mercy, games like Doom3, Half Life 2 and Crysis, games that pushed the graphics envelope.

But those days are gone forever i think, with the cost of developing games it's just easier to go for the lowest common denominator, which in this gen is the X1(not saying it's that much lower than the PS4).

[iistuii]

I haven't yet got a code, but is the PC version not running at 60 fps ? That alone would make me choose it over the console version.

[SniperControl]

@ Sakattack

"So people hyping up PCs graphics and 4K can't usually play on 1080p on medium settings themselves. So don't blame consoles or console gamers when your pcs are the ones holding back the pc games"

Intel i7 [email protected]
2 x GTX970s in SLI Overclocked
10gb DDR3 ram

Those are my current PC specs.

That is plenty enough specs to run the most demanding games at 1080p, i can run TR and The Division at 4K with no problems High and Ultra settings respectively.

"Are the games developed on consoles or by PCs? Consoles have been there for decades and now you seem to realize the pcs getting gimped versions"

The problem i have is that PC graphics are being dumbed down to console levels when traditionally it is PC that far out reaches the consoles versions, games such as i mentioned above, Doom3, Half Life 2 and Crysis, go check out their console versions and you'll see the gaping chasm in graphics between the two.
Sure the actual development is done on PC's, but the target specifications for the game are laid out at the start of the development process, which are quite obviously to console level specs.

Prime example is Batman Arkham Knight, it was developed to console standards then passed on to a small team of 16 year old work experience lackeys to port(i use that term very loosely)it to PC and we all know how that flaming piece of turd turned out, yet it ran amazingly on PS4 and X1, the astounding thing is, it is still broken 6 months on, even after WB pulled from sale for 2 months to fix it, lol.

I have nothing against consoles, i myself own a PS4 and have over 50 games for it and no way am i having a go at console gamers, it just annoys me that PC games should be showing alot more graphic fidelity than consoles, especially with the monster GPU's now available.

Just to compare, the X1's GPU is what 1.3 teraflops? One of my GTX970's has 3.49 teraflops and with that i'am only getting a slightly better graphical improvement on Tomb Raider, only slight, put yourself in my shoes having spent £600 on two GPUs, wouldn't you be a little disappointed with that?

The PC version of The Division should be similar to the E3 version of 2014.
Anyone remember the Watchdogs E3 Vid, the PC version was shockingly poor in comparison.

[SniperControl]

@Sackattack

My PC is attached to my 65" 4K TV in the lounge, I'am getting a stable 40 fps on 4K on TR on high textures, The Division I've not checked yet, but there is little to no stuttering during gameplay.

Of The Division, ubi showed a gorgeous video play through back at E3 2014, that's the kind of graphical fidelity i want on my PC, same with the Watchdogs E3 vid at E3 2013.

As for TR, where are all the Nvid Gameworks type stuff? even though Arkham Knight was a broken mess, some of the Gameworks stuff was simply stunning on PC, the fog, dust particles, rain and water.
****MINOR SPOILER****
At the end of the Prophets Tomb level, the rushing water looked awful.
Even the textures on Lara's and Jonah's faces look muddy and simple, the eyes look dead.

Crysis 3 is an example of pushing graphics to the limit on PC, even though it was a mediocre game, it was a graphically stunning game.

Just compare these two screenshots:

Crysis 3:
http://i.imgur.com/K2OFuh2....

RotTR:

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/th...

The Crysis 3 one is in-game while the RotTR is a promo shot and the Crysis in-game still looks better.

[Dee_91]

@ABizzel1
you gotta look at it like this, PC gamers will spend $500 for an extra frame rate, so those things pc version does better, to them is monumental, regardless of the fact those things are better by a fraction. The fact that it's better is all that matter.
i personally believe nvidia sprinkle crack on their gpus

[ABizzel1]

@iistuii

It runs at 60fps, but I don't think it's fully optimized yet. There are some issues with certain post processing and optimization issues, but this is the beta, so I'll hold judgement.

@sakattack500

If Steam is to be believed the group of Steam uses with PC's that more more powerful than the PS4 should rank around 25m users (gamers with GTX 660 equivalent GPU or higher). That's a fairly large group of us and that's on Steam alone (which is actually a solid source, because those are the ones who are more likely to buy games rather than crack them).

That install base is larger than the XBO market (which is probably why so many XBO games and multiplats are going PC as well), so there is definitely a market there to push PC versions harder, but as we said games are developed with console in mind which means they share the same base PC code, but the development process for many of these games is more geared towards console. This is generally why the console versions rank around medium / high settings for PC.

After the consoles are done, the PC product can be finished, but since the game was developed for medium settings, the only thing these developers try to do is add more post processing which taxes GPUS significantly more, than simply making the models, environment, textures, and lighting much better. It's a cop out, and it's not the fault of consoles in my eyes, it's the fault of developers just dropping the PC version out there and calling it a day, and the majority of PC fans, and these fake n4g trolls acting as if they have a high-end gaming PC, being fine with the fact that it simply looks better than console, when a GPUs like the 980, 980 ti, and Fury that are 4x more powerful than the XBO and some 4x more powerful than the PS4 should be doing so much more, which is the point the entire group of people above me missed, because they have the mentality of at least it looks better than console.

And here we are with a direct comparison made between the PC and PS4 version, and once again as I said it's only a slight difference, and the only place you see a big difference is during the scenes compared at different times of day.

http://gearnuke.com/the-div...

I don't think neither of us are badmouthing console, but these games should be much better on PCs with higher end hardware.

[solar]

compared to what? the console versions is all. Ubi Watch Dog'ed it.

[Neonridr]

consoles or not, the game still looks good based on those screenshots. I don't care about the E3 2013 build, I never trust games when they are first revealed anyways..

[kraenk12]

Game looks good on consoles as well.

[darksky]

That really doesn't look much better than GTA 5.

[Lamboomington]

Uh, I don't know lol. Looks more impressive than GTA 5 to me.

[curtis92]

Sweet, just upgraded to a 970. Always wonderful to see your exact card called out that it WON'T hit 60fps on ultra. hah.

[killer876]

blame gimpworks

[LightofDarkness]

How about blame Ubisoft?

[Lamboomington]

Don't blame anyone. They recommended a 970 and that makes sense. You can play it on high - ultra at 60fps, with some settings turned down.

[wraith4912]

Blame author that don't know how to set game settings and claims a 690 is equal to a 970.

[bumnut]

Back in the day you couldnt max most games when they released, you played them maxed out a couple of years later.

Kind of like a free remaster :)

Edit- by back in the day i mean the 90's

[Dark_Crow]

Some things are highly exaggerated. Don't take this article to heart.

[mixelon]

Maybe you can hit 60fps with some unnecessary details toned back (shadow resolution, choice of AA) - as is often the case. A lot of the time the difference is pretty negligible.

[jmc8888]

I don't know why this article decided upon this premise.

As a GTX970 owner, I can say... of course not to it. Who would anyone think a GTX970 can max a game out and keep 60 FPS?

But I bet you can quite easily get 60 FPS, probably more just by toning down a couple of settings... like most games.

Hell most games on the GTX970 you can get to 90-120 FPS with a few dips here or there just by taking down a few things. Or go 4k/60, with some dips.

So it sounds like this is the same thing as basically everything else.

Also this is a beta... there will be patches by the Ubisoft and Nvidia that should increase performance.

But overall I didn't expect max settings. I expect something that mixes high-ultra, a couple of things turned off, and 60-120 FPS, and it sounds like that is doable on a GTX970.

[forager]

@jmc888
I mean we paid for a graphics card that costs more than a next gen console itself! Personally if I'm paying $300-350 on a GC I would certainly think that I would be able to achieve 1080p/60. I have the beta as well and I'm a little annoyed that with everything max im getting 40-55 fps.

Hopefully its because it is a beta and further optimizations will be made!

[kingmushroom]

I get ultra and 60 fps easy with my GTX970 4G FX8350 16GB ram, took some nice scream shots.

[totalrecoilzz]

i just played ps4 beta and what a shit game gfx suck gameplay sucks i thought i was playing watch dogs all over again..this game is trash.

[Dark_Crow]

Love your detailed critique of the game.

[kraenk12]

It's fair if you have that opinion...luckily most others who actually played it seem to really like the game.

[SgtSlaughter212]

Ill probably pick it up because my buddies have it pre-ordered on PS4... But I'm really disappointed with the graphics.

I'm having fun with the beta regardless.

[kraenk12]

@SgtSlaughter212

The game looks very close to the first E3 build and identical to the last PC-E3 build...and the console version just looks like their last demonstration on X1 hardware. I don't know what people were expecting tbh.

[maybelovehate]

Probably going to take multiple cards to get 60fps at ultra settings with all PP effects on. I have a Titan and with everything on in PP and Ultra settings I drop down to 24FPS in Witcher 3. Although in Witcher 3 the Hair Works seems to particularly slow things down at max settings and I don't think Division has hair particles haha.

[R6ex]

I'm waiting for Nvidia Pascal.

[FlameWater]

I have no idea why anyone would want to buy a new graphics card for the last two years of games.

[R6ex]

Because for games like Witcher 3, my 970 can't even get anywhere near 60fps at max. settings, even at 1080p. Well, just sold off my 970 and waiting for Pascal.

[ninsigma]

Can't wait for pascal! Running dual 970 at the moment which is great but pascal seems like it's gonna be a great boost.

[camel_toad]

Played about an hour of it on PC before I had to quit. I'm running it on a now-ancient gtx 680 and was fairly impressed with how well it looked and ran. Running it on high settings with my mediocre setup and it seems to be well-optimized, and pretty fun which is what matters most.

I need to play it some more but my first impression tells me I might be buying it.

Off topic but kind of on topic as far as prettiness - MAN I've gotta say The Witness is about as pretty as it gets, due in large part to its art style. I've found myself taking screenshots of that game nearly as much as I did The Witcher 3.

[mafiahajeri]

Playing the ps4 beta and it looks pretty damn good for such a demanding game

[SgtSlaughter212]

Really? I was actually pretty disappointed. Looks on par with Destiny.

[u4one]

So for the fanboys who think the ps4 is the same as a high end pc at 1.84 tflops, they're saying that the gtx970 with 4.6 tflops isn't enough to push 60 fps at max. That's more than twice the power and not even a top of the line card.

Maybe this will finally put it into perspective about real differences in power and capability between the two.

Love your ps4 as I do, but let's not pretend it's something it's not.

[Glak18]

I personally don't enjoy console gaming, but people tend to forget that consoles are static environments, whereas a PC aka Windows bloatware is not.

Does it make a difference, it sure does! Is a PC much more powerful than a console, no question especially since hardware evolves while consoles stay the same for a lifecycle.

If Microsoft and Sony were smart they would integrate custom hardware that were more inline with future tech. It would increase the cost of the consoles to $800-$1000 aprox, but that would allow the console to be relevant platform for gaming further in the lifecycle. Would entitled gamer babies cry over the cost, no doubt, but in all honesty if you can't afford it then why are you gaming. Gaming is a luxury, not a need. If a person can't afford $1000 for entertainment for 5 years then that person needs to get their priorities straight.

[ninsigma]

"Would entitled gamer babies cry over the cost"

Considering Consoles are supposed to be cheaper entry to gaming with a plug and play ethos I wouldn't blame them. We have high end pc components for the luxury side of things. Why would you want to price people put of it by unnecessarily upping the cost of consoles?? The consoles are outputting great looking games right now and the best are yet to come.

[Kreisen]

Its all down to optimization. Technically, a GTX 750ti with a decent i3 and about 8 gigs of ram should be enough to run any modern title at 1080p 60fps, these console devs just dont bother spending the extra time with our platform.
You dont have to be tech savvy to see how ridiculous it is a 970 ($400 card) gets you roughly the same results as some guy does on his ps4........

[Dark_Crow]

Yes 60fps is very possible on gtx 970

Certain settings are very demanding and offer little improvements so we just pick and choose.

[kraenk12]

reflections seem to draw a lot of frames as I have heard.

[vanity29]

And you don't even need to much of it. I think in gta there's a option to put AA on it. Like why??

[Glak18]

People do realize that recommended requirements does not mean hardware for the best settings possible?

Minimum = Specs needed to just run the game
Recommended = Specs needed for a good experience

Would it be nice to have an Optimal requirements, yes it would. No real gamer is going to get to the recommended specs and think that's enough, that's derpy.

What's optimal settings? Probably 4K 60fps and hardware that hasn't been released yet for butter gameplay.

[kraenk12]

I would love to try the game...Anyone have a spare beta key?! Would be kissing your feet ;)

[sadsatan]

gtx 980 ti or go home

[2pacalypsenow]

Or just play it on consoles like most people will

[tee_bag242]

Nah.. I'd prefer play it on a 980ti thanks 😛

Even a 750ti would still get more fps

[2pacalypsenow]

Cool story

[killer876]

PC version thanks
Consoles are for exclusives only in my house

When exclusives are released, then I dust off my peasant console

[ironmonkey]

fury x says hi! and yes it does look the same on consoles. why do i say that cause the difference is actually very very small. witcher 3 pc vs consoles yes big difference but this is game i will say is either built upon console or is a console port.

[starchild]

You're a console fanboy and you always try to put down PC gaming, so that comment isn't surprising coming from you. Just go play your PS4 and quit trying to downplay PC gaming.

[2pacalypsenow]

Bro it's impossible for it to look the same on PC and console
Just stop

[CP_Company]

i am using 980ti oc and 1440p and it is not enough.30-50fps.i hope so they working on better performance.

[Bladesfist]

980 SLI here at 1440p. 40 - 50fps

[killer876]

poor optimization no doubt
hopefully they fix that in the final release

because it would suck for people who spend so much money on their SLI and CF rigs to get shitted on like that

[_LarZen_]

I think the game looks incredible on PC. I use a almost 4 year old computer with an AMD 7970 GPU. And get these graphics with more then ok framerate.

Just look at these screenshots I took today.

http://imgur.com/a/GdpbD

[SgtSlaughter212]

Looks like Bioshock Infinite to me.

[NewAgeisHere]

The game is horrible, ps3 graphics, shite gunplay, generic characters, generic design.......It's more like a pick a chic backpack simulator..if you're into such things, I'm so disappointed I can't even describe it.

[SgtSlaughter212]

Sorry but this game looks particularly mediocre (at best) on consoles. Let's skip the war if we can.

[FPSFox]

I'm having fun with the game, but it's not well optimized for PC at all. My Titan X hits 45 FPS if all settings are maxed. Even if Ubersample is disabled, it still doesn't hold 60 at a measly 2560x1080 Res.

[psnoob]

Dayum 350$ gpu which many people had bought this for 400. Glad I am into PC gaming, would make me disappointed.

[nowitzki2004]

Ps4s visuals is the only thing that disappoint me... Love my PS4 and I play it daily but I cant believe what people consider as amazing graphics on PS4.

[killer876]

because all they know and care to look at is console gaming

tunnel vision and denial

[mamotte]

The division: 4 articles in the "hottests" section of N4G comparing versions so fanboys can actually have an argument about how their platform choise is better. Not a single one talking about if the game is good or bad for those who can't play the beta.

This is what the video game world has become.

[FlyingFoxy]

One of the reasons i got a 980Ti and i game at 1080p 120hz. I am not sure why some say it's wasted when it obviously isn't on games like this or TW3 if one wants to keep high fps.. Some bang on about 1440p or 4k when 1080p still isn't completely tamed and needs the highest end GPU to run really well.

Graphics get better, of course higher res will struggle.