Top
510°

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."

Read Full Story >>
dsogaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
ABizzel12435d ago

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.

Neonridr2435d ago

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.

john22435d ago

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)

killer8762435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

@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

Neonridr2435d ago

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

kraenk122435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

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

Unspoken2435d ago

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

ABizzel12435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

@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.

ABizzel12435d ago

@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.

SniperControl2435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

@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.

ABizzel12434d ago

@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.

SniperControl2434d ago

@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).

iistuii2434d ago

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.

2434d ago
SniperControl2434d ago (Edited 2434d ago )

@ 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.

2434d ago
SniperControl2434d ago (Edited 2434d ago )

@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_912434d ago

@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

ABizzel12434d ago

@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.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 2434d ago
solar2435d ago

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

Neonridr2435d ago

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..

kraenk122435d ago

Game looks good on consoles as well.

darksky2435d ago

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

Lamboomington2435d ago

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

curtis922435d ago

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

Lamboomington2435d ago

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.

wraith49122435d ago

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

bumnut2435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

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_Crow2435d ago

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

mixelon2435d ago

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.

jmc88882435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

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.

forager2435d ago

@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!

kingmushroom2435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2435d ago
totalrecoilzz2435d ago

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_Crow2435d ago

Love your detailed critique of the game.

kraenk122435d ago

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

SgtSlaughter2122435d ago

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.

kraenk122434d ago

@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.

maybelovehate2435d ago

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.

R6ex2435d ago

I'm waiting for Nvidia Pascal.

FlameWater2435d ago (Edited 2435d ago )

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

R6ex2435d ago

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.

ninsigma2434d ago

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.