Physx to CPU conversion for Witcher 3

F5F Stay Refreshed Software PC Gaming Physx to CPU conversion for Witcher 3

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next

PlayForCC
Member

217

07-05-2016, 10:55 AM

#11

Curious about the drivers—do you use version 353.06? It really boosts performance in the 700 series and gives you around 10 frames per second more than the older 352.86.

PlayForCC

07-05-2016, 10:55 AM #11

Curious about the drivers—do you use version 353.06? It really boosts performance in the 700 series and gives you around 10 frames per second more than the older 352.86.

Smacke22
Junior Member

07-07-2016, 10:59 PM

#12

Cut down the distance foliage draws, that’s a major issue. Switch Ambient Occlusion to SSAO instead of HBAO+. Disable Adaptive Power in the Nvidia control panel and set Prerendered frames to 1. More details available at the provided link.

Smacke22

07-07-2016, 10:59 PM #12

rexxx95
Member

07-09-2016, 03:03 PM

#13

All adjustments except HBAO+, antialiasing, and lightshafts are disabled. Hair effects are fully turned off, frames are unlimited, window is full, grass density is set, render distance is unrestricted, and people are limited to high quality. I also have a 220+ offset on VRAM and 130+ GPU core offset on an already optimized card. It runs smoothly and consistently.

rexxx95

07-09-2016, 03:03 PM #13

Beniboss
Member

07-09-2016, 04:06 PM

#14

No? Executing PhysX on a CPU seems unlikely.

Beniboss

07-09-2016, 04:06 PM #14

No? Executing PhysX on a CPU seems unlikely.

Watermelon72
Junior Member

07-11-2016, 10:05 AM

#15

However, it runs quite slowly on the CPU.

Watermelon72

07-11-2016, 10:05 AM #15

However, it runs quite slowly on the CPU.

lueckejan
Member

07-12-2016, 04:02 AM

#16

The hairworks is the only PhysX thing in the game. I've also heard that HBAO+ in the game is the Nvidia version of that but I've not see any confirmation on it. But that is also not PhysX thing. Other then that you can only improve performance by lowering the settings. Maybe update the drivers if you haven't.

lueckejan

07-12-2016, 04:02 AM #16

Lukox
Junior Member

07-12-2016, 08:19 AM

#17

It would be ideal if the process runs smoothly on the GPU. What’s the reason behind this question?

Lukox

07-12-2016, 08:19 AM #17

It would be ideal if the process runs smoothly on the GPU. What’s the reason behind this question?

TheAdamYT
Member

158

07-14-2016, 02:51 AM

#18

My perspective is based on what you've shared. The focus is clear.

TheAdamYT

07-14-2016, 02:51 AM #18

My perspective is based on what you've shared. The focus is clear.

ArtQ_Q
Member

164

07-15-2016, 12:20 AM

#19

You're wondering if the extra sacrifice in performance for a weaker PhysX result is worth it, or if it actually hurts overall game speed due to CPU-heavy physics calculations.

ArtQ_Q

07-15-2016, 12:20 AM #19

You're wondering if the extra sacrifice in performance for a weaker PhysX result is worth it, or if it actually hurts overall game speed due to CPU-heavy physics calculations.

levoyageur92
Posting Freak

807

07-19-2016, 01:13 AM

#20

Everything is moving slower lately. The PhysX implementation isn’t efficient on a CPU, though I’m unsure if they made improvements before sharing the code recently. I tested it on a 3.7GHz Haswell chip about a year ago and it performed even worse.

levoyageur92

07-19-2016, 01:13 AM #20

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next