-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry: Monster Hunter Wilds PC - Profound Perf Problems Must Be Addressed
- Thread starter Gaiff
- Start date
Bojji
Member
.
If you are still on 8GB card in 2025 and expect good results it's only your fault. Writing was on the wall AT LEAST since beginning of 2023. Consoles have ~13GB available to devs so no wonder 8GB is not enough in non cross gen games.
This game has more problems than high vram requirements (while still looking like crap) but this is one of the major ones.
Kacho
Gold Member
It gives me a headache looking at it. Like there's a filter over the image that can't be disabled. World looks a million times better.
Bojji
Member
Capcom magic. This is the worst looking RE Engine game that has the highest requirements.
Mister Wolf
Member
Venom Snake
Member
The problem with textures in MH:W is actually not only their resolution, but imo their design as well. For example, the sand floor in the main camp looks more like pudding than sand, it seems so homogeneous and devoid of any detail that you get the impression that the textures haven't loaded properly or something.
However, switching to resolution mode makes everything appear sharper, from textures to fine geometry, even if the quality of the assets themselves does not seem to improve. But this may also be a wrong observation on my part, i don't know much about the technical aspects of games so sorry if I'm talking nonsense.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Agreed. I tolerate it in some games on the Pro, but you feel the difference when coming back to PC. I totally support anyone on that platform who's like "fuck no". Once you get used to anything above 120fps, it's just feels off to go lower. But below 60 on PC? Forget about it.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I think they made the same mistake they made with World: volumetric fog up the ass everywhere, which makes everything look dull and colorless.
Plus the color tonemapping is horrible. No contrast. And I don't get it, imo Dogma 2 looks better than this.
Kacho
Gold Member
Yeah I don’t get it. To me it’s the biggest turn off, more so than performance.
viveks86
Member
I wonder to what extent this was intentional. To show a drab, low contrast environment and then switch to vibrant biomes for visual variety. And then they totally forgot or didn't have time for the vibrant ones. It does seem to look better in other stages.... but... yeah... lol
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Like any game, just wait for patches/updates.
As a bonus, when you wait a month or two the game might already go on deal, so you'll save a few bucks too.
Let DF and all the preorder day one guys to be the beta testers.
As a bonus, when you wait a month or two the game might already go on deal, so you'll save a few bucks too.
Let DF and all the preorder day one guys to be the beta testers.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
it's one of those fixes that some people say helps but I've never ever seen any difference disabling this in past 10 years.
There are number of these legendary "fixes".
I wouldn't waste my time. It's not the problem
Last edited:
yamaci17
Member
eh sorry but I'm not with you on this one. while that is true that 8 GB budget is below consoles, 4060 is the most popular card and 5060 8 GB will be similarly positioned
its not that people are asking for high quality textures that consoles are running, but games having to run with ps2-ps3 textures is not good. games like avatar, indiana jones and star wars outlaws showed that you can scale textures in a much better manner for 8 GB GPUs.
then again, that 13 GB budget is for the whole game on consoles. there are a lot of things that can be just put to normal RAM on PC (at least 2-3 GB of it). I really think most AAA games use around 9-10 GB for GPU data and 3-4 GB for CPU data on consoles. going by that logic, all you need is to scale 2-2.5 GB worth of GPU data for 8 GB cards. it shouldn't be that hard. especially when they target 1440p/4K upscaled buffer with that 9-10 GB GPU budget. so targeting 1080p on 8 GB GPUs should already save a lot of VRAM (around 1-1.5 GB compared to 1440p and 2-3 GB compared to 4K). so a game that can run at 4K/30 FPS on consoles with 10 GB GPU budget should already run fine at 1080p with 8 GB VRAM (and in most games, this was the case).
which is ultimately why we keep seeing 8 GB cards being released because it shouldn't be that hard to scale games for 8 GB at a 1080p target with decent looking textures. many games have achieved this, and will keep doing so. then again yeah, I can agree with "don't expect good results". but I cannot agree with PS3-like textures.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
I found that it makes a difference in several games. Not with stutters from shader compilation, but with asset streaming, because this feature causes a bit of an overhead verifying data. It also only works on DX12 games and applications.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
And you know what this engine can do on PC, so it makes it that much more disheartening!
Well, at least pcmr with 5k$ 2000W GPUs are proud that they can run ps3 looking game at 100 fps. The only thing that matters..
T4keD0wN
Member
Probably not best to do it in an online game.
The performance is unsatisfactory, but at least its quite smooth with FG for me, it uses a lot of cpu resources for their anticheat (which runs on all? threads, like 20% of the games CPU load goes to it). Best bet is to wait for RE framework or someone else to bypass that or updates.
Last edited:
Aenima
Member
Global ilumination depending on the weather. The game starts with cloudy weather, as a sandstorm is not too far, it will give the game an washed out / grey look. As the main story advanced the clear sky weather starts to appear after the sandstorm event happens, this is when the color saturation looks good. So an artistic choice.
Last edited:
mayham2199
Member
I got out of PC gaming but one thing I noticed is that almost everytime there were complaints about a PC Port I never had issues. Maybe that's because I always stayed near the top of the line. I never got the 4090 but I would stay with a 4080 in that range always. 32GB of RAM, my CPU was lacking at the time but I got out of PC gaming before I decided to upgrade.
My issues with PC gaming was all the other shit I had to deal with.
My issues with PC gaming was all the other shit I had to deal with.
Smoking opium laced, 100% marijuana joint. High and dont' give a fck.
HRK69
Member
I'd be genuinely shocked if they manage to achieve acceptable performance within the next 12 months
viveks86
Member
For an open world game, actually I don't. DD2 looked better, but had a whole bunch of CPU issues right? It just seems like RE can't handle the scale and some major compromise is being made each time. It was CPU for DD2. It seems to be streaming and lighting for this one.
Last edited:
UnrealEck
Member
I wouldn't say proud. Why would anyone be proud? But yes I am glad it runs and looks much better on my PC than it does on your PS5 Pro.
Bojji
Member
Many console games target ~1080p with that 13GB budget so you really have no room here...
Let's assume that devs really can't realistically use more than 10GB as VRAM.
-8GB have less than 7GB usable for games.
-10GB cards have something like ~9GB
That's is still below consoles. 12GB is THE MINIMUM for this gen to play using console settings. Sure, UE5 games are usually very good with VRAM but that's exception and not the norm.
In ideal world devs would make good textures for 10, 8 and even 6GB cards because we had good textures ~15 years ago (on 1GB!) BUT current developers are talentless hacks. So always expect the worst from them!
Nvidia are bastards, this one isn't new. They are screwing xx60 users for years now (with the exception of 3060 12GB). Every new console gen buy card with the same amount of memory consoles have and never look back.
yamaci17
Member
nope. internal resolution doesn't matter that much for VRAM usage. I'm speaking from actual experience
I can run alan wake 2 with path tracing on my 3070 at native 1080p without FPS dropping to single digits
with 4k dlss ultra performance (720p internal), I'm dropping to single digits. by reducing texture quality, I can get much higher framerates than native 1440p with 4k dlss ultra performance. 4K output is too costly on VRAM and upscaling doesn't save that much VRAM. in other words, 1080p is so light on VRAM compared to 4K dlss ultra performance that not only I can use higher quality textures, my framerates don't tank
one thing you don't seem to understand that running games at 4K output, regardless of the internal resolution, loads much higher quality textures that engine has to offer, higher LODs and overall higher image fidelity. running 1080p output, even with 1080p native resolution, is a huge reduction in image and texture quality by itself
or even more recent example, indiana jones. I cannot even run the game with 4k dlss ultra performance and low textures, tanks to single digits. I can run the game just fine at native 1440p with medium texture setting. if these two examples don't make this distinction clear to you, I don't know what will
not that relevant but in my experience most games can utilize 7.2-7.4 GB budget. some games do limit themselves to 6.8 GB though
Last edited:
Thebonehead
Gold Member
It's coming to something when people are asking for UE5 to save PC gaming.
I always looks at that and think wretched performance.
Still I've been playing Avowed and that is UE5 and decent performance with only the rare occasional hitch ( 4090 though )
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
I definitely don’t take any pride in the performance of this. None. But, when there are open world games that look better AND run better, you k ow it’s the game’s fault and not the PC.
That was more along the lines of my point. Because this engine is usually a spectacle on PC, that it struggles with these types of games sucks ass!
SKYF@ll
Member
In Japan right now, PCs and consoles are expensive due to the significant depreciation of the yen.
PS4 Pro: 44,000 yen ($293)
PS5(with MHW): 80,000 yen($533)
PS5 Pro: 120,000 yen ($800)
PC (i7-14700F + RTX 4070 + DDR5-5600 32GB +1TB SSD): 290,000 yen ($1,933)
**Average monthly income of Japanese people: 300,000yen ($2,000)
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Dunno how to do it for a particular game, but I believe that updating (or maybe just reinstalling?) your GPU drivers should clear all the shader cache from your PC.
Bojji
Member
I know what you are talking about. 4k reconstruction from 1080p takes more vram than native 1080p with 1080p output.
But many console games don't even target 4k with reconstruction, vram used for framebuffer is not that big compared to other things.
8GB cards are obsolete and most of tech YouTubers agree to that. Buying 8GB card even for 1080p Is a mistake in 2024/2025.
Why Nvidia still even still makes 8GB cards is beyond me...
3070 was really fucked by Nvidia, still has decent power but it's super limited for many new games when it comes to some setting.
yamaci17
Member
nah almost all games target 4k with reconstruction in their quality mode on consoles. monster hunter wilds is the exception not the norm. I don't remember any other console game not targeting 4k with ray reconstruction in its quality mode. list me 5 games that have no modes that targets 4k with upscaling. at this point you're arguing with bad faith, you also really don't know or understand what I'm actually talking about, so have a good day
also good luck with obsolete 8 GB VRAM on a laptop RTX 5070 and desktop RTX 5060 and the existing 4060s.
no matter what you or tech youtubers may believe, most games can and do scale decently to 8 GB at 1080p output. hence why they're still being released. so yeah, it is beyond you. what is beyond you is that the concept of scalability.
it's not like I'm suggesting anyone to get a 8 GB GPU. I don't really care. but it's not like there are many options either. what obsolete are you talking about? so everyone should get a 4070 or 5070 as minimum? what mistake are you talking about? who in their right mind would spend so much money on a 4070 or 5070 just to play at 1080p? 8 GB has its niche at 1080p and it will stay here for a while. whether you like it or not.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
DF didn't figure it out but apparently the engine is bugged at launch. Turn OFF Nvidia Reflex, Turn OFF Framegen, Disable the Framerate Cap in game and use Vsync/Gsync and suddenly your frame times are nice and smooth
Unfortunately if you want to use FG and Reflex you will need to wait for Capcpom to patch the game
This is probably why I didn't notice any issues with frame times and smoothness playing on my 3090, which doesn't support FG, and Reflex doesn't work either without FG in this game
Unfortunately if you want to use FG and Reflex you will need to wait for Capcpom to patch the game
This is probably why I didn't notice any issues with frame times and smoothness playing on my 3090, which doesn't support FG, and Reflex doesn't work either without FG in this game
Last edited:
BossLackey
Gold Member
Bruh, Generations Ultimate looks better than this mess...
Unknown Soldier
Member
I have a 3070 in my gaming laptop and it works just fine as long as you don't use Ultra textures in some games
viveks86
Member
Barakov
Member
Looks like I was right to hold off on this one. Seems like the best course of action for MH games is to just wait a bit for these issues to be ironed out.
Fake
Member
Bojji
Member
1080p fine with 8GB?
YOU are fine with it, great. I bet all those uninformed people that will buy 5060 this year will be "fine" too.
Intel released 10GB and 12GB GPUs recently.
yamaci17
Member
nice one using maxed out textures and settings that could be often better than consoles (in texture quality or in general quality). not to mention almost all the games you listed provide decent texture quality options that run decently with 8 GB cards even at 1440p. I never talked about using maximum settings or maximum textures. I didn't even talk about console equivalent textures.1080p fine with 8GB?
YOU are fine with it, great. I bet all those uninformed people that will buy 5060 this year will be "fine" too.
Intel released 10GB and 12GB GPUs recently.
"its not that people are asking for high quality textures that consoles are running"
oh wow 4060 running into vram troubles in cyberpunk with path tracing. when consoles don't even run ray traced global illumination in that game
oh wow 4060 running into vram troubles in horizon forbidden west with very high textures. let's not use high textures that still look decent
oh wow 4060 running into vram troubles in indiana jones with ray traced settings that are higher than xbox series x as a baseline and cannot be even lowered to the level of consoles. let's not use the highly optimized medium texture budget that only reduces the quality of textures in long distances and most of the time produces high quality textures around you
oh wow 4060 running into vram troubles in resident evil 4 where the ultra texture cache option caches the textures for a level you will reach 20 minutes later.
alan wake 2, yeah good one. I'm sure ps5 runs ray tracing real fine there. so sure, 4060 doesn't run it fine with high texture option. it's not like the game has a super optimized medium texture quality option that is competent and produces decent quality textures for 8 GB cards. but let's ignore all that and use high texture option because why not.
I specifically talked about scalability and how you can scale textures and settings in a way to make 8 GB playable for 1080p and in some cases for 1440p. you ignored all of that and shared benchmarks where 8 GB is pushed to its limit with maximum settings. you're going directly to the ignore list
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Most of the time those gpus have enough power to play with high res textures, just not enough vram... And most of those "ultra", "very high" textures are exactly console quality, anything below means worse textures.
Limit yourself to 1080p and then to medium (or lower) textures. What a great experience.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
Don't ask me, it is a bit itchy in the village but in the open world and during the hunt is pretty smooth, 4k dlls quality, almost everything maxed out except shadows, clouds and distand shadows, around 60-80 frames, no framegen or reflex, i let gsync smooth things out.
The graphic is...definetely the english word you use to describe how a digital videogame look, and i'm gonna stop at that...
Last edited:
owandeseis
Member
I'm kinda with him, nobody can say it's perfect, but so far it's fine for most 8gb graphic cards, tho i would never recommend getting something like a 5060 8gb at this point, or even a 5070 12gb since it's a powerful one and framegen drinks some VRAM too.
But for now, all these images could be fixed just by adding DLSS Q, you lose (or not) a bit of image quality but gain extra VRAM and a good chunk of frames.
And in the worst of cases, just change textures or whatever from ultra to very high or high, yes, consoles on quality can run at higher textures, but also run at 30 FPS on these modes
yamaci17
Member
no idea what he talks about but none of those images are representative of what settings people actually run with 8 GB cards. no one in their right mind will play cyberpunk with path tracing on a 4060. even when you have enough VRAM, performance isn't there. and you can't even run ultra texture pool in indiana jones with 12 GB cards. I've played the game to 100% completion with medium texture pool option and only came across two poor textures the entire time.
not to mention I've specifically mentioned about not being entitled to console equivalent textures. I've never mentioned anything about being able to use console equivalent textures at 1080p. it is both 1080p and reduced texture quality. BUT decent reduced texture quality which most games have provided so far.
(its a bit irrelevant but dlss 4 quality/balanced often provides much better image quality at 1080p right now compared to native TAA. i will admit dlss 3 was a bit blurry at 1080p but thankfully dlss 4 fixed that)
Last edited:
Physiognomonics
Member
95% of games from N64 to PS5 look better than this. This is tragic how bad it looks. Monster Hunter Tri on Wii looks superb compared to this abomination.
FubukiJ
Member
People are acting surprised the game has bad art direction and is ugly. And I’m like, “did yall not watch the trailers for the game in the past 1-2 years?”
aside from the Resident Evil games, modern Capcom games have poor art direction now. MHwilds is drab and ugly, SF6 is uncanny valley and not cartoony enough, and DD2 is just generic Korean game esque.
aside from the Resident Evil games, modern Capcom games have poor art direction now. MHwilds is drab and ugly, SF6 is uncanny valley and not cartoony enough, and DD2 is just generic Korean game esque.
Last edited:
balls of snow
Member
Yeaaa.. i got Worlds on the cheap but never played it. Guess Im booting that up later in the week.
Le sigh here I thought Wilds would have the same fidelity as Horizon FW.
Le sigh here I thought Wilds would have the same fidelity as Horizon FW.