@mb: Just for comparison here is my benchmark for a 3GB 660ti with 8350FX on ultra. (With FXAA turned on in the Nvidia panel)

@colourful_hippie: Yeah, I had to delete all custom resolutions out of my Nvidia Control Panel in order for Mordor to see my 2560x1440 native resolution as 100%. Otherwise, it saw a custom 16:9 resolution as 100% and everything else was a little bit off as a result. I have no idea why Monolith chose to handle resolutions this way, I've never seen it done like that and it doesn't make any sense.

This part was handled poorly...just like the AF setting being named "Ultra" instead of 16x like it should have been.

@dfl017: Did you notice that if you immediately re-run the benchmark the minimum FPS is much higher? I think it's measuring the very beginning when the benchmark is loading, the number seems to be off.

@shinboy630: GPU not always the best upgrade. Depends on the game.

There are a few OEMs making above 6GB vram cards. SO far these are the base models I see.
GeForce GTX Titan Z 12 GB
Radeon R9 295X2 8 GB
GeForce GTX Titan Black 6 GB
Radeon R9 280X 6 GB
Quadro 6000 6 GB

@i_stay_puft: What difference? haha

No, it's because the difference between High textures and Ultra textures is that High uses a bit of compression to decrease v-ram load. There is almost zero visual difference between the two, but why not offer the uncompressed version for the people with PC's that can handle it. This is just one of those PC things that people have to get used tol; just because the graphics setting allows you to go higher, it does not mean that you are losing out on the best possible experience.

PC gaming is about choice and if you choose to spend the money on a more expensive GPU, it feels kind of awesome when there are games that take advantage of the extra horsepower. Like really, are you ever going to notice a difference between 32x anti-aliasing vs 16x anti-aliasing, fuck no, but if you are running 160fps, why not bump it up?

@mb: That difference should be because of data moving between the HD and your ram. Once everything is loaded into memory that reduces CPU overhead and allows you to achieve faster scores. This is the reason why Hardware reviewers use three passes at every benchmark.

For *almost* very game and as a general rule of thumb, GPU is the way to go. CPU only really matters (at least compared to GPU) in, like, MMOs and games with a lot of simulation (sims, strategy, etc).

@rockyraccoon37 VRAM amount is usually not as big a deal as a lot of other features (clock speed, actual power of the GPU, etc) but we are rapidly approaching the point where cards are going to need more and more. To answer your question directly I am not sure how big of an upgrade a 760 would be over a 560ti with the same amount of VRAM depending on how much you would be paying. I haven't used either of those cards, so the best I can do is just link this handy comparison that has all kinds of numbers.

@shinboy630: Oh this is awesome, thanks!

After some research I think I'm going to go with the Radeon R9 270X 4GB

It's a well priced card ($280) with solid benchmarks and great reviews. Thanks for all the info folks!

i know this isn't quite the right thread but i just offed Hoshgrish and he can eat a fucking dick. bastard killed me like a dozen times!!

Just for the giggles I installed the game on my old PC.

Specs: Phenom 2 955 BE, 560ti 1GB, 8GB DDR3, W7 x64

At 1080p with everything on Low (or off in the case of DoF etc) -

Average FPS: 67.14

Max FPS: 420.71

Min FPS: 43.57

Link to Steam screenie of the results

That's kinda surprising...

I benchmarked with everything on High settings, tesselation, and Nvidia FXAA on:

GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 770 SC 2GB GDDR5

CPU: Intel Core i5, Ivy Bridge , 3.4 GHz (3.8 Turbo), 6MB Cache

RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series, DDR3-1600, 16GB (2 x 8GB)

Results:

Average FPS: 71.74

Max FPS: 327.87

Min FPS: 13.36

my card shows 3.2gb usage with High, but 3.9gb with Ultra. hrrmmm...

You're right, the min and average was higher after reloading it. The framerate only drops under 30 in the first couple of seconds. Not that ill be playing it on ultra anyway.

Also, just as an aside when a game adds a benchmark option it is usually a good sign that they put effort into the pc version. They even have a cool graph on the top corner. Can't wait to play more of this game.

@dfl017: Ya. Monolith usually makes benchmarks for their games.

They have PC on lock down. One of the few developers that still care about PC players- for whatever reason.

I tried ultra knowing it wouldn't work well on my pc just to see the textures and I gotta say..... unless you are playing at a really high resolution don't waste your time. At 1080p you can barely see any difference between "high" and "ultra" textures but the performance hit is huge.

Meanwhile for a idea of what kind of performance you can get out of this game... I use a 2700k I7 processor, 16 gb ddr3 ram, and a msi nvidia 670 gtx with 2 gb ram on board. I am playing everything maxed except textures on high and I get a stable high 50's to 60 FPS even with vsync on to remove any screen tear. So unless you graphics card is more than 3 years old you should be GTG on this game.

Yep, it's nice to have a proper PC port. Hot-swappable kbam/controller controls as well - always a good sign and Shadow of Mordor has them.

I'm finding it very had to dip below 90fps in game with my 780 and everything but textures on Ultra. That my spare PC can hit a solid 60 (and Low settings don't look awful) is great news.

@mb: I'm beginning to wish I had a gaming pc. I'm playing on ps4 and every now and again I think about how great/gorgeous this game (or arkham games) would be in 60fps

Would it be too much trouble to post a screenshot so I might see the texture and lighting quality?

@basm321: I actually posted a couple on the first page of this topic, but I don't think they were in a very good area to show off lighting & shadows. If there is anything specific you want to see, just ping me and I'll see if I can take some better ones for you. Plus, those were taken with the Steam client and are heavily compressed, I have never liked the way Steam screenshots looked.

Dude, yes! I am using a wireless 360 controller for everything except when I need to make accurate bow shots, then I just grab my mouse and go to work. Quite nice to see that they weren't lazy with that, with so many games it's either one or the other. I played the same way with Wolfenstein and Sniper Elite 3.

@monetarydread: Ah thanks for the explanation, sir! Also people freaking out about the recommended settings being high need to chill out, too. It'll be fine guys. :D

I've been doing the same thing with arrow shots. Aiming the bow with a gamepad has been a shit experience than what I'm normally used to in other games. I'm tempted though to see if the PS4 controller would work better because of its reduced dead zones

@basm321: Here's one. This is textures on high and everything else on Ultra except for shadows and ambient occlusion, those are on high.

@basm321

@rockyraccoon37: I have the same specs as you, is the game totally unplayable? Even on medium or low?

As a test I tried medium textures on a 512MB Graphics Card and they worked with no difference in framerate.

Hi guys,

I am a new poster here, I am using a 2500k @ 4.20 ghz, 8gb ddr3 ram and Palit 560ti 2gb version OC to 925/2095 and I can run it 1080p all ultra expect ambient with is high at 40fps which is perfectly smooth. Not perfect but lowest it dips to is 36. I can post some screens if thats any help. Maybe its the extra 1gb of vram I have over the normal 560 ti. If anyone wants what drivers I use let me know.