1.07 patch detailed (stash, movement weight, inventory sorting, new cat, horse penis enlargement)

[Perkel]

Edit: Ah, I see you actually acknowledged the above, but you're choosing to believe that the release notes mean nothing or are... lying? Can you provide any proof about your claims that Kepler (not "Keppler") has been left by the wayside by Nvidia? Because as I said above my two 760's would like to have a word with you.

People even joked about those drivers because they were supposed to fix framerate issues in newer games. Which they didn't.

Dude i have 7970 from 2011 which was supposed to trade blows with 680 at that time
meanwhile one of people playing TW3:

Novigrad is fine for me; there are very few and specific areas where I notice stuttering or below 45-50fps. I just don't get why the FUCK can't a two year old, 600$ "flagship" card maintain 60fps even on medium-high settings. I actually do know, but I don't want to start the Kepler rant again.

Most of older games run fine on keppler but since release of maxwell nvidia didn't improve anything and keppler line regressed in speed in new games

Our own Micoselva has 680 and we were talking how my card which was supposed to trade blows with his 680 is doing 10 fps higher with everything on ultra in same place i had 35fps Mico had 25fps.

nvidia simply doesn't care about older cards and their performance because they are in position where people either way will buy new cards from them.

 

[King Crispy]

So far every single thing you've said has been speculation, hearsay, and straight-up opinion. There's no hard evidence for the claims you're making, or the claims you claim other people are making.

I've seen all the whinging about Kepler. I've also seen just as much if not more whinging about TW3 supposedly not running well on Maxwell, such as GTX970. Just log in to and look at the first page of the game's PC forum:

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/forums/180-PC?s=e3fc461f4c274dd97dd0f0657d58deb1

So which is it? Maxwell doesn't like the game? Kepler? It's Nvidia's Kepler-crippling driver?

The real answer is that this game, regardless of the downgrade, is still very demanding. Far too many players are just over their heads when it comes to getting it running properly on their rigs (which certainly makes a statement about PC vs. console).

In the end, you just have to decide for yourself which side of the fence you actually belong on, or rather which one you don't.

 

[Eyestabber]

Well...ran into the Skellige's most wanted bug. Fucking shite, gotta ignore that quest until a fix is released.

 

[MicoSelva]

Our own Micoselva has 680 and we were talking how my card which was supposed to trade blows with his 680 is doing 10 fps higher with everything on ultra in same place i had 35fps Mico had 25fps.

It was like that initially, but Crispy is actually right here. After the patches and driver updates, I can run the game at 30+ on Ultra (+ post-processing on), except:

- no motion blur (I hate that shit)
- no depth of field (as above)
- no hairworks
- foliage viewing distance set to High

With low-medium settings I can get a steady 60+ FPS now, but I got used to how the game looks on high/ultra by now, so I am playing in peasant cinematic 30 FPS (using Riva Tuner Statistics Server).

 

[Perkel]

Our own Micoselva has 680 and we were talking how my card which was supposed to trade blows with his 680 is doing 10 fps higher with everything on ultra in same place i had 35fps Mico had 25fps.

It was like that initially, but Crispy is actually right here. After the patches and driver updates, I can run the game at 30+ on Ultra (+ post-processing on), except:

- no motion blur (I hate that shit)
- no depth of field (as above)
- no hairworks
- foliage viewing distance set to High

With low-medium settings I can get a steady 60+ FPS now, but I got used to how the game looks on high/ultra by now, so I am playing in peasant cinematic 30 FPS (using Riva Tuner Statistics Server).

Yeah that 30fps/60fps lock in game is shite and you can see constant stuttering. I also tried to set 30FPS via RTSS and set everything on ultra but overall difference between ultra and high is very small. Hell difference between ultra and low even isn't that big (probably due to their lighting engine doing most of the work which is exactly the same on low and ultra and can't be scaled back due to use of PBR)
I am mostly locked at 60fps now with drops to 50 everything on high with few things on ultra and all post process (aside from sharpen) also no hairworks (AMD also released new drivers which improved a bit performance). When i want to play at absolutely locked framerate i switch to glorious PAL invention aka 50hz and then i don't have any drops all on high with few options on ultra. Biggest drop for me is foliage distance and shadows those two can half framerate on ultra.

Which leads us to my previous talk with you. Your GPU should be stronger than mine. 680 was released later and was mostly 10-15% faster than my gpu. You should be able to lock game to 60 with very rare drops to 50 with all things on high...

And TW3 isn't only game with those problems. There are multiple games where 780 780Ti are out-competed even by 290 let alone 290x

here is the deal from latest techpowerup review of R390 just a week ago with latest drivers for both amd and nvidia:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/16.html

All of those are just 1920x1080 which is domain of nvidia and the more you go for better res the better AMD gpus performs (due probably to ROPs and bandwidth).

In those above we can see perfectly that 280X which is renamed 7970 often trades blows with 780 and sometimes it beats it which shouldn't be even a thing considering it is one gen older card almost 30% faster on paper than 280x.

More interesting is 2xx line which completely destroys keppler line. 290x was meant to compete with 780, 290 with 770, nvidia released a little cut down Titan and named it 780Ti to which AMD didn't have response.

Like i said earlier. All of those charts are POST "keppler" update. Which did gave some FPS but it didn't fix the problem of those card undeperforming.

Which goes back to :

- Either AMD have better hardware which is hardly the case considering R&D cost comparison of Nvidia and AMD. (Nvidia has something like 3-4 times budget on R&D)
- Or simply Nvidia doesn't give a fuck about older cards (thus no proper drivers updates) since they have newer cards every year and almost 70% marketshare so either way people will buy their next GPUs

So far every single thing you've said has been speculation, hearsay, and straight-up opinion. There's no hard evidence for the claims you're making, or the claims you claim other people are making.

i hope above is satisfactionary for you.


edit:

BTW people claim 1.07 improved performance on PC. I didn't test it personally yet

 

[MicoSelva]

Which leads us to my previous talk with you. Your GPU should be stronger than mine. 680 was released later and was mostly 10-15% faster than my gpu. You should be able to lock game to 60 with very rare drops to 50 with all things on high...

Actually, 7970 is theoretically a stronger card than GTX 680, it has more shader units, more memory, better memory bandwidth, and is a bigger chip overall (more transistors), and while it is clocked slower than GTX 680, it should be performing faster on average. If GTX 680 has the advantage, it is caused by difference in GPU architecture and/or better drivers.

 

[Perkel]

Which leads us to my previous talk with you. Your GPU should be stronger than mine. 680 was released later and was mostly 10-15% faster than my gpu. You should be able to lock game to 60 with very rare drops to 50 with all things on high...

Actually, 7970 is theoretically a stronger card than GTX 680, it has more shader units, more memory, better memory bandwidth, and is a bigger chip overall (more transistors), and while it is clocked slower than GTX 680, it should be performing faster on average. If GTX 680 has the advantage, it is caused by difference in GPU architecture and/or better drivers.

you are right, but shaders units =/= shaders units same as transistors etc. 680 reviews (march2012) on early drivers put 680 a bit above 7970(december 2011) mature drivers at that time (3 months).

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_680_review,23.html
just look at this old 680 review. 680 trades blows with 7970 and in some games it smashes 7970.

Same with FLOPS. AMD often puts up GPU which have more FLOPS than Nvidia but all of those don't tell difference because they are all from different architectures.

Point is that in bechmarks you see pattern. Keppler GPUs which were trading blows or sometimes were better than AMD counterparts now are underperforming in relation to AMD counterparts in new games. And you see something like 780 being beaten by 7970 (280x) which should not be possible if we look on stats you posted.
Beating 680 in most games is in limbo of probability but standing up to 780 shouldn't be at all.

 

[King Crispy]

I'm not going to trade benchmark graphs with you. Even I won't sink that low.

And for the last time, it's KEPLER.

 

[ghostdog]

So aside all this gfx card wankering, I've been experiencing very smooth gameplay with riva tuner in 1.06 and I'm hesitant to upgrade to 1.07. Should I do it?

 

[Carrion]

So aside all this gfx card wankering, I've been experiencing very smooth gameplay with riva tuner in 1.06 and I'm hesitant to upgrade to 1.07. Should I do it?

Depends on how much you want changes to the controls or the inventory, or whether you're suffering from any particular bugs. The new control scheme and the separate inventory tab for books are both big improvements, and the stash is welcome if you want to craft tons of stuff and update it later on without carrying everything with you, but apparently 1.07 also breaks the whole game for some people, introducing CTDs, stuttering and other technical problems. It's also known to fuck up several quests that worked fine before in some mind-boggling ways, and it doesn't fix all previous bugs or problems. If you're content with the way the game is I'd suggest waiting for a hotfix, as there's no going back to 1.06 once you've gone through the update.

I've seen improved FPS and notably shorter loading times with this patch, but it has also introduced a bunch of quest-related bugs for me. If and when they manage to iron out the new bugs, the patch will definitely be worth it.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

So aside all this gfx card wankering, I've been experiencing very smooth gameplay with riva tuner in 1.06 and I'm hesitant to upgrade to 1.07. Should I do it?

Depends on how much you want changes to the controls or the inventory, or whether you're suffering from any particular bugs. The new control scheme and the separate inventory tab for books are both big improvements, and the stash is welcome if you want to craft tons of stuff and update it later on without carrying everything with you, but apparently 1.07 also breaks the whole game for some people, introducing CTDs, stuttering and other technical problems. It's also known to fuck up several quests that worked fine before in some mind-boggling ways, and it doesn't fix all previous bugs or problems. If you're content with the way the game is I'd suggest waiting for a hotfix, as there's no going back to 1.06 once you've gone through the update.

I've seen improved FPS and notably shorter loading times with this patch, but it has also introduced a bunch of quest-related bugs for me. If and when they manage to iron out the new bugs, the patch will definitely be worth it.

Myself and other Codex bros have reported problems with one of the most recent DLC quests, and I think everyone else has had it too. It is amazing that they broke a quest they only introduced a week or so before and still haven't fixed it yet.

I work for a software company. If we broke something as obvious as that, we'd get a patch out. And we only have two developers.