The Witcher 2 on the G73JH

I noticed that even when your frame rate is sub 30s it still feels really smooth.
Running on high with everything enabled minus SSAO and uber.
spend 90 percent of time over 30 but it drops under heavy combat into high 20s

 

Ya, I've been playing in the 20-30 range mostly with everything on except AA, SSAO, and Uber. It's still pretty smooth, but I wouldn't mind going beyond 30+, especially during combat to make things more fluid. I just don't like the mouse/UI lag under 30fps.

 

Ok I started playing. I disabled a lot of things, on high, and it runs like crap and looks like crap. In the first cutscenes in the game I got about 15 fps and now out of Triss's tent I get 20.

EDIT: Ok I changed some things and I'm getting the same fps, with AA (looks good now, but without it's crap)

But I'm playing in 1080, it's just that it's horrible in 1600x900 and I get the same fps. How do I put it in 1:1 ?

 

I haven't posted on here since I got my G73, but yeah this game runs the same no matter what settings I put it on (except ultra, it gets really bad then), but on medium and high, it's the same. Even when I start disabling things. So that makes me think it's not well optimized for ATI cards.

 

How is 1600x900 that horrible? god you should have been around when Pentium 1 came out and our max resolution was 640x480. 1600x900 is 900p vertically there is little difference although width there should be some noticability.

In regards to your FPS try without SSAO,AA,and all of the DOF and BLUR stuff and it will helps your frames, personally I dont like it and the minimum ive seen is 27FPS and I average over 30 with my setup below.

 

1600x900 is really horrible because it's not the native resolution and it gets all trange. And yes, I played games in 640x480, lots of games.

I got almost everything disabled and my fps doesn't change.

 

Check this out guys...

I'm currently on my old desktop PC:

EVGA 680i SLI Mobo
E6600 C2D
4GB DDR2 PC800 RAM
Nvidia GTX 260 Core 216

This desktop is about 3+ yrs old, except the video card, which was upgraded 2yrs ago.

Anyway, I haven't touched this desktop since last Summer, since I have been using my G73JH since I started college out of town.

I just turned it on to test Witcher 2 on an Nvidia system. I basically updated Windows 7 64-bit all the way (since I had a ton of updates since last Summer, including SP1).

I downloaded CCleaner and Driver Sweeper. Uninstalled ALL Nvidia graphics/chipset software and cleaned out registry in safe mode. Downloaded latest nForce chipset and the latest beta Nvidia drivers for my GTX 260. Installed, rebooted, blah blah.

Installed latest DirectX redist.

Installed latest Steam and downloaded Witcher. Ran CCleaner again, along with defrag, error checking, etc.

Launched Witcher 2 with everything on MAX except Ubersampling/vsync OFF. I'm basically getting double my fps compared to my G73 with better hardware. Is the difference between desktop and laptop that much better or is it the Nvidia drivers?

Also, to note. My desktop runs 1680x1050 native resolution on a Samsung 226BW 24" LCD. So I dropped from 1920x1080 on my G73. However, when I tested 1600x900 on my laptop, the fps went up, but not nearly as much as this. The first assault battle on the bridge couldn't go past 20fps on my G73, no matter what settings I lowered...even low spec. I'm getting 35-40fps on my desktop, and this is with everything maxed except Uber.

I was hoping the game ran like crap on my desktop actually, because I didn't want to leave my laptop in the dust over the Summer, but this is not the case. So I guess it's back to the oldy desktop for me? I get to listen to 5.1 surround on my Logitech speakers and X-Fi card too.

 

My riend is currently playing on his gtx 560 with 50 fps, all maxed without ubersampling. He always gets a better fps than me, but the difference is never that big.

I find it unplayable... I get 20 fps, any settings I choose

 

The game currently has big performance issues with AMD GPU's. New Catalyst hotfix is on the way (in the next few days) and the Witcher 2 patch that's coming soon should help as well.

 

Ok I will post exactly what im running. It would appear that 1080p is causing the slow downs because I see nothing but good frames even with most settings at full/Ultra.

I believe I updated the game with a small patch to begin with thats all.

G73JH 720qm o/c 171pll. 5870m 11.5, 800/1100. 8GB Ram 1540mhz o/c timings. 7200rpm hdd, W7 64 ultimate.

My Game Settings:



Game Screenshots:





Wandering around I see on average 35-45fps and in combat it drops to around 30's.

 

If I can I will try on an other monitor that is arround 1600x900

Currently I am playing on medium settings + AA and I get avg 27 fps I would say. It's playable, but could be way better.

 

Dallars, those are pretty good frame rates for having those settings. I would say it's because of two things:

1) You overclock
2) Your 1600x900 res

I find the 1080p res to be the biggest frame killer.

Is it possible to run at 1600x900 on my native 1920x1080 at 1:1 so it doesn't look extremely ugly? Catalyst greys out scaling options, so I can't change anything.

 

Agreed Draetor24, its difficult to run at 1080p, and thats with my 840 and maximum OC on my GPU pretty buggy. Hopefully the hotfix will do just that...fix it

 

I am past the prologue now and even in the forest and the town im getting 40+ fps it would seem resolution makes a big difference, again I dont understand the 1080p hype but thats just me I had 1440x900 for 3 years and found it totally acceptable so 1600x900 is a good area for me and I find it does not affect the quality of the game for me, especially when I can turn on things that you cant with 1080p to make the game graphically smarter.

Seriously great game finding it so engrossing after getting past the combat niggles, goodbye Dragon Age 2 their DLC sales will be laughable.

@Crappyalloy I tested all overclocks on my 5870M and found that only 800/1100 does not give any tearing or graphical issues. Anything above I get problems.

 

Go into CCC, lower the resolution to w/e then you will have the option to adjust scaling so it doesn't scale. Revert to 1080p and CCC will remember that you don't want it to scale. It' stupid, i know, but that's the way to do it. nVidia got that thing right at least, you can set the scaling however you like without having to go through some workaround.

 

Slightly off topic here, but...

I've always assumed my G73JH was a lot more powerful than my desktop just by looking at hardware specs.

I've never really bothered comparing them before, but just today I benched both of them using 3DMark 2006 (so it benchmarks DirectX 9.0c, since my desktop only supports DirectX 10 and G73 is DirectX 11).

Anyways, my score on my desktop was a good 1500 or so points more. I looked at individual scores and my CPU score for my G73 was higher (obviously cause i7 beats older core duo), but my GTX 260 graphics card beat out the Radeon 5870 on everything else.

How does a GTX 260 @ 626/1053 with 896GB DDR3 beat a Radeon 5870 @ 700/1000 with 1GB GDDR5? Is it because the Radeon is a mobility chipset and not a true desktop beast of a graphics card? I got used to my 1080p res, so it sucks that I might be playing Witcher 2 on my old desktop now. It does have 5.1 surround with X-Fi, but my poor baby of a laptop

tijo,

I just tried that. It works, and I can adjust the scaling options now, but not sure which to choose. Preserve Aspect Ratio, Fullscreen, or Centered. It seems Centered turns the scaling off and the quality is just as good as native, however, it centers the entire desktop into the middle of the screen. This is worse.

 

A mobile GPU cannot be compared to a desktop GPU because of the difference bus width, memory controllers and the amount of shaders, cores and clocks.

The 5870M is closely comparable to a 5770 desktop card as it has similiar amounts of shaders and the clocks are near the same and the 5770 is considered to be a mid range desktop card.

The desktop GTX 260 is a very good card it may appear slower because of the DDR3 and lower clocks but it has a lot more capability in regards to shaders its large memory bus and overclocking capability along with running cooler. The 5870M is a very good card but mobile cards are well....mobile

For instance:

5870M
Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec) 32.0
Memory Clock (MHz) 1000
Standard Memory Config 1GB
Memory Interface Width 128-bit
Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 64.0
Memory type GDDR5

GTX 260
Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec) 36.9
Memory Clock (MHz) 1000
Standard Memory Config 1GB
Memory Interface Width 448-bit
Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 111.9
Memory type GDDR3

 

Dallers: Ill try that then, as my max GPU OC gives furmark like temps on this game lol

Draetor: The 5870M is really just a desktop 5770 with slightly lower clocks and a redesigned heatsink (obviously). Its not that the ATI is a mobility, its just that the Witcher2 is an Nvidia game (notice it at the beginning when the game is starting?) which means (from the trend of games that do this) it was initially developed on nvidia cards, and so it will run naturally better on them, thats all.

 

I am trying to scale with CCC to get 1600x900 not so ugly but I'm searching in vain... I'm on 11.4 right now, if it makes a difference.

If anybody has the answer... I would be really happy. I would play lots of games with better fps lol

EDIT: Nvm, found how. Got to change the resolution before and then we can scale. It's still ugly, but I'm working on it right now.

I just can't wait to repaste next week. I can't OC with those temps right now.

 

So even a desktop 5770 is worse than a GTX 260? That's like a 2yr difference in technology right?

I'm a little shocked because I've been gaming on my G73 all year without a hitch until Witcher 2 came along. Now that I have the option to test it on my desktop, it got me wondering if my desktop had always been more powerful.

 

Ok I must say I really hope ATI fixes this. The game really isn't that great when not running on the native resolution, but I still cranked the graphics to high with AA and some stuff, I get 20 fps but plays fluid like 35...

I just want to be able to play it on 1920x1080 with high settings and getting 35+ fps

 

1920x1080 here, with 11.5. I'm getting low 20s and low 30s in the Camp at the beginning, down in the cellars/sewers it's mid 30s to low 50s. I haven't experimented a lot but it seems it runs somewhat more acceptable for me than for others.
These are the settings I use currently: Bild: untitledx755.png - abload.de

Also try settings Anti-Aliasing-Mode in the CCC to "Multi-sample" (far left). It possibly helps. Not sure though, since I've disabled AA.

 

^ you can enable many of the things you've disabled it has zero impact on fps.only SSA0, ubersampling, DOF and AA has any significant effect otherwise very little diff between lowest and high setting for now till the game isnt patched or new hotfix is out..

I finally got it and ran it, getting pretty much the same performance as everyone else. Also, witcher 2 beats crysis2 as the "hottest" game (in terms of temps)

on a sort of side-note.. anyone else find how geralt runs with his weapon sheathed funny?? i just cant get over how weird the running action looks.. Also, the hair bounce WAY too much, even with the 1st day patch which supposedly fixes hair physics and as for the voice acting, I noticed that many times they were speaking with the wrong/lack of emotion behind certain dialogue...

anyway top notch game otherwise but gonna wait for hotfix before playing this properly..

 

I got to 100C with maybe 30 minutes of gameplay (I'm repasting next week) so yeah lol it's "hot". And for Geralt, I found nothing strange and I like a lot his voice acting. I find that the game feels much more realistic, even if I was already immersed in the first title. For now, I think I'll play just a bit, not too much. I have things to do and I guess I'll wait for a fix.

 

I don't know if it is only me, but I noticed that my GPU (ati 5870m) is not loaded 100% during processing of TW2 (load is about 60-70%). Any ideas why? Do you have same behavior on your G73JH?

 

I'm hitting 99% load according to Hwinfo32... 60-70% load is just odd.

 

What texture size settings are you using? try switching it to large or higher.

 

It is large from the beginning. I play on high settings with AA enabled in res 1600x900.

edit:
Does it mean that my CPU core i7 is bottlenecked?

 

For gamers preferring sharper texture look, you can change in Documents/Witcher 2/Config/User:
AllowSharpen from 0 to 1
before change

after

 

Oh! Mine was already to 1... That's why I found it too sharp and wanted AA I guess

 

I just tried setting my resolution to 1600x900 and changed scaling to "centered" to avoid blurriness. I used the same settings as for my native res. The outcome surprisingly about the same FPS. I only experienced +2 (maximum) FPS gain with 1600x900 compared to 1920x1080 in a few areas.
According to Afterburner, my GPU usage is 90-99%. So at this point no matter what I do, I get about 20-30 FPS.

 

When you change resolution, and see little to no improvement, that usually points to a CPU bottleneck.

 

Could well be the reason why im getting higher FPS than the most of you even with higher settings. Might be an idea to invest in SetFSB gents.

 

Or you can just download the latest freeware version of SetFSB, and use it for free. Save $10. Win.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/asu.../557601-overclock-your-g73jw-setfsb-free.html

 

Thats for the JW version and others have already claimed the settings do not give the same results a the JH with the 720QM settings that you donate to get.

People with the 740QM can use those settings though.

 

False..worked for me. The instructions are for the JW version but it worked flawlessly for my g73jh. OC'ed 720qm up to stable 3.1ghz ftw.

If anybody needs help doing it for free, feel free to pm me.

 

Did I just say it wouldn't work? no I didnt so what I said is not false.

Even so most can easily get upto 3.2+ with the JH-720qm settings and someone even mentioned they reached 162PLL with those posted in the JW free settings before they BSOD and after paying the donation to get the JH settings they where able to push 178PLL and stress it with no problems so clearly there is a difference in the settings from the Jh-720qm to the Jw-740qm.

Recommending the wrong settings to others for a program that can cause damage to your hardware is not a good idea.

 

Except my settings are different from yours and probably 99% of g73jh owners. Im not gonna say "OH DUDE SET YOURS TO 176PLL BECAUSE THATS WHAT I HAVE MINE SET AND ITS STABLE MAN!!! DO IT! ".

You and I both know that when it comes to stable OC settings, everything varies from user to user. And about the BSOD comment, thats what stress tests are for.

Look all im saying is that there is a Free and hella easy way to OC your G73jh without shelling out $10. If what was claimed about not hitting higher PLL's without a 'donation', is even true (...since im able to go up to 3.1GHz for free...), still it shouldn't hurt to OC to at least up to between 2.8-3.0GHz and actually find out if it will make a difference in-game.

If it does improve game performance, then you can safely say CPU was causing a bottleneck, in which case CPU OC was the way to go. Then you move onto the optional step 2 which is shelling out $10 if you want to verify if the 'donation' does infact get you higher PLLs. For me, getting to 3.1ghz w/o a donation is frikkin sweet. Even if I pay a donation now, it would probably only raise it by 100MHz at best which isn't worth it, assuming it will even be stable....

 

Ok I'm not so sure to really understand what's going on here now lol...

Are you saying it's possible to easily overclock the 720QM to 2.8-3.0GHz? Temps don't get too high?

In your case, do you see a great performance boost?

 

I overclock my desktops, but how does overclocking even hold up on a notebook with the restrained cooling capabilities? I'm always too nervous to OC a notebook.

 

You wont see anywhere near the results of a desktop CPU because of the difficulty of changing the voltage and because of the locks put on the Turbo with the mobile CPU's.

The XM is your best bet if you want to get a serious overclock some people I have spoken to have seen 3.6-3.8ghz over 4 cores but hitting very high temps 90oC+. SetFSB is your best bet for a mediocre overclock that is mainly pretty safe and does little to the temps.

 

When you say mediocre, does it at least give a fps boost lol?

 

Medicore compared to the brutal overclocking you can do on a desktop but yes I see a lot of difference with my o/c see my sig for my benchmark scores and they are massively affected by the GPU/CPU overclocks.

I dont see a huge difference in Witcher 2 frames by overclocking the CPU mind it mostly affects strategy games which have a huge amount happening on screen at any one time but every little helps and 4 cores at 1.93ghz is a lot better than 4 at 1.6ghz when you look at the 840qm which comes stock with 1.86ghz.

 

Ok thanks and just by curiosity, what are you using to OC your gpu? + 125MHz looks nice, no voltage problems to OC it?

 

I dunno how you guys managing such OCs on cpu, mine freezes on anything above 156-157pll ie 145mhz bus which translates to 1.75-2.90ghz...

its probably coz i have the slower 1066mhz ram right? or just unlucky silicon..?

 

I have 4x 1gb 1333mhz RAM sticks and Im able to get up to 3.1GHz . Not going to say your RAM is the issue considering other users with 1333mhz RAM are only able to get up to about 160pll.

 

RAM speed will be a cause as it is timed lower and as such cannot be clocked as high, mine is running at 1540mhz with my current overclock.

1.75-2.90ghz is still pretty good though and there is no point you upgrading your RAM just to get another 50-100mhz.

Catalyst control centre - overdrive as its so simple to use. Ive dropped it to 800/1100 with Witcher 2 though to prevent flickering.

 

When you say 3.1GHz, it's mean 3.1GHz on all 4 cores or 3.1GHz on 1 core with TurboBoost?

 

Eh. Maybe, maybe not. Most hard core overclockers only run one stick of ram - because for every extra part that is added, it introduces it's own limitations. So someone with 1333 ram with 1 stick that isn't as OC tolerant is going to be more limited than someone with rock solid 1066 ram.

 

Only the XM models can currently run 3.2ghz + over all 4 cores in a laptop.

The QM models are restricted and can only run 1 core at max multiplier.

For instance the 720QM

Core 1 max: 21x Core 2 max: 18x Core 3 max: 12x Core 4 max: 12x

When all 4 cores are engaged it will run at 1.6ghz over all 4. when 1 is engaged the turbo can push that single core upto 2.8ghz.