It's running well for me on my 4090 but dlss FG just doesn't work. The fps counter shows ~90 but it's definitely not, feels like 30. FSR FG works beautifully though and running around 85 to 100 at 4k.
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
71 points (91.8% liked)
Games
36666 readers
1416 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(Didn't play it yet and probably wouldn't before big patches after a year or so, take me with a pinch of salt)
I cannot understand how is this game rated Steam Deck compatible if it is badly optimized? Valhalla was fine on SD but it never had perf issues that bad on current/next-gen. Anyone tried it out on SD (or maybe another handheld)?
I cannot understand how is this game rated Steam Deck compatible if it is badly optimized?
The game have problems with NVIDIA specifically, coming from Ubisoft they probably only tried to optimized to AMD to get the Steam Deck Compatible badge before launch.
I might be wrong, but hasn't the 5000 series GPUs been having performance issues? Might that have something to do with it too?
I'm aware of:
- Unbalanced power over 12VHPWR by design, inducing some melting in some cases.
- Missing ROPs on 5080.
- 5070 not reaching 4090 performance levels because that was just a marketing lie.
None of those really seem to apply. Were there any more?
4K max settings with RT max, and without frame generation, only achieved 30s FPS in the game
So basically 720p doesn't perform much better than 4k, meaning it's a horrible CPU bottleneck
It was my thought as well. IIUC the game engine, Anvil Next, is the same that has been used since Valhalla so it shouldn't be the engine issue.
I'm usually pretty cautious on stuff like this, I'm in the minority that says the newest games don't need to get 60fps 4k ultra on the newest GPUs, that it's okay if you can get medium. Gives games room to future proof themselves.
But this is bad. A mid tier brand new GPU can't play your game more than 720p 35fps? That's laughably bad. I'll wait to get some other reviews before I judge completely, but that's just utterly unacceptable.
I'm in the minority that says the newest games don't need to get 60fps 4k ultra on the newest GPUs
This is a great take tbh and I agree. Future proofing is a thing and we've seen old benchmark games hold up remarkably well thanks to it - hell, look at Crysis! I also think a lot of people underestimate just how demanding 4k is. We're still not at the point where 4k is the new 1080p imo.
And her everyone LOVES monster hunter wilds. People hate to hate when it's cool to do so. Wilds still runs and looks like a bag of shit.
It runs like shit, but doesn't look any worse than MHWorld?
If I put on the settings wilds needs to run 40fps+, then yes it absolutely looks worse
…which came out 7 years ago
I think world looks less muddy and a LOT less "mesh-y"
There does seem to be an issue with Nvidia in this game (5080 is performing around the 9070 XT).
Might be an unpopular opinion but after around two hours of gameplay I'm perfectly happy with the performance on my 3060Ti. On medium-high settings it can easily maintain 60fps on 1440p. That is with DLSS of course and ray tracing turned down to minimum.
Make it uses 32-Bit PhysX /s