Graphics looking poorly
blahblah
Canada Join Date: 2016-02-13 Member: 212950Members
Canada Join Date: 2016-02-13 Member: 212950Members
Hi people,
I started Subnautica on the highest (experimental settings and the game looks terrible. The textures are blurry and the water is all tile looking. It looks pretty much the same as when I run it on minimum settings. I tried to changes the textures in the f3 menu to 4. While it looks better there are huge spike drops in FPS as the game loads the environment as I move around. At 3 it is better, less spikes (still has some) but the water and some textures should be looking better. Also there are these weird blue line breaks at the ocean floor which disappear once I get closer to a certain distance from them. Now I am not sure if these are some sort of bugs or my computer just sucks and I should be running this game on low. If the latter is the case, will the game then be more optimized in the future for not so high end PCs?
My specs are:
Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz
AMD Radeon 6790
4gb of RAM
I started Subnautica on the highest (experimental settings and the game looks terrible. The textures are blurry and the water is all tile looking. It looks pretty much the same as when I run it on minimum settings. I tried to changes the textures in the f3 menu to 4. While it looks better there are huge spike drops in FPS as the game loads the environment as I move around. At 3 it is better, less spikes (still has some) but the water and some textures should be looking better. Also there are these weird blue line breaks at the ocean floor which disappear once I get closer to a certain distance from them. Now I am not sure if these are some sort of bugs or my computer just sucks and I should be running this game on low. If the latter is the case, will the game then be more optimized in the future for not so high end PCs?
My specs are:
Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz
AMD Radeon 6790
4gb of RAM
Comments
4Gb RAM is barely enough to run Windows itself.
Add the 1Gb of vid.card RAM that windows has to manage as well, and you have the perfect recipy for stutter and graphics popping up in front of you.
If Windows had enough system-RAM to load your textures into, it might be able to run Subnautica at Textures=4 setting.
But since you only have 4Gb, Windows has to do allot of swapping from- and into VRAM instead - which is allocated at your harddrive.
Put a 8Gb stick of RAM in your computer, and things will improve a bit.
CPU is kinda ok....but I think you also need a new vid.card with at least 2Gb of memory on it.
CPU is kinda ok, KINDA OK? SON that is the best CPU coming out since ages and surprising still holds it's own (stock speeds or overclock) vs all these new fancy lads out there (which are only on average 15-20% more efficient)
But make sure to slap it into turbo mode and it is indeed more of a RAM issue here. I've got a 1Gb HD5870 (max settings) and it runs super smooth, but my 2500K is at 4.5Ghz and I've got 16Gb of RAM
@blahblah 's 2500K is probably bottlenecked on 4Gb and for that 3Dcard, well it is a bit lower end as mine. The 6000series apparently was a powerdown version instead of a brute force upgrade (Wattage mostly), but it still is a decent powerhouse...
OP's RAM is obviously the bottleneck here.
I'm still running an i7 960 ("Bloomfield"), and so far I haven't come accross a game that really puts it up to it's limits.
It was top of the line when I bought it back in the day, one of the best PC investments I've ever made.
I was looking to get a GTX 750Ti since it is not that expensive but my friend told me that the difference I will get in improvement is not worth the price. Would that be true?
hahah
@Kouji_San yeah I got the card a long time ago so I might be looking to upgrade it. What do you think of the GTX 750 ti as an upgrade?
Hmm that is a bit of an oddball comparison...
The HD6790 has a 256bits bus width and has a lot more memory bandwidth, while the GTX750TI has 128bits but a higher texel and pixel rate. The odd thing is that overall the GTX750TI does pull slightly ahead in 3Dmark, it's also a lot less of a power hog (~40%)...
AFAIK the 750TI should be around 15-20% more powerful, in real life scenarios...
More info on these two cards:
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-750-Ti-vs-AMD-HD-6790/2187vsm8056
However your 4Gb memory, might still be the biggest offender. And I can't really see the Nvidia being a significant upgrade over the AMD. It is better, true... But not sure if it is worth the upgrade. I've been out of the GPU market for a while now, no need to upgrade and all that jazz... So this is just a first hand view at these things. Well no, I've looked at it before, but haven't really done the proper research...
Might wanna wait for someone who actually has upgraded in this day and age. I guess their conclusion would be similar...
Alsol don't let the 1Gb vs 2Gb fool you, if you have enough RAM... GPU memory usage ~1Gb-1.5Gb isn't all that troublesome, engines tend to hotload textures on the fly mostly, so they keep an eye on not exceeding the dedicated memory... Most of the time
2Gb is a bit weird, it's not really needed for 1080p and it not enough for 4K... Feels like HDready all over again!
I will definitely get more RAM then. As for the card, I asked because I saw on one of the posts the developer suggested to a person to get a 750Ti saying that it will run the game very smoothly. Seeing as it is not significantly better than what I have, would it mean that I would be able to run the game pretty well as well (given that I upgrade RAM to 8gb)?. If it will make only a little difference than it really won't mean to me that much to upgrade to a 750Ti then.
Highest Settings:
RAM Committed to Subnautica : 6GB
VRAM (Graphics RAM) : all 3GB
So yes, VRAM does matter. You can check to see how much is being used by using free software like GPU-Z. How much of an impact it has, however, will vary. What resolution are you running the game at?
BTW those lines between terrain and pop-in; chunks of information being loaded into the game once closer. This is purely the result of non-optimization due to Early Access.
Processor (CPU) Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Mobile Extreme i7-3940XM (3.00GHz) 8MB
Memory (RAM) 32GB KINGSTON HYPER-X GENESIS 1600MHz SODIMM DDR3 (4 x 8GB)
Graphics Card NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680M - 4.0GB DDR5 Video RAM - DirectX® 11
Memory - Hard Disk 750GB WD SCORPIO BLACK WD7500BPKT, SATA 3 Gb/s, 16MB CACHE (7200rpm)
Despite this I still get graphical shuddering every 20-30 secs, which lasts for about 1-3 seconds. Normally I can put up with it but when it's at it's worst it can cause proplems.
So whilst adding more RAM and a bigger/better graphics card will help, don't expect it to fix everything, despite what others will tell you.
I am sure that once the devs do some real good graphic optimisation then improvements will occur for everybody.
@blahblah, TBH I'm not sure what is a "nonexpensive" upgrade for that card you have. I'd say if you're able to get a second hand HD5000 series (gaming enthusiast version the HD5870 or higher), that would be a proper upgrade. That one is also a lot faster than the GTX750TI, despite it's age... But I'm not treading into the unknown of new 3DCards as I haven't done the proper research... The Enthusiast 7000series (7800 and higher), are already more expensive that a "nonexpensive" upgrade... And compared to the 5000series, they aren't all that much better (also one of the reason I've not yet upgraded
So if there is a similar HD5870 card out there, with perhaps 2Gb in the new 3Dcard land... Also keep in mind that the 2Gb cards from that era were mostly on GDDR3/GDDR4 instead of GDDR5 1Gb variants... But, newer 2Gb's would be GDDR5. I just don't know what to recommend, I'm afraid...
I will put your mind to rest. In regards to chunking (pop-in/blue lines), there was absolutely no difference between my relatively high end graphics cards (3GB) and mid-tier (1GB). Even on my 3GB cards alongside 16gb ram there is a noticeable framerate hit every time a chunk is loaded. The difference for me was purely what settings I could push relative to frame rate. This has remained the same from when Subnautica was first released until now.
About card upgrade... I agree with this assertion... except that most retail outlets are not selling the R9 200 series cards anymore because the R9 300 series is out now. You could go the 200 series route if you are bargain-shopping through ebay or a friend, but honestly the performance increase between the R9 280 and R9 380 is about the same as the price increase anyway. This is what Newegg has to offer.
But once framerate settles down, it's remarkebly stable at 60fps (locked to my monitor's refresh rate).
I guess I will just wait for some more updates or until the release date to see how it becomes optimized and maybe meanwhile get a card and RAM upgrade.
Pretty good discount from normal retail ($170ish US). Seems like a reasonable price for the solution you are looking for. As long as it is in good shape when you get it and there are no complications then it is worth it.
The only other thing to mention is if you are upgrading the GPU, make sure your power supply can power it correctly. The R9 200 series are power hungry cards. Might use this to make sure you are good to go. Also make sure the power supply has the right connectors for the GPU
I have a Corsair CMPSU-700GS SO 700W. Will that do?
I know, I usually don't buy used also. It is just that brand new is really expensive and even the older models don't drop in price by that much and most of the time you can't even buy them in stores anymore. The one I found used seems to be in really good condition.
Conflicting information on the webs; they recommend at least a 750W power supply, but there are endless support forums saying 500-600W is plenty and they have no issues. It has the corrector connectors. Might be careful about overclocking it though as you don't want to push it. Wish I knew more about wattage usage personally but unfortunately I don't.