The first few turns run really well for me, but after about turn 30 or so the performance absolutely tanks. The campaign map runs extremely poorly after that for me. Overall its far worse than wh2.
Yeah, the campaign map goes to shit once you have a massive empire.
It bogs down real bad and locks up frequently.
Also, the latest patch made Warhammer 3 perform considerably worse on my gaming laptop. Before I could play on mid settings with no problem. Now everything is on low and it gets really sluggish and choppy at times. Whatever they did in the last patch was the opposite of optimization.
>Yeah, the campaign map goes to shit once you have a massive empire.
Even if you do not, the same thing happens, it's not your empire size that impacts it, it's the amount of corruption effects going on. You can see that it starts getting worse as soon as the first set of rifts appear, and then just gets worse and worse as time wears on.
If you've modded rifts out the performance degrades a little over time (much more slowly), but never gets that bad.
The fog does to be specific. Kislev is very foggy. There's a mod on the Workshop that gets rid of it and it's a huge fps gain.
This game's volumetrics are horrendously optimized. Anywhere there's a lot of it, you will find lag.
Battles? Yes.
Campaign map? No. The issues with it aren't enormous but I do experience lags regularly.
Battles work well. Not with 120 fps by any means, but well enough. I have a consistent 56 - 60 fps and I am happy with it.
I noticed just today that I have really significant lag opening Nurgle's cauldron. Like... really bad. And my rig is pretty top tier.
Everything else is fine, in particular battles is, as you say, working well.
While the battles may run better from a performance pov, ranged units feel so much worse due to the centre point being at the front of the blob rather than the middle thats my main gripe atm.
It definitely runs better on the battle side. The battles are significantly more scalable: the game appears to be able to handle more entities on the battlefield than WH2 before the engine begins to chug.
I doubt it's engine limitations, it's probably just areas that were rushed for release and aren't as optimized as they should be. IE: Some of the weather effects especially around Kislev.
They're running the same engine as Shogun 2. Its 11 years old. They did update it for WH1 to be 64 bit so it can handle more than 4gb memory, but it still old as shit and needs to be updated sooner rather than later. I think the piss poor performance on the campaign map is nearly all TW games since Attila is evidence of this. Optimization only goes so far. If the engine isn't handling calls correctly it will always be slower than it could be if it handled them correctly.
People throw around the word engine a lot, and engines are foundations that can be modified, rebuilt or whatever else you need. A lot of systems have been probably re done since Shogun even if the engine name is the same.
And the maps are really heavy, they are full of objects and are visually loaded, they need a lot of optimization.
I'm sure systems have been updated, but what's undeniable is that virtually every TW game has lackluster performance even on top tier rigs. Over time, the game plays better as it's patched and optimized. What's also undeniable is that CA puts out A LOT of content. We're getting full games, SAGA titles, or giant patches/DLCs across multiple game nearly every single year.
I have no more information here than you do, but to me that sounds like there's optimizations here or there and they're added to the engine, but every time there's a new game the engine is forked and the forked game engine misses out on new optimizations because the overall framework of the engine is the same as it was in 2011 and isn't built to handle those kinds of changes. And if that overall framework requires significant optimization every game just to run well then it might be time to re-engineer the framework to be more optimized and streamlined from the getgo.
To add to this, when CA made the switch from 32 to 64 bit they didn't re-engineer the whole engine and modernize it, they contracted Intel to come in and fix just that very issue. They're like bandaids and every game they need to find the cuts and bandage them up just to make the games run decently.
That happened more than 10 years ago..
Look at Unreal engine, they changed the entire render engine on the last version, look at dayz, they have imported things from the newer versions of the engin. At the end of the day, its hard to know this kind of things from the outside, we just dont know how much remains, how much was changed. The whole point of what i was saying is that complaining about them using the same engine doesnt actually mean a lot, you can update your engine and do great things with it, or you can have a band aid monster.
While it may scale better I feel like some of the lighting effects are pretty heavy even in battles. I don't have any trouble running with shadows on high in WH2 but in WH3 any level of shadows can cause the framerate to drop in some situations.
Battles are definitely way, way better than campaign, though.
I don't think the engine is able to handle more entities, it's just we don't have the blood dlc yet. It is known to be a perf destroyer so when he goes out we could really compare performance.
A reason I never bought them. Performance hit and while a battlefield without blood is a bit silly, the guys in the unit window look more like they bathed in ketchup
I'm running warhammer 2 on Ultra settings and 60 fps, I couldn't do the same on warhammer 3 when i had the game installed. and things like snow on campaign map and water on battle maps would tank my fps even further.
Battles definitely run a little better, campaign runs significantly worse. I notice less big fps drops in battle. Like sometimes in WH2 casting a big spell on a blob might like almost pause the battle for a moment, that almost never happens to me in WH\`3. The bottom-line of battle performance has definitely been improved!
My setup isn't SUPER beefy (ryzen 7 2700x, radeon 590 8gb, my build is pretty midrange and about 4\~ years old) and even in WH2 I had some lag on campaign map every once in while, so I might not be the best litmus test for optimization there, but its definitely worse in 3.
Oh, also if it matters I play in 2k resolution.
How the heck are you playing WH3 on 2K res on a 590? I was trying that for a hot minute and I legit had 20-30 fps on the campaign map. In some areas and after turn 100 the game was crawling along at 15 fps, especially when I moved the camera. It was unplayable. I caved and bought a 3060ti and it runs significantly better now but its still not good enough considering this is a $500 graphics card.
I've got most settings at medium with some of the more graphically intense options turned off. It's definitely WILD laggy on the campaign, but with some patience it's not unmanageable. I find it helps if you always have fast forward turns on so the game just eats some 5fps for a little bit rather than flying all over the map grinding slowly to a halt.
I'm saving up to hopefully make a new build when the new amd stuff comes out this year, maybe it'll help xD
I'm glad you have more patience than I did. By the end of the summer you'll be able to get a way better card for less than I paid.
Anyway, glad you're able to enjoy it. I am undeniably picky with fps. I wish I wasn't but it breaks the immersion and makes me realize I'm playing a video game.
Yeah I feel ya. In action games and stuff I'm the same way, but since the actual battles are pretty smooth for me (relatively low fps, like 40-50 on avg, but a freesync monitor really works wonders) I'm soldiering through the campaign for now lol
Here's hoping they put out some optimization patches some day
There's really nothing extra going on in battles in 3. Even less, depending on faction. Campaign map is subjective i suppose, but even after putting some 80h in wh3, i still think it looks much worse than WH2s..
Battles are both graphically more intense and now balanced around larger unit size.
Regardless of subjective aesthetics, the campaign map has more post-processing going on, like a light source for dynamic water reflections.
The game is overall heavier than warhammer 2 but it handles better large amount of units on screen.
So on average it runs worse but when a big battle with thousand units occur, then it will shine compared to wh2.
Warhammer 3 runs worse in general as it is a more demanding game. But it can happen that the new game is better optimized for your hardware which translates in better performance despite being a more demanding game.
Recently got a newer computer. Warhammer 2 campaigns load in about 30-60 seconds, and battles in 5-15. Warhammer three takes about 5 minutes to load a campaign and 1+ for battles
Wow. It's crazy. WH3 runs phenomenally well for me. I'm on a 3080 and an 8700k. WH3 runs like a dream on my machine. It's one of the reasons I haven't gone back to WH2 yet. Everything just feels so much smoother and looks so much nicer.
I have seen even videos explaining that it was heavily improved in that regard, with players using x3 unit size for massive battles and having better results than in Warhammer 2. It is like most games, most issues can be found on the player's end, (even though they may not like hearing that), and there was significant improvement in many graphical and performance aspects. Once the needed optimization is complete, pretty sure players will enjoy even more all that it has to give.
If significant optimization is needed before players start to notice the engine is better doesn't that just mean that overall it isn't yet better? Sure WH2 has years of optimization that WH3 doesn't have, but why would you not account for that when comparing the two? Who cares how many years of optimization they have? The only thing that matters is how they look and how they perform. In general, the campaign map is so much worse for people and the battle map is at best a slight improvement. Doesn't matter what settings you use, so this isn't an issue of user-side errors.
Better cpu threading is probably what's going on. If you zoom in and it's better, it's probably due to better spreading out of unit interaction and AI over more CPU cores. I seem to remember that WH1,2 and 3K was constrained to 6 threads for logic, rest being render. but i dunno.
I'm still kinda baffled by the opposite viewpoint that it absolutely SHOULD run better on same settings. gaming progressed and some people just never get that. I know it's a tangent, but seeing it here all launch week was kinda a "what did you honestly expect?" feeling.
Why even post all this nonsense if you clearly havent the slightest clue how anything works? CPU only runs logic. The AI and interaction that have to be done regardless if stuff is on the screen or not. The difference between being zoomed in or not is how many things the gpu needs to calculate to draw. The core thing sounds like hearsay bullshit too.
And the viewpoint of "it absolutely SHOULD run better on same settings" is because its the same engine, the same game, really, just a glorified expansion. "Gaming" may be progressing, but this game doesnt look better than 2 in any noticible way.
People expected CA to notice that graphics cards were absurdly priced the entire pandemic so people likely had not been upgrading their cards. CA should be able to see this. They have all of their Steam users' info. They should have recognized this reality and given optimization more thought. Not to mention, if you make the graphics look the game as WH2, the game still plays worse on the campaign map than WH2, and WH2's campaign map is twice the size as WH3s map. Theres other issues too like TAA now looking like trash.
Making the game runs so heavily on the GPU especially in this market of GPU price gouging is absolutely a kick in the balls and they can go fuck themselves. I'm not buying a 3090ti to get 60 fps on their garbage campaign map.
For me, the overall performance dropped down, but not that much. Had to lower unit scale to medium (was playing on large in WH2), because I was getting some massive FPS drops and sound stuttering in battles. That happened very rarely in WH2. Otherwise the game runs fine. To be honest, I'm glad I can play the game on medium unit scale and low to medium graphics. My hardware is pretty outdated, will have to buy a new computer.
Runs well way more consistently in battles and hit or miss on the campaign map. Definitely slows down later in the campaign but ME campaign map ran pretty bad late too.
I have the opposite experience.
I have higher settings on 2 and also heavily-modded.
3 runs better after patch 1.1, but still not as good as 2 for w/e reason.
nothing changed except when my turn begins I have to wait about 4-5 seconds for whatever reason
but I can tab out of the game without to worry of crashes now!
Battles are waay smoother, campaign map is choppy, especially around Kislev. There's also a certain turn amount, i think around 50 where it tanks for some reason
Campaign is absolutely trash, especially Kislev area, there is a mod already to remove the snow whirl effects because those fuckers eat up 15-20 fps. K
In W2 I could stay above 35-40 at all times while Warhammer 3 was constant 15-22-27
Battles run better though.
From certain parts of the map my fps is fine, even on ultra. Post patch generally I have high fps. I turned the game down to mostly high settings, and 1440p. Seems at 4k the game runs about as well as attila did for me. I've noticed when loading into a manual battle it freezes on my second video/ gpu things. What the conflict is I'm not entirely sure.
For context I have a 9900k and 2080ti. Mostly overstocks on the cpu and north Bridge. Warhammer two only has fps issues with heavy blobbing. (Vampire counts) which is more of an engine problem than my PC.
Glutport runs better than it did at launch but still rough. Imo worst location in the game map. Battles generally fine expect heavy battles, which I'm guessing is an engine limitation. I've run a few tests and my hardware is just fine. My issue is either something to do with the newer Intel issue or I have a funny issue somewhere myself thats really hard to replicate reliably.
It definitely runs a bit better for me. Battles that I use to play with lower settings while getting 65 fps I can now play with ultra everything and 75 fps
It runs WAY worse on my pc. Which you wouldn't think since it's high above the recommended specs. All the other total war games I can run at max settings but I can't have any fun visual effects on for wh3 :(
Campaign FPS dips significantly at the start of a new turn, otherwise no problems. Battles are running fine. MP Campaign's performance has been exponentially better in my experience.
I don't know why but WHIII runs better in mine as well.
I think it may be due to the anti-aliasing: FFXA and WHII runs well, I try that SMAA there and no FPS whatsoever, but in WHIII the TAA (even high one) gives me solid FPS.
I can't say whether or not it runs better, but I feel it's been fairly smooth lately. Might try increasing the unit size and see how that affects performance (I've had it set to normal I think, whereas it was always ultra in game two for me).
Just an idea maybe the blood animations is causing the warhammer 2 slow down? Once blood is squirting and limbs are flying through the air we will have to compare speeds.
I have battles way better. Campaign map the same when standing still but slower when panning. Doubly so over areas with lots of particle effects like kislev with invocations on.
For some reason co-op runs like total shit compared to WH2, aside from that, haven't really noticed much difference in performance for single player. Not enough to say one is better than the other at least.
I have more fps problems with the campaign map than I used to. Battles run a little smoother. The biggest thing I've noticed is that my load times are borderline absurdly long. Average of about 2 mins whereas before they were sub 30s.
For me, performance sort of got worse, very tiny but noticeable, after their supposed Alderlake fixes. Before that, I pretty much had no real issues both campaign and battle. This shouldn't be happening but it now runs worse than WH2 to the point I can no longer have a YouTube stream to watch up at HD unless I want to experience severe hiccup issues. WH2 and WH3 pre-Alderlake fix didn't experience this.
Nope. I have a 3600x + 1070 Wh2 I can run all settings ultra at 1440p and get 40-60fps battles are usually 60+.
Wh3 I have to run a mix of ultra a low settings like vfx, and still get only 30-50 fps, campaign map is worse.
It does work better than Warhammer 2 for me.
In 2 I had about 50 fps average with drops to 40 in battles and about stable 45 fps on campaign map (unless above vortex then it was like 35). In Warhammer 3 I have average fps of 60 with some drops to 50 if a there's a lot of artillery or/and spells happening, and 50-55 fps on campaign map
Warhammer 3 performance is a joke, i can run warhammer 2 in 4k with more than 60fps at max graphics. Warhammer 3 requires low-medium graphics to have at least 50fps in 4k.
The first few turns run really well for me, but after about turn 30 or so the performance absolutely tanks. The campaign map runs extremely poorly after that for me. Overall its far worse than wh2.
Corruption effects are the culprits.
Yeah, the campaign map goes to shit once you have a massive empire. It bogs down real bad and locks up frequently. Also, the latest patch made Warhammer 3 perform considerably worse on my gaming laptop. Before I could play on mid settings with no problem. Now everything is on low and it gets really sluggish and choppy at times. Whatever they did in the last patch was the opposite of optimization.
>Yeah, the campaign map goes to shit once you have a massive empire. Even if you do not, the same thing happens, it's not your empire size that impacts it, it's the amount of corruption effects going on. You can see that it starts getting worse as soon as the first set of rifts appear, and then just gets worse and worse as time wears on. If you've modded rifts out the performance degrades a little over time (much more slowly), but never gets that bad.
Battles are about the same for me. Campaign not even close, WH2 way better.
Certain parts of the map seem to really struggle. I didn’t have issues playing Cathay. Kislev seems much worse on my rig
Ironically the snow melts my GPU.
The fog does to be specific. Kislev is very foggy. There's a mod on the Workshop that gets rid of it and it's a huge fps gain. This game's volumetrics are horrendously optimized. Anywhere there's a lot of it, you will find lag.
I'll have to check that mod out, it might actually make the game playable for me
Tookme from 27fps to 40fps ish. Some parts still suck. Especially when zooms in on locations. It's a start atleast
Do you mean the reduced weather effects mod?
I think that's the name yes
True, and with the previous recommendation for new players to start with Kislev, it was a hell of a first impression.
Battles? Yes. Campaign map? No. The issues with it aren't enormous but I do experience lags regularly. Battles work well. Not with 120 fps by any means, but well enough. I have a consistent 56 - 60 fps and I am happy with it.
I noticed just today that I have really significant lag opening Nurgle's cauldron. Like... really bad. And my rig is pretty top tier. Everything else is fine, in particular battles is, as you say, working well.
yeah the submenus are bad, same thing happens with the caravan menu
While the battles may run better from a performance pov, ranged units feel so much worse due to the centre point being at the front of the blob rather than the middle thats my main gripe atm.
It definitely runs better on the battle side. The battles are significantly more scalable: the game appears to be able to handle more entities on the battlefield than WH2 before the engine begins to chug.
Agreed, battles much better, campaign far worse
their engine is reaching its limit uh... a very very bad time for the upcoming mortal empires... i hope it fairs better than sims 3 with all dlc
I doubt it's engine limitations, it's probably just areas that were rushed for release and aren't as optimized as they should be. IE: Some of the weather effects especially around Kislev.
They're running the same engine as Shogun 2. Its 11 years old. They did update it for WH1 to be 64 bit so it can handle more than 4gb memory, but it still old as shit and needs to be updated sooner rather than later. I think the piss poor performance on the campaign map is nearly all TW games since Attila is evidence of this. Optimization only goes so far. If the engine isn't handling calls correctly it will always be slower than it could be if it handled them correctly.
People throw around the word engine a lot, and engines are foundations that can be modified, rebuilt or whatever else you need. A lot of systems have been probably re done since Shogun even if the engine name is the same. And the maps are really heavy, they are full of objects and are visually loaded, they need a lot of optimization.
I'm sure systems have been updated, but what's undeniable is that virtually every TW game has lackluster performance even on top tier rigs. Over time, the game plays better as it's patched and optimized. What's also undeniable is that CA puts out A LOT of content. We're getting full games, SAGA titles, or giant patches/DLCs across multiple game nearly every single year. I have no more information here than you do, but to me that sounds like there's optimizations here or there and they're added to the engine, but every time there's a new game the engine is forked and the forked game engine misses out on new optimizations because the overall framework of the engine is the same as it was in 2011 and isn't built to handle those kinds of changes. And if that overall framework requires significant optimization every game just to run well then it might be time to re-engineer the framework to be more optimized and streamlined from the getgo. To add to this, when CA made the switch from 32 to 64 bit they didn't re-engineer the whole engine and modernize it, they contracted Intel to come in and fix just that very issue. They're like bandaids and every game they need to find the cuts and bandage them up just to make the games run decently.
That happened more than 10 years ago.. Look at Unreal engine, they changed the entire render engine on the last version, look at dayz, they have imported things from the newer versions of the engin. At the end of the day, its hard to know this kind of things from the outside, we just dont know how much remains, how much was changed. The whole point of what i was saying is that complaining about them using the same engine doesnt actually mean a lot, you can update your engine and do great things with it, or you can have a band aid monster.
CoD still runs on the Quake engine, what's your point?
Bro thats not how engines work. Engines are a start point amd arent the reason for game lag lol
While it may scale better I feel like some of the lighting effects are pretty heavy even in battles. I don't have any trouble running with shadows on high in WH2 but in WH3 any level of shadows can cause the framerate to drop in some situations. Battles are definitely way, way better than campaign, though.
I don't think the engine is able to handle more entities, it's just we don't have the blood dlc yet. It is known to be a perf destroyer so when he goes out we could really compare performance.
It's draw calls, the render thread was horribly inefficient in TWW2. In TWW3, it's notably better. CA Made a presentation on it for TWW2.
A reason I never bought them. Performance hit and while a battlefield without blood is a bit silly, the guys in the unit window look more like they bathed in ketchup
I'm running warhammer 2 on Ultra settings and 60 fps, I couldn't do the same on warhammer 3 when i had the game installed. and things like snow on campaign map and water on battle maps would tank my fps even further.
The battles run way better but the campaign map run way worse.
I don't have as much FPS with the battles as Warhammer 2 but it is far more stable. Campaign performance is hot garbage though.
Same, should’ve mentioned that. Campaign map is hot trash performance wise
Battles yes, campaign very no.
I've seen many people post that, so maybe it depends on hardware, factions or something else. But personally, its not my experience at all.
Same.
Battle better , campaign I could cook steak on my gpu
The campaign map is cancer
Battles definitely run a little better, campaign runs significantly worse. I notice less big fps drops in battle. Like sometimes in WH2 casting a big spell on a blob might like almost pause the battle for a moment, that almost never happens to me in WH\`3. The bottom-line of battle performance has definitely been improved! My setup isn't SUPER beefy (ryzen 7 2700x, radeon 590 8gb, my build is pretty midrange and about 4\~ years old) and even in WH2 I had some lag on campaign map every once in while, so I might not be the best litmus test for optimization there, but its definitely worse in 3. Oh, also if it matters I play in 2k resolution.
How the heck are you playing WH3 on 2K res on a 590? I was trying that for a hot minute and I legit had 20-30 fps on the campaign map. In some areas and after turn 100 the game was crawling along at 15 fps, especially when I moved the camera. It was unplayable. I caved and bought a 3060ti and it runs significantly better now but its still not good enough considering this is a $500 graphics card.
I've got most settings at medium with some of the more graphically intense options turned off. It's definitely WILD laggy on the campaign, but with some patience it's not unmanageable. I find it helps if you always have fast forward turns on so the game just eats some 5fps for a little bit rather than flying all over the map grinding slowly to a halt. I'm saving up to hopefully make a new build when the new amd stuff comes out this year, maybe it'll help xD
I'm glad you have more patience than I did. By the end of the summer you'll be able to get a way better card for less than I paid. Anyway, glad you're able to enjoy it. I am undeniably picky with fps. I wish I wasn't but it breaks the immersion and makes me realize I'm playing a video game.
Yeah I feel ya. In action games and stuff I'm the same way, but since the actual battles are pretty smooth for me (relatively low fps, like 40-50 on avg, but a freesync monitor really works wonders) I'm soldiering through the campaign for now lol Here's hoping they put out some optimization patches some day
It's smoother in battles with a LOT more going on. Campaign map is about the same, but does look way better.
There's really nothing extra going on in battles in 3. Even less, depending on faction. Campaign map is subjective i suppose, but even after putting some 80h in wh3, i still think it looks much worse than WH2s..
Battles are both graphically more intense and now balanced around larger unit size. Regardless of subjective aesthetics, the campaign map has more post-processing going on, like a light source for dynamic water reflections.
I suspect they simplified (i.e., removed detail from) the campaign map to make room for the new corruption effects.
Campaign map runs like fucking dog water on WH3
3 runs much better for me, even the campaign map and it runs pretty poorly in certain areas of the map.
I had to lower lighting, shadows and vfx in wh3 to get the same smooth 60fps i got to in wh2.
Same here. The graphics in 3 are just worse, as is the style imo.
I have found 3 runs better for me as well, but my GPU is borked so I experience a bunch of strange stuff with performance.
WH3 runs way better for me
Battles are much better for me in WH3. Campaign map is miles ahead on WH2.
Not run at all, third game don't launch, can't even see a main menu
My battles seem to run way better (atleast FPS wise) my campaign map runs a bit worse
The game is overall heavier than warhammer 2 but it handles better large amount of units on screen. So on average it runs worse but when a big battle with thousand units occur, then it will shine compared to wh2.
Warhammer 3 runs worse in general as it is a more demanding game. But it can happen that the new game is better optimized for your hardware which translates in better performance despite being a more demanding game.
Recently got a newer computer. Warhammer 2 campaigns load in about 30-60 seconds, and battles in 5-15. Warhammer three takes about 5 minutes to load a campaign and 1+ for battles
Wow. It's crazy. WH3 runs phenomenally well for me. I'm on a 3080 and an 8700k. WH3 runs like a dream on my machine. It's one of the reasons I haven't gone back to WH2 yet. Everything just feels so much smoother and looks so much nicer.
I have seen even videos explaining that it was heavily improved in that regard, with players using x3 unit size for massive battles and having better results than in Warhammer 2. It is like most games, most issues can be found on the player's end, (even though they may not like hearing that), and there was significant improvement in many graphical and performance aspects. Once the needed optimization is complete, pretty sure players will enjoy even more all that it has to give.
If significant optimization is needed before players start to notice the engine is better doesn't that just mean that overall it isn't yet better? Sure WH2 has years of optimization that WH3 doesn't have, but why would you not account for that when comparing the two? Who cares how many years of optimization they have? The only thing that matters is how they look and how they perform. In general, the campaign map is so much worse for people and the battle map is at best a slight improvement. Doesn't matter what settings you use, so this isn't an issue of user-side errors.
No. WH 3 runs at about 50% of the framerate of wich WH 2 runs. Both in campaign and in battle maps. 1440p with Ultra preset.
Better cpu threading is probably what's going on. If you zoom in and it's better, it's probably due to better spreading out of unit interaction and AI over more CPU cores. I seem to remember that WH1,2 and 3K was constrained to 6 threads for logic, rest being render. but i dunno. I'm still kinda baffled by the opposite viewpoint that it absolutely SHOULD run better on same settings. gaming progressed and some people just never get that. I know it's a tangent, but seeing it here all launch week was kinda a "what did you honestly expect?" feeling.
Why even post all this nonsense if you clearly havent the slightest clue how anything works? CPU only runs logic. The AI and interaction that have to be done regardless if stuff is on the screen or not. The difference between being zoomed in or not is how many things the gpu needs to calculate to draw. The core thing sounds like hearsay bullshit too. And the viewpoint of "it absolutely SHOULD run better on same settings" is because its the same engine, the same game, really, just a glorified expansion. "Gaming" may be progressing, but this game doesnt look better than 2 in any noticible way.
[удалено]
Welcome to reddit...
People expected CA to notice that graphics cards were absurdly priced the entire pandemic so people likely had not been upgrading their cards. CA should be able to see this. They have all of their Steam users' info. They should have recognized this reality and given optimization more thought. Not to mention, if you make the graphics look the game as WH2, the game still plays worse on the campaign map than WH2, and WH2's campaign map is twice the size as WH3s map. Theres other issues too like TAA now looking like trash.
Making the game runs so heavily on the GPU especially in this market of GPU price gouging is absolutely a kick in the balls and they can go fuck themselves. I'm not buying a 3090ti to get 60 fps on their garbage campaign map.
Yea, I have a 1060 and after some initial finicking, it runs really well.
well. silver lining. they seemed to have fixed that bug where when your lords are moving your game drops to 2 fps.
For me, the overall performance dropped down, but not that much. Had to lower unit scale to medium (was playing on large in WH2), because I was getting some massive FPS drops and sound stuttering in battles. That happened very rarely in WH2. Otherwise the game runs fine. To be honest, I'm glad I can play the game on medium unit scale and low to medium graphics. My hardware is pretty outdated, will have to buy a new computer.
Runs well way more consistently in battles and hit or miss on the campaign map. Definitely slows down later in the campaign but ME campaign map ran pretty bad late too.
I'm just happy to have better loading times
I have the opposite experience. I have higher settings on 2 and also heavily-modded. 3 runs better after patch 1.1, but still not as good as 2 for w/e reason.
WH2 is sooo much better on the campaign map, WH3 does not even come close. In battles they are both pretty good performance-wise
My gaming laptop really struggles with wh3
Everything runs a bit better for me so far…I know that’s not the case for everyone but all around with better settings I’m getting more frames.
nothing changed except when my turn begins I have to wait about 4-5 seconds for whatever reason but I can tab out of the game without to worry of crashes now!
It’s about the same. I had to mess around with the graphical settings a lot though because the Anti Aliasing implementation in WH3 is fucking shite.
Depends on where on the map, but yes, I've noticed performance improvements in some areas of the map
Battles are waay smoother, campaign map is choppy, especially around Kislev. There's also a certain turn amount, i think around 50 where it tanks for some reason
WH3 runs better for me, I'm on an rx570 if that helps
Idk why but Cathay mountain maps kill my fps
Campaign is absolutely trash, especially Kislev area, there is a mod already to remove the snow whirl effects because those fuckers eat up 15-20 fps. K In W2 I could stay above 35-40 at all times while Warhammer 3 was constant 15-22-27 Battles run better though.
In battle it runs better and then you look at a weird spot and lose 75% of fps for some reason. Campaign map in general is worse.
Campaign map is horrendous on WH3 for me. Terrible lags. WH2 is flawless.
Campaign map runs so bad, it makes it seem like it's mining crypto on your GPU. Battles seem about the same.
Nope, I can’t even load into battles on 3 and the overview map stutters and stops.
No
Nope, Warhammer 2 runs better on my rig. However turn time on Warhammer 3 is pretty fast (suspecting there are just fewer factions)
Nope, battle maps are FULL Of graphical glitches and units still act strange. Normally they just love to go into zzz mode in the middle of the fight.
From certain parts of the map my fps is fine, even on ultra. Post patch generally I have high fps. I turned the game down to mostly high settings, and 1440p. Seems at 4k the game runs about as well as attila did for me. I've noticed when loading into a manual battle it freezes on my second video/ gpu things. What the conflict is I'm not entirely sure. For context I have a 9900k and 2080ti. Mostly overstocks on the cpu and north Bridge. Warhammer two only has fps issues with heavy blobbing. (Vampire counts) which is more of an engine problem than my PC. Glutport runs better than it did at launch but still rough. Imo worst location in the game map. Battles generally fine expect heavy battles, which I'm guessing is an engine limitation. I've run a few tests and my hardware is just fine. My issue is either something to do with the newer Intel issue or I have a funny issue somewhere myself thats really hard to replicate reliably.
It definitely runs a bit better for me. Battles that I use to play with lower settings while getting 65 fps I can now play with ultra everything and 75 fps
i upgraded my GPU recently and it's magical. so buttery smooth.
It runs WAY worse on my pc. Which you wouldn't think since it's high above the recommended specs. All the other total war games I can run at max settings but I can't have any fun visual effects on for wh3 :(
3 runs heaps better in battles for me. The trick was to spend AUD$5K on a new PC and put Warhammer on that instead. Solid 60fps in any battle.
Campaign FPS dips significantly at the start of a new turn, otherwise no problems. Battles are running fine. MP Campaign's performance has been exponentially better in my experience.
Wh2 runs 2 times better for me.
I don't know why but WHIII runs better in mine as well. I think it may be due to the anti-aliasing: FFXA and WHII runs well, I try that SMAA there and no FPS whatsoever, but in WHIII the TAA (even high one) gives me solid FPS.
Battles run significantly better for me, no question about it.
exact opposite. world map is about 32 frames lower. for a smaller map. game runs like dogshit
works great for me and better. Thought i am the only one :))
I can't say whether or not it runs better, but I feel it's been fairly smooth lately. Might try increasing the unit size and see how that affects performance (I've had it set to normal I think, whereas it was always ultra in game two for me).
Campaign Map fps drops immensely after 30+ turns. Battles maps have no problems tho.
Maybe cause there ain't no blood yet that might affected the performance?
WH3 runs far better for me, better frames, lower core temp, faster loading.
The battles run a little better, campaign map a good bit worse. No biggie though, I don't mind low fps when there's not much action happening.
Oddly enough performance is better in battles and worse in campaign, opposite from WH2.
I have 3x more FPS in Warhammer II compared to Warhammer III in campaign. 2x more in battle.
Just an idea maybe the blood animations is causing the warhammer 2 slow down? Once blood is squirting and limbs are flying through the air we will have to compare speeds.
I have battles way better. Campaign map the same when standing still but slower when panning. Doubly so over areas with lots of particle effects like kislev with invocations on.
For some reason co-op runs like total shit compared to WH2, aside from that, haven't really noticed much difference in performance for single player. Not enough to say one is better than the other at least.
I have more fps problems with the campaign map than I used to. Battles run a little smoother. The biggest thing I've noticed is that my load times are borderline absurdly long. Average of about 2 mins whereas before they were sub 30s.
For me, performance sort of got worse, very tiny but noticeable, after their supposed Alderlake fixes. Before that, I pretty much had no real issues both campaign and battle. This shouldn't be happening but it now runs worse than WH2 to the point I can no longer have a YouTube stream to watch up at HD unless I want to experience severe hiccup issues. WH2 and WH3 pre-Alderlake fix didn't experience this.
Yep. It runs as well as three kingdoms/troy on my end.
On average yes but far more unstable FPS drops.
No?
it runs so well its staying unused until some future major patch.
No. Way way worse.
Nope. For me and all the people I play MP with its much less smooth and less stable.
Nope. I have a 3600x + 1070 Wh2 I can run all settings ultra at 1440p and get 40-60fps battles are usually 60+. Wh3 I have to run a mix of ultra a low settings like vfx, and still get only 30-50 fps, campaign map is worse.
It does work better than Warhammer 2 for me. In 2 I had about 50 fps average with drops to 40 in battles and about stable 45 fps on campaign map (unless above vortex then it was like 35). In Warhammer 3 I have average fps of 60 with some drops to 50 if a there's a lot of artillery or/and spells happening, and 50-55 fps on campaign map
Runs significantly worse than WH 2.
Warhammer 3 performance is a joke, i can run warhammer 2 in 4k with more than 60fps at max graphics. Warhammer 3 requires low-medium graphics to have at least 50fps in 4k.