How is Dark Souls 3 performing for you?

I got the Steam version yesterday. To be honest, it does not perform very well for me. Like 90 mins in, and no area has hit 60 fps. I get 60 fps in the witcher 3, and this game is chugging along, barely. I have and r9 380x, 16 gb ram, and an fx6200 processor. I see no reason for this to be performing so badly, especially since it looks like a 360 game (dont really care about Soul's graphics anyway).

Do you think they will patch this game out, and improve performance?

1440p 60fps and haven't noticed drops so far tho I havent had fps shown since the early stages of the game so there could be minor drops I havent been able to notice, haven't tried 4k DSR yet. Had no issues with the game performance so far and didn't run in to that crashing bug with lighting with non knight classes as I started with knight.

I have seen people with 970 saying they have decent framerates even on 1440p(should at least get lock 60 on 1080p), that's something your 380x should almost match, could it be your cpu falling short? Durante said the game is rather heavy on cpu and above 4 cores don't get utilized so it comes down to core performance.

Check the gaf ds3 performance topic and see what other people are getting with amd cpu's?

That is with all settings maxed and that cpu is quite a lot stronger than yours. Have you tried lowering depth of field/motion blur/shadows? those 3 should have the biggest impact on performance

Got a 980 and its been fine for me. There have been times where its dipped but it was very random and hasn't happened again lately. So I guess its good :P

smooth 60fps-max settings and 1440p

Good. Smooth 60 fps so far. I've had 1 crash while not doing anything special in multi-player so no biggie, but that's it. All graphics options are turned up to max.

EDIT: My specs are:
Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K CPU 3.30ghz
Graphics card: Nvidia Geforce GTX760
RAM: 12GB

@hillelslovak: CPU and GPU doesn't seem to reach solid 60FPS all time.

As you can see R9 380X should be around 46FPS min and 50+FPS avg.

FX6200 is also slower than FX6350 so it should be even lower than 43FPS min and 56FPS avg.

So my guess is that your min FPS (and possible any stuttering you if get) is caused by your CPU and probably your avg FPS are affected by your GPU (CPU shouldn't be the bottleneck on most cases).

Gallery

smooth sailing for me, maxed to the max @1080p on a 2500k/4.4ghz, 12gb ddr3 and GTX970.

@Coseniath said:

@hillelslovak: CPU and GPU doesn't seem to reach solid 60FPS all time.

As you can see R9 380X should be around 46FPS min and 50+FPS avg.

FX6200 is also slower than FX6350 so it should be even lower than 43FPS min and 56FPS avg.

So my guess is that your min FPS (and possible any stuttering you if get) is caused by your CPU and probably your avg FPS are affected by your GPU (CPU shouldn't be the bottleneck on most cases).

Gallery

I'm sorry, but that is pathetic. If I can get 50-60 fps in Rise of The Tomb Raider, 60 fps in Witcher 3, and this game struggles mightily, despite being nowhere near the graphical intensity of those games. It's shame, considering it's been pretty good despite these issues. I just wish after three games, and especially since DS2 ran flawlessly (older engine I know), they could finally learn to program for multi core systems.

@hillelslovak: Devs nowadays are veeeery lazy.

I think there is a hidden lazyleague between devs and they are all trying to be champions.

There is no optimisation at all...

Just take a look of what a Q6600, 4GB with 8800GT can do in original Crysis. A multiple times weaker PC can deliver better eye candy cause devs were absolutely magnificent in optimisation.

I think there is no hope today...

Laptop with Dual 780m 4GB SLI. Solid 60 FPS at 1920x1080 with every setting maxed out. Running it in 4k drops it to about 30-40 FPS.

Smooth 4K 2160p and 60fps at max settings. The Dark Souls 3 engine only uses 2 CPU threads, with most of the weight on Core 0, so that is why your CPU might not be enough.

That has always been the case for Dark Souls and Bloodborne, even on consoles. CPU bottlenecks since everything is pushed mostly through a single or dual threads.

this game runs better on nvidia.....from all the tests ive seen...

about a 5 or 6 fps difference.

How the hell are you reaching 60fps with a 760 on max? I have a r9 285 and on three different benchmarks I got averages in the mid 40's(I believe they were 46, 47 and the last one 45). I have an i5 3470 which is similar to yours since you are not using OC.

Yeah the CPU optimization is terrible. I have to turn off everything else that might drain the CPU a little since they usually all end up on core 0...

I'm not sure. Only thing I can think of is that DS3 might work crap on AMD cards? How much RAM you have?

I've even forced FXAA onto the game with nvidia control panel, and didn't get worse FPS at all..

It works fine for me graphically... Haven't tested with everything on max yet, but it shouldn't be a problem... First time I tested it I had folding at home running on a secondary GPU in the background and that drained to much resources so it ran like crap. Bad enough to disconnect me from the servers actually :P

The game has a nice graphical jump I think from the previous games. But I am not comfortable with the style of it this time. Either I've messed up with the settings or the game is full of black edges around objects.

The after four cpu threads, the game tends to throw alot onto the 1st core. Maybe after some patches they might fix the issue.

i5 6600k, gtx 980 and i can play fully maxed 60fps, no glitches or freezes, 40 hours into the game.

Not a problem at all with a R9 380 4GB and a i5 4670K combo at 2560x1080... I haven't used fraps with it or anything but feels like a smooth 50-60 framerate.

@04dcarraher said:

The after four cpu threads, the game tends to throw alot onto the 1st core. Maybe after some patches they might fix the issue.

Since I have an amd gpu and cpu, should I use radeonpro and restrict this game to one core then?

@hillelslovak:

maybe just restrict the game to use cores 1-5, leaving core 0 free. use 5 cores

Tried restricting it to cpu 0, then cpus 1-5. no difference. This is some heroically terrible optimization. When there is a 4 fps difference between the game maxed out on 1920x1080, and minimum on 800x480, there is a huge problem, especially considering it looks like a 360 launch title.

i7 4770k and 2x970 playing at 1080p. Its running flawlessly for me and Im really enjoying the game.

@hillelslovak: It may be time to upgrade amigo.

I just upgraded my card to an r9 380x, and although my processor isnt too great, an fx6200, if I can run the witcher on high at 60fps at 1080, same with MGSV, Mad Max, XCOM 2, F04, etc. I should be able to run this game at a smooth 60fps, as I did with Dark Souls 2. And please, nobody tell me it's a ton more graphically intensive than 2, it looks like crap. The graphics dont really matter to me, but when it looks like that, and runs like garbage, they need to make it right.

What on earth did you upgrade from? 380x isn't exactly a beast of a card. You should have went for the 390 as the minimum if your are aiming for 1080p/60fps in the newer games. Also, try giving that CPU a good OC. It may help alleviate the bottleneck.

@BassMan: there isn't much of a reason to going for top end gpu's w/o upgrading your cpu as well, so the 380x wasn't a bad choice tbh

@hillelslovak: it's the cpu, I get mostly 60fps and some dips to low 50s with a 970 and an fx 8350.

My dips are cpu related, then overclocked to 4.5ghz, and I get dips to 58 at worst.

In short try overclocking then hurrah for fps

No need. Crush it with brute force. So much worth.