The Witcher 3

The third game in CD Projekt RED’s expansive RPG series, The Witcher 3 is our RPG benchmark of choice. Utilizing the company’s in-house engine, REDengine 3, The Witcher makes use of an array of DirectX 11 features, all of which combine to make the game both stunning and surprisingly GPU-intensive. Our benchmark is based on an action-heavy in-engine cutscene early in the game, and Hairworks is disabled.

The Witcher 3 - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality (No Hairworks)

The Witcher 3 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality (No Hairworks)

The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality (No Hairworks)

The GTX 1080 never doesn’t lead in our benchmarks, but The Witcher 3 is another strong showing for the card. At 44fps for 4K, it’s three-quarters of the way to 60fps, with gives us a reasonably playable framerate even at these high quality settings. However to get 60fps you’ll still have to back off on the quality settings or resolution. Meanwhile the GTX 1070, although capable of better than 30fps at 4K, is more at home at 1440p, where the card just cracks 60fps.

Looking at the generational comparisons, the Pascal cards are about average under The Witcher 3. GTX 1080 leads GTX 980 by an average of 66%, and GTX 1070 leads GTX 970 by 58%. Similarly, the gap between the two Pascal cards is pretty typical at 24% in favor of the GTX 1080.

Finally, checking in on poor Kepler, we find GTX 680 at 31.3fps at 1080p, as compared to GTX 1080’s 100.3fps. This gives NVIDIA’s latest flagship a 3.2x advantage over its 4 year old predecessor.

Crysis 3 The Division
Comments Locked

200 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ranger1065 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    Your unwavering support for Anandtech is impressive.

    I too have a job that keeps me busy, yet oddly enough I find the time to browse (I prefer that word to "trawl") a number of sites.

    I find it helps to form objective opinions.

    I don't believe in early adoption, but I do believe in getting the job done on time, however if you are comfortable with a 2 month delay, so be it :)

    Interesting to note that architectural deep dives concern your art and media departments so closely in their purchasing decisions. Who would have guessed?

    It's true (God knows it's been stated here often enough) that
    Anandtech goes into detail like no other, I don't dispute that.
    But is it worth the wait? A significant number seem to think not.

    Allow me to leave one last issue for you to ponder (assuming you have the time in your extremely busy schedule).

    Is it good for Anandtech?
  • catavalon21 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    Impatient as I was at the first for benchmarks, yes, I'm a numbers junkie, since it's evident precious few of us will have had a chance to buy one of these cards yet (or the 480), I doubt the delay has caused anyone to buy the wrong card. Can't speak for the smart phone review folks are complaining about being absent, but as it turns out, what I'm initially looking for is usually done early on in Bench. The rest of this, yeah, it can wait.
  • mkaibear - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link

    Job, house, kids, church... more than enough to keep me sufficiently busy that I don't have the time to browse more than a few sites. I pick them quite carefully.

    Given the lifespan of a typical system is >5 years I think that a 2 month delay is perfectly reasonable. It can often take that long to get purchasing signoff once I've decided what they need to purchase anyway (one of the many reasons that architectural deep dives are useful - so I can explain why the purchase is worthwhile). Do you actually spend someone else's money at any point or are you just having to justify it to yourself?

    Whether or not it's worth the wait to you is one thing - but it's clearly worth the wait to both Anandtech and to Purch.
  • razvan.uruc@gmail.com - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    Excellent article, well deserved the wait!
  • giggs - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    While this is a very thorough and well written review, it makes me wonder about sponsored content and product placement.
    The PG279Q is the only monitor mentionned, making sure the brand appears, and nothing about competing products. It felt unnecessary.
    I hope it's just a coincidence, but considering there has been quite a lot of coverage about Asus in the last few months, I'm starting to doubt some of the stuff I read here.
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    "The PG279Q is the only monitor mentionned, making sure the brand appears, and nothing about competing products."

    There's no product placement or the like (and if there was, it would be disclosed). I just wanted to name a popular 1440p G-Sync monitor to give some real-world connection to the results. We've had cards for a bit that can drive 1440p monitors at around 60fps, but GTX 1080 is really the first card that is going to make good use of higher refresh rate monitors.
  • giggs - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    Fair enough, thank you for responding promptly. Keep up the good work!
  • arh2o - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    This is really the gold standard of reviews. More in-depth than any site on the internet. Great job Ryan, keep up the good work.
  • Ranger1065 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    This is a quality article.
  • timchen - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    Great article. It is pleasant to read more about technology instead of testing results. Some questions though:

    1. higher frequency: I am kind of skeptical that the overall higher frequency is mostly enabled by FinFET. Maybe it is the case, but for example when Intel moved to FinFET we did not see such improvement. RX480 is not showing that either. It seems pretty evident the situation is different from 8800GTX where we first get frequency doubling/tripling only in the shader domain though. (Wow DX10 is 10 years ago... and computation throughput is improved by 20x)

    2. The fastsync comparison graph looks pretty suspicious. How can Vsync have such high latency? The most latency I can see in a double buffer scenario with vsync is that the screen refresh just happens a tiny bit earlier than the completion of a buffer. That will give a delay of two frame time which is like 33 ms (Remember we are talking about a case where GPU fps>60). This is unless, of course, if they are testing vsync at 20hz or something.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now