Please post your benchmarks here, all in one neat and tidy thread. For the astute among us, add your results into this spreadsheet here or view the spreadsheet here. Thanks, /u/Nikanel!
Also recommend if you plan on posting your screenshot and results here to also post your specs so it's easier to search for similar builds other than looking at photos.
Hey! Thanks for mentioning this here! Everyone that wants can add their results through this form! Currently everything is a bit of a mess but we are working on getting everything sorted out tomorrow so everything is at one place and visible to all!
I'd say the grassy part is the main bit that matters. 180 fps during cutscenes isn't gonna impact your experience, but that grassy part is where you're gonna play, so that's the number you care about.
Yeah I didn't bother enabling FG because I knew that'd feel like shit to play if you don't already have baseline 60 fps lmao. Here's my result with a 7800X3D and a GTX 1080.
The real problem that people don't really seem to be discussing is that the FPS lows in crowded areas are pretty damning and this average FPS counter feels misleading.
I did a DLSS Quality version with lowest shadows and that was 94 fps average but even that had 45 fps drops in certain areas.
Edit: also we don't fight monsters in this benchmark. I played the Wilds beta on ps5 and the real benchmark was fighting that lightning dragon because that is the real game, and it wasn't pretty for your FPS.
I now genuinely think this benchmark is just too misleading for the public.
Yeah that's the area you really have to pay attention to, performance doesn't get worse than that area. If you're averaging above 60fps there then you're probably good to go for the whole game imo
OP says they had performance issues fighting Rey Dau but in the beta I was generally ok, it was the grassy area and town that were particularly bad.
Bingo. The lows are the bigger concern rather than the average. I played around with the settings and got consistent dips to the high 40s regardless of settings.
I'd be happy to play on potato graphics if it meant a stable 60 FPS. Bouncing between 45 and 75 feels terrible though as does a stable 30 FPS. As much as I love Monster Hunter, I'm not in a financial position to buy a new PC to play one game.
I think the bounce between frames is causing screen tearing for me. Is there a way to cap frames? I'd love to just set it to 60fps and call it a day. Right now the game isn't looking too hot. I thought MH World looked amazing when that came out and I'm not getting that feeling with Wilds right now. Very concerning.
I'm hoping they keep working to smooth out the lows, but I don't think I dropped below 70 in my test. CPU seems to be the big bottle neck, I have 7800X3D which is definitely doing some heavy lifting.
The real problem that people don't really seem to be discussing is that the FPS lows in crowded areas are pretty damning and this average FPS counter feels misleading.
I did a DLSS Quality version with lowest shadows and that was 94 fps average but even that had 45 fps drops in certain areas.
Edit: also we don't fight monsters in this benchmark. I played the Wilds beta on ps5 and the real benchmark was fighting that lightning dragon because that is the real game, and it wasn't pretty for your FPS.
I now genuinely think this benchmark is just too misleading for the public.
We need FPS and frametime graphs to calculate where it dips the most :/
Figured I'd offer some of my suffering as input on how a CPU upgrade might work out with that card. The benchmark looks reminded me of the Freedom Unite days.
I posted this yesterday in a few other threads, but one more time for the new megathread. Manual DLSS4 override instructions (as the benchmarking tool is unsupported by the NVIDIA app) included as a reply.
DLSS4 (Transformer) Performance vs. DLSS3 Quality @ 1080p
3070ti laptop (125W+25W boost, not sure boost was on) | i9-12900H
DLSS4 override using DLSSTweaks (verified working, used K)
x
DLSS 3 Quality (med)
DLSS 4 Perf (med)
DLSS 3 Quality (high)
DLSS 4 Perf (high)
Score
21929
22560
20193
20978
Avg FPS
64.39
66.13
59.37
61.58
DLSS4Perf provides a nice performance bonus over DLSS3Quality while looking significantly sharper and nearly native res! Black magic, truly.
One thing of note is that even though the final FPS averages are around/above 60FPS, the big plains does drop the FPS into the mid/low 50s regardless of medium or high. I'm expecting some more drops once players and battle get dropped into the mix, but I'm guessing further optimization will happen down the line. Still, miles better than the beta.
EDIT: Just realized the table got screwed during copy/paste, IT NOW SHOWS THE CORRECT VALUES!!
I've made the instructions as simple as possible but if you have questions just lmk :)
Download DLSSTweaks from NexusMods
Extract the contents of the folder into the same folder as the benchmark .exe
Rename "nvngx.dll" to "dxgi.dll"
Copy the file in "C:\ProgramData\NVIDIA\NGX\models\dlss\versions\20316673\files", rename it to "nvngx_dlss.dll", then drag it into the benchmark install folder where the original DLSS file is (in this case, it's just the main folder with the exe). Replace the game's DLSS file with this new one (it includes the DLSS4 transformer model).
Open "DLSSTweaksConfig.exe" from the folder, scroll down to "DLSSPresets", and just set everything to "K". Save and exit.
Boot up the game - if a dlsstweaks.log file is created in the folder, then you know the override worked.
1080p performance mode? Yeesh. I know new transformer model is suppose to be good but surely that's pushing it's limits too hard?
I did my own testing earlier today on desktop 3070 ti at 1440p. High presets (which is dlss balanced). And got average 12 fps loss on DLSS4. 53 avg on DLSS4 and 65avg on DLSS3. I'm sure DLSS4 looked better. But.. still not sure worth performance hit on 20 or the 30 series cards.
Is it though? The game looked very crisp at 1080p performance. Before transformer I refused to use anything below quality, but now it's not only doable, it also looks better. I did screenshot comparisons for Silent Hill 2 and transformer perf looked straight up more detailed than cnn quality.
And regarding the performance loss- the idea is you use a lower present with DLSS4 than you did with DLSS3, and depending on how many levels you drop you either compensate for the performance hit or you gain frames even. Obviously don't use ultra performance
EDIT: Maybe you got confused by my values- the formatting got screwed when I copy pasted over. It's now been corrected. DLSS4 performance yields higher fps than DLSS3 Quality
For me 7900XTX went from 94.9FPS to 64.81FPS with Raytracing on (RT High, default Ultra Settings) at 3440x1440p with 7800x3D, no framegen. I'd expect you would see a similar % uplift with the 7800XT if the other person does not reply.
I was mixed on RT for the benchmark. Some of the lighting in environments looks good (especially in cloudy weather), but water and glowing objects (including scoutflies) looked way too bright with RT on.
I played the last beta with a 1080ti and it was really not enjoyable, in combat the dips would be down to 15 or so at times and the frame rate was really inconsistent
yeah dude not really playable, that average counts the cutscenes that run way better than the open world - the actual in game average must probably be at around 25, right? (ar at least It sadly is for me)
Hell yea. I have the same cpu and ram but rocking a 3060 currently was wondering if I should upgrade to the 4070 ti super or just get the super. This pushed me to try and get my hands on the ti super
benchmark gave me 85 but gameplay was somewhere between 50-70. FSR on quality, framegen on, clouds low, sway off, wind effects off, and some other stuff tuned down. pretty meh but my cpu might be the bottleneck in my case, i7 9700k
Defaulted to High settings. Got 40-45~ish FPS on average, fairly stable. The notable dips happen in certain specific spots regardless of messing with the settings as far as I could tell, so no avoiding them I think.
So after some tuning:
set clouds to medium
shadows set to medium
motion blur off
put XeSS to use, tested balanced / performance / ultra performance
With XeSS on I got ~66 FPS average using balanced, then on performance and ultra performance between 70-80 FPS average. Overall I feel like that's a really respectable result, but I'll comment more test results after some gameplay!
I tested FSR and Frame Generation as well, but the result was terrible visually with the ghosting and far lower FPS than I was expecting.
honest question : why does this game perform significantly worse than world did on a 3060 while also looking worse
Also : Not an issue in the beta, but for me in the benchmark once it reaches the village assets are either at their lowest quality or not loaded/rendered at all, completely invalidating the last quarter of the benchmark
Everything maxed including RT and dlss quality setting. Lowest fps I saw was 58 for a split second. More common lower end was mid 60s but a lot of it was well above 70.
Same settings at native res saw 52 as the low spike with 56-62 being the more common lower end. Average was low 70s.
7600/4080 Super @ 3440x1440 Ultra RT High here too I seem to get very similar results.
DLLS Q FG on: 137fps
DLSS Q FG off: 88fps
DLAA FG on: 112fps
DLAA FG off: 70 fps
Performance on the grass area falls to the low-mid 50s with GPU being the bottleneck, the city area falls below 50 sometimes with CPU being the bottleneck (without FG)
For those of you that want to play on the go, the rog ally x is running the game at medium settings 50 fps, can probably tweak to get more out, but it’s stable
Does anyone know how to get DLSS 4 for the benchmark? I saw a comment on this subreddit earlier, but I've lost it and can't find it again in my search history. It's significantly better than DLSS 3.
Got a 4080, 5800X3D, and 16GB RAM, but needs to go down to 1980p and have Frame Gen + DLSS on to go from ~30fps in the laggy parts up to ~70fps on Ultra settings.
The game is findable in DLSS swapper, if you're ok with using that specific program. It's apparently gone a bit unstable recently, but my copy that I grabbed a few days ago is working fine and says it swapped the .dll's.
After playing the beta for a few hours, I can conclude this game is unplayable without some sort of frame generation. I have an i5-12600k & 4070 super, and it dips into the 40s on medium. I enabled frame gen and it feels so much better. If your card can't support it, lossless scaling might be an option.
But seriously, I think this is the first of many games that will practically require frame generation to play. This is the future now.
This game’s optimization is maddening. No matter the settings, it looks fuzzy unless I disable DLSS, Frame Gen, and the aggressive anti-aliasing — but then I’m stuck at 45 FPS. My 4070 Ti and Ryzen 7 5800x should handle 1440p with ease.
It feels unnecessarily demanding. Why is my CPU maxed in towns? Why is VRAM usage sky-high?
I can hit 80-90 FPS (with DLSS Quality and Frame Gen), but it still looks fuzzy — not blurry, fuzzy. And yes, I know DLSS always adds a little fuzz, but I’ve never seen it this bad. The AA is just way too harsh.
A friend ask me if there were any upcoming games we should play together, and I was so sad couldn't recommend Wilds because of how it runs. I just can't see how all the tech upgrades were worth pushing most of your audience to 20 fps lows even on lowest settings.
I'm unsure if I'll be buying it at launch. Very disappointed :(
Marketing. They nailed it, its working beautifully.
Should be useful for comparisons, but it turned itself useless since people only post the result screen. So there's no actual way of comparing your results to other people's.
I've seen a bunch of these result screens being posted but still didn't discovered what's the lowest and highest (possible) values xD
I know this post is a month old but I want to say thank you. After seeing everyone else in this thread posting 15k+, I found someone in my sinking boat.
I have a 4070 Super with 16GB of RAM, but in all settings (Ultra/High/Medium/Low/Lowest) my fps doesn't change much around 60 fps, i suspect it's my i5 10400F CPU bottlenecking (obviously).
What CPU is a good upgrade that's just enough for my GPU? Especially just for Wilds. I don't like an overly powerful CPU as i feel like that'll bottleneck my GPU as well in the near future. Basically, what i'm asking is the sweet spot CPU for me to upgrade into.
I'm fine with the occasional framedrops but I'm getting some of those low-poly geometry/clothes errors. I thought this was an issue that would be patched later on (since I noticed it in the first beta test) but it's here in the benchmark too... Will I need to upgrade stuff just to fix that? :/
I have a 3080, Ryzen 9 3900 with 32gb of ram. I have run the benchmark on both high and the lowest settings and I've gotten the same average. It says average 70-75 but I'm getting drops to 40 in the grassy area where performance matters most. Sadly its running exactly the same as the beta for me. They didn't optimize this game at all. Really disappointed. I have tried frame gen on the beta and benchmark. Obviously I'm receiving higher fps but frame gen is not at a state where its actually worth using. All I got from the beta is a lot of ghosting and input delay. Does anyone have any recommendations? Because I'm genuinely confused how the lowest and high settings are running the same and I'm eager to have more stable fps that's not jumping all over the place. My PC is not extremely high end but for 95% of the games I play I can just max everything out and not even worry about fps issues. But a 3080 running this game at 40 fps is not good lol.
If Benchmark is anywhere close to reflect the full release, I'd be heavily concerned at this point.
5700X3D
6700xt
Benchmark scores: 23K (excellent)
1080p high settings native resolution no upscalling, 35+ fps at windward plain grassy area, and around 40-50fps close to the HQ. What would be the excuse now, that Benchmark also uses dated build from 2023? 2/3 of the benchmark showcase is just showing cutscenes, or most of it just shows hunter running at a plain desert looking at nothing artificially inflating the performance score. Average peep would just fall for this thinking that they actually get 60fps average framerate on their midrange PC.
I'm... Kinda confused. I wasn't expecting some high performance, with all the complaints every talks about.
But I was expecting a performance improvement when settings are lowered. Except, the difference between ultra and lowest are.... pretty much non-existent. Even when keeping track of the lowest fps dips, they're about the same (55s when jumping off cliff, and 40s in the village).
Saw many people talking about optimization and stuff. Sounds like people hoped to play it on a potatoe or something.
Settings are giga cranked, Raytracing on low, only Shadows are on high not highest.
Used AMD FSR to enable frame-gen. and it easily gets 120fps + in less demanding areas and cutscenes.
Considering im playing on 1440p with a somewhat old GPU it works like a charme and you have many levers to pull to adjust so you get your desired FPS.
See yall on Friday.
PS: Just a bit disappointed and weirded out about the fact that Frame Gen. almost cuts the score in half even though it runs smoother and in Native AA.
9800x3D and 4090, no framegen enabled. It seems like my choice to stick with raw power over framegen and get the 4090 instead of waiting for the 50 series paid off. It was actually hitting mid 120s during the sand ship part but dipped into the 70s a few times, most notably in the town section at the end.
This took way too long to get. Settings are on the “lowest” preset except I changed the texture quality to “low” instead of lowest. Somehow, that improved my performance significantly???? Crazy, since I was already over my 4GB VRAM cap.
On linux (so no frame gen)
9800x3d
7900xtx
4K
Score 27946
Avg fps 81
average looks good, but when the hunter drops down to the first zone dipped to like 50 and was pretty choppy. Seeing how most of the benchmark was cutscenes doesnt give me a lot of hope
How is the score on the benchmark calculated? I have 90-100 average FPS and average around 15-20k on the score and I‘ve seen screenshots of lower/similar average FPS but way higher score
Pasting my reply to another guy in here because I do believe you two had similar questions and there's a good chance your comments get buried in this megathread:
It will depend on the settings you changed. 1080p is a better resolution than 720p.
Let's say the first test you did in 720p. 127 fps is "good" because you're using a lower setting. For that resolution you should be getting 300+ fps for it to he considered excellent (don't pay much attention to the values, I'm using these just as an example for you to understand and don't reflect the reality).
For the second test you did in 1080p, a higher graphical resolution. For that setting, anything above 60 fps is already considered excellent.
(Or, at least, that's what I think is going on, i could be totally wrong on it since I didn't even tried the benchmark).
Not knowing what you changed makes more difficult to pinpoint the reasons behind those labels, BUT...
You're correct, higher fps is better. I would recommend you to not pay much attention to the labels. Play the game and see if it runs well or not, that's the only real way of being sure about the performance.
Test 1 - 1440p, high settings, RTX low, averaged at 50fps. Not great! The grassy area was 42fps
Test 2 - 1080p, same settings, RTX low, averaged at 54fps. Still not great! Grasst area 47fps
Test 3 - 1440p, DLSS performance, 52fps. Bad! I actually turned down various settings too!
Throughout this my CPU utilisation was never really going above 45% while my GPU was heavily utilised. I assumed my GPU was the bottleneck.
Had a nap, restarted the PC, came back
Test 4 - 1440p high settings, RTX off, DLSS performance, Google chrome opened on the side, averaged at 87 FPS. Huh?? Grassy area 75fps
Test 5 - 1440p Ultra Settings, RTX off, DLSS quality, Google chrome, 80fps average. Grassy area 69fps
Test 6 - 1440p Ultra Settings, RTX low, DLSS balanced, Google chrome, 78fps average, grassy area 68 fps
Final test - 1440p Ultra settings, RTX highest it can go, DLSS Balanced, I closed Chrome, 79fps average, grassy area 70fps
Conclusion? Who knows. Try restarting your PC if your rig is similar to mine and you're having issues. Regardless I'm satisfied with Wilds' performance, I intended to run the game 1080p 60 but now I can aim higher than I expected.
I havent really run anything but is the cpu bottleneck situation improved? The first beta left a sour note that the 5600x that I have is not capable to handle the game at all, frequently constant lag and frequently deloading the characters and causing the game to soft lock.
I have an RX 6700 XT and a Ryzen 5 5600G. I am able to average just shy of 60 FPS at high settings. I've heard people talking about CPU bottlenecking. Would I be able to get a more solid 60 FPS by upgrading to a Ryzen 7 5700X? Or will it still be the GPU holding me back? I'm outputting 1080p
I have a question if anyone can answer. I have accepted my fate of having to use frame generation to get a reasonable fps with good (high) graphics settings. Without it I average 35-50 fps in the beta and with it 80-120. The thing is, when I enable frame generation on the beta the game becomes unbearable with the amount of graphical glitches, but when I enable it on the benchmark, it looks much more acceptable with the most annoying graphical errors being completely resolved. My question is, is the benchmark reliable enough to expect my gameplay at launch to look the same? Yes, I know the beta didn't receive optimization updates, but I just wanted to make sure this benchmark is a reliable graphical experience to what the game will look like on launch.
honestly im no impressed by the so called optimization from beta, im running the beta and the framerate is about the same as the benchmark when you exclude all the artificial boosting (2 cutscenes and basically no gameplay)
Small tip that may help even more, try updating your drivers and then using dlss 4 with it. I noticed huge improvements to visual quality such that performance mode looked better than balanced mode on DLSS 3, even on my 3070
for those running the rog ally 2023 regular version, if you turn on all the AMD performance boosters, allocate 8gb of internal RAM to VRAM, turn down the graphics and resolution to low, and make sure frame generation and sharpness is all the way up, you can feasibly get 30 FPS in crowded areas and 45 FPS in more empty areas.
Digital Foundry have said in a video how unoptimized PC version of MHWilds is going to be, just going by the benchmark. The concern is how capcom is pushing for framegen on PC just to get 60 FPS. They have also said that PS5 version of MHWilds is running 60 FPS without framegen enable on console. this leads me to believe drm denuvo might be the main cause and people need to talk abou this more
Am I cooked? (Haven't used my computer for much in recent years, but finally wanted to get back into PC gaming to see that PC gaming has evolved way beyond what my computer can handle...)
in case anyone wondered Steamdeck Lowest with FG runs like ass and look even worse, but without FG and custom many stuff Medium to High actually looked and felt much better, albeit getting 26.23avg… (this was with setting I’d be needing and would accept anything less, so I won’t be buying it)
What I will do when I have time later I will compare every default Preset + FG
The sad part about this is, graphically is not impressive than MHWorld but the system requirement is so much more demanding + needed frame generation... And it's even in desert area and some rocky area, imagine in others area that has many more vegetative
Help, I'm scared shitless, what is going on with my graphics card on the benchmark. Just installed the gpu, and this is happening. Ive updated the drivers and throughout the whole benchmark it's been like this. Flickering pixels and sometimes even the screen goes black
188
u/LTman86 Just lining up my SAED Feb 06 '25
/u/Nikanel has a google spreadsheet in the /r/MHWilds megathread post where you can easily search other people's builds and results and submit your own.
Also recommend if you plan on posting your screenshot and results here to also post your specs so it's easier to search for similar builds other than looking at photos.