Relaxed, General FH3 Chat

  • Thread starter RacerPaul
  • 8,220 comments
  • 513,384 views
FH3 is really tempting me to make the leap to PC. Wondering if any of you lovely people would have any idea how much a gaming PC that could handle most games at 1080p 60fps at a higher detail quality would cost?
You can probably get a better build for the price, just made this in a few minutes - http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/FbzxYr
Comes out to around £560, + around £220 for the 8GB reference design RX 480 - https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapp...ddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-379-sp.html
Third party versions of the RX 480 will have better cooling but will also cost more. Still, assuming that Horizon 3 runs as well as Apex does on PC (and the RX 480 runs as well as the R9 390), this should be able run it at max settings easily at 1080P, and maybe even 1440P with some settings turned down.


Edit: Changed RAM to 16GB, thanks @inCloud .
 
Last edited:
Another question, should i pre-order the ultimate edition from Amazon? and also Physical or Digital?
 
This also applies to horizon for me. I'm hoping we get more narrow, tight roads as the majority in FH2 felt quite generic to me.

Right, the racing felt too wide and open. Tight and narrow street races make for some very exciting action. This is why I love VIR so much; it's got a good mix of open straights and tight, narrow corners.

Don't know about you, but missing FM3's fantasy tracks to death.
 
THOSE are the kind of tracks I want to see in FM, unlike the long and wide, plain-looking US ones they have. Still, the track roster is fantastic in FM6, though more street and nature-inspired tracks are welcome.
The Amalfi Coast circuit that was in FM3 was pretty good with this. It had both short and long layouts, was narrow and consisted lots of tight corners. However, it later got widened in FM4 and from there, all tracks (even roads in FH games) were more open.

Still as you say, FM6 has a great track roster and hope it expends from there with more circuits (even sprints) like you mentioned, especially ones that take place in nature. :embarrassed:
 
FH3 is really tempting me to make the leap to PC. Wondering if any of you lovely people would have any idea how much a gaming PC that could handle most games at 1080p 60fps at a higher detail quality would cost?

It depends where you live and how much of the build and tweaking you're willing to do yourself. Use Logical Increments as suggested by @ProjectWHaT.

I'd say you should be able to bring it in under $1000. Depending on what specials, second hand deals and hardware you already own or can beg from friends, you could be down near $500 if you get really lucky.

Just spend the time to learn how to build it yourself, it'll save a lot. It's about as difficult as lego, as long as you follow the instructions. For reference, a friend bought a computer off the shelf for $2500, mine I built myself for $1000 and it's basically equivalent.

Also, if you build yourself you'll save lots of money in the future with upgrades, as you'll be able to swap single pieces instead of getting a whole new computer.

This being a UWP game, expect no content modding whatsoever. :indiff:

Maybe. I bet you someone figures it out sooner or later, if only because a locked platform is basically a challenge to some people. ;)
 
Keep in mind, that you will need to overclock this build. Grab 8320 instead of 8350, with overclocking its same. For motherboard try to find Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P or ASUS M5A97 PRO rev 2.0

Can you tell me how the UD3P is better then the DS3P Im looking at? The UD3P is $15 more expensive, I just want to make sure its worth the extra money.
 
Can you tell me how the UD3P is better then the DS3P Im looking at
better power phase(8+2/4+1),better cooling for the chipset and VRM. Cant say its best(990FX still better chipset), but its was my main candidate for 8320 two years ago. In general, main problem of 970 chipset is fatal overheating.

For now, i think mid segment AMD CPU isnt worth it at all(FM2+ still the best for low budget). You must spend MUCH more for cooling and PSU, while cheapest i5 still better performs then overclocked FX-8****.

There arent too many reasonable variants - AMD Athlon + RX460/GTX950 for budget segment, i5 4460/6500 + RX470/RX480/GTX1060 for midsegment and i5 6600K + GTX1070 for top segment. Sure, there are some exotic overclocking options like Z170 motherboard + i5 6400, or FX8**** + 990FX, but its only worth it if you ready for overclocking or already have nice PSU and case.
 
Last edited:
https://www.microsoftstore.com/stor...a-Horizon-3-for-Xbox-One/productID.2780369800

https://www.looksmartmodels.com/product/lamborghini-centenario-143/

check this out

They are doing a GT5/6 and including a free 1:43 scale model plus $10 store credit.

Is this version the full version including the Win10 version?

Is it confirmed to be the Looksmart model? If so, hell of a deal: it looks like their 1:43's normally go for roughly the price of that edition on their own!
 
Third party versions of the RX 480 will have better cooling but will also cost more. Still, assuming that Horizon 3 runs as well as Apex does on PC (and the RX 480 runs as well as the R9 390), this should be able run it at max settings easily at 1080P, and maybe even 1440P with some settings turned down.
It won't run as well as Apex simply because it's way more technically advanced, realtime lighting and weather and open world are all very demanding points, it's twice as demanding on X1, so it will be twice as demanding on pc, plus better textures, shadows and AA will add extra strain on the system.
Can somebody tell me if Apex runs better or worse than Assetto and PCars on PC? Because it doesn't touch them technologically.
 
It won't run as well as Apex simply because it's way more technically advanced
We already know that single 980Ti can handle 30fps+ at 4K. For Apex its 38-46fps. At worst scenario, its 22% more performance hungry. RX480=R9290x, that can handle 58-67fps at 1080p all maxed. 58-74 - 22% = 45-52fps. Turned down MSAA for x4 and you get constant 60fps.
 
It won't run as well as Apex simply because it's way more technically advanced, realtime lighting and weather and open world are all very demanding points, it's twice as demanding on X1, so it will be twice as demanding on pc, plus better textures, shadows and AA will add extra strain on the system.
Can somebody tell me if Apex runs better or worse than Assetto and PCars on PC? Because it doesn't touch them technologically.

So just add twice the power to make it run buttery smooth at 60 fps, max detail. :D
 
Which is going to be offset by better optimization and, frankly, being less of a rough, spun-off tech demo / experimental prototype and more of a proper port.
Guess we'll see, I have a hard time believing in some miracle optimizations, PC and X1 are one and the same now, same API, same productivity. Anyways, I'm sure you can use some quadruple Titans to run it in 4k.
 
Guess we'll see, I have a hard time believing in some miracle optimizations, PC and X1 are one and the same now, same API, same productivity. Anyways, I'm sure you can use some quadruple Titans to run it in 4k.
The demo ran at 4k/30 Fps on a single 980ti. Assuming unlocked frame rate, that's more like double GTX 1080 for 4k/60 Fps, I reckon. But that's par the course for 4k/60, from what I've seen in terms of hardware benchmarks.

Besides, it's far from "miracle optimisation". It's the difference between a beta and full release that are almost a year apart. And yes, I'm aware that porting games from the XBone (and PS4, for that matter) is far from the issue porting games from previous generations was. However, that doesn't mean perfect optimization from day one of the development cycle - just look at the jump in performance you typically get from the first set of optimised drivers.
 
Back