I’m running on an i5 2500k and a 970 (can SLI but I doubt there would be improvements or a profile this early in development, I’ll check later), but I was getting 25-30 fps at 1920x1080 (1440p is just not playable at the moment).
Also do keep in mind, it’s beta. So there will be 1) optimisation from the development team and also 2) game specific drivers from your GPU vendor at release too, so it won’t play like this normally.
At 1920x1080 and very high settings the game runs for me near the castle between 35-40 fps. If I run with the horse outside to the green it increased slightly to 40-45 fps and I have no appreciable lags until now.
At 4K and very high settings it runs with 25fps and looks so:
And also with LOD and Object/Vegetation Distance at maximum and motion blur off it runs at 21 fps and looks so:
At 1920x1080 and high settings the game runs not really better as in very high, it sticks to 45 fps and lags are more often.
Maybe i’m blind as mole (and I really wear glasses), but I CANNOT see the difference between 1080p and 4k on my 4k monitor. Only FPS drops 
Who plays Beta feel free to add me as friend in Steam - nickname is Lefikantor
To see the difference you have to find some texture or an aliasing effect which seems not good in 1080p, I will give you an example in few minutes.
Look at the aliasing of the fence in the near and in the distance.
1080p very high:
4K very high:
But I must say, the Anit-Aliasing in 1080p is fair enough, I must admit that I had to search a little bit^^
Heh… It’s VERY hard to find such difference But after a couple minutes staring on these pictures - I’ve finally see it
Yepp, the Anti-Aliasing of this game is good.
But I have to say, you can’t run a long time with 4k, very high and maximum LOD/distance and tab in and out as often as I did… the game crashes after a few minutes.
ANd I think SLI doesn’t work either.
You think or did you tried it?
I tried it - only one card is under load.
But opimization even for beta is not as good as expected…
Getting lots of lag and low FPS here as well.
3570K @ 4GHz
16GB RAM
R9 390
Same problem here. Lags that don’t depend on graphic settings at all. And my GPU doesn’t even get hot… Is it because of RAM? I have 8 GB. Game is unplayable.
Edit: Adding another 8 GB of RAM solved the lagging.
i5-4670k @ 4.1
16GB DDR4
Radeon Fury
There is no setting at 1080p that gets me over 45 FPS. 1440p is, well, you know. Not better.
There’s no V-Sync option and I’m getting screen tearing with my FreeSync on or off. Is there an ini setting somewhere to test this?
Thanks
After testing a few hours I can definitely say that the performance issues are not really depends on the graphic settings. If you are in the training camp, near Merhojed, I can set any graphic setting from very high to low, the performance is still under 25 fps and the lags are horrible, even at fighting.
This means the big performance lost is caused by CPU consuming activities, like the AI. If I go into the menu, by only pressing ESC during the game, the fps get a huge growth!
By 1920x1080 and very high it goes from 25fps to 72fps. With same resolution and low settings it goes from 25fps to 105fps! That is because all AI activities are stopped and only graphic settings remains.
That proves my theory that the game is very CPU hungry.
I think you are absolutely right. I had same observation in alpha aswell.
changing settings from low to very high basically never really affected my fps, difference was like 2-5 fps at most
I am really sorry for double post, but I want to share my beta experience right now.
My specs are Intel I5 4460
GeForce GTX660 (2GB)
8 GB RAM
So not great spec by any means.
What I did is use medium details, lower shadow quality and everything shadow related, and I did one unthinkable thing - i lowered resolution to HD only. This way I am able to play the game at almost steady 30-35fps without any bad hiccups or lags, except for maybe that damned military camp, which is imo not bad for such subpar HW
Because it´s not optimized. In real the settings are nearly the same. 
A compare video
So it might work even with 8go of ram then?
I think I’m going to wait until it’s released. I did not even touch the game yet.
This was the same issue with Arma 3, it ran great if no soldier AI was in the level.
true, however arma 3 was simply outdated. cryengine has multicore support and optimization, so the final version should have the cpu heavy processes delegated to more cores if need be. arma 3 was just using 1 core for everything, and a pipeline on the 2nd core for sound.
