I know ultra shadows are supposed to be tough to run but... What is the difference here in these two pictures? The location is the concord speakeasy incase anyone else wants to test this out for themselves.

@33 fps

http://oi63.tinypic.com/vs2n29.jpg

@64 fps

http://oi64.tinypic.com/30neznr.jpg

Can anyone see an image quality change for such a large frame rate hit, cos I sure as all hell can't.

3570k @4.6 GHz

sli evga gtx 670's

12 gb ram

evo 850 ssd's in raid 0

acer xb270h gysnc monitor

lol, yes seems almost identical.

Of course you chosen a dark spot for that comparison. So even it the engine renders more complex shadows, no one will see those to tell.

I didn't actually choose this site, erm, haha it chose me! This place is the only location after adjusting my settings for 60 fps gameplay in about 35 hours of playing to dip this low into my fps.

You mean that's the only place that your FPS deeps half way down from high to ultra ???

If that's the case, that's not a big deal...

The only setting I've changed in those pictures are shadow quality from ultra to high. I know others are having a much worse time with this game, it's not right man. However it does say something about how unoptimized the interior cells really are.

gamesas are really *really* bad at shadows for some reason. Always have been. I remember that was the big FPS killer even as far back as Morrowind.