2k16 vs 2k15 graphics and performance

This game has seen some obvious graphical improvements with the introduction of body scans and the like, but the system requirements were/are the exact same as those for 2k15. I have a low end laptop sporting an unremarkable GT 840m, but I was plenty content with the settings I played 2k15 at and pre-ordered 2k16 (first ever pre-order of any kind in my entire life) assuming that I would be able to play at my 2k15 settings if not slightly better.

I can only maintain a constant 60 fps with the absolute bare minimum settings at 720p including the crowd turned completely off (save for texture quality, which seems to have zero performance impact for me). The issues with this port thus far are well documented, so I'll try not to drone on and complain here. What I'm wondering is:

What is a rough timeline for which we can reasonably expect updates/improvements from either VC and/or NVIDIA (both on the performance end, and on PC-specific bug fixing e.g. bugged rebranding, player icons, etc)? This is the first game I've owned at launch, so I'm new to this. Ever time I watch gameplay from an Xbox or hear about how much a PS4 player loves this game, it makes it that much harder to be patient.

Is it a reasonable expectation that I will ever be able to run 2k16 at similar settings to what I ran 2k15 at? I was content with my 2k15 settings, but it feels like a shame to play at anything too much lower, let alone my current state of bare minimum that I find wholly unacceptable for gaming. If I'm never going to be able to run at anything much higher than the minimum, it might be time to seriously consider saving up for better hardware or just flat out trying to put this game out of my mind and coming to terms with my wasted purchase money. On the other hand, I can be patient if I have a good reason to be

Thanks in advance for any insight fellas

I'd say you can expect something from VC/Nvidia in like 2-3months from launch but it could take as long as 6months.

I'd say you can expect something from VC/Nvidia in like 2-3months from launch but it could take as long as 6months.

This is just completely wrong. 6 months for the first patch? 2K15 had five PC patches by April, which was less than five months, let alone six.

Sadly nVidia did not make special drivers for NBA 2K if I recall correctly. Don't know how about AMD.

Looks like VC is not working with nVidia or vice-versa. One of the areas that can be improved for sure.

Sadly nVidia did not make special drivers for NBA 2K if I recall correctly. Don't know how about AMD.

Looks like VC is not working with nVidia or vice-versa. One of the areas that can be improved for sure.

Is this also the case for AMD?

I'm considering upgrading my 660 to be able to run this game better. For the price of a PS4 I can get a 4Go Nvidia GTX 900 series. Or for half the price I can go AMD R9 or whatever at 8Go (I know the stuff about amd's memory not being as strong as Nvidia's)

What 900 series card specifically are you talking about?

I see NVIDIA released new drivers today. Unfortunately there was no mention of NBA 2k16 in the notes...and I don't seem to notice any difference in my game after doing a clean install.

Is this also the case for AMD?

I'm considering upgrading my 660 to be able to run this game better. For the price of a PS4 I can get a 4Go Nvidia GTX 900 series. Or for half the price I can go AMD R9 or whatever at 8Go (I know the stuff about amd's memory not being as strong as Nvidia's)

What AMD memory not as strong as nVIDIA's stuff? That would be news to me, and I am far, far from a noob when it comes to GPU tech... AMD's HBM (High-Bandwidth Memory) on its Fury-series cards actually smokes the performance of GDDR5 used by both AMD and nVIDIA, and generation 2 of HBM is going to be even better. (My money is on nVIDIA adopting it as well.) Maybe you have it bass-ackwards and you were referencing the undisclosed-until-publicly-called-out nVIDIA GTX970 4GB card with 3.5GB at full-bandwidth and 512MB at ~10% bandwidth snafu...

And I think by Go you meant GB (gigabyte). There's absolutely no point in getting anything with more than 4GB unless you intend to push max details on a single 1440p monitor, max/high details on a 4K monitor, or you have a triple-monitor-surround setup connected to a single or SLI/Crossfire top-end card(s). No game run at 1080p needs more than 4GB of VRAM - not a single one. Not Witcher 3, not Dragon Age Inquisition, not GTA V, not Ark Survival, and certainly not NBA2K16.

Despite its memory debacle, the GTX970 still delivers amazing 1080p performance in any title thrown at it. At around $300, it's a great card for the money. No card in the same price range from AMD's camp can top it when it comes to 1080p gaming.

What AMD memory not as strong as nVIDIA's stuff? That would be news to me, and I am far, far from a noob when it comes to GPU tech... AMD's HBM (High-Bandwidth Memory) on its Fury-series cards actually smokes the performance of GDDR5 used by both AMD and nVIDIA, and generation 2 of HBM is going to be even better.

HBM 1 is only implemented in R9 Fury, R9 Fury X and R9 Nano. HBM1 comes with it's own disadvantages and these cards feel more like a proof of concept. Only R9 Fury is really competitive (against GTX 980). Fury X not so much (against 980 Ti).

As for the rest of tehir cards - nVidia does have higher effective speed (not that it would matter that much).

(My money is on nVIDIA adopting it as well.)

Yes, it's well known that both AMD and nVidia are planning to use HBM2 in their next generation of GPUs.

There's absolutely no point in getting anything with more than 4GB unless you intend to push max details on a single 1440p monitor, max/high details on a 4K monitor, or you have a triple-monitor-surround setup connected to a single or SLI/Crossfire top-end card(s). No game run at 1080p needs more than 4GB of VRAM - not a single one. Not Witcher 3, not Dragon Age Inquisition, not GTA V, not Ark Survival, and certainly not NBA2K16.

Actually... GTA V can go over 4GB of VRAM at 1080p. Also modded Skyrim can go there.

Despite its memory debacle, the GTX970 still delivers amazing 1080p performance in any title thrown at it. At around $300, it's a great card for the money. No card in the same price range from AMD's camp can top it when it comes to 1080p gaming.

R9 390 has basically same performance, trading blows with 970 - one card gets better results in some games, other card in others. Currently it's pretty much advised to go for R9 390 when you're in that $300-330 price range.