Lexicalje

Just to chime in here, i have an RTX2060 FE and when i got it it had really annoying coil whine, but its died down a lot since i got it. I also feel like overclocking it and running it a different frequency helped a bit as well. Anyway, just saying as you use the thing it might get better, mine certainly did.

The day 1 patch made Anthem run like dirt for me, was great before that now im getting FPS drops down to 30 sometimes, whilst before it was basically 70-90. The game is a buggy mess right now, especially on PC... RTX 2060 by the way.

I have a 2060 and although i dont have a 1440p gaming monitor, i have been playing some games on my 4k TV at 1440p. Have to say the 2060 handles them just fine and i have no doubt it will handle most things at 1440p well. I have been playing Forza Horizon 4 at ultra / high settings with 4x MSAA on and been getting 70-90 fps.

I have to say i am disappointed with DLSS... I was hoping for more with the technology. Maybe it will improve over time who knows. For a laugh i switched DLSS on at 1080p, felt like i had put someone elses spectacles on. Horrendous! And they used that as a selling point for the 2060. "Hey, turn RTX on and DLSS for 60fps @1080p!". No one should ever do that. Ever.

I mean i only played the first mission thing late last night but i had no issues, was buttery smooth and load times were also a lot better. Planning to put a few hours into it tonight.

I just started the 10 hour trial after playing the early access demo thing a few weeks ago. Have to say performance seems a lot better to me between the 2 builds of the game. I cant remember the graphics settings i used on the demo but i was getting between 50 and 70 fps. In the trial im on 1080p max everything and getting 70-100fps. Not bad i think, i guess they did some optimisation after the demo. Also maybe its just me but i think the game looks a lot better as well and plays smoother. I felt the demo was a bit rough around the edges and had some weird glitches but this "retail" build seems great and i did stop and stare at it a few ttimes as it was so pretty. R7 1700 & RTX 2060 by the way.

People dont seem keen on them but i bought an FE the day they came out as it was quite a bit cheaper than other cards on the market. Im pleased with it, clocked it +120 core and +1Ghz on the memory which is decent i think.

In reality i think its about 10-15% performance difference which in my opinion is in no way worth the price difference. As i said before, just get a 2060 and overclock it or stump up for a 2080 if you want a big jump in performance. Unless you're at 4k the 2060 is more than adequate.

Just get a 2060 and overclock it. Thats what ive done and im nearly at 2070 performance. Its a fantastic card im dead impressed with it for the money!

Just to say i bought the FE version and im very pleased with it. Compared to other models it was about £50-100 cheaper and its not missed a beat so far and overclocks pretty well. Personally i just think get the cheapest card possible unless you're going to get a different model.

Sorry i meant to say i changed it from the Geforce Experience best image quality settings (slider all the way to the right) to the "ultra" preset in the game. Im not really sure what that actually entailed changing aside from MSAA, but yes as i noted it resulted in a rather large increase in performance. I suppose when you move to 1440p you dont need to spend as much GPU resources on AA so you get some of that performance back. Anyway, appreciate all your help with this. Im still impressed with my Ryzen 7, even if it is a 1st gen. The fact it runs on a 4Ghz all core overclock all day long still pleases me. I suspect i will update to Zen 2 when that comes out later this year. Do love AMD for keeping their sockets consistent.

It was total score. Ok, thats reassuring then thank you. I dont know why i felt it was low... Perhaps i was thinking about those Core i7's again..!

Hmm ok... I might be an idiot. So i just re-ran the FH4 benchmark but this time i changed the settings from the Geforce Experience best image quality settings (slider all the way to the right) and the ultra preset option in game and my performance jumped from 82fps average to 108fps average. Which is more where i would expect it to be. Also that was with my CPU running at 3.2Ghz instead of 4Ghz as i forgot to change the settings in Ryzen master. Didnt realise there would be such a performance hit. Perhaps its the MSAA or something...

Yes i have played some of the game and the FPS is a bit higher, sits more around 80-100fps during actual gameplay rather than the benchmark where its more 70-90fps. Im just basically trying to understand if i have an issue or if this is just the performance of the machine. I know Intel CPU's are faster but thats not really what im asking. Its weird, i feel like the machine is where it should be with Timespy, but Fire Strike feels low to me? I would have thought i would be getting towards 20k with this setup in that benchmark. Is there anything else i can do? What do you recommend to monitor hardware? Im fairly sure GPU usage is nearly 100% in games which means im not CPU limited right?

Now i would have thought my system is a bit faster than yours, a 2060 overclocked is roughly the same as a vega 64 no? But your performance seems better than mine but i have a faster CPU and faster ram...