I don't get why i have less fps

[Gustavo Dutra]

Like... Looking at the ground my GPU and CPU work harder, and when playing it goes down to 50% or less. Why this happens ?

Specs: I7 3700, 1080gtx, 16gb ram.

 

[Slottr]

They're not working harder, you're just providing it easier work

 

It doesn't have to render that huge scene when looking down at the floor, which is why your frames are higher

[Princess Luna]

Because it's a hell lot easier to render the ground than the background porn on first image.

[SupaKomputa]

Is this 4K?

If so it's just a normal FPS for gtx 1080.

I suggest you tone down the quality, like disable antialias etc.

[Gustavo Dutra]

Just now, Slottr said:

They're not working harder, you're just providing it easier work

 

It doesn't have to render that huge scene when looking down at the floor, which is why your frames are higher

I know, less stuff = less rendering time == more fps. But using rivaturner it shows that's working way more than normally playing.

[Gustavo Dutra]

1 minute ago, SupaKomputa said:

Is this 4K?

If so it's just a normal FPS for gtx 1080.

I suggest you tone down the quality, like disable antialias etc.

Nop normal 1080p...

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

Is this 4K?

If so it's just a normal FPS for gtx 1080.

More like a CPU demanding game running on an old i7 3770 locked with likely low frequency RAM... the GTX 1080 is likely being bottleneck and that is apparent by it's low usage

[SupaKomputa]

Wow, that's horrible.

Maybe a driver issue, clean up DDU and reinstall.

[Gustavo Dutra]

2 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

Wow, that's horrible.

Maybe a driver issue, clean up DDU and reinstall.

Srry for my almost non existent experience with pc gaming. But what's DDU ? Display driver uninstaller ?

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, Gustavo Dutra said:

Srry for my almost non existent experience with pc gaming. But what's DDU ? Display driver uninstaller ?

yes

[Gustavo Dutra]

1 minute ago, ReggieGRS said:

I have a somewhat similar issue. I get 40-45 FPS on AC Origins

but if i look upwards, it goes to over 60. Like, TF

 

I actually went back to see if there was actual porn in the image -.-

 

That's exactly it

And using DDU helped a bit ?

[SupaKomputa]

6 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

More like a CPU demanding game running on an old i7 3770 locked with likely low frequency RAM... the GTX 1080 is likely being bottleneck and that is apparent by it's low usage

This is a possibility, but reviewing some benchmark in youtube, most of them hovering in 60-70fps.

And 60fps for gtx1080 is not acceptable.

[SupaKomputa]

2 minutes ago, Gustavo Dutra said:

And using DDU helped a bit ?

Depends, if the problem is the driver, if not maybe your system is holding the gpu.

[XR6]

It happens because the ground is much easier to render than the rest of the map, which is why you get higher FPS when you look at the ground.

When you look at the ground the only thing your system needs to render is the ground, when you look around the rest of the map your system has a lot more to render which reduces the FPS.

[TomvanWijnen]

I also don't understand this. Neither the GPU, CPU, nor RAM are at 100%, why is it not utilising one of them more?

[Princess Luna]

3 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I also don't understand this. Neither the GPU, CPU, nor RAM are at 100%, why is it not utilising one of them more?

That's called "bottleneck".

[TomvanWijnen]

Just now, Princess Luna said:

That's called "bottleneck".

Where is the bottleneck though? As I said, the GPU, CPU, and RAM aren't at 100%, where could the bottleneck be?

[Princess Luna]

7 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Where is the bottleneck though? As I said, the GPU, CPU, and RAM aren't at 100%, where could the bottleneck be?

100% usage is not the only indicator of a bottleneck, it's simple the easiest indicator of such.

[TomvanWijnen]

9 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

100% usage is not the only indicator of a bottleneck, it's simple the easiest indicator of such.

Okay, sure. Where is the bottleneck in this case though?

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Okay, sure. Where is the bottleneck in this case though?

CPU and Memory.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Where is the bottleneck though? As I said, the GPU, CPU, and RAM aren't at 100%, where could the bottleneck be?

The software itself. If it doesn't issue enough threads to saturate the processor constantly, then your processor is never going to show 100% utilization. At this point, single core performance takes over and the only way to get over that hump is to overclock or get a faster processor.

[TomvanWijnen]

Just now, Mira Yurizaki said:

The software itself. If it doesn't issue enough threads to saturate the processor constantly, then your processor is never going to show 100% utilization. At this point, single core performance takes over and the only way to get over that hump is to overclock or get a faster processor.

I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like a single core is near its max. They are, however, all utilised reasonably. Does this mean that more cores/threads could perhaps be necessary to improve performance?

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like a single core is near its max. They are, however, all utilised reasonably. Does this mean that more cores/threads could perhaps be necessary to improve performance?

Windows schedules tasks based on availability. If there's say only 4 threads on average to pass around and the other CPU threads aren't doing anything else, Windows will likely spread the load around throughout all of the threads rather than concentrate them onto as few as possible.

 

So no, adding more cores/threads won't solve the problem. It's a software design/implementation problem if this is the case.

[Gustavo Dutra]

16 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Windows schedules tasks based on availability. If there's say only 4 threads on average to pass around and the other CPU threads aren't doing anything else, Windows will likely spread the load around throughout all of the threads rather than concentrate them onto as few as possible.

 

So no, adding more cores/threads won't solve the problem. It's a software design/implementation problem if this is the case.

 

So... i should probably buy a new motherboard with ddr4 sockets, i3 8100 might do the job ? Plus some new 16gb of ram of course.

Or even i5 8400.