How do you achieve 200+FPS, high settings, 1080p, on games like warzone?

[j1mgg]

I keep in reading threads on here saying that the new cards will not really help people that are using 1080 monitors, which I expect a lot of people still do, because GPU works better at higher resolution.

 

So, are 1080p 240hzs monitors a con unless you want to play at potato game settings?

 

I have a 3700x CPU, 32gb 3600mhz ram, and 2 2546s 1080p 240hz monitors.

 

Thanks,

 

Person confused about CPU used for graphics

[jaslion]

5 minutes ago, j1mgg said:

I keep in reading threads on here saying that the new cards will not really help people that are using 1080 monitors, which I expect a lot of people still do, because GPU works better at higher resolution.

 

So, are 1080p 240hzs monitors a con unless you want to play at potato game settings?

 

I have a 3700x CPU, 32gb 3600mhz ram, and 2 2546s 1080p 240hz monitors.

 

Thanks,

 

Person confused about CPU used for graphics

1. Have a gpu that can push the framerate

2. Have a cpu that can feed the gpu fast enough

3. Don't care about it as the difference between 144hz and 240hz displays is so incredibly small it doesn't matter

[Moonzy]

10 minutes ago, j1mgg said:

So, are 1080p 240hzs monitors a con unless you want to play at potato game settings?

not all games can run above 200fps due to CPU limitations, especially AAA titles that focus more on story/graphics

but games that matters do run above 240fps (competitive games, mostly)

it depends on the game's objective when designing.

 

running a 3080 at 1080p will only means you're limited by your CPU in most (if not every) cases, normally single threaded performance limited.

but that doesnt mean it'll run bad, it'll just run at the fastest speed your CPU can run it at (be it 150fps or smth)

you'll only run into issue with CPU bound when you lack threads, that's when games starts become stuttery due to framepacing issues.

 

here's my game running at 2400 fps on my 240Hz

Spoiler

PS: dont say 2400fps is dumb, when i can feel the difference between 240 fps and 1200 fps.

whoever says it probably didnt spend 4000 hours in a game before.

[j1mgg]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

not all games can run above 200fps due to CPU limitations, especially AAA titles that focus more on story/graphics

but games that matters do run above 240fps (competitive games, mostly)

it depends on the game's objective when designing.

 

running a 3080 at 1080p will only means you're limited by your CPU in most (if not every) cases, normally single threaded performance limited.

but that doesnt mean it'll run bad, it'll just run at the fastest speed your CPU can run it at

you'll only run into issue with CPU bound when you lack threads, that's when games starts become stuttery due to framepacing issues.

 

here's my game running at 2400 fps on my 240Hz

  Reveal hidden contents

PS: dont say 2400fps is dumb, when i can feel the difference between 240 fps and 1200 fps.

whoever says it probably didnt spend 4000 hours in a game before.

Thanks, that explains it a bit better.

 

Better CPU, better GPU, will still mean an increase in FPS for 1080p.

 

Previous replies I have read came across as if there is a limit, no matter your CPU or GPU.

[Moonzy]

Just now, j1mgg said:

Better CPU, better GPU, will still mean an increase in FPS for 1080p.

it depends

if you're CPU limited when using a 3070, you wont see any gain moving to a 3080

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

  Reveal hidden contents

PS: dont say 2400fps is dumb, when i can feel the difference between 240 fps and 1200 fps.

whoever says it probably didnt spend 4000 hours in a game before.

I can confidently say that to me having played probably well over 4000 hours in unreal tournament 2004 (it was the only shooter game on my parents computer for 9 years :p) that between a 144hz monitor and 240hz monitor I do not notice and difference what so ever. Both feel almost like the crt I always played it on and still sometimes play it on.

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, j1mgg said:

Thanks, that explains it a bit better.

 

Better CPU, better GPU, will still mean an increase in FPS for 1080p.

 

Previous replies I have read came across as if there is a limit, no matter your CPU or GPU.

Totally depends on how gpu limited you are. A gpu is only as good as the cpu that is feeding it is. This is why when you pair a core 2 dou e8400 with a gtx 580 or a rtx 2080ti the framerates for pretty much any game will be the same no matter what.

[j1mgg]

3 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Totally depends on how gpu limited you are. A gpu is only as good as the cpu that is feeding it is. This is why when you pair a core 2 dou e8400 with a gtx 580 or a rtx 2080ti the framerates for pretty much any game will be the same no matter what.

Is there a way to work this out, or do I just need to keep googling to hope someone else has already done a benchmark for the game I want to play?

 

I know my CPU can do more frames from oc my GPU (2080S), but it wasnt stable and crashed the game a few times.

 

So, as long as you have a strong enough cpu, a strong enough gpu, and a game optimized, then 1080p resolution won't be the factor?

[Moonzy]

9 minutes ago, jaslion said:

that between a 144hz monitor and 240hz monitor I do not notice and difference what so ever.

I cant tell 120fps from 240fps visually as well, but my performance in the game says otherwise

maybe because it's a rhythm game and every ms counts

 

4 minutes ago, j1mgg said:

Is there a way to work this out, or do I just need to keep googling to hope someone else has already done a benchmark for the game I want to play?

use an overlay like RTSS from msi afterburner and monitor GPU and cpu usage when playing your game of choice

 

if GPU usage isnt pinned at 95%+, then something else in the system is limiting it, and it's most likely the CPU

example:

Spoiler

GPU1 is fluctuating between 80~95%, so it's limited by other thing in the system

you can see CPU1 and 3 have high usage (around 85%), so it's a good sign of CPU bound situation

[Mick Naughty]

I use a 1080ti on multiplayer and get those frames. 
 

So I’d get a better card than that. 

[j1mgg]

15 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

I use a 1080ti on multiplayer and get those frames. 
 

So I’d get a better card than that. 

What setting level are you using, and is your card oc'd a lot?

[Mick Naughty]

8 minutes ago, j1mgg said:

What setting level are you using, and is your card oc'd a lot?

Most of everything is on high or off. My fps doesnt increase if I turn settings down anyway. Card is stock as they dont overclock well and even if it did that will only yield a few fps increase.

[Zenith_X1]

5 hours ago, j1mgg said:

Thanks, that explains it a bit better.

 

Better CPU, better GPU, will still mean an increase in FPS for 1080p.

 

Previous replies I have read came across as if there is a limit, no matter your CPU or GPU.

Games tend to prefer clockspeed on the CPU, so a newer CPU with a bunch more cores but slower clock speed may still lose to an older CPU with higher clocks.  Depends on how well the game is multi-threaded

[jasonc_01]

1 hour ago, Mick Naughty said:

Most of everything is on high or off. My fps doesnt increase if I turn settings down anyway. Card is stock as they dont overclock well and even if it did that will only yield a few fps increase.

My 1080ti overclocked really well.

 

I'm getting north of 175fps in call of duty at 1440p  everything maxed if not almost everything on a 2080ti

[Mick Naughty]

1 hour ago, jasonc_01 said:

My 1080ti overclocked really well.

 

I'm getting north of 175fps in call of duty at 1440p  everything maxed if not almost everything on a 2080ti

Whats considered really well?

[Mark Kaine]

it's not the same for every game (many are badly optimized for multi core usage) but generally better GPU = higher settings, better framerates, regardless of resolution.

 

 

it's possible you run into a CPU bottleneck, but as long you don't literally have a potato CPU you will see gains across the board to with a better GPU. it's not rocket surgery lol.

 

9 hours ago, Moonzy said:

not all games can run above 200fps due to CPU limitations, especially AAA titles

that is surely correct, but since I'm an adult customer with a choice I just don't play these games, optimized for multi core usage or bust!

 

(I just play Capcom games currently therefore )

[Moonzy]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

many are badly optimized for multi core usage

 

it's possible you run into a CPU bottleneck, but as long you don't literally have a potato CPU you will see gains across the board to with a better GPU. it's not rocket surgery lol.

 

(I just play Capcom games)

i dont know how to break it to you but  

the example i gave was a capcom game

on my 3900x, at 1080p, cpu bottleneck at 90 fps during hunts 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

13 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

i dont know how to break it to you but  

the example i gave was a capcom game

on my 3900x, at 1080p, cpu bottleneck at 90 fps during hunts 

 

 

that is weird, I never run in a CPU bottleneck in MHW... it uses like 20% on average *on all cores/ threads*  ??

 

though I also play at 60fps maybe that's why...  (I get a headache playing at higher fps on my 60hz monitor)

 

also did you know damage is tied to framerates in that game? so running at higher fps can be a disadvantage , especially for bowguns... however there's a mod to fix that

, called "tick rate fix" (highly recommend)

 

^ yes, I'm a bowgun main

 

ps: gonna watch later, I can't read the overlays on phone

 

 

9 hours ago, Moonzy said:

rhythm game

 

funny you say that  I used to play a lot of Project Diva games (all of them actually) and I very much preferred the ones running at 30fps over the 60 fps ones, I had the feeling you had to be much more precise at 60fps, and since I'm lazy af I obviously preferred 30fps then...  (even though Dreamy Theater 2nd is my fav and that's running at 60) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

though TBH I've never been good even though I played a lot, barely ever beat anything on "extreme" still loved the series obviously (some of my fav music ever too)

 

 

[Moonzy]

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

also did you know damage is tied to framerates in that game?

yes i know this game is badly coded

im almost mr999...

 

i laughed when i found out console was 30fps and couldn't pull off the safi + health regen mix because they happen at the same frame so no dmg boost

i died

 

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes, I'm a bowgun main

ah, a man of culture

same

 

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I've never been good

-flex-

 

also, continue in PM if you want, to not derail

[Mark Kaine]

26 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

 

i laughed when i found out console was 30fps

ps4 pro maybe, on base ps4 it's more like 24-29 fps ... (I bought it, a huge mistake, or maybe not cause I sold my ps4 afterwards and couldn't be happier not having to deal with this nonsense anymore...)

 

 

26 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

man of culture

 

 

26 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

this game is badly coded

ok I watched it a bit, and I could actually read some of the overlay, it seems a few cores / threads are at like 80%... this isn't something I've ever noticed, they're usually very equally used (depending on the "patch" between 20% and 50%) so how does this work, just because you're running at ~90fps the CPU already maxes out or what? (I think it shouldn't but I obviously never tried it, not with an overlay at least)

 

 

26 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

-flex-

heh, I have pretty good reflexes actually, it's more like a sensoric overload or whatever, I can't concentrate well when a lot of stuff is going on like in a rhythm game, or bullet hell shooter, etc. hence I really liked playing rhythm games at 30 fps on "medium" difficulty or something  ...

 

 

[jasonc_01]

6 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

Whats considered really well?

+150 on the core and +1100 on memory.

[Mick Naughty]

2 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

+150 on the core and +1100 on memory.

What did it actually run at?

[jasonc_01]

2140-2175 core and memory like 6100+

 

Edit: sorry 6600 not 6100