Playerunknown not running like I thought

[Sonicking157]

My System is as follows,

• CPU
  Intel I5-4460 (Upgrading to I7-4790k this week)
• Motherboard
  MSI Z97 PC Mate
• RAM
  4x4 Corsair Vengeance 1600MHZ
• GPU
  Gigabyte G1 Gaming R9-390
• Case
  Cooler Master HAF XM (With Window Side Panel)
• Storage
  (Old Model) Seagate 1TB + Samsung 850 Evo 120GB
• PSU
  EVGA NEX 650G (Fully Modular)

The game is set to ultra on everything. 

 

I've been getting an average FPS in playunknownsbattleground of around 40-50FPS I wasn't sure if that is because it's just a very taxing game and my GPU can't handle it or if I've done something wrong.

[Colexd]

Unoptimized

[Jurrunio]

do you get more or lower fps in some senes?

 

This game doesnt like AMD cards, so not surprised

[Damascus]

CPU is the issue, PUBG easily uses 6c

[Sonicking157]

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

do you get more or lower fps in some senes?

 

This game doesnt like AMD cards, so not surprised

The highest FPS I get is around 53 and that when not much is around. I get 50 on the loading screen. (side note when I turned foliage to very low it crashed but as soon as I turned it back to ultra the game stopped crashing)

[Sonicking157]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

CPU is the issue, PUBG easily uses 6c

Glad I'm upgrading then.

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, Damascus said:

CPU is the issue, PUBG easily uses 6c

No, it doesn't. 

 

@Sonicking157 PUBG doesn't like red cards, but you should try playing on low settings since even 1080's only get 100Hz in the game at low 1920x1080. 

[Mornincupofhate]

PUBG is literally running on the arma 2 engine. It's laggy as fuck.

[Frankenburger]

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

No, it doesn't. 

Actually, it does. It's not as evident on CPUs with HT, but it's known to have high CPU usage on non HT enabled CPUs. However, it's more an issue with not being optimal on AMD GPUs than anything else. Full ultra on PUBG is setting the bar kinda high.

 

3 minutes ago, Mornincupofhate said:

PUBG is literally running on the arma 2 engine. It's laggy as fuck.

PUBG uses Unreal Engine 4.

[raccoontwos]

I currently have an i5-4460 and a GTX 1060 (3GB) and I can say that you are being way too ambitious with your settings and that CPU. Before the latest patches for PUBG, running everything on the lowest possible settings 100% maxed out my CPU at all times and I was unable to ever hit 120fps. (my tv is 120Hz 1080p) I tried putting things on ultra and it was a joke. Even after the patches/updates, my cpu isn't completely capped out, now it is usually 70~80% at all times, but putting everything on ultra is still an absurd notion that I would never try again. I can't even hit 60 reliably like that. I am glad to hear you are upgrading to the 4790K, because that is what I am about to do in the coming weeks. I would really appreciate it if you could give us an update on PUBG performance with the 4790K.

 

My advice for now, though, is to play with your settings a little and accept that not *every* setting needs to be on ultra. It doesn't matter how nice something looks if your fps is so choppy that you can't reliably spot or track an enemy.

[Sonicking157]

Just now, raccoontwos said:

I currently have an i5-4460 and a GTX 1060 (3GB) and I can say that you are being way too ambitious with your settings and that CPU. Before the latest patches for PUBG, running everything on the lowest possible settings 100% maxed out my CPU at all times and I was unable to ever hit 120fps. (my tv is 120Hz 1080p) I tried putting things on ultra and it was a joke. Even after the patches/updates, my cpu isn't completely capped out, now it is usually 70~80% at all times, but putting everything on ultra is still an absurd notion that I would never try again. I can't even hit 60 reliably like that. I am glad to hear you are upgrading to the 4790K, because that is what I am about to do in the coming weeks. I would really appreciate it if you could give us an update on PUBG performance with the 4790K.

 

My advice for now, though, is to play with your settings a little and accept that not *every* setting needs to be on ultra. It doesn't matter how nice something looks if your fps is so choppy that you can't reliably spot or track an enemy.

Yeah, I've come to understand that haha. You got it I'll give you an update sometime this week after I install the CPU. 

[Damascus]

45 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

No, it doesn't. 

Lol, it does. Not my info but it's a huge difference. 

 

"tested Ryzen 1700 (OC. 3.8Ghz) 

Before update: Would drop to 50fps (Ultra Settings) HIGH POPULATION  :: Max 135fps

After Update: 75fps (Ultra Settings) HIGH POPULATION :: Max 155fps 

Graphics Card: 1080ti FTW3 EVGA"

 

 

https://forums.playbattlegrounds.com/topic/48543-new-patch-for-multicore-cpus-ooh/

[Eztrcfyu]

PUBG is quite poorly optimized at the moment, running everything on ultra is just asking for trouble.

 

For the smoothest gameplay, try:

Screen Mode - Fullscreen

Anti-Aliasing - Very Low or Ultra (Use Reshade for AA if you put it on Very Low, otherwise use Ultra. Anything in between and things get blurry and it makes it hard to see people in the distance)

Post Processing - Very Low/Low

Shadows - Low (Maybe Very Low, but they look pretty bad)

Textures - Depends on your VRAM, <4GB use Low, 4GB use Medium, >4GB High/Ultra (If you use High/Ultra with 4GB VRAM you may get lag when opening your inventory)

Effects - Very Low/Low

Foliage - Very Low

View Distance - Highest you can while keeping decent framerates. Doesn't affect how far people/vehicles will render, just LOD update distance.

Motion Blur & VSync off

 

[ARikozuM]

REDACTED

[Sonicking157]

11 hours ago, Eztrcfyu said:

PUBG is quite poorly optimized at the moment, running everything on ultra is just asking for trouble.

 

For the smoothest gameplay, try:

Screen Mode - Fullscreen

Anti-Aliasing - Very Low or Ultra (Use Reshade for AA if you put it on Very Low, otherwise use Ultra. Anything in between and things get blurry and it makes it hard to see people in the distance)

Post Processing - Very Low/Low

Shadows - Low (Maybe Very Low, but they look pretty bad)

Textures - Depends on your VRAM, <4GB use Low, 4GB use Medium, >4GB High/Ultra (If you use High/Ultra with 4GB VRAM you may get lag when opening your inventory)

Effects - Very Low/Low

Foliage - Very Low

View Distance - Highest you can while keeping decent framerates. Doesn't affect how far people/vehicles will render, just LOD update distance.

Motion Blur & VSync off

 

Thanks, that's going to be very helpful!

[Sonicking157]

On 9/2/2017 at 0:39 PM, raccoontwos said:

I currently have an i5-4460 and a GTX 1060 (3GB) and I can say that you are being way too ambitious with your settings and that CPU. Before the latest patches for PUBG, running everything on the lowest possible settings 100% maxed out my CPU at all times and I was unable to ever hit 120fps. (my tv is 120Hz 1080p) I tried putting things on ultra and it was a joke. Even after the patches/updates, my cpu isn't completely capped out, now it is usually 70~80% at all times, but putting everything on ultra is still an absurd notion that I would never try again. I can't even hit 60 reliably like that. I am glad to hear you are upgrading to the 4790K, because that is what I am about to do in the coming weeks. I would really appreciate it if you could give us an update on PUBG performance with the 4790K.

 

My advice for now, though, is to play with your settings a little and accept that not *every* setting needs to be on ultra. It doesn't matter how nice something looks if your fps is so choppy that you can't reliably spot or track an enemy.

Hello! I just installed the 4790k with my new H110i and played a few rounds of pubg. My settings for the game are:

Screen Mode - Fullscreen

Anti-Aliasing - Ultra 

Post Processing - Low

Shadows - Low

Textures - Ultra 

Effects - Low

Foliage - Very Low

View Distance - Ultra

Motion Blur & VSync off

I averaged around 80-FPS going as high as 100+-FPS in some areas and as low as 55-FPS in others. I'm sure if I crank back some of my settings I could see more consistent high FPS results but I'm very happy with how everything is now. If you're curious about package temps, they were around 45-50C (with the pre-installed thermal paste from corsair. I'm about to change it.) under a 30% load from the game. 

[raccoontwos]

11 hours ago, Sonicking157 said:

Hello! I just installed the 4790k with my new H110i and played a few rounds of pubg. [...] 

I averaged around 80-FPS going as high as 100+-FPS in some areas and as low as 55-FPS in others. I'm sure if I crank back some of my settings I could see more consistent high FPS results but I'm very happy with how everything is now. If you're curious about package temps, they were around 45-50C (with the pre-installed thermal paste from corsair. I'm about to change it.) under a 30% load from the game. 

With the CPU in such low use now (which I am glad to hear about!) you can probably turn up the settings on the CPU side of things, like post-processing and effects. On the other hand, if the CPU usage is low and you're still not hitting your target fps, it is more obvious that the GPU is overloaded. Anti-Aliasing, texture quality, and draw distance are all very GPU heavy. Specifically VRAM heavy. Putting them all on ultra most likely is causing them all to fight over the presumably 8GB you have available. Another important thing to note is that nowhere in this thread have you mentioned your monitors native resolution and refresh rate. (or the resolution at which you are playing PUBG on) The higher the resolution, the more VRAM is going to be used, which is already stretched thin with your current settings.

 

Also, lesser talked about is the resolution scaling feature in PUBG, which you should definitely keep at 100, as anything above is just wasting VRAM for a negligible sharpness increase, (kind of like a different style of AA) and anything lower will increase fps slightly but make everything a blurry mess. It also adds more work to the whole process in general. I suggest maybe dropping texture quality a little bit, and distance down a lot. It wastes a lot of resources viewing all that grass for miles out, and offers little to no benefit in game. large objects, including bushes and trees, as well as other players, will always be visible regardless of the distance setting, as many reddit users have figured out. (unless they are going to change that at some point) Very Low or Low makes it easier to see players out at a distance and frees up more VRAM. Also, it's your choice on AA. Personally, I don't particularly care for the type of AA that PUBG defaults to. TAA I think... but MSAA is waaay better and sharper. Luckily you can simulate this yourself by actually jacking up the screen scale to 120+ and turning the actual AA way down. Kind of a VRAM tradeoff. Play with it and see what looks better to you and what the trade-off is. if you come to a point where you can raise GPU-dependent settings some more, maybe stick with as much texture bumps as you can before the fps drops kick in.

 

I hope this helps. Let us know what works out the best, and I apologize if this post is a mess. I am up waaaay later than I should be and am a little out of it, haha.

[Sonicking157]

9 hours ago, raccoontwos said:

With the CPU in such low use now (which I am glad to hear about!) you can probably turn up the settings on the CPU side of things, like post-processing and effects. On the other hand, if the CPU usage is low and you're still not hitting your target fps, it is more obvious that the GPU is overloaded. Anti-Aliasing, texture quality, and draw distance are all very GPU heavy. Specifically VRAM heavy. Putting them all on ultra most likely is causing them all to fight over the presumably 8GB you have available. Another important thing to note is that nowhere in this thread have you mentioned your monitors native resolution and refresh rate. (or the resolution at which you are playing PUBG on) The higher the resolution, the more VRAM is going to be used, which is already stretched thin with your current settings.

 

Also, lesser talked about is the resolution scaling feature in PUBG, which you should definitely keep at 100, as anything above is just wasting VRAM for a negligible sharpness increase, (kind of like a different style of AA) and anything lower will increase fps slightly but make everything a blurry mess. It also adds more work to the whole process in general. I suggest maybe dropping texture quality a little bit, and distance down a lot. It wastes a lot of resources viewing all that grass for miles out, and offers little to no benefit in game. large objects, including bushes and trees, as well as other players, will always be visible regardless of the distance setting, as many reddit users have figured out. (unless they are going to change that at some point) Very Low or Low makes it easier to see players out at a distance and frees up more VRAM. Also, it's your choice on AA. Personally, I don't particularly care for the type of AA that PUBG defaults to. TAA I think... but MSAA is waaay better and sharper. Luckily you can simulate this yourself by actually jacking up the screen scale to 120+ and turning the actual AA way down. Kind of a VRAM tradeoff. Play with it and see what looks better to you and what the trade-off is. if you come to a point where you can raise GPU-dependent settings some more, maybe stick with as much texture bumps as you can before the fps drops kick in.

 

I hope this helps. Let us know what works out the best, and I apologize if this post is a mess. I am up waaaay later than I should be and am a little out of it, haha.

You're perfectly fine! My monitor is 1080p 60hz (I plan on upgrading my GPU and then monitor down the line) and your ideas and insight are very important and will help a lot. When I get home from work I will be testing out everything you said in your post. (I didn't know that about draw distance, thank you!) as for my target FPS, I just want to make it more stable instead of the wide jump range (50-100+) which I'm sure doing what you said will fix that no problem. You've been a great help thank you so much!