Is that normal?

[charbel1011]

I have the i7 6700k and evga sc2 1080 ti and 16gb ram 3000mhz and im playing pubg on ultra wide 1440p and im getting 60-80fps with ultra on everything is this normal for a gtx 1080 ti?

[Donny_Chen]

that sounds pretty normal.  I'm playing on a 1440p monitor too on a  1070 (and a tad bit OC'ed), On ultra I'm barely breaking 60fps.  IMO  I think PUBG just isn't optimized well.  The console ports I hear are worse.  

[VoyexTech]

That's pretty normal with PUBG. If you want better performance I would turn down shadows and render distance as those have the largest effect on FPS

( The chart shows 1080p benchmarks but adjust for resolution and you numbers are quite normal and many people with a 1080ti 1440p are reporting the same numbers as you)

[CrippledROBOT]

25 minutes ago, charbel1011 said:

I have the i7 6700k and evga sc2 1080 ti and 16gb ram 3000mhz and im playing pubg on ultra wide 1440p and im getting 60-80fps with ultra on everything is this normal for a gtx 1080 ti?

The game is poorly optimized. You could try overclocking the CPU a bit and see if that improves your situation. Though many users are reporting similar results. I wouldn't worry too much!

[vanished]

32 minutes ago, Donny_Chen said:

that sounds pretty normal.  I'm playing on a 1440p monitor too on a  1070 (and a tad bit OC'ed), On ultra I'm barely breaking 60fps.  IMO  I think PUBG just isn't optimized well.  The console ports I hear are worse.  

>1070 @ 1440p on Ultra, getting ~60 fps

That sounds reasonable for a brand new game imo... Everyone says it's poorly optimized but based on this alone I can't say I agree

[Donny_Chen]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

>1070 @ 1440p on Ultra, getting ~60 fps

That sounds reasonable for a brand new game imo... Everyone says it's poorly optimized but based on this alone I can't say I agree

 

We can't really say because a games brand new that we should be expecting those stats -- because if that were the case -- Call of Duty is newer, yet I'm able to push 112 frames with max settings.  But, it's using an old engine.  Just like how PUBG is using unreal 4, a not-surprisingly stable and popular, well understood engine to do game development with.  like Other like Unreal 4 engine titles, even Unreal 4 benchmarks run MUCH better than the said game.  The only difference is the type of game and assets used in it's maps, including some of the techniques used in optimization.

 

People say ( whether they truly understand game development or optimization or not) the game is not optimized well because of this.  Like for example,  do you render the building at 100% resolution that's 2000 meters away from your player?  Or do you reduce rendering by 50% because of how small the object already appears to the player.  Will the player notice the difference? 

 

I say its not optimized because of things like that.  Odd hit boxes, collision detection, frame rendering, distant shadows, etc.  Small things that can be fixed in assembly, or by tweaking kismet a bit.

 

Considering how many devs are on PUBG's team.  You can't blame them ( isn't it just one guy?) vs fortnite that has many more people to work on little things like this.

 

So I'm not trying to be a sheep -- but give some insight on the reasoning behind my post.

 

 

 

[vanished]

20 minutes ago, Donny_Chen said:

We can't really say because a games brand new that we should be expecting those stats -- because if that were the case -- Call of Duty is newer, yet I'm able to push 112 frames with max settings.  But, it's using an old engine.  Just like how PUBG is using unreal 4, a not-surprisingly stable and popular, well understood engine to do game development with.  like Other like Unreal 4 engine titles, even Unreal 4 benchmarks run MUCH better than the said game.  The only difference is the type of game and assets used in it's maps, including some of the techniques used in optimization.

 

People say ( whether they truly understand game development or optimization or not) the game is not optimized well because of this.  Like for example,  do you render the building at 100% resolution that's 2000 meters away from your player?  Or do you reduce rendering by 50% because of how small the object already appears to the player.  Will the player notice the difference? 

 

I say its not optimized because of things like that.  Odd hit boxes, collision detection, frame rendering, distant shadows, etc.  Small things that can be fixed in assembly, or by tweaking kismet a bit.

 

Considering how many devs are on PUBG's team.  You can't blame them ( isn't it just one guy?) vs fortnite that has many more people to work on little things like this.

 

So I'm not trying to be a sheep -- but give some insight on the reasoning behind my post.

Those are some good reasons, and if they're actually doing that, then fair enough, looks like there's definitely ways it could be improved.

 

To give some reasoning behind my post though, what I mean by new game is it's recent, and thus probably more demanding based on that alone... after all, games have steadily required more power over time.  A AAA today is gonna need better hardware than a AAA from 5 years ago.

 

With that in mind, and considering 1070 is targeted at 1440p gaming, while most games are designed to be run on high at most with Ultra being a (often inefficient) bonus for those with excessive hardware, I'd say hitting Ultra at 1440p60 on a 1070 seems pretty reasonable.

 

Of course other games may target different framerates with any given hardware but that's my take on it.

[Taja]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Those are some good reasons, and if they're actually doing that, then fair enough, looks like there's definitely ways it could be improved.

 

To give some reasoning behind my post though, what I mean by new game is it's recent, and thus probably more demanding based on that alone... after all, games have steadily required more power over time.  A AAA today is gonna need better hardware than a AAA from 5 years ago.

 

With that in mind, and considering 1070 is targeted at 1440p gaming, while most games are designed to be run on high at most with Ultra being a (often inefficient) bonus for those with excessive hardware, I'd say hitting Ultra at 1440p60 on a 1070 seems pretty reasonable.

 

Of course other games may target different framerates with any given hardware but that's my take on it.

Well, the way I see it there are two kinds of bad optimised:

the "traditional" one, meaning they didnt put any effort and the game runs like crap

and the "stupid" one, when a game looks like a 10 year old game but its more demanding than the witcher 3, because they put heavy and irrelevant stuff (like a 16k resolution white wall for example)

 

So the way I see it, PUBG is bad optmized because it does not look that good and it runs worst than comparable games. As for the reason why, I dont know. But I think they have a lot of headroom, and it will get better with time.

[vanished]

Just now, Taja said:

Well, the way I see it there are two kinds of bad optimised:

the "traditional" one, meaning they didnt put any effort and the game runs like crap

and the "stupid" one, when a game looks like a 10 year old game but its more demanding than the witcher 3, because they put heavy and irrelevant stuff (like a 16k resolution white wall for example)

 

So the way I see it, PUBG is bad optmized because it does not look that good and it runs worst than comparable games. As for the reason why, I dont know. But I think they have a lot of headroom, and it will get better with time.

Yeah, that's fair enough.  I haven't played it myself so I'm not sure how it compares visually with other games, and I agree, when two games look the same but need totally different grades of hardware it's an obvious sign something is wrong