add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

165fps monitor, getting 120 or so frames, yet CPU/GPU not maxed?

connor333

11 months ago

Not exactly troubleshooting, but a general question. Why don't frame rates go up if it appears to afterburner that my GPU isn't maxed as well as the 6 cores of my CPU? On my old PC (i5 4460, GTX 970), it always showed things being maxed out when it was struggling to reach my goal of 60fps.

Specs: 3200 GB Ram (I still need to set this up in Bios though) i7 8700k 1080ti

Fun Facts: Temps for CPU are nice and cool thanks to the Dark Rock Pro 4 Temps for GPU are 75 degrees max (will be adding more cooling anyways) Games I tried so far are Diablo 3, PUBG, and Dead by Daylight. The last 2 are known to be unoptimized - though I'm used to that word relating to when it uses more resources than needed. I'm familiar with all of the settings to turn off in game v-sync, frame rate limits, etc. So it's def. not that. *I need to download more games, but couple other games can achieve 165fps or more without breaking a sweat. (rocket league for example)

Comments

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm assuming what you have there is a 1440p panel. That's around 50% more pixels. The more the pixels the greater the workload placed on the GPU. The 1440p resolution would be your first and primary trigger for the informed "120fps" hang-about. In my personal opinion, thats "FASTASTIC" lol. I wouldn't trade my sharper image 1440p panel for anything less and 120fps in modern day gaming is simply eye-candy (especially if you have Gsync enabled). Whether its 120fps or 165fps, the difference is hardly noticeable and if you have adaptive sync enabled, the difference is non-existent (for me, anyways).

Since the resolution plays a significant role in capping your higher FPS endeavours, the direct solution would be to pop into your Nvidia/display settings or more conveniently in-game settings, and downsize the res. That should bump up the frame render. You can try it but don't be surprised if image quality appears a little washed out which is likely when distorting the displays native resolutions. You could try a bunch of the options available to see if one maintains the balance without winding down too much.

Other factors:

Marginally trimmed FPS in large map multiplayer games is expected especially when surrounded by other players (close proximity).

As you said "a poorly optimised game". True! Remains highly reliant on CPU performance hence an overclocked chip will deliver some added fps (avg. 10fps)

In-game configurations: Shadows, anti-aliasing, view distance, textures and amongst other major culprits can further trim FPS counts and don't necessarily have to be maxed out to achieve the "ultra" gaming experience. These are options which can/should be tuned down for a more smoother gaming experience as long as visual quality is not at a compromise (noticeably).

There's always a bunch of other more in-depth factors / configurations which can squeeze in some added performance but honestly if you're hitting 120fps at 1440p - i wouldn't bother. You're already in heaven!

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, I'm not complaining, just if the game CAN get to 165 I'm wondering why it will only go to 120 or so when it looks like there's more juice to squeeze out of the GPU and CPU according to afterburner.

  • 11 months ago
  • 2 points

cause and effect!

Cause: poorly optimised (PUBG)

Effect: under-utilisation of CPU/GPU

The former causes the latter!

To get a better idea, it's fair to suggest "it's business!". Maintaining game code with more regular and consistent fine-tuned optimisations would result in higher expenses and lower profitability hence game developers and the pedal pushers are more than happy to either 1) ignore the solution all-together, 2) roll out slow/inadequate fixes which are bested at targeting stability/consistency more opposed to "best utilisation of premium performing parts". You can purchase a Ferrari but if you're stuck on 30mph road-sign bottlenecks (with speed-cops at every corner), you simply end up with a top-notch car which isn't going to scale fast enough to feel the G-force.

Previous updates suggest the game is capable of utilising 6 cores - whether it does or doesn't very well, the mark up in performance is minimal by code-design. In-game preset options (low/medium/ultra) don't scale very well either, although some performance is achievable but nothing overtly fancy as expected with an 8700K/1080 TI combo. These are also affirmative indications of "poor optimisation". I get better performance with more demanding games (i.e. battlefield).

Outside of running lesser system hog applications in the background, updating the graphics driver, fine-tuning in-game configurations, there are some other effective methods in acquiring some additional performance. Some comfortably available via the advanced Nvidia configurations and others more deeply embedded in the core make-up of the game. Not always recommended and not something I tend to entertain but if interested there's plenty of tips flying around for some improved optimal performance (maybe youtube for video demos).

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

What I just learned is that CPU utilization includes the threads within the CPU, which doesn't necessarily help with gameplay. So a Core itself may be maxed out but it will not show 100% on that core like I was expecting. I'm used to the good old days of having 4 cores no threads lol. Not 6 cores 12 threads.

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

Have you made sure that your monitor is running at 165 Hz?

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

absolutely.

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

The game will cap at 165 but will drop to 120 yet the CPU and GPU, neither one appears to be maxed. that's what I'm curious about.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube