Some games I feel should run better

[Zubi]

Good afternoon,

I still rock a GTX 1070 and play my games at 1440p. Often, I look at what I'm playing and wonder "how am I getting below 60 FPS?"

It just feels like most games are barely tuned to make use of the hardware, this is especially obvious when you pick a game from "when around the 1070 times" that looks just as good as many modern games and runs smoothly at whatever FPS your heart desires.

How can I play DOOM maxed out almost in all settings at a stable 160 but struggle to get a decent looking Control (the game) at 60 fps? I feel like the downgrade you have to do to graphics to get stable performance does not match up. Why does the game have to look worse than 2016 titles at ultra?

Does anyone agree? I feel like most modern games run well on the newest hardware just because of the shire horsepower of it rather than a fine-tuned piece of software like Doom was.

Full spec:
i7-4790 CPU 3.60GHz
16GB DDR3

 

[Bond007]

It can definetly be the case that some games are less optimized. That said it could simply be not having enough ram or fast enough cpu. What cpu/ram do you have? Have you checked cpu/gpu/ram usage after gaming to see what your limiting factor is?

Is still run a 1070Ti at 1440p.

 

[FreeKnight]

Good afternoon,

I still rock a GTX 1070 and play my games at 1440p. Often, I look at what I'm playing and wonder "how am I getting below 60 FPS?"

It just feels like most games are barely tuned to make use of the hardware, this is especially obvious when you pick a game from "when around the 1070 times" that looks just as good as many modern games and runs smoothly at whatever FPS your heart desires.

How can I play DOOM maxed out almost in all settings at a stable 160 but struggle to get a decent looking Control (the game) at 60 fps? I feel like the downgrade you have to do to graphics to get stable performance does not match up. Why does the game have to look worse than 2016 titles at ultra?

Does anyone agree? I feel like most modern games run well on the newest hardware just because of the shire horsepower of it rather than a fine-tuned piece of software like Doom was.

Control is 3 years newer than Doom, it might not seem like much, but that can make a big difference in hardware load. Different engines make a big difference too, a run and gun game can be easier on the system than something that has lots of environmental interactions, physics aspects to compute, etc.

Certainly there's an aspect of optimization that makes a difference, but it's no panacea.

 

[Solace]

Depends on the game engine, 1070 is honestly nothing huge for 1440p, a 1080 does 1080p at around 120-160fps so the drop on a 1070 to 1440p is not actually unrealistic depending on in game settings. I use a 3080 for 1440p which is buttery smooth since 4k monitor pricing is absurd and next gen nano led is taking forever due to supply chain issues.

 

[clshades]

1070 is pretty low for 1440, even a 1080ti struggles with it. 2 things you can try, overclock the shit out of the 1070 and make sure your ram is running as fast as it can. Surprisingly, ram speed affects FPS.

 

[gingerbee]

this is also why I stick to 1080p gaming cause I don't play enough to justify buying anything but middle ground GPU IE 2060/3060ti which is what I run on my HTPC/Gaming rig in that order I want most things if not all on High/Ultra and want at least 60fps solid ( 60hz screen ) game engine devolvement I think is one of the biggest factors that and how optimized it is to run on said hardware.

you also have to take into account all the crazy things modern games have the GPU/CPU calculating IE interactive parts of the game I mean Doom is what the guns and the monsters and a few items you may pick up along the way the rest is just texture maps, compared to something like CP2077 where you can interact with just about everyone and everything on the stage I think there is just so much more to these newer game engine's with the level of detail were starting to get. think about it just the hair calculations and clothes in a lot of modern games where I don't think there's anything along those lines in a game like doom.

I really think it has to do with just the massive amounts of data newer games throw at the CPU/GPU/RAM. but I am no game programmer it could be much more complex than I think.

 

[clshades]

I can't play games at 60fps. Makes me nauseous. Moving from 1080p to 1440 was pricey though. I get 165fps solid in Modern warfare.

 

[Zubi]

It can definetly be the case that some games are less optimized. That said it could simply be not having enough ram or fast enough cpu. What cpu/ram do you have? Have you checked cpu/gpu/ram usage after gaming to see what your limiting factor is?

Is still run a 1070Ti at 1440p.

Should have added it too, I'll edit it now! But no I don't see them maxing out at all.

i7-4790 CPU 3.60GHz
16GB DDR3 (https://www.gskill.com/specification/165/176/1532075230/F3-1600C9S-8GXM-Specification)

 

[Zubi]

Control is 3 years newer than Doom, it might not seem like much, but that can make a big difference in hardware load. Different engines make a big difference too, a run and gun game can be easier on the system than something that has lots of environmental interactions, physics aspects to compute, etc.

Certainly there's an aspect of optimization that makes a difference, but it's no panacea.

this is also why I stick to 1080p gaming cause I don't play enough to justify buying anything but middle ground GPU IE 2060/3060ti which is what I run on my HTPC/Gaming rig in that order I want most things if not all on High/Ultra and want at least 60fps solid ( 60hz screen ) game engine devolvement I think is one of the biggest factors that and how optimized it is to run on said hardware.

you also have to take into account all the crazy things modern games have the GPU/CPU calculating IE interactive parts of the game I mean Doom is what the guns and the monsters and a few items you may pick up along the way the rest is just texture maps, compared to something like CP2077 where you can interact with just about everyone and everything on the stage I think there is just so much more to these newer game engine's with the level of detail were starting to get. think about it just the hair calculations and clothes in a lot of modern games where I don't think there's anything along those lines in a game like doom.

I really think it has to do with just the massive amounts of data newer games throw at the CPU/GPU/RAM. but I am no game programmer it could be much more complex than I think.

Those are good points.

I didn't think of newer engines needs. However, shouldn't a more interactive environment tax the CPU and RAM more than the GPU? I'll keep a closer eye after this but I don't think either has been maxing out with any game whatsoever. Especially if we take into account the performance boost in 1080p. In the latter, I might be mistaken, but a drop in resolution should only help the GPU?

Perhaps my examples were not the best (I was trying to compare extremes), but a game with an interactive environment from 2016 would run like butter with my current spec. And, perhaps it wouldn't look as impressive graphically, but how much better a newer game looks (by this I also mean the amount of detail on the environment, not just the graphics, lighting... etc) does not match up with the game's hardware needs.

I'm not saying newer games should run at 144 FPS in my rig at 1440p but I feel we should be able to get stable 60 FPS without needing to drop the graphics so aggressively. I've used Control as an example because I feel it is a good one of what I think should be able to run OK on it when tempering a bit with the graphic settings.

 

[clshades]

I think you are likely at the end of life for your current setup with new games and anything coming down the pipe. 1440 needs power to really show it's true potential. If you can game at 60fps all the power to ya, wish I could to be honest, it would be easier on the pocket book.