What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Some games I feel should run better

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
11,931
Location
Toronto, ON
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.
I'd disagree, Control was one of the first games to heavily use ray tracing. The game's engine was designed around it and optimized for it accordingly. You really need a RTX-series card to run it as it was heavily sponsored by NVIDIA too.

Even something like a RTX 2060 would let you run DLSS which allows a lower render resolution, so you probably could get 60FPS at 1440p around medium settings. The GTX 1070 is simply too old now (going on 6yr I think?).
 

Zubi

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
23
I'd disagree, Control was one of the first games to heavily use ray tracing. The game's engine was designed around it and optimized for it accordingly. You really need a RTX-series card to run it as it was heavily sponsored by NVIDIA too.

Even something like a RTX 2060 would let you run DLSS which allows a lower render resolution, so you probably could get 60FPS at 1440p around medium settings. The GTX 1070 is simply too old now (going on 6yr I think?).

I already get 70 FPS (occasional drop to just under 60) on medium at 1440p.
 

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
11,931
Location
Toronto, ON
What I was more trying to say, Control was designed for NVIDIA RTX cards, that's what it was optimized for. The 1070 was "last gen" when Control came out. Game developers usually target whatever is current.
 

rjbarker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
7,248
Location
Courtenay, B.C
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.

Yep.....modern AAA titles are hard on hardware ;) ...Some anyhow..and 1440p (especially Ultra Wide) is a huge jump over 1080p and needs power/speed......CPU / Memory / GPU...CP77 was 65-85 FPS throughout...Valhalla a bit better at maybe 90-100 FPS...FC3 around 105 FPS...on some new hw.
So even my 120 Hz Dell isn't being pushed to its full potential (120 FPS)...I would think 4K on these titles a little less...so a 4K 140-165Hz monitor doesnt make much sense to me.....not unless your playing titles that can give some very fast FPS....Battlefield V & Rise Of The Tomb Raider / Shadow of the Tomb Raider Doom Eternal (Vulkan) and RDR2 (Vulkan) can get some pretty speedy frames...think 120 - 160 FPS IIRC...
 

Lysrin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
7,804
Location
Nova Scotia
Yep the HW to drive something like Valhalla ....CP77....or FC6 at 4K 140 - 165 fps simply isnt there yet.
I would say though, just a comment and imo, you really don't need 140-165 fps in a lot of games, including the three you mentioned I would say, but the experience of 4K on a big monitor at even 40-60 fps with VRR is very satisfying. Not directly related to the OP, but thought I'd mention.

I avoided 4K for a long time, thinking I wouldn't be satisfied with the experience. And certainly when I (someday...) get to a 3000 series card it'll be all that much better. But I am really pleasantly surprised and enjoying 4K gaming even on my current system. Granted, that is not competitive online first-person-shooter games.
 

clshades

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
6,250
Location
Big White Ski Resort
I would say though, just a comment and imo, you really don't need 140-165 fps in a lot of games, including the three you mentioned I would say, but the experience of 4K on a big monitor at even 40-60 fps with VRR is very satisfying. Not directly related to the OP, but thought I'd mention.

I avoided 4K for a long time, thinking I wouldn't be satisfied with the experience. And certainly when I (someday...) get to a 3000 series card it'll be all that much better. But I am really pleasantly surprised and enjoying 4K gaming even on my current system. Granted, that is not competitive online first-person-shooter games.

Most games have physics that simply don't work correctly at low fps. First person shooters are perfect examples of this issue. Also depending on the game, like competitive StarCraft, keyboard inputs simply don't respond at low fps. Any game running lower than 60 is bad imo.
 

Latest posts

Top