-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Watchdogs at 4K
- Thread starter stephen thorpe
- Start date
Caporegime
Sounds like poorly optimised game or poor drivers.
Decent 1440 monitor is your answer
Or go ultrawide - easier to drive than 4K and far more immersive
Give it six months and all new games will be like this - the 3080 might run 4K fine now but, as soon as the new games dial everything up to use the new power, framerates will sink back down again.
Soldato
Someone will be along shortly to say something along the lines of “you shouldn’t need to lower settings on a new card bla bla bla”
You shouldn't need to lower settings..
OP, did you upgrade from a Pascal?
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 36
Or CPU bound rather than GPU
Associate
The ray tracing is a lot of the hit to the frame rate if you just straight out max everything. But we already knew that, ray tracing is hard you can't do it at high resolutions quickly, we'll see the same thing happen with many games that support RT, the settings will very much be future proofed for years to come with RT options to make it look pretty. In all fairness when you max out the game it does look very good, especially at night.
A lot of talk about how their patch plus the new Nvidia drivers are causing performance loss, that could be a bug or bad optimization for some reason, I expect that'll be corrected pretty quickly.
A lot of talk about how their patch plus the new Nvidia drivers are causing performance loss, that could be a bug or bad optimization for some reason, I expect that'll be corrected pretty quickly.
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 15
2070 superYou shouldn't need to lower settings..
OP, did you upgrade from a Pascal?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 729
Not sure what the issues are
My benchmark runs at 60 fps with 4k ultra full rtx settings and dlss at performance
My benchmark runs at 60 fps with 4k ultra full rtx settings and dlss at performance
Soldato
Soldato
It's a Ubisoft title, 2 days after release. What makes you think it's the hardware at fault?
Plus, turn some settings down?
ubisoft are the worst (apart from EA)The problem is not on the GPU, it's with CPU utilisation. It's very clear that for open world games the more they try to do in terms of NPC interactions & routines the harder it is to program and therefore we see even a 10900K at >5 Ghz not be able to keep up & stay above 60 fps. Whether it's just a matter of time as software develops, or if it's just these devs aren't good enough - who knows. But it's not your 3080 holding back 60 fps.
Get ID software to Code WAtchdogs watch it Fly at 120Fps+
Ubisoft/EA just pump out terrible code & worry later if it performs badly. (but they only care about consoles as <30fps is a bug) <30fps on PC is your issue not the game
Associate
Makes sense, still using my GTX 1070 to play older games, does a great job.we could always do tis from now on
Buy a GPU in 2020 (3080 say)
play games from 2016-2018
Buy GPU in (2022)
play games from 2018-2020
would solve most of these issues
Associate
The bottom line is that the presets you see in games today such as ultra are *drum roll*...arbitrary.
Often they will change things like the draw distance at which high/low resolution textures and models are swapped out, or traffic density or pedestrian density, or whatever. These things are just values in the game engine. Ultra shadows could mean keep nice shadows until 100ft away, or it could just as easily mean keep nice shadows until 120ft away, or 3000ft or twenty bajillion feet away. It's completely up to the game developers what to pick. They could pick ultra to mean show high resolution shadows only up to 10ft away and TA-DAH, now you can run ultra easily! Except ultra now looks pants.
People need to be disabused of this idea of presets, because it leads to people being upset or disappointed at not being able to run "max" in game, but that expectation is completely meaningless. What matters is how good do the graphics appear in game for the level of performance it costs. The game engine is quite harsh on frame rates but it looks absolutely stunning in places, especially at night.
we could always do tis from now on
Buy a GPU in 2020 (3080 say)
play games from 2016-2018
Buy GPU in (2022)
play games from 2018-2020
would solve most of these issues
Or we could negotiate with developers that they remove everything above "medium" and rename "medium" to "Ultra". There...simples, we can all run games at ultra now
don't use ultra performance- Nvidia really needs to put up a warning message
Ultra performance should only be used if your output resolution is 8k, do not try to use ultra performance if your output is under 8k
Doesn't really work like that. People think id optimise their games very well because they run well but at its core doom is very limited in what it does, and that's why it can get such high fps - but not saying they're not great programmers also. When you look at something like Rage 2 tho, which they co-developed and is also more open-world, you start seeing that a lot of that reputation for optimisation isn't so apparent anymore.
Even that comes nowhere close to the sort of AI & NPC background tasks that go on in this game though.If a new game isn't maxing out the latest graphics cards then they aren't utilising the cards enough. They should add even higher settings.
It's up to you to select the appropriate settings for the graphics cards.
Lol, exactly, stop people crying.
It's up to you to select the appropriate settings for the graphics cards.
Or we could negotiate with developers that they remove everything above "medium" and rename "medium" to "Ultra". There...simples, we can all run games at ultra now
Lol, exactly, stop people crying.