Yes dipping 10 FPS sometimes from 60 moving down to around 50fps in some locations in games.
-
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.
3080 Hype now over & feeling disappointed?
- Thread starter jasonsony735
- Start date
Yes dipping 10 FPS sometimes from 60 moving down to around 50fps in some locations in games.
its i7 8700k , from looking at benchmark scores it hardly makes any difference maybe like 1 FPS more in 4k gaming so its 100% not the problem here and 100% not worth upgrading just yet. ( https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-10700K/3937vs4070 )
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 163
Lmao you actually are using ubm as a reference for performance
In RDR2 if you put water physics past the half-way point it will destroy your performance, CPU-related in particular. I have an i7 6800K so a gen before yours & I have no issues with a stable 60 fps otherwise. In other games such hitches might be due to streaming issues (eg if you have the game on a HDD instead of an SSD). It really depends on a game by game basis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,502
Can't say I have seen below 60 fps drops at all, even FS2020, CODMW, BFV, WDLegion, CryRM?? Maybe Ampere is taxing CPUs more at 4K than expected? I am seeing a lot of cores being used, but not HT so much.
The 8700K should really take all these games in its stride, but it is now a 3 year old chip?
The 8700K should really take all these games in its stride, but it is now a 3 year old chip?
Soldato
I agree.
A post from a position of ignorance by me, but isn't a quick drop in FPS often a sign of hitting a VRAM limit?
I agree that ultra for the sake of ultra is a bit daft as there are often settings that only impact epeen rather than anything in real life. Whilst far from definitive, I would use GeForce experience as an indication of base settings and tweak from there, seeing what impact it has on FPS. I'm assuming if you set everything on ultra max and compared to what GeForce is suggesting as "optimal", that will give you an idea of what areas might be impacting performance too and can adjust a couple of these down a notch.
I agree that ultra for the sake of ultra is a bit daft as there are often settings that only impact epeen rather than anything in real life. Whilst far from definitive, I would use GeForce experience as an indication of base settings and tweak from there, seeing what impact it has on FPS. I'm assuming if you set everything on ultra max and compared to what GeForce is suggesting as "optimal", that will give you an idea of what areas might be impacting performance too and can adjust a couple of these down a notch.
VRAM limit in Wow is a nope. Wow is heavily cpu dependant, gotta lower that view distance slider to a 7 for 60+ fps in almost every scenario and even then it can drop lower. Nothing to do with the GPU.
Also MSFS another bad example, heavily cpu dependant.
And one more thing, RT in some games ( worse in Wow ) puts even more pressure on the CPU where the gpu can even end up chilling at 30% usage cause.. not enough CPU grunt to pull that RT up.
Also MSFS another bad example, heavily cpu dependant.
And one more thing, RT in some games ( worse in Wow ) puts even more pressure on the CPU where the gpu can even end up chilling at 30% usage cause.. not enough CPU grunt to pull that RT up.
Just to school me on this one too, why does the CPU do less work at higher resolutions? I would have expected it to do the same amount of work or more, only the GPU limits frame rates. Or is it the case that if the GPU is only able to generate 60FPS, the CPU will only do 60FPS worth of work rather than the 150FPS it's potentially capable of?
Interested as that has practical implications that the latest and greatest CPU is less relevant to gaming at higher resolutions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,067
Yea it's less fps so less work for the cpu.
fyi i recall that the second highest 3d mark timespy graphics score with a 3090 uses a 4770k CPU. lol
4k is a lot of pixels to push, going from high to ultra in some games is a big hit for very little performance. You shouldn't feel bad changing settings to high in some games, RTX in WoW is stupid unless you plan to look at the face of a char allday.
Just benchmarked RDR2 with [email protected] and 3090FE on stock clocks. Avg of 66fps with pretty much everything on ultra etc and additional settings as per games radar suggestions for max visuals. Basically all out and can turn down quite a few things no problem. Your 3080 shouldn't be far behind....
Last edited:
Soldato
I can agree with others a lot of games the ULTRA MAXED settings are performance killers for next to nothing in terms of visual improvement even with the likes of an rtx 3080/3090.
This! The 30 series ( so far ) are undoubtedly good, but I have a a 3840x1600, so not even 4K, and I am not expecting a 3080 solve everything. Sure, with older games it will, but no way with newer games. I mean I don't want to be too negative here, I am going to buy a 3080, but really I still think I am going to need a 4080!
Are you reading the actual thread mate? RTX is a gimmick in most games, I personally have it on low/medium, disabled some times. Then I get high (60-120fps) in the vast majority of games.
I think many, including yourself, just want to believe 4K isn't ready yet and make up excuses. I mean, your GTX 1080 isn't doing ray tracing either, why only consider 4K if you can enable max ray tracing? That's a really dumb logic.
62.6 for my 3080 with those settings.
Or 29fps with everything maxed!
Soldato
That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm not bashing it. If your happy that's great, it's just my observation (not saying I'm right either) that I didn't think 4k with RT ON was really ready for the prime time. Unless 30-40 fps is prime time.
Yes I understand you don't have to run RT at max and can probably get away with high to get some more fps. but still is that gonna be enough at 4k ultra with RTX at high for games like Cyberpunk and Watch Dogs Legion?
Fps is still gonna be in the region of 30-45fps surely. Which with Gsync is still a pleasant experience! I've played at that fps before with AC Odyssey on my 1080.
But if one is expecting more fps at 4k with RTX on then people will be disappointed.
Last edited: