Ghost recon wildlands

theone8181

theone8181

theone8181

Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2013
Posts
9,361
Hi guys I think I know the answer to this but I'll ask anyway. So I treated myself to a Gtx 1080 as a small upgrade to my aging 780 (vram was a problem). Imagine my surprise when starting this game and find I can't hold 60 fps at 1080p with resolution scale set to 150. Is this just due to lack of optimisation? I'm currently using a 2600k but I don't think that's causing an issue although it is installed on a spinner rather than an ssd.
 
Well technically that's 1600p and at ultra settings (?) a 1080 will struggle to hold 60 as a minimum but should average 60.
 
@theone8181
you do realize your not gaming at 1080p? your gaming 2560x1440

1920 * 1.5 = 2560
1080 * 1.5 = 1440

Your gaming at 2560x1440

resolution scale increases your resolution by a % in this case 50%
 
Res scale can be a killer. I am gaming at 3440x1440 and have to turn down a couple of settings to keep above 60 fps on a 1080Ti. Game looks gorgeous though and does run well. The annoyance is the save system that momentarily freezes the game.
 
Running 1440p here with SLI 980Ti and Ultra settings I get around 85 fps, disable SLI and that drops to about 55. This is such a beautiful game I still just wander around the countryside I'll be sad to finish it. Oh well Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 next week :-)
Andi.
 
I'm going to try tweaking the settings a bit, I know it looks good but I'm not sure it looks good enough to use that much power. I'm going to drop shadows to very high, not sure if I'd gain anything from ocing my CPU. I realise what the scale does, I was mentioning my monitor resolution as a point of reference, looking on Google it looks like there is a massive jump of fps between very high and ultra. It looks like the 1080 is about 20% faster than the 980 ti. I'll drop the res scale to 1.35 which is around 1458p and see what I get.
 
Last edited:
theone8181 said:
I'm going to try tweaking the settings a bit, I know it looks good but I'm not sure it looks good enough to use that much power. I'm going to drop shadows to very high, not sure if I'd gain anything from ocing my CPU. I realise what the scale does, I was mentioning my monitor resolution as a point of reference, looking on Google it looks like there is a massive jump of fps between very high and ultra. It looks like the 1080 is about 20% faster than the 980 ti. I'll drop the res scale to 1.35 which is around 1458p and see what I get.
Click to expand...

your better off leaving everything on Ultra
testing 100%
then increasing res scale till your happy.

your find your middle ground quicker as its only one setting. then decrease to high where needed
 
So having a quick mess around, ive got temporal AA and res scale of 1.3 to give me around 45fps. This was only a quick plan tho so that will probably dip lower in intense scenes.
 
theone8181 said:
I'm honestly not sure what gives the better picture, that was the main reasoning behind it. I suspect that it will be the usual trade off of whatever looks better uses more juice.
Click to expand...
I have found in the past that the best picture starts with small pixels, so higher resolution on smaller screen.
Andi.
 
I will say that the game is not optimised the best. Cards like a 970 will struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p and last I checked, there was an issue with RX 480s where it wouldn't utilise more than 60% GPU. A 1080 is more than fine in 1440p in most games, but this game you currently are on 1440p (1080p with 150% resolution scale is equivalent) and struggling with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom