PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS - Thread

~>Dg<~ said:
obviously people are not bench marking this game as many have. just seen someone saying they get 100 fps with a 1060 :p


to get 100 fps constant at 1080 res you need a 1070 gtx and all lowish settings that will drop just under 100 fps but avg about 120 with a decent cpu.

https://imgur.com/a/B3h53

if you want high fps no big drops you need a modern pc.ryzen cpu or a modern i7 and a 1070 gtx or a 1080 for 1080 res.otherwise you get the big drops people talk about.
Click to expand...

I have now played this game on 3 different GPUs and 2 different res's as well as 2 different Hz.

1060 3gb got me a solid 109 FPS on average using the optimal settings in geforce experience I even posted what settings I used too go back in the thread and see the exact settings. This was on a 1080p 60hz monitor.

I have a i7600k (beast of a cpu) with 24GB of 2400mhz ddr4 and a nvme m2 SSD. So it's a very fast pc.

Using optimal settings on a gtx 1080 at 1440p and 144hz I get around 120 fps with drops to 100 at times.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
I have now played this game on 3 different GPUs and 2 different res's as well as 2 different Hz.

1060 3gb got me a solid 109 FPS on average using the optimal settings in geforce experience I even posted what settings I used too go back in the thread and see the exact settings. This was on a 1080p 60hz monitor.

I have a i7600k (beast of a cpu) with 24GB of 2400mhz ddr4 and a nvme m2 SSD. So it's a very fast pc.

Using optimal settings on a gtx 1080 at 1440p and 144hz I get around 120 fps with drops to 100 at times.
Click to expand...

Doesn't GE adjust settings according to your choice of performance or quality so what defines Optimal?
 
Must admit I do like the fog mode, I wish they would concentrate on optimisation, I have an I7 with a 1080 and for what it a fairly basic gfx wise game the fps on it is just... regardless most of the changes are good, unfortunately the Mini 14 is a little too "good" and I expect a slight nerf before it hits.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Shadows and resolution the others don't seem to do much if the pc can handle ultra dropping to low does practically nothing.

What GPU as I posted my 1060 3gb settings a while back. Start from there if you have a similar gpu
Click to expand...

shadows on ultra causes a 20 percent fps loss.compared to very low.

if you have fraps could you please do a timed run with ultra on of 60 secs 3 times while playing.then post results . min max and avg fps.

1060 on ultra at 1080 will be mostly under 60 fps.check videos on youtube.
1070 gets close to 60 fps solid
1080 will be just above.

1060 even on low wont avg 100 fps.might have a high but not avg.will probably be about 60 fps on all low.avg fps.
 
Last edited:
signal11th said:
Must admit I do like the fog mode, I wish they would concentrate on optimisation, I have an I7 with a 1080 and for what it a fairly basic gfx wise game the fps on it is just... regardless most of the changes are good, unfortunately the Mini 14 is a little too "good" and I expect a slight nerf before it hits.
Click to expand...
The Mini 14 will definitely need a bit of re-balancing, I find it to be way too accurate.

I quite like that the Tommy Gun can be found anywhere now, it was never good enough to be a crate gun so it makes much more sense for it to be scattered around with other weapons.
It's quite a good SMG for longer engagements with the extended mag as well, 50 bullets in the clip with fairly low recoil makes me almost like it as much as an UMP.

The fog map is nice, though the thickness is a little bit intense... it'll take a bit of getting used to.
Though I'd say the lower visual range is less inhibiting than the noise from the rain map.
 
Well i'm running a 970 and 3570k @ 4ghz and i'm getting 80+ fps consistently with some obvious slowdowns now and then, mainly server side as confirmed by squad mates when it happens.

I'm at 1080p with almost everything high/ultra except shadows on low, view distance is high I believe.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
shadows on ultra causes a 20 percent fps loss.compared to very low.

if you have fraps could you please do a timed run with ultra on of 60 secs 3 times while playing.then post results . min max and avg fps.

1060 on ultra at 1080 will be mostly under 60 fps.check videos on youtube.
1070 gets close to 60 fps solid
1080 will be just above.

1060 even on low wont avg 100 fps.might have a high but not avg.will probably be about 60 fps on all low.avg fps.
Click to expand...

Again you have not read what I posted.

I used optimal settings from the driver itself. This gives the best of both FPS and quality.

On a 1060 these were a mix of low to ultra. For instance textures on medium. View distance on ultra. Shadows on very low. AA on medium.

I kept a constant eye on the top left FPS counter when I had spare time and it was 109 FPS most times I looked. When driving a vehicle it would drop to 80-90 FPS.

I'm now using a gtx 1080 and 1440p screen so I'm not going to rip apart my system to do a benchmark then put it back again. I'll be selling the 1060 on eBay this weekend and my 1080p screen either sold or relocated to another PC.

Also what is the point in running everything on ultra that is a stupid thing to do as it puts you at a disadvantage also. So why benchmark something on settings your not going to use whilst playing the game?

For 1080p a 1060 6gb is more than enough for a 60hz screen for competitive optimal settings. Because the only thing I had to compromise on with a 1060 3gb was medium textures.
 
SixTwoSix said:
Well i'm running a 970 and 3570k @ 4ghz and i'm getting 80+ fps consistently with some obvious slowdowns now and then, mainly server side as confirmed by squad mates when it happens.

I'm at 1080p with almost everything high/ultra except shadows on low, view distance is high I believe.
Click to expand...

You don't want most things on high or ultra though it puts you at a disadvantage in game.

Post processing for example makes the screen blurry. It should be on very low just as an example
 
Psycho Sonny said:
You don't want most things on high or ultra though it puts you at a disadvantage in game.

Post processing for example makes the screen blurry. It should be on very low just as an example
Click to expand...

I've played at least half of my 500 hours in this game on low4pro settings, it made no difference to my actual gameplay when I put things up to high/ultra to make things look prettier.

Only thing still on low is foliage and as mentioned shadows, the former is just habit from the beginning though.

Will adjust PP though under your suggestion.
 
Had a go yesterday, got 5 kills which I was quite impressed with until I realised because I hadn't played for a while I was probably back to noobville. That would explain the guy standing on the balcony with a shotgun. Changes seem OK will have a spin when it goes live.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
You don't want most things on high or ultra though it puts you at a disadvantage in game.

Post processing for example makes the screen blurry. It should be on very low just as an example
Click to expand...
I myself i play for fun, so i want the game looking as nice as possible, back in the day with quake 3 i use to turn everything off to get a advantage i must admit, but the graphics looked *****, now i dont do that, thats one thing that console gaming has over pc gaming, and thats that everyone is on a level playing ground, wish things in game was locked or forced on pc, so everyone equal, but i know that will never happen.
 
Devlish said:
Had a go yesterday, got 5 kills which I was quite impressed with until I realised because I hadn't played for a while I was probably back to noobville. That would explain the guy standing on the balcony with a shotgun. Changes seem OK will have a spin when it goes live.
Click to expand...

I did a lot better than normal yesterday too. Maybe they’ve changed the matchmaking because I really suck normally.
 
Daytrader said:
I myself i play for fun, so i want the game looking as nice as possible, back in the day with quake 3 i use to turn everything off to get a advantage i must admit, but the graphics looked *****, now i dont do that, thats one thing that console gaming has over pc gaming, and thats that everyone is on a level playing ground, wish things in game was locked or forced on pc, so everyone equal, but i know that will never happen.
Click to expand...

i play for fun as well. but i'm not knowingly going to put myself at a disadvantage because tbh where is the fun in that?

AA, texture and view distance i have all of these on ultra. everything else I have on very low. effects seems to add a lot of distracting things on screen like floating bits of hay, etc, bloom and stuff. foliage makes a huge difference to graphic quality but tbh i still think it puts you at a disadvantage regardless of them saying they patched it.

the problem with this game is everyone plays at different settings to suit them. so for example me getting 110 fps with a 1060 3gb @ 1080p isn't the same as some guy who as put everything on ultra as he would then struggle to hit 60fps.

my GTX 1080 can't hit 144fps with everything on very low apart from 3 settings @ 1440p. which means g sync kicks in a lot to further impact performance. which tbh is shocking as with those settings you expect it to fly.
 
hughtrimble said:
It's early access. Really, does this need to keep being said? If you bought it thinking it was ready for all and ready for anything, then get a refund.
Click to expand...

it's supposed to be out of early access by now. so the fact it is still running like poo means i'm not hopeful of it ever running much better than this tbh.

http://steamcommunity.com/games/578080/announcements/detail/1437062253000864753

he said 6 months from early access release and now pushed it back by 2-3 months for the final release which is nov/december 2017 btw.

i really don't expect this game to be hitting double the current fps by november. i'm happy with the gameplay, i'm just tired of laziness or developers getting in over their heads. a game that looks like this and supposedly was going to be released as a final release this month running this badly i just hope they keep working on it and don't focus on milking micro transactions from now on in.
 
Daytrader said:
God yeh, a 1080 should be getting 200+ fps on a game looking like this.
Click to expand...

on all low at 1080 a 1080 gets about 120-140 avg. min low of about 100 fps. 1070 gtx gets 120 avg , 80 min , 144 max. all done on timed runs of 1 min benchmarks.cpu makes a big difference in this game.

so low to ultra can chop your fps in half near enough. 1080 ti will avg about 60-70fps max at 1080.on ultra.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
on all low at 1080 a 1080 gets about 120-140 avg. min low of about 100 fps. 1070 gtx gets 120 avg , 80 min , 144 max. all done on timed runs of 1 min benchmarks.cpu makes a big difference in this game.

so low to ultra can chop your fps in half near enough. 1080 ti will avg about 60-70fps max at 1080.on ultra.
Click to expand...

that doesn't make any sense at all

i have a 1080 and i'm running at 1440p which is double the res of 1080p and i get average of 110-120 fps @ a mix of settings (3 on ultra rest on very low).

so how is it possible a 1080 @ 1080p with everything on low hits 120-140 on average?

the benchmarks your referring to must all be old ones from very early access builds. i have textures, aa and view distance on ultra everything else very low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom