PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS - Thread

Threepwood said:
Awww, let me protest a little longer with this on purposeful Yasnaya run! :p

https://imgur.com/a/juz0d


So idk other than UT4 engine is primarily single-threaded, so will benefit greatly from core speed.

8320 @3.8 Vs 2500k @4.7, idk.
Click to expand...


Must be my CPU holding me back, because I'm getting awful frame drops especially in the lobby and when parachuting in and your graphics look a lot better.

I've OC'd a little but nothing crazy.

Upgrade incoming shortly I think!
 
Perfectly playable on a Ryzen 1700 + 660ti both stock clocks (all settings low, 1080p)
GPS generally between 45-55, there's the odd dip below 40 but it's not particularly noticeable to me or often
 
Last edited:
Threepwood said:
Awww, let me protest a little longer with this on purposeful Yasnaya run! :p

https://imgur.com/a/juz0d


So idk other than UT4 engine is primarily single-threaded, so will benefit greatly from core speed.

8320 @3.8 Vs 2500k @4.7, idk.
Click to expand...

This game is terribly optimised it seems, as first time I played it, I set everything to lowest settings and in 720p and it ran awfully, 30fps or so was about the best I'd get. My Nvidia drivers were two versions old, so updated them and changed to 1080p everything on low apart from textures and draw distance on ultra (as I'd seen a youtube video with similar spec running these and it was fine). Now plays perfectly!?!? I've since overclocked my GPU to 1911mhz on the core and 8005mhz on the memory (card still only reached a peak of 78 degrees) and the lowest frames I've seen so far is 58fps in the game itself, usually runs between 70-90fps!

My PC spec is modest to say the least!
HP Gen8 Microserver
Intel Xeon E3 1265l V2
16GB Hynix RAM
Gigabyte Geforce GTX 1050ti low profile (clocked to max)
Game installed on a NAS drive (Seagate Ironwolf 8TB)
 
KungFuSpaghetti said:
This game is terribly optimised it seems, as first time I played it, I set everything to lowest settings and in 720p and it ran awfully, 30fps or so was about the best I'd get. My Nvidia drivers were two versions old, so updated them and changed to 1080p everything on low apart from textures and draw distance on ultra (as I'd seen a youtube video with similar spec running these and it was fine). Now plays perfectly!?!? I've since overclocked my GPU to 1911mhz on the core and 8005mhz on the memory (card still only reached a peak of 78 degrees) and the lowest frames I've seen so far is 58fps in the game itself, usually runs between 70-90fps!

My PC spec is modest to say the least!
HP Gen8 Microserver
Intel Xeon E3 1265l V2
16GB Hynix RAM
Gigabyte Geforce GTX 1050ti low profile (clocked to max)
Game installed on a NAS drive (Seagate Ironwolf 8TB)
Click to expand...

so you're saying a game is badly optimised because it runs better on newer (probably more optimised) drivers...?
 
Delvis said:
so you're saying a game is badly optimised because it runs better on newer (probably more optimised) drivers...?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying it's badly optimised because of the difference in peoples hardware and the wild variation in results. Most people on here have much quicker systems than me and are having more performance related issues, kinda thought that was obvious, but I'll try and be clearer next time now I know the level of pedantry on this forum. Thanks :)
 
when people say its terribly optimized you often have to look at the rigs they play it on.often people struggling with low fps are on old machines.the game isnt that bad if you have a modern pc.when you have cpus from 2010/11 you cant call a modern 2017 title unoptimized.you pc is the problem.

my fps on my x99 rig which is 3 years old nearly is 80 min 120 fps avg 144 max. so mostly 120 fps solid.on a 3 year old rig.

putting the game on a ssd is a must makes a big difference.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
putting the game on a ssd is a must makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

It is essential. The textures and models can take quite a while to load, especially on slower PCs. Every time my friend landed he had to wait 10-15 seconds for everything to load, during that point he could see all the people and drops as there were no floors, walls etc. Putting it on an SSD solved that problem. While you might think that's advantageous, it actually got him killed more often than not as he couldn't tell where he could move or who could see him.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
when people say its terribly optimized you often have to look at the rigs they play it on.often people struggling with low fps are on old machines.the game isnt that bad if you have a modern pc.when you have cpus from 2010/11 you cant call a modern 2017 title unoptimized.you pc is the problem.

my fps on my x99 rig which is 3 years old nearly is 80 min 120 fps avg 144 max. so mostly 120 fps solid.on a 3 year old rig.

putting the game on a ssd is a must makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

My rig is pretty old in technology terms, think my CPU and memory are from around 2011-2012, GPU is obviously newer, but it's the lowest of the low pascal cards. It's the best I can put in my machine though, as I'm limited to a single slot low profile PCIE card, so had to take a dremel to the motherboard tray to get it to fit lol.

Not put it on SSD either, I have a 120GB drive for the OS, but my 4 bays are full with NAS drives. I did however put it on my quickest NAS drive (7200rpm Seagate Ironwolf) and so far no issues, but I do have a spare 240GB SSD I can stick it on if it becomes an issue.
 
KungFuSpaghetti said:
No, I'm saying it's badly optimised because of the difference in peoples hardware and the wild variation in results. Most people on here have much quicker systems than me and are having more performance related issues, kinda thought that was obvious, but I'll try and be clearer next time now I know the level of pedantry on this forum. Thanks :)
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with pedantry.
 
I have to admit I'm getting a bit blasé with the game now. It desperately needs some new content! I'm toying with the idea of taking a break, but I'd probably miss the banter on Discord too much! :P
 
Bishie said:
I have to admit I'm getting a bit blasé with the game now. It desperately needs some new content! I'm toying with the idea of taking a break, but I'd probably miss the banter on Discord too much! :p
Click to expand...
I've gone back to Arma for a bit - but man is it clunky in comparison! It's of course very different in terms of what it's trying to achieve, but it just feels much less responsive and visually looks very dated now.
 
Bishie said:
I have to admit I'm getting a bit blasé with the game now. It desperately needs some new content! I'm toying with the idea of taking a break, but I'd probably miss the banter on Discord too much! :p
Click to expand...

Test server big update should be dropping over next couple days.
 
I'm currently running the game on a pc with an i5-2500k, 8GB DDR3 1866MHz, Asus GTX 760 2048MB and a Samsung SSD 840 EVO. Monitor is 22" 1680x1050. What's the cheapest route to getting better performance on PUGB? I'm currently running very low on everything apart from view distance and textures which are low and FPS is generally between 35 and 45.
 
CliffyG said:
I'm currently running the game on a pc with an i5-2500k, 8GB DDR3 1866MHz, Asus GTX 760 2048MB and a Samsung SSD 840 EVO. Monitor is 22" 1680x1050. What's the cheapest route to getting better performance on PUGB? I'm currently running very low on everything apart from view distance and textures which are low and FPS is generally between 35 and 45.
Click to expand...

GTX 1060 and 8GB more RAM imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom