Extremely low fps

[Joe]

I'm still having lots of problems with the frame rate in the game. I tried downloading the DLSS mod from Nexus, but I didn't notice any difference in performance. I typically get anywhere from 20-40 fps while out in the world and sometimes the fps can dip below 20. In the towns its even worse, and I get 20fps or lower. Turning on DLSS doesn't seem to make a difference to performance. I have a RTX 3080 card, 9 10900 CPU, 32gb and use an ultra wide monitor. Is anyone else getting such bad performance? Is there anything I can do to fix this?

[D. Flame]

None of those gimmicks actually work. There is literally nothing you can do to stop them either. The game is just poorly optimized. It is a CPU-based issue, and the best CPUs in the world have the same issues.

[Amon]

If you want to use mods, there are a few that may help with your performance

[[-iD-]]

your cpu is just above the minimum. you're running a UW so you probably aren't running 1080p and even if you were those are the fps you would get as it says 30fps for 1080p with graphic intensive scenes having dips.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by -iD-:

your cpu is just above the minimum. you're running a UW so you probably aren't running 1080p and even if you were those are the fps you would get as it says 30fps for 1080p with graphic intensive scenes having dips.

Why do you continue to speak about things you do not understand? Not only is his processor significantly faster than the minimum requirement, it is also faster than the recommended CPU.

The minimum requirement: 10th gen i5.
The recommended: 10th gen i7.
OP's chip: 10th gen i9

i9 > i7 > i5

[Sham!]

"works on my rig" and "25fps is just enough"
sorry bub, that how it goes here

[[-iD-]]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by -iD-:

your cpu is just above the minimum. you're running a UW so you probably aren't running 1080p and even if you were those are the fps you would get as it says 30fps for 1080p with graphic intensive scenes having dips.

Why do you continue to speak about things you do not understand? Not only is his processor significantly faster than the minimum requirement, it is also faster than the recommended CPU.

The minimum requirement: 10th gen i5.
The recommended: 10th gen i7.
OP's chip: 10th gen i9

i9 > i7 > i5

because you are wrong as usual.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600K/4071vs4072

its only 8% faster. do you not see hes only getting 8% better fps?

[Despiser]

Originally posted by Joe:

I'm still having lots of problems with the frame rate in the game. I tried downloading the DLSS mod from Nexus, but I didn't notice any difference in performance. I typically get anywhere from 20-40 fps while out in the world and sometimes the fps can dip below 20. In the towns its even worse, and I get 20fps or lower. Turning on DLSS doesn't seem to make a difference to performance. I have a RTX 3080 card, 9 10900 CPU, 32gb and use an ultra wide monitor. Is anyone else getting such bad performance? Is there anything I can do to fix this?

It would help if you posted what settings you're using. I don't think DLSS frame generation works for 30xx cards. While it will make partial use of DLSS, it will reduce FPS as the CPU is taxed more in what is already CPU intensive algorithms, especially with NPCs and therefore towns. RTX should be disabled and you might get a few more frames by lowering GPU settings.

[Sham!]

Originally posted by -iD-:

its only 8% faster. do you not see hes only getting 8% better fps?

how better should the cpu be to classify as actually better in your book?
just asking

because OP cpu's is factually better than the reccomended specs

[Haman Karn]

Bad engine for this game, no way to fix it unfortunately

[[-iD-]]

Originally posted by Sham!:

Originally posted by -iD-:

its only 8% faster. do you not see hes only getting 8% better fps?

how better should the cpu be to classify as actually better in your book?
just asking

because OP cpu's is factually better than the reccomended specs

i didn't say it wasn't better. i said 8% faster that is better. but that still barely meets spec. d flame said significantly faster. thats just false.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by -iD-:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Why do you continue to speak about things you do not understand? Not only is his processor significantly faster than the minimum requirement, it is also faster than the recommended CPU.

The minimum requirement: 10th gen i5.
The recommended: 10th gen i7.
OP's chip: 10th gen i9

i9 > i7 > i5

because you are wrong as usual.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600K/4071vs4072

its only 8% faster. do you not see hes only getting 8% better fps?

The K at the end means over clocking optimized. Switch that 10600k to a 10600 and you jump from a 8 percent average result to a +16% average score

Additionally, the i9 has 10 cores to the i5's 6 cores. 20 threads vs 12. Plus it has 62% faster multi core processing speed, which jumps up to 72% with overclocking.

If they have the 10900k the differences become even more pronounced:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600/4071vs4069

So again, why are do you keep trying to talk about things that you know nothing about?

[[-iD-]]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by -iD-:

because you are wrong as usual.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600K/4071vs4072

its only 8% faster. do you not see hes only getting 8% better fps?

The K at the end means over clocking optimized. Switch that 10600k to a 10600 and you jump from a 8 percent average result to a +16% average score

Additionally, the i9 has 10 cores to the i5's 6 cores. 20 threads vs 12. Plus it has 62% faster multi core processing speed, which jumps up to 72% with overclocking.

If they have the 10900k the differences become even more pronounced:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600/4071vs4069

So again, why are do you keep trying to talk about things that you know nothing about?

ok lets play on level field then, you're comparing a k processor to a non k processor.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600/m1169242vs4069

in this case its still only 4%.

so why are you intentionally making yourself look bad?

you also dont get to add oc perf when he can't oc.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by -iD-:

Originally posted by Sham!:

how better should the cpu be to classify as actually better in your book?
just asking

because OP cpu's is factually better than the reccomended specs

i didn't say it wasn't better. i said 8% faster that is better. but that still barely meets spec. d flame said significantly faster. thats just false.

Minimum:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64 bit)/Windows 11 (64 bit)
Processor: Intel Core i5 10600

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600/m1169242vs4069

OP's is better.

========================

Recommended:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64 bit)/Windows 11 (64 bit)
Processor: Intel Core i7-10700

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i7-10700/m1169242vs4077

OP's is still better.

[[-iD-]]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by -iD-:

i didn't say it wasn't better. i said 8% faster that is better. but that still barely meets spec. d flame said significantly faster. thats just false.

Minimum:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64 bit)/Windows 11 (64 bit)
Processor: Intel Core i5 10600

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600/m1169242vs4069

OP's is better.

========================

Recommended:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64 bit)/Windows 11 (64 bit)
Processor: Intel Core i7-10700

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i7-10700/m1169242vs4077

OP's is still better.

i never said anything about better. you are now moving goal posts.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by -iD-:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Minimum:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64 bit)/Windows 11 (64 bit)
Processor: Intel Core i5 10600

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10600/m1169242vs4069

OP's is better.

========================

Recommended:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64 bit)/Windows 11 (64 bit)
Processor: Intel Core i7-10700

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900-vs-Intel-Core-i7-10700/m1169242vs4077

OP's is still better.

i never said anything about better. you are now moving goal posts.

You said, and I quote, "your cpu is just above the minimum."

However, the OP's CPU is better than even the recommended CPU.