Only getting 45 FPS on gtx 1060????

[False Prophet]

Anyone have any idea why this is happening? I have it set to ultra settings at 1920x1080.

[Zombits]

Well that game is very demanding with all vegetation and details, for a 2012 release . Perhaps not meant to be played on ultra if one wants stable 60 fps

[False Prophet]

Originally posted by Zombit:

Well that game is very demanding with all vegetation and details, for a 2012 release . Perhaps not meant to be played on ultra if one wants stable 60 fps

I figured it out. It was running at 4k res because my Nvidia program optimized it to do so.

[grdn]

Let I check? I have GTX 1060,Far Cry 3.

[grdn]

Huh,56-63 fps on 1920x1080,29-31 fps on default 2715x1527

[grdn]

Maybe your resolution is 2715x1527?
Nvidia Gameworks give me middle settings)
P.S.Sorry for my bad English

[Sirius]

These games are not really optimized for very high res. It's basically a console port (or rather, a side-by-side development with consoles in mind - they don't care much about uipgrading the PC versions, generally they take the working console version and take it from there).

I do know you beast PC people love to show off your hardware, but believe me, you get much more stable frames with a "sensible" resolution such as 1650 max.

All that is no excuse for not considering the modern hardware of PCs, for sure.

Just saying that it really might work better if you try the "console way".

I have noticed this for other games as well. I have both a 1920 monitor and an oldass 1400 flatscreen TV.

Many games run better on the flatcreen and don't look worse for the wear.
I usually don;t even try going higher than 1400 for most modern games even on my monitor because of this, and I have no issues with not maxing out my monitor capabilities.

To be fair, MY hardware is starting to show signs of age, so maybe it's me.

Still, as a rule of thumb, look to the console res of a game - most last gen / present gen games are designed to run on TVs. You can depend on sloppy PC porting / coding making those games run better at console res. Sure you can run them higher, but expect such issues, especially if you DON'T have a ridiculously beast PC (compared to the game you are trying to run).

[Category Theory]

SiriuS: interesting point. But wouldn't console res be more like 1280x720?

And I really want to believe that 1920x1080 is "basic lowish res," especially given that anything less before 960x540 is going to be pixel-interpolated on my monitor, which can't be a good thing.

At least the current generation of consoles is likely to support 1920x1080 well, one hopes.

[Big Kahuna]

Far Cry 3 is a taxing game for any GPU modern or not, I have a 680 and only get about 40-50 FPS but in Far Cry 4 I'm always above 60 even on ultra.

[Sirius]

True, my point was merely that these consoles ports are just not optimized for high end resolutions. I already consider 1920 "high" in these instances.

And yrs, older consoles and such should be considered 1280 for the most part (even older, even less of course).

That's why we have AA and FXAA, you generally have better results with lower res and high AA settings than with high res and no AA at all.

I understand that for really modern monitors it is really noticable to go from above 1920 to below even that, and that AA and FXAA don't completely mitigate the pixelation in some cases, but it's worth a try in any case.

If the rig can handle it, use the driver settings to really crank up the edge smoothing and whatnot to see if it makes a difference at a somewhat lower res. Sometimes even the in-game settings have residues of console menus and don't properly utilize these things.

I would suggest overriding any of these options at driver level, maybe that helps things along.

Another deal is actual framerate, those tend to be confused as well.

While most (again, older) consoles are restricted to 30 or 50-60 FPS, using a high end PC and expecting to run with 120+ FPS without issues is foolish.

It can work of course (when the port is done properly with modern PCs in mind), but most ports are really shoddy mechanics wise and so issues appear even though they shouldn't from a modern hardware standpoint.

And many, many new(ish) games simply are also released on current consoles, so they don't really bother updating the PC part properly. Too much time and money involved, I assume.

Again, it can work perfectly well with double / triple the settings the console counterpart has, but it's really rare.

The worst is KOEI games for example, they don't even bother at all. Many of their games run worse on PC than on the respective console even when one sets the options to be as close to the console limitations as possible. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Not to mention that their idea of good pricing for their titles is ridiculous.

UBI ports tend to be rather stable, if a bit iffy in the "ultra" department. That's likely because they don't put out the games first on console and then as an afterthought on PC (as KOEI tends to do - those games basically run on shoddy XBOX emulators, or so it feels).

And finally, all I've said can be hit and miss - maybe for some people it does work perfectly well because they happen to have the hardware that was properly tested by the dev's quality checking teams. Maybe just using a slightly different GFX card model makes all the difference in performance loss.

[Racuch Zawodowiec]

I get 30-45 fps in open areas on full hd, msaax4, all maxed out with gtx 660ti. I also have i5 3570 oced to 4.0 gh.

[Vlad]

FC3 is unoptimized. Always has been, always will be. There's generally not even a quality difference from high to ultra in this game anyway. Put everything on high, with 4x MSAA at most, Post FX no higher than high or very high, and geometry at ultra (to prevent pop in). Lastly, turn off alpha to coverage. You don't notice the difference unless you really, REALLY look for it. It also kills performance.

[Zefir]

i5-3570k(4.4),8gb ram,gtx 780 ti and 1440/900(75Hertz) and on ultra settings + msaa 4 some reason I loaded the card at 70/60% and CPU 34/50 gg (i play in bf 1 on ultra and have 100 fps and 80 minimum

[Zefir]

maybe bcs win 10 but not sure

[False Prophet]

I figured it out guys. It was running at 4k res and I had a option on that severly reduced framerate. Now I get 120-160.

[grdn]

What processor and OS do you have? I am getting only 60 fps on 1060 6G,i5 6500,w
Windows 10 pro