85 FPS on RTX5090 (overclocked), are we kidding?

[AzysLla]

4K Max settings, Max RT, No DLSS, No frame gen, only 85 FPS. Is this real? CPU is 9800X3D.

[space]

well you are playing on native 4k and max rt

it doesn't matter how strong the gpu is, you won't get high fps without dlss and fg

85 fps is pretty impressive for those settings actually

[侍Kage]

Agree with space, you should be happy with that numbers. This is a 2025 game and gpus are heavy AI tech depended. You are literally using GPU's raw power which is not that great anyways. 85fps on 4k all native is insane.

[Caesar]

Originally posted by space:

85 fps is pretty impressive for those settings actually

It really depends on your standpoint.

I agree with OP, the game runs like crap CONSIDERING how the graphics look (they aren't that great really & the game should run much smoother).
And as far as I know RayTracing is only used for reflections (that could change in the official release of course, but still), in other words you won't get much of a performance boost by disabling it.

Now inbefore people tell me how the game has to simulate a whole ecosystem & what not - so do other games & they still run + look better.

[Soul Reaver]

runs well on my 6090, you might need an upgrade

[RotGoblin]

Pretty sad that gamers have become so entitled that they think that 85fps at Ultra graphics with max raytracing effects at 4K is bad.

[jbuff61173]

My 4k average frames were 67.87 on its benchmark tool. Ran it with RT=High, No Frame Gen stuff, Ultra quality. If I buy the game it should run just fine. The 2k 2560x1440 average was 81.2. The 1k 1920x1080 average was 82.29. My PC is AM4 platform. 5950x, rx7900xtx, 4 sticks of 8gb ddr4-3200 ram / 32 gb. Mobo MSI Prestige x570 Creation. Win10 Prox64. Psu EVGA 850g5. My 7900xtx is a reference model from Asrock. CPU cooler is Noctua NH-U12A. PC Monitor LG 24UD58A 4k IPS 60hz FeeSync. My gpu did run hot nearing 90c per MSI AB, so if I do buy the game I would definitely tune down the game settings.

[Mechanique]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Pretty sad that gamers have become so entitled that they think that 85fps at Ultra graphics with max raytracing effects at 4K is bad.

B-But I get gorilion FPS in CP2077 and RDR2!!! And unlike you, the poors, my superhuman eyes can see difference between 60 fps and 85 fps

[★ Moonlight ★]

Im gonna be real, why is ANYONE gaming at 4k? It's a completely useless resolution
On a normal sized monitor, the perceivable difference between 1440p and 4k is barely anything compared to the performance hit. It only makes sense if you game on a TV

[Caesar]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Ultra graphics with max raytracing effects

Like I said the game isn't even utilizing RayTracing to it's full potential (it's only using RayTraced-Reflections).
And even at ultra settings the graphics aren't looking that great.

Originally posted by Mechanique:

And unlike you, the poors, my superhuman eyes can see difference between 60 fps and 85 fps

There actually is a difference;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA

Originally posted by ★ Moonlight ★:

Im gonna be real, why is ANYONE gaming at 4k? It's a completely useless resolution
On a normal sized monitor, the perceivable difference between 1440p and 4k is barely anything compared to the performance hit. It only makes sense if you game on a TV

While I somewhat agree with your statement (mainly that 4k makes the biggest difference on a big screen);
I think the overall issue is, the game runs poor in general no matter which settings/resolution/hardware/etc

[tfa]

Originally posted by Caesar:

Originally posted by space:

85 fps is pretty impressive for those settings actually

It really depends on your standpoint.

I agree with OP, the game runs like crap CONSIDERING how the graphics look (they aren't that great really & the game should run much smoother).
And as far as I know RayTracing is only used for reflections (that could change in the official release of course, but still), in other words you won't get much of a performance boost by disabling it.

Now inbefore people tell me how the game has to simulate a whole ecosystem & what not - so do other games & they still run + look better.

People use the same excuse for Starfield being so CPU heavy. They have nothing to say when pointing out that Fallout 4 ran on CPU's that were 1/3rd the processing power.

[Hans Moleman]

Originally posted by jbuff61173:

...so if I do buy the game I would definitely tune down the game settings...

Use 1440p and limit fps to 60 i'd say. Gives a bit more headroom and like this even a XTX can run without turning into a radiator xD

Originally posted by Caesar:

Now inbefore people tell me how the game has to simulate a whole ecosystem & what not - so do other games & they still run + look better.

Yep... Lazy ^^
And thats actually a point...
Are games really simulating an ecosystem or are NPCs (No matter if people or animal) simply running around without too much sense or simply following a given simple algorithm.

Plus there have been Ecosystems in games ages ago and i don't really see any difference in many cases.
At least not to en extend that it would matter in a Monster Hunter Game.

[Kriya Takagi]

xp just wait till gamers start complaining about why 8k 60 isnt a baseline standard.

[Pharticus Maximus]

Originally posted by Hans Moleman:

Originally posted by jbuff61173:

...so if I do buy the game I would definitely tune down the game settings...

Use 1440p and limit fps to 60 i'd say. Gives a bit more headroom and like this even a XTX can run without turning into a radiator xD

Originally posted by Caesar:

Now inbefore people tell me how the game has to simulate a whole ecosystem & what not - so do other games & they still run + look better.

Yep... Lazy ^^
And thats actually a point...
Are games really simulating an ecosystem or are NPCs (No matter if people or animal) simply running around without too much sense or simply following a given simple algorithm.

Plus there have been Ecosystems in games ages ago and i don't really see any difference in many cases.
At least not to en extend that it would matter in a Monster Hunter Game.

Use the settings I am using on a 7900XTX and get 100-144FPS(locked there for my 4K monitor). I fought 6 beasts at once with 3 players in party and got those results. Rarely it goes down to 80-90FPS, like in town with lots of players.

I have FSR on, but at quality and it looks fine, runs great.

[★ Moonlight ★]

Originally posted by tfa:

Originally posted by Caesar:

It really depends on your standpoint.

I agree with OP, the game runs like crap CONSIDERING how the graphics look (they aren't that great really & the game should run much smoother).
And as far as I know RayTracing is only used for reflections (that could change in the official release of course, but still), in other words you won't get much of a performance boost by disabling it.

Now inbefore people tell me how the game has to simulate a whole ecosystem & what not - so do other games & they still run + look better.

People use the same excuse for Starfield being so CPU heavy. They have nothing to say when pointing out that Fallout 4 ran on CPU's that were 1/3rd the processing power.

Starfield is NOT doing anything even remotely similar though?

[Hans Moleman]

Originally posted by Pharticus Maximus:

Use the settings I am using on a 7900XTX and get 100-144FPS...

Interesting idea but...

Originally posted by jbuff61173:

The 2k 2560x1440 average was 81.2. The 1k 1920x1080 average was 82.29

... there clearly is a bottleneck here.
So if jbuff doesn't want to use FG there won't be much more than 80 FPS.
Because of this i'm recommending him to usw 1440p and lock FPS so something around 60 which is totally ok for MH and the hardware will most likely be able to do it in any situation without further drops.