What kind of setup is needed for 1440p 144hz max settings?

[DarkKatalyst]

^Title^

Okay, maybe not 144hz exactly (idk how feasible that is), but something close.

[MaddogDino]

Mine runs like a dream ;o)

Computer Information:
Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
Model: Z97X-Gaming 3
Form Factor: Desktop

Processor Information:
CPU Vendor: GenuineIntel
CPU Brand: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
Speed: 3991 Mhz
8 logical processors
4 physical processors
HyperThreading: Supported
FCMOV: Supported
SSE2: Supported
SSE3: Supported
SSSE3: Supported
SSE4a: Unsupported
SSE41: Supported
SSE42: Supported
AES: Supported
AVX: Supported
CMPXCHG16B: Supported
LAHF/SAHF: Supported
PrefetchW: Unsupported

Operating System Version:
Windows 10 (64 bit)
NTFS: Supported

Video Card:
Driver: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
Primary Display Resolution: 2560 x 1440
Desktop Resolution: 2560 x 1440
Primary Display Size: 23.54" x 13.23" (26.97" diag)
59.8cm x 33.6cm (68.5cm diag)
Primary Bus: PCI Express 16x
Primary VRAM: 8191 MB
Supported MSAA Modes: 2x 4x 8x

Sound card:
Audio device: Speakers (Realtek High Definiti

Memory:
RAM: 16234 Mb

[:D]

120 hz is fine. Its wayyyyyyy better than 60hz, and the difference from 144hz is negligible.

[MechWarden]

I've got a GTX 1080, and a 1440p screen, and most times the FPS ranges from 50-70 on max graphics settings. So you'd need something more than that.

[всё хорошо]

>need something more than a 1080

Now please hurry with those optimizations

[Snipie]

Anything Nvidia atm. AMD cards run this game like ♥♥♥♥ right now bc Hello Games screwed up and used Nvidia OpenGL profile to dev the game

[Lucifer69]

Even those with a 1080ti and i7 8700k like my friend aren't getting stable 100+ fps. He dips into 60's at times even at 1080p.

[Executioner Gaming]

Maybe that new 2080 ti can do it lol Can't wait to see what that beast can do with real time ray tracing tech.

[Zorro]

Originally posted by Snipe:

Anything Nvidia atm. AMD cards run this game like ♥♥♥♥ right now bc Hello Games screwed up and used Nvidia OpenGL profile to dev the game

AMD cards are getting owned by their applicable Nvidia counterparts in practically every gaming benchmark currently relevant. I never weighed in on the ATI vs Nvidia fanboy stuff in the past but any avid PC gamer buying a recent generation ATI card is a nincompoop.

[Lucifer69]

Be careful this will turn into a fanboi war pretty soon. That said even in the cpu line up amd is meh at best. However their options are by far the best value imo (cpu and gpu).

Edit: No benchmark will show a high end amd cpu/ gpu beat their intel/ nvidea high end counterparts. Been that way for years. Until they get the resources to up developement it's not going to change. On the cpu side amd finally has a dam good option but ryzen isn't the be all end all.

[Zorro]

Originally posted by Lucifer69:

Be careful this will turn into a fanboi war pretty soon. That said even in the cpu line up amd is meh at best. However their options are by far the best value imo (cpu and gpu).

Edit: No benchmark will show a high end amd cpu/ gpu beat their intel/ nvidea high end counterparts. Been that way for years. Until they get the resources to up developement it's not going to change. On the cpu side amd finally has a dam good option but ryzen isn't the be all end all.

I know. It's just that I think most practical, common sense, people who read my post understand perfectly what I'm talking about. AMD does have some very competitive CPUs now if you exclude gaming from the equation (for benchmarks outside of gaming those Ryzens often fare better than their Intel counterparts). But for gaming, even AMD's Ryzen lineup doesn't fare well against the current generation i7, especially since the price between the two lineups are so similar. But AMD's card lineup via ATI is where the biggest gap is. I haven't seen competitive GPU benchmarks for years - Nvidia has the better cards and larger market, and gaming companies are optimizing for Nvidia because of it. End of story. Should ATI eventually be competitive in both performance and price to the equivilent Nvidia lineup, I'd happily consider one as my next card. Until then, I'm sticking with Nvidia. ATI has become less and less competitive ever since AMD bought them out. Really disappointing.

[Lucifer69]

Originally posted by Zorro:

Originally posted by Lucifer69:

Be careful this will turn into a fanboi war pretty soon. That said even in the cpu line up amd is meh at best. However their options are by far the best value imo (cpu and gpu).

Edit: No benchmark will show a high end amd cpu/ gpu beat their intel/ nvidea high end counterparts. Been that way for years. Until they get the resources to up developement it's not going to change. On the cpu side amd finally has a dam good option but ryzen isn't the be all end all.

I know. It's just that I think most practical, common sense, people who read my post understand perfectly what I'm talking about. AMD does have some very competitive CPUs now if you exclude gaming from the equation (for benchmarks outside of gaming those Ryzens often fare better than their Intel counterparts). But for gaming, even AMD's Ryzen lineup doesn't fare well against the current generation i7, especially since the price between the two lineups are so similar. But AMD's card lineup via ATI is where the biggest gap is. I haven't seen competitive GPU benchmarks for years - Nvidia has the better cards and larger market, and gaming companies are optimizing for Nvidia because of it. End of story. Should ATI eventually be competitive in both performance and price to the equivilent Nvidia lineup, I'd happily consider one as my next card. Until then, I'm sticking with Nvidia. ATI has become less and less competitive ever since AMD bought them out. Really disappointing.

****Off topic.
Sadly AMD will need to kill some of Intel's server side control before they can focus on us. Billions of dollars are at stake there vs millions on the consumer side. Thanfully the threadripper seems to be up for the task. We'll see.

As for the GPU market? Well Nvidia will be the clear king there. I doubt we get anything too spectacular from Intel and AMD has clearly left the high end to Nvidia (must admit I'm rather curious as to what Intel will release as more competition is always a good thing).****

In any event I'm not sold on it actually being possible to play NMS beyond 90 FPS as even those with the best of hardware are struggling (max settings 1920x1080 already pushes my gtx 1080 to 50% at 3440x1440 it sits on 95% with VRAM nearly capped out). If we drop the resolution to 1080 and medium settings then maybe the 1080ti could get 120+ fps. Perhaps one of the titans?

[Rodrigo]

GTX 1080 non ti is your to go 1440p card.

[Lucifer69]

Originally posted by Captein:

GTX 1080 non ti is your to go 1440p card.

Not for 144hz and especially not for this game.

[Zorro]

Originally posted by Lucifer69:

... In any event I'm not sold on it actually being possible to play NMS beyond 90 FPS as even those with the best of hardware are struggling (max settings 1920x1080 already pushes my gtx 1080 to 50% at 3440x1440 it sits on 95% with VRAM nearly capped out). If we drop the resolution to 1080 and medium settings then maybe the 1080ti could get 120+ fps. Perhaps one of the titans?

I hear ya. I have an 11 GB GTX 1080ti and can't run NMS @ 4k at an acceptable framerate. I have a 32" 2560x1440 monitor so if I run 4k I can only do it through Nvidia's DSR anyways. I'm currently running in 2560x1440 without any performance issues (60 FPS+ at all times). But considering the card I have think the game should perform better. Games these days are focused so much on 30 FPS console performance that they make very little effort to the 60+ FPS PC market anymore. Assassin's Creed Origins is a great example of this - it's impossible for my system to run it at a solid 60 FPS in Alexandria even in the lowest settings at 1080p (it's a CPU thread hog that needs memory bandwidth to accomodate it, and my i7 2600k @ 4.6GHz from 2011 just can't handle it), yet I can run it perfectly at 4k+ HD (via DSR) in 30 FPS ultra settings (30 FPS looks better on PC then on consoles once you learn to normalize the frametimes). I only know of one person who could actually run AC:O in 4k at 60+ FPS in Alexandria and he had a 16 thread Core i9 with an insane overclock on it coupled with quad channel RAM and a Titan GPU (AC:O doesn't support SLI). So when people complain about performance in NMS I chuckle because an indie company optimized their game better than a triple A title gaming company has.

[Sam Sausage]

I haven't tested to see my max FPS, since I'm at 60hz. But playing maxed out at 3440x1440, I was getting 60fps steady, using about 75% of my GPU. (The latest update reduced my FPS, but I still have hope for a fix, going to try deleting the shaders tonight to see if that works)

1080 TI with 5820k @ 4.25Ghz

I would think you could get pretty close to your goal with similar hardware, using a non-ultrawide monitor and a few setting reduced from Max. But it'll be pushing it.

I might have to run some FPS tests on non ultrawide resolutions to see what happens.