Capped at 120fps

[Memento]

Hello. My framerate is capped at 120fps even though I'm using a 144hz monitor. I've done some research and only saw one other person online that had this problem and no one offered any solution. I can run cod:modern warfare at 144hz stable and I use gsync and vsync(since that's how it was intended). I then cap my framerate with RTSS if there isn't an in-game cap. I was wondering if anyone else had this problem. I only know the game is running at 120fps because of RTSS. I checked and it shows that my framerate is capped at 141, like I previously set it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

SPECS:
i9-9900k
2060 Super
32GB DDR4 3200Mhz(XMP Profile)
game is running on an ssd as well.
As you can see, I definitely should be able to get several hundred frames.

[What The Sigmar?]

what a burden that must be

[Junglist]

Turn off v-sync and uncap your framerate.

I have a weaker PC than you (i7-7700k, GTX 1070) and I'm getting ~ 200-300+ fps (it varies wildly from map to map), but I'm running with uncapped framerate and no v-sync.

On 60hz monitors, the frame-tearing is noticeable when with uncapped framerate (with framerate exceeding the refresh rate) and no v-sync, but on my 144hz monitor I don't notice any screen tearing with the same conditions.

There's not much point to using v-sync + g-sync when you have overkill hardware for a particular title, that enables you to sustain a stable high framerate (144 fps + at all times).

[Memento]

Originally posted by Linux Dilettante:

Turn off v-sync and uncap your framerate.

I have a weaker PC than you (i7-7700k, GTX 1070) and I'm getting ~ 200-300+ fps (it varies wildly from map to map), but I'm running with uncapped framerate and no v-sync.

On 60hz monitors, the frame-tearing is noticeable when with uncapped framerate (with framerate exceeding the refresh rate) and no v-sync, but on my 144hz monitor I don't notice any screen tearing with the same conditions.

There's not much point to using v-sync + g-sync when you have overkill hardware for a particular title, that enables you to sustain a stable high framerate (144 fps + at all times).

Idk man on different titles I get screen-tearing, as it's still possible even with gsync turned on, if vsync isn't enabled as well. That's the way nvidia intended it to run. I'll take your advice though and get back to you

[Mach 1 Padilla]

I cant get mine to go past 60fps.

[Object-13]

Originally posted by Rosy:

what a burden that must be

I know, right? Meanwhile I'm sitting there, playing games on laptop because I'm often on the move and I'm happy as hell when I get 60fps on modern title. :v

[Memento]

Originally posted by Rosy:

what a burden that must be

Alright. I get it. You want a pity party. Well, when you're used to playing at 144hz it does kinda spoil you;however, I bought my components with my hard-earned money, so sure I can ask to actually get 144fps on a 12 year old game.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Originally posted by what:

Originally posted by Rosy:

what a burden that must be

Alright. I get it. You want a pity party. Well, when you're used to playing at 144hz it does kinda spoil you;however, I bought my components with my hard-earned money, so sure I can ask to actually get 144fps on a 12 year old game.

thr problem is that you want 144fps from a *12 year old game*.

This game, and literally everything in it (physics, Ai, I think even sound) were tied to a hard coded 30FPS engine.

The fact that they were able to rewrite major parts to allow for 100% solid 60FPS play, which mind you *is the PC gaming industry standard for frame rate expectation* is fricken amazing.

You are a fringe and niche customer. Fact is *most* pc gamers are not high frame rate gamers. Statisically most are still 1080p/60. And many (like myself) have opted for 4K/60 in lew of high frame rate.

In a title where things like animations and phyusics are hard coded to FPS, its *way* easier for the devs to offer full 4k/60 flawlessly (which they do) and not be able to offer nearly as good an experaince above 60 for any resolution period.

Its a 12yr old engine being pushed to twice its effective frame rate perfectly, and you want to be upset it cant jump to 4 times its rate and perform the same?...

Calm down, understand that unlike other older titles that may play with ease, most of Halo is hard tied to FPS and there is not much more to be done (but they are working on it). 343 hit the golden PC standard of 60FPS and 1080P, and also offered native 4K, along with limited high refresh and ultra wide support. I would call that pretty decent on the check box list for modern ported 12yr old title.

[Memento]

Originally posted by xSOSxHawkens:

Originally posted by what:

Alright. I get it. You want a pity party. Well, when you're used to playing at 144hz it does kinda spoil you;however, I bought my components with my hard-earned money, so sure I can ask to actually get 144fps on a 12 year old game.

thr problem is that you want 144fps from a *12 year old game*.

This game, and literally everything in it (physics, Ai, I think even sound) were tied to a hard coded 30FPS engine.

The fact that they were able to rewrite major parts to allow for 100% solid 60FPS play, which mind you *is the PC gaming industry standard for frame rate expectation* is fricken amazing.

You are a fringe and niche customer. Fact is *most* pc gamers are not high frame rate gamers. Statisically most are still 1080p/60. And many (like myself) have opted for 4K/60 in lew of high frame rate.

In a title where things like animations and phyusics are hard coded to FPS, its *way* easier for the devs to offer full 4k/60 flawlessly (which they do) and not be able to offer nearly as good an experaince above 60 for any resolution period.

Its a 12yr old engine being pushed to twice its effective frame rate perfectly, and you want to be upset it cant jump to 4 times its rate and perform the same?...

Calm down, understand that unlike other older titles that may play with ease, most of Halo is hard tied to FPS and there is not much more to be done (but they are working on it). 343 hit the golden PC standard of 60FPS and 1080P, and also offered native 4K, along with limited high refresh and ultra wide support. I would call that pretty decent on the check box list for modern ported 12yr old title.

You must have misunderstood. I also wasn't talking to you, but the person who posted that comment. For the record, most gamers would opt for 1080p 144hz over 4k 60hz, especially with a game like Halo. Higher resolution wouldn't help much, as it's extremely easy to see enemies. Large oddly colored robosuits..... That's just the facts. Higher refresh rates, especially in competitive gaming, is ideal compared to higher quality. That's better for single-player game imo. I never said most gamers are high refresh rate gamers. And as I said, this is a 12 year old game, but it's supposed to be updated slowly to fully work with modern pc technology, aka high refresh rate monitors. I don't know why you even chimed in, and I'm not hyper, so there's no need to "calm down". Why are you trying to start an argument over something that wasn't even about you in the first place? I spent money towards this port so that I could play it on my pc, not my old xbox. This version is supposed to be modernized. I have no problem with the fact that it isn't currently, since they just released it last month, but I do expect it to be compatible eventually. And the topic was simply that I'm trying to get it working better on my system and would like help if anyone has found a solution. I'm glad that you're enjoying a competitive fps in 4k 60hz, but 144hz 1080 is better for any online competitive shooters. It's simply an advantage. Also, the price of 144hz is extremely reasonable currently, with a price range as low as $150. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess....

[Memento]

Originally posted by Wehzy 'ftp:

TBH some people have serious issues with this game and some don't. I dont think there is a fix for us. my FPS are capped aswell @120 but only sometimes. And even sometimes they drop to 75 or so.. Im pretty sure my PC should handle 200 fps easily..

ryzen 2600
1660
16gb

Even OW runs better.

Huh. That's weird. You do see 120 though, right? Wonder what would happen if I set my hz to 120.... Yeah, you're right. Lol I can run modern warfare 2019 at 170fps stable but this is stuck at 120.

[magazine permafrost]

i get about 200ish for some reason. idk my specs btw lol
i only know i have an i3 8000 something

[xSOSxHawkens]

Originally posted by what:

Originally posted by xSOSxHawkens:

thr problem is that you want 144fps from a *12 year old game*.

This game, and literally everything in it (physics, Ai, I think even sound) were tied to a hard coded 30FPS engine.

The fact that they were able to rewrite major parts to allow for 100% solid 60FPS play, which mind you *is the PC gaming industry standard for frame rate expectation* is fricken amazing.

You are a fringe and niche customer. Fact is *most* pc gamers are not high frame rate gamers. Statisically most are still 1080p/60. And many (like myself) have opted for 4K/60 in lew of high frame rate.

In a title where things like animations and phyusics are hard coded to FPS, its *way* easier for the devs to offer full 4k/60 flawlessly (which they do) and not be able to offer nearly as good an experaince above 60 for any resolution period.

Its a 12yr old engine being pushed to twice its effective frame rate perfectly, and you want to be upset it cant jump to 4 times its rate and perform the same?...

Calm down, understand that unlike other older titles that may play with ease, most of Halo is hard tied to FPS and there is not much more to be done (but they are working on it). 343 hit the golden PC standard of 60FPS and 1080P, and also offered native 4K, along with limited high refresh and ultra wide support. I would call that pretty decent on the check box list for modern ported 12yr old title.

You must have misunderstood. I also wasn't talking to you, but the person who posted that comment. For the record, most gamers would opt for 1080p 144hz over 4k 60hz, especially with a game like Halo. Higher resolution wouldn't help much, as it's extremely easy to see enemies. Large oddly colored robosuits..... That's just the facts. Higher refresh rates, especially in competitive gaming, is ideal compared to higher quality. That's better for single-player game imo. I never said most gamers are high refresh rate gamers. And as I said, this is a 12 year old game, but it's supposed to be updated slowly to fully work with modern pc technology, aka high refresh rate monitors. I don't know why you even chimed in, and I'm not hyper, so there's no need to "calm down". Why are you trying to start an argument over something that wasn't even about you in the first place? I spent money towards this port so that I could play it on my pc, not my old xbox. This version is supposed to be modernized. I have no problem with the fact that it isn't currently, since they just released it last month, but I do expect it to be compatible eventually. And the topic was simply that I'm trying to get it working better on my system and would like help if anyone has found a solution. I'm glad that you're enjoying a competitive fps in 4k 60hz, but 144hz 1080 is better for any online competitive shooters. It's simply an advantage. Also, the price of 144hz is extremely reasonable currently, with a price range as low as $150. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess....

\
First, you dont make posts in ap public forrum asking for help and then tell ransomd "i wasnt talking to you"...

Yeh, you were, you made a pubic post.

Second you completly missed the technical points I made.

Expecting anything running on the halo engine to hit 144Hz is not reasonable. 60, yes, 144 no.

What is the *stardard bar set for high performance PC gaming* across the industry as a whole? High settings, 1080p, 60FPS.

Did MCC check all those boxes? Yes? Then it is optimised for modern PC's. Period.

Now, did they *also* manage to included limited supprt for fringe niche users who are a major *minority* both in PC gaming and overall in the world? Yes! They have included limited support for ultra wide 21:9 and high refresh rate, but neither one work perfect, and neither one may ever work perfect. They are both stretching the engine beyond what it was ever meant for by a large margin.

Did they *also* manage to offer support for native 4K as an added bonus, yup!

For a 12yr old port of a console game I am simply pointing out that they *did* do exactly what they said they would do, they *did* reach the industry standard bar for high performance on pc (1080/60). Anytthing more is simply a bonus.

[Memento]

Originally posted by xSOSxHawkens:

Originally posted by what:

You must have misunderstood. I also wasn't talking to you, but the person who posted that comment. For the record, most gamers would opt for 1080p 144hz over 4k 60hz, especially with a game like Halo. Higher resolution wouldn't help much, as it's extremely easy to see enemies. Large oddly colored robosuits..... That's just the facts. Higher refresh rates, especially in competitive gaming, is ideal compared to higher quality. That's better for single-player game imo. I never said most gamers are high refresh rate gamers. And as I said, this is a 12 year old game, but it's supposed to be updated slowly to fully work with modern pc technology, aka high refresh rate monitors. I don't know why you even chimed in, and I'm not hyper, so there's no need to "calm down". Why are you trying to start an argument over something that wasn't even about you in the first place? I spent money towards this port so that I could play it on my pc, not my old xbox. This version is supposed to be modernized. I have no problem with the fact that it isn't currently, since they just released it last month, but I do expect it to be compatible eventually. And the topic was simply that I'm trying to get it working better on my system and would like help if anyone has found a solution. I'm glad that you're enjoying a competitive fps in 4k 60hz, but 144hz 1080 is better for any online competitive shooters. It's simply an advantage. Also, the price of 144hz is extremely reasonable currently, with a price range as low as $150. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess....

\
First, you dont make posts in ap public forrum asking for help and then tell ransomd "i wasnt talking to you"...

Yeh, you were, you made a pubic post.

Second you completly missed the technical points I made.

Expecting anything running on the halo engine to hit 144Hz is not reasonable. 60, yes, 144 no.

What is the *stardard bar set for high performance PC gaming* across the industry as a whole? High settings, 1080p, 60FPS.

Did MCC check all those boxes? Yes? Then it is optimised for modern PC's. Period.

Now, did they *also* manage to included limited supprt for fringe niche users who are a major *minority* both in PC gaming and overall in the world? Yes! They have included limited support for ultra wide 21:9 and high refresh rate, but neither one work perfect, and neither one may ever work perfect. They are both stretching the engine beyond what it was ever meant for by a large margin.

Did they *also* manage to offer support for native 4K as an added bonus, yup!

For a 12yr old port of a console game I am simply pointing out that they *did* do exactly what they said they would do, they *did* reach the industry standard bar for high performance on pc (1080/60). Anytthing more is simply a bonus.

Alright. I did respond to your "technical" points. Also, have you ever hear of a reply button? There isn't one here but it was obviously intended for that person. Every modern game I've played is 144hz. If it isn't, it's barely a pc game. Why are you sucking up to them? This does nothing for you. I have better things to do, and as such, this is my last reply. You should want better technology as well, but it seems you don't. I'm not using ultrawide, and high refresh rate barely works at all, hence the post.... More people have high refresh rates over 4k....