Refresh rate vs FPS value at 4 K and ultra

[TIG_TIG]

I have a PC with following specs: i9, 9900K, 32GB, RTX 3090. I used to have gaming at a 4K monitor with 60 Hz at ultra setting and FPS most of the time between 60 to 50 depending on all games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Far Cry 6 … etc at ultra settings.

Yesterday, I got a new acer Predator, XB323QK, 4K monitor, 144 Hz. I made some changes in Nvidia Panel. I got 60 to 70 FPS for some games and slightly above 100 FPS in some games at ultra settings. I selected in every games 144 Hz as refresh rate. Only in COD cold war and Warzone I got about 120 to 140 FPS. In Far Cry 6, I got 140 FPS at menu but in-game, about 60 to 70 FPS.

My question; why I do not get high FPS for games like Red Dead Redemption 2 or Far Cry 6 … etc. did I miss anything here?? Please suggest me your thought.

Thanks

Update:
At Cyberpunk 2077, I got between 80 to 100 at all ultra settings.

[Prof. Insanity]

Probably because the Hardware has no more to offer at this point. I dunno what you expectations were, but this is what it is. You can try to turn on DLSS (Performance) for a huge FPS push in exchange for ghosting problems.

[ZeekAncient]

Because Red Dead Redemption 2 and Far Cry 6 are very demanding games. Even with an RTX 3090 you are not going to get 144 fps at 4K. What you are getting seems about right for your hardware. What I don't understand is, even if you changed your monitor, you will be getting the same performance, that is FPS, with your old monitor as you will your new monitor. Were you expecting to get a performance increase with your new monitor? That is not how it works. You will have better refresh rate, and for games that can go up to 144fps, a smoother experience, essentially. But if your hardware stayed the same, then your performance will be the same. Now an RTX 3090 is a very capable card. Should be able to get over 60 fps at 4K in almost every game. But if you are expecting 144 fps in demanding games at 4K, well graphics cards are not quite there yet. Maybe in the next generation or two.

[TIG_TIG]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ZeekAncient:

Because Red Dead Redemption 2 and Far Cry 6 are very demanding games. Even with an RTX 3090 you are not going to get 144 fps at 4K. What you are getting seems about right for your hardware. What I don't understand is, even if you changed your monitor, you will be getting the same performance, that is FPS, with your old monitor as you will your new monitor. Were you expecting to get a performance increase with your new monitor? That is not how it works. You will have better refresh rate, and for games that can go up to 144fps, a smoother experience, essentially. But if your hardware stayed the same, then your performance will be the same. Now an RTX 3090 is a very capable card. Should be able to get over 60 fps at 4K in almost every game. But if you are expecting 144 fps in demanding games at 4K, well graphics cards are not quite there yet. Maybe in the next generation or two.

I am not asking to have 144 FPS in a game like Red Dead Redemption 2 at ultra settings, but at least +10 FPS for such monitor over the old one.

[Monk]

A faster refresh monitor only displays the extra frames, it can have zero impact on actual performance, if someone told you otherwise, we'll, they are a liar.

As for the fps, try adjusting some settings, some have very very little impact on visual quality but a large hit to performance.

Personally, I also have a 3090 and a 9900k albeit heavily overclocked under a custom loop, and I'll drop down from 4k to 1440p in a few games where I feel I need more fps (basically if I'm sub 80-90 if it's not a shooter), as I find resolution the least jarring thing to drop.

As for your cp2077 number, 8f that 100fps annoys you, don't try enabling raytracing features, I end up dropping the games to 1440p, everything max but use dlss quality myself.

Depending on your gpu and cpu's silicon, you can likely get a decent chunk of extra performance out of them with an overclock, though gpu temp on the 3090 is the biggest factor there.

[TIG_TIG]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Monk:

A faster refresh monitor only displays the extra frames, it can have zero impact on actual performance, if someone told you otherwise, we'll, they are a liar.

As for the fps, try adjusting some settings, some have very very little impact on visual quality but a large hit to performance.

Personally, I also have a 3090 and a 9900k albeit heavily overclocked under a custom loop, and I'll drop down from 4k to 1440p in a few games where I feel I need more fps (basically if I'm sub 80-90 if it's not a shooter), as I find resolution the least jarring thing to drop.

As for your cp2077 number, 8f that 100fps annoys you, don't try enabling raytracing features, I end up dropping the games to 1440p, everything max but use dlss quality myself.

Depending on your gpu and cpu's silicon, you can likely get a decent chunk of extra performance out of them with an overclock, though gpu temp on the 3090 is the biggest factor there.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Monk:

A faster refresh monitor only displays the extra frames, it can have zero impact on actual performance, if someone told you otherwise, we'll, they are a liar.

As for the fps, try adjusting some settings, some have very very little impact on visual quality but a large hit to performance.

Personally, I also have a 3090 and a 9900k albeit heavily overclocked under a custom loop, and I'll drop down from 4k to 1440p in a few games where I feel I need more fps (basically if I'm sub 80-90 if it's not a shooter), as I find resolution the least jarring thing to drop.

As for your cp2077 number, 8f that 100fps annoys you, don't try enabling raytracing features, I end up dropping the games to 1440p, everything max but use dlss quality myself.

Depending on your gpu and cpu's silicon, you can likely get a decent chunk of extra performance out of them with an overclock, though gpu temp on the 3090 is the biggest factor there.

OK Monk, understood. But do you think turning on V-Sync in every game might increase little FPS with above mentioned specs? In the old 60 Hz 4K monitor, V-Sync was mandatory for better gaming but with less FPS

[Illusion of Progress]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Prof. Insanity:

Probably because the Hardware has no more to offer at this point. I dunno what you expectations were, but this is what it is.

Pretty much this.

You're playing at 4K at the highest setting available and considering that, the frame rates you're getting seem exceptional to me. For the games that gave you something like 10 FPS more instead of higher than that, you were already near the graphics card limitation on the 60 Hz display. Not all those games were being held back evenly when synced to the 60 Hz limitation of the old display.

If you want more frames, the same thing always applies that always does; lower the demands (tune the video settings) and/or get faster hardware. Being that you have an RTX 3090, the former is pretty much your only option. There in many settings in most games that you can turn down a step or two and barely if ever tell a difference in image quality (especially when playing versus trying to pick them out in a screenshot) but it will definitely free up rendering time to more frames. Higher settings are typically exponentially more demanding for diminishing returns in quality. Putting everything as high as it goes is always a bad idea unless you have overkill hardware for the situation (even with an RTX 3090, you don't if your target is 4k and frame rates higher than you are getting now is your goal) and is the first thing to adjust if you want more performance out of your current hardware. PC games offer the advantage of options for a reason; tune the game to your individual needs.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

A game like RDR2 was designed to run at a range of 30-60 FPS anyways.

Overall what I would suggest is that for games where you can obviously see it's not going to go above 100 or so FPS (depending on your visual settings of course); then I would still use a refresh rate of 144Hz, but then apply an FPS Max Limit via NVIDIA Control Panel for said Game Title to be 72 (half of 144). Then use a proper Sync method that works best for said Game and Display; such as GSync, or try Adaptive or Fast. For in-game, disable VSync. VSync is bugged in R* games anyways and whenever its enabled will drastically increase load times for reasons unknown. RDR2 also has a bug where it never runs in Full Screen, no matter what you change. It always runs in Borderless Windowed Mode.

[Monk]

No, vsync will never give you extra fps, it will most likely csp it down to 60 or even 30 potentially, plus it will introduce input lag.

Without checking your monitors specs I'm not sure if it's a gsync module or freesync compatable model, but, the variable refresh tech should cover up any tearing you may of had, so no need for vsync.

Depending on the actual panel, you may also get a better image if you set it to 120Hz 4:4:4 rather than the full 144 which on many such panels only do 4:2:2 (plus you really won't miss or hit the extra fps often at 4k).

[TIG_TIG]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Monk:

No, vsync will never give you extra fps, it will most likely csp it down to 60 or even 30 potentially, plus it will introduce input lag.

Without checking your monitors specs I'm not sure if it's a gsync module or freesync compatable model, but, the variable refresh tech should cover up any tearing you may of had, so no need for vsync.

Depending on the actual panel, you may also get a better image if you set it to 120Hz 4:4:4 rather than the full 144 which on many such panels only do 4:2:2 (plus you really won't miss or hit the extra fps often at 4k).

It is G-Sync monitor

[kaliteli et]

.

[Kleerex]

in 2018 people expected 60fps@4K in all games and their 2018 hardware couldn't handle that. Now people expect 144fps@4K on 2021 hardware and it STILL can't deliver.

[Monk]

Depends on the game, can definetly get 144 at 4k in some, just not big AAA extreme graphical masterpieces.