Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Having "more than capable" hardware doesn't change this law of physics. There's nothing special about "fast" or "high end" hardware that allows it to do so. Those are merely arbitrary labels. The best you can do is get hardware so overkill in all areas, and cap your performance, and then always have the ability to perform above that cap. And that's a tall ask more often than people realize.
I'm guessing the "99%" refers to the 99% average. Given it was a bit below your maximum at a 60 FPS limit, the results above that track and are expected. Keep in mind a shift to a loading screen might cause the frame rate tracking to count a very low number, or a brief heavy moment on the CPU resulting in the stutter may do the same. Those results don't sound too surprising.