With windowed borderless? You can play with VSYNC off and have no screen tearing. So that's why Windowed borderless gaming is preferred by some gamers who don't have fancy adaptive-sync monitors with AMD Freesync or NVIDIA Gsync. so 45fps feels like 30fps because the GPU outputs frames at 30Hz signal to the monitor. BUT, at times where the framerate is something like 45 fps? This causes gaps or delays since VSYNC only works at intervals to prevent screen tearing. What it does is forces the GPU to stop putting out updated frames until the monitor has refreshed or finished drawing the last frame. That's why VSYNC or Sync to vBlank was created. so my eyes are sensitive to screen tearing. I for one can't play with VSYNC off due to screen tearing causing my eyes to water. fingers crossed!) and for this example I'm using Armored Warfare which of course is on Cryengine. let's jump over to a game engine that's properly multi-threaded and DirectX 11 (which hopefully both will come to World of Tanks in 2016. sad to think that TF2 had proper multithreading in 2009, yet in 2016 World of Tanks still doesn't lol dangit. Valve (Praise GabeN!) was one of the multithreading pioneers and they only brought it to the Source engine in 2009ish with upgrades in Team Fortress 2. Intel Quad Core CPUs with the Q6600 came out in 2006. that's only when multithreading was starting to become a "thing" in PC gaming. DirectX 9e which WoT currently uses wasn't built for proper multithreading though. but still, those hits could be further mitigated by having multithreading. World of Tanks in the last few patches has optimized lighting and shadows quite a bit so the framerate hits aren't nearly as bad as before. 85% on ONE thread!!! It's hemorrhaging so bad! 44% on what I'm guessing is the physics thread, 23% on the sound thread and 13% on the primary thread which is Windows operating system. but look at my CPU! Intel i7-3770k OC'ed to 4.4GHz (x44 multiplier, 1.30v). each of my GPUs are sitting at only 50% load so I'm definitely not GPU limited. Lastly isnt it also true with 60 hz monitors it doesnt matter if the FPS is over 60? Like the 390 and 290 are only 5% diff performance but with 150-200 dollar differance in price.If you have pure money Intel/Nvidia but for most us poor gamers I thin AMD/ATI is by far better, If you dont play WOT and play games that are not flash based brpowerser style.Īslo Mard have you noticed WOT also seems to be way more choppy looing at say 45 FPS than most games? In most games at 40 FPS I was happy as a clam but until I get 55+ My eye gets bothered to the point I spend more time modding than playing Like buying the okder gen cards that are repackaged as the new series. As a whole for 150-250 $ graphics cards that I think most people buy ATI cards are usually just as good and in some cases much better bang. I find that when I use AA at all it nails my FPS 30%.Īnd to the other guys, AMD makes up for its lack Hyperthread with multicores and does it in most games very well. Have you messe with the FXXA mods at all? They inject FXXA and are not suposed to hurt fps more than 3% while they look massively better. Next thing I'd turn down is post processing and decals. If you have problems running my settings try turning TSSAA to FXAA or lowering shadow and lighting quality or turning off shadows. Using the High preset tends to chalk up extra graphical settings that really hamper the CPU and I've found setting "extra effects quality" above medium does look impressive will seriously hamper your framerate in combat when it's most important your framerate remain stable. It gives me a good mix of graphical quality and performance when it counts. T_J try changing your settings and see if it helps to run something closer to what I run.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |