low FPS despite having a 3090

Burned_Follower

B
For some reason, most of the time, my FPS in game is in the high 30's and 40's. I'm not complaining because it's fast enough for me to enjoy the game and I don't noticed any frame stuttering. Only reason I'm even aware of my FPS count is that I enabled that Steam setting to show me the fps on the top/left corner of my screen. But with the current build I have for my gaming PC, I was expecting a higher FPS. I'm bringing this up here because I'm simply curious if my low'ish FPS is a hardware issue, software issue, or an internet issue. Like I said, I'm not complaining, I'm only curious. :)

Oh and incase you ask, I'm currently running this game on every possible maxed out graphics setting, except I'm running it at 4k instead of 8k. I also have HDR turned off because my display is bright enough without and I shy away from using HDR to avoid burn in.

Here's my internet speed and PC build info:
Internet Speed: Ping: 16ms, Download: 94.95mpbs, Upload: 11.94mbps (half the time it's actually 200+mbps, just depending on the time of day and yes I know why)

PC build:
CPU: i9-10850k
GPU: asus tuf 24GB RTX 3090
C Drive(where I store my OS): 500GB SSD
D Drive(where I store my steam library): 4TB SSD
PSU: 1,050watt PSU

Monitor: it's actually a tv: LGCX 65inch, but it's 120hz and gsynch and vsynch compatible. I have ZERO input lag...at least none that I can even notice.

I have epic frame rates for doom eternal and other games. only games I have low'ish fps on is elite dangerous and cyberpunk 2077. I'd expected cyberpunk 2077 to have issues because it's a new game, but ED has been out for years. So that's why I'm asking if my low'ish FPS is a hardware issue, software issue, or just an internet issue. Love to hear ya'alls thoughts on this.

You'd think with a 1,500.00 dollar GPU, especially one that's advertised to do 8k, 60hz, that SURELY it could do 4k, 120hz with this game as well as it does for doom eternal.
 
Last edited:

Random Player

Random Player
Burned_Follower said:
WOOT! thank you!!! I turned the supersampling down to 1.00 and I now have EXACTLY 120fps. I also don't see any difference in graphics quality. again, thank you!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get well over 100+fps on a 5 year old i7-4960X / 1080 Ti build, with SS set to 1.0 running at 3440x1440 on a 100 MHz monitor. I jack SS to 2 and my fps tanks to around 20 to 40fps, with very little visual difference. I have everything maxed, so either Ultra or High, but Dear God... I don't touch that SS!!! That'll ruin your day :(
 

Gibbon

Gibbon
Zieman said:
Could the SuperSampling option be the culprit? 1.00 should be enough.
Click to expand...

I have supersampling 2.0 running on an i7 7700k with a 1080ti and i'm getting upward of 200 fps out in space with most settings on ultra on a 1920x1080 setting running at 144hz. Admittedly not in 4k but even so, i'd expect higher fps even in 4k on the OP's setup
 

Zieman

Zieman
Gibbon said:
I have supersampling 2.0 running on an i7 7700k with a 1080ti and i'm getting upward of 200 fps out in space with most settings on ultra on a 1920x1080 setting running at 144hz. Admittedly not in 4k but even so, i'd expect higher fps even in 4k on the OP's setup
Click to expand...
Your setting equates native 4k. Doing that (SS 2.0) to 4k would mean quadruple the load for GPU.
OP getting stable 120 fps is something I'd strive for with their setup, no tearing because of G-sync.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom