Gaining more FPS without sacrificing quality help, dev input welcome

[-Greenie- 12]

G'day

 

I would like some help with increasing FPS. I'm not interested in dropping my quality settings, I'm interested in adding hardware within limits and not SLI'ing (from what I have heard SLI doesn't play well with G-Sync). If any of the Dev team sees this post , I would welcome your input.

 

Currently I run:

i7 4770K O/C 4.4

GTX 780 Classified O/C maxxed out

2560 x 1440 IPS monitor , non G-sync (Will be getting G-sync 1440 probably)

 

I have most things maxxed out in game other than post process due to scope blur.

 

Frames are around 30 in town and 50-60 in fields.

 

Getting more FPS, would I be better to get a GTX980 or a faster CPU (Presumably will be O/Cing either or both) Which will be better? I understand that DayZ does better with a stronger CPU, but to what point are gains going to be negligible vs a newer GPU?

 

Cheers in advance

 

Greenie

New Zealand

[d.walker43 196]

Honestly, that fps with maxed out settings is really good. I don't really think it can get to much better. Obviously you could turn down some of the settings that you don't really notice, such as things like motion blur and stuff, and leave textures and rendering and the like maxed out. I get about 30 fps in towns and 40-50 fps in forests/fields, and im on a $400 laptop at the moment because I'm not at home with my desktop.

 

Laptop specs:

CPU: Intel Core i3 4010U 1.8Ghz

GPU: Intel HD 4400 Graphics (modified gaming version)

RAM: 6 GB DDR3

Screen: 1366x768

 

I have pretty bad specs on this PC, but I can run it decently. I increased my fps and graphics capability by doing a few things. 1, I put my in-game resolution at my screens maximum, 1366x768. that helps graphics look a ton better. Also, turn your rendering resolution up to whatever you want, obviously you said its maxed out already but if it can run 200% it will look amazing, bump it down to like 150% or something, will help fps a lot and doesn't look a whole lot different. also, if you really want better fps, turn off things like post-process and motion blur, wont effect graphics a ton but will help fps.

 

Other then that, just tweak it a bit yourself and see what happens. that's what I did, eventually you'll find the perfect combination for your computer. hope I helped.

[t1337dude 101]

Any upgrade at this point is long off into the realm of diminished returns. Major performance gain is only going to come from the new renderer and further optimization. 

[Jasmer 77]

the 980, in terms of sheer graphical power is slightly worse then the 780TI Right now our tech is as maxed as it can get without designing a more powerful architecture (Which isn't to far off) The only thing thats better about the 980 over the 780TI is that its more efficient in using everything on its PCB in a faster way.

[-Greenie- 12]

the 980, in terms of sheer graphical power is slightly worse then the 780TI Right now our tech is as maxed as it can get without designing a more powerful architecture (Which isn't to far off) The only thing thats better about the 980 over the 780TI is that its more efficient in using everything on its PCB in a faster way.

 

 

Ok, so compared to my 780 non Ti the 980 might be a bit of a step up...What about the latest offerings on the CPU front and lastly I'm wondering what the new engine will do for FPS on the client side, Dean has suggested the client will be better off I think.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Greenie

[Jasmer 77]

Ok, so compared to my 780 non Ti the 980 might be a bit of a step up...What about the latest offerings on the CPU front and lastly I'm wondering what the new engine will do for FPS on the client side, Dean has suggested the client will be better off I think.

As far as im aware yes, i do believe the 980 is slightly better then the 780 non ti, as for what the new engine will consist of i know it will be rendering things in DX11, That much is certain so with that i can kind of guess what it will be like, DX11 is a bit more intensive then DX9/10 very much as it should be since it renders shadows, lights, Polygons, and other such things Infinitely Better then its predecessors. But if your wanting to get the BEST optimal framerate, regardless the cost of money.

 

Then You'll want to upgrade to DDR4 (when it becomes more prevalent, Also since most games really do most of the work on a Single Core, (DayZ included) i would personally wait for the Z99 Chipsetted motherboards to come out, and wait for the Skylake Processors from Intel then for games that use mostly just one core you will have better framerates and other such performance boosts, But thats in a good year or so. But for right now there's not really a reason to upgrade if your playing the games you like at Framerates that are comfortable for you.

[captain_finnish 134]

Mate, I have pretty much the same computer and even the same overclocks and there is no reason to upgrade. You can run pretty much everything on ultra settings. BF4 Ultra 1080p ~100fps average. Do you need more even with that panel? :D

[Mos1ey 6301]

Unfortunately there isn't much you can do to that build that will improve performance to the point that the investment would be worthwhile.

 

What you might look at doing is first disabling HT as it isn't helpful for gaming,  it's a hindrance if anything, especially in DayZ... And then you may want to look at further overclocking your CPU. My i5 3570k is sitting happily on 4.5Ghz on a mid-tier air cooler. I would have thought that you'd get 4.5Ghz out of that on air without issue, you could probably push the 5Ghz mark with water cooling if you got a good chip.

 

Also, have you made any changes to your DayZ config and are you currently using any launch options to make sure that the game is making the best possible use of your resources?

 

Beyond that you will just have to wait for better optimisation like the rest of us.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Mos1ey

[irl-calibre 744]

as an i7 @ 4.6Ghz + 980GTX user I can tell you my frames at 2560 x 1080 are about the same 25 in citys 60 in forrests..

[terminal_boy 860]

Cities load the CPU, not the GPU.

 

Until this game is optimised for multi-core CPUs, 30 fps in town is the best anyone can hope for with graphics settings at High or better.

[-Greenie- 12]

Hmm, might try a few more clicks on the CPU (water cooled) and GPU..an probably just better to get the G-sync monitor sooner rather than later then.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Greenie

[-Greenie- 12]

 

 

Also, have you made any changes to your DayZ config and are you currently using any launch options to make sure that the game is making the best possible use of your resources?

 

 

I haven't bothered with launch parameters, never thought they did much for high end machines...do they?

[Mos1ey 6301]

I haven't bothered with launch parameters, never thought they did much for high end machines...do they?

 

The difference isn't exactly night and day, but it seemed to give me a few more fps, especially in Arma 3. It just makes sure that the game is detecting your hardware properly.

 

The ones that you want are...

 

-cpuCount=x

-exThreads=x

-maxMex=x

-maxVRAM=x

 

You can also use -nosplash to skip the splash screen on startup.

 

Obviously substitute x for whatever value fits your hardware.

[-Greenie- 12]

The difference isn't exactly night and day, but it seemed to give me a few more fps, especially in Arma 3. It just makes sure that the game is detecting your hardware properly.

 

The ones that you want are...

 

-cpuCount=x

-exThreads=x

-maxMex=x

-maxVRAM=x

 

You can also use -nosplash to skip the splash screen on startup.

 

Obviously substitute x for whatever value fits your hardware.

 

Rgr that, I'll do a test tonight and report back..will be interesting to see.

 

Cheers

[-Greenie- 12]

Ok..changed those settings in launch parameters = outcome/No difference

 

Changed shadows to normal from very high and gained 10fps

Changed clouds to normal and gained 2 fps

 

Interesting

[terminal_boy 860]

The difference isn't exactly night and day, but it seemed to give me a few more fps, especially in Arma 3. It just makes sure that the game is detecting your hardware properly.

 

The ones that you want are...

 

-cpuCount=x

-exThreads=x

-maxMex=x

-maxVRAM=x

 

You can also use -nosplash to skip the splash screen on startup.

 

Obviously substitute x for whatever value fits your hardware.

Doesn't setting maxMem and maxVram to anything higher than 2047 still default back to 2047?

[Mos1ey 6301]

Doesn't setting maxMem and maxVram to anything higher than 2047 still default back to 2047?

 

Yes. I tent to use 8Gb and 3Gb respectively anyway, don't ask why... But it just makes sure that the game is detecting the full amount that it can utilise.