Constant 120fps?



  • I am almost always at 120 fps.
    rag dolls to 4, decals to 4, max sight
    everything maxed but
    no dynamic light or light shafts
    no motion blur
    no dynamic shadows
    vignette off atm but I think I usually have it on
    bloom on
    Animation lod bias High medium

    nvidia 970 no oc
    i5 4690k 3.8 ghz turbo no oc, in bios I turned off all the power savings, in power management as well
    evo cool master liquid cooling (cost 50$) cheapest one I could find
    8 gig ddr3 ram, cost under 100$
    SSD, but it shouldnt matter, it only helps load times

    There is a program\tutorial you can download so you know what your bottleneck is for sure

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGEN7JriJ2M

    what are your temps like? you might have a layer of lint dust under your cpu fan

    I play 32 man team objective. Some maps like the one where you push the cart up the hill drop below 120 but 90% dont.

    Even though it says I am getting 120 fps it is not super smooth, I think id do better if I turned a few things down. 144hz monitor.

    i got a i7 870 3.5ghz <– I think this is your bottleneck, most games rely on single threaded cpu performance, your stock speed is 2.9 right? that has to be it

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html



  • @RavnosCC:

    Upgrade the i7 870, I did it a year ago, constant 120 now… (went to 4790k) I had the 860 and it could only smoothly play above 120fps with 16-24 players, if you moved to 32, you’d experience drops. :( the processor made a world of difference. Didn’t even need to upgrade my video card. GTX 670

    Your video card is pretty good, you say not even needed to “upgrade” but it is rated higher than my relatively new GTX 870M on my laptop. Perhaps CPU makes a difference at some point, but a solid GPU is more important I would say.



  • CPU speed makes a huge difference when running Chivalry, which doesn’t use multi-core processing much; an i9 at 2.3GHz won’t run as smooth as an i5 at 3.8GHz. This is why you hear reports that CSGO or Battlefield will run well on someone’s new hardware while Chivalry seems choppy; those games share over multi-cores more efficiently while Chivalry processes run 90% of the load on only one core, so processor speed is more important to Chivalry.

    Note: I completely made up processor speeds to stage this example.



  • @Reithur:

    You’ve hit the limit of human perception at 90-100 FPS. Above that, you really can’t tell the difference for video applications and mostly just need the overhead if you’re planning to run anything in 3D (which drops your max FPS to half per eye: 120FPS in 2D = 60 per eye FPS in 3D).

    This statement really bothers me. I see it everywhere. It is completely incorrect, and more people need to know that. The human eye does not perceive in frames per second. It’s far more advanced than that, and claiming it “can’t see over 30/60/90/100 fps” is hogwash. A simple google will back me up.



  • @Lann094:

    This statement really bothers me. I see it everywhere. It is completely incorrect, and more people need to know that. The human eye does not perceive in frames per second. It’s far more advanced than that, and claiming it “can’t see over 30/60/90/100 fps” is hogwash. A simple google will back me up.

    He means you won’t be able to see individual frames past that. Which is a true fact. No flicker. You get two TVs one at 90 FPS the other at 120 FPS and people will notice that there is a difference. But they cannot reliably day which one is which. It will be 50 50. 60-90 hoe EE is a different story most people will be able to get that right.

    another strange thing. You take your hand in front of your face and shake it all around. It blurs in front of your eyes. You record that same hand shacking at 400 FPS and play it back real time on a 400hz screen and you won’t see it blur at all. Or at least not nearly as much depending on how fast you are moving your hand. That’s a really strange thing to see. Smoother than reality. But smoother Han reality starts at around 45 FPS for a person. However that actually varies a lot with things like tiredness and adrenalin swinging that value between 30 and 60.



  • @Lann094:

    This statement really bothers me. I see it everywhere. It is completely incorrect, and more people need to know that. The human eye does not perceive in frames per second. It’s far more advanced than that, and claiming it “can’t see over 30/60/90/100 fps” is hogwash. A simple google will back me up.

    You are correct; it’s not as simple as all of that. If you’re talking about pure chemical reactions to changes in amplitude of visible light in a retina’s rod cells, it’s a much higher response rate. But we’re talking about seeing and processing (understanding/comprehending) complex visual information that fills a majority of your eye. Human limits for actually processing what we see in a useful manner (i.e. decision making or reactions) is roughly equivalent to 100 FPS.



  • @lemonater47:

    He means you won’t be able to see individual frames past that. Which is a true fact. No flicker. You get two TVs one at 90 FPS the other at 120 FPS and people will notice that there is a difference. But they cannot reliably day which one is which. It will be 50 50. 60-90 hoe EE is a different story most people will be able to get that right.

    another strange thing. You take your hand in front of your face and shake it all around. It blurs in front of your eyes. You record that same hand shacking at 400 FPS and play it back real time on a 400hz screen and you won’t see it blur at all. Or at least not nearly as much depending on how fast you are moving your hand. That’s a really strange thing to see. Smoother than reality. But smoother Han reality starts at around 45 FPS for a person. However that actually varies a lot with things like tiredness and adrenalin swinging that value between 30 and 60.

    Do you really believe what you are saying? 100fps feels laggy to me compared to 120 or even 144fps. I don’t think you need eagle-eyes or be smart to feel the difference.



  • @filthypeasant:

    Do you really believe what you are saying? 100fps feels laggy to me compared to 120 or even 144fps. I don’t think you need eagle-eyes or be smart to feel the difference.

    Everyone else felt the same way as you until they were actually tested. Everyone feels the difference. But good luck telling me which is which lol.



  • Sorry for bumping an old topic but: I dunno if it is my overclock (4ghz) or torn banner released magic patch but the game never drops a frame below 120fps anymore. Running 1080p on lowest settings. Haven’t tried a anything higher tho. Cheerio



  • This post is deleted!

Log in to reply