Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 29 of 29

  1. Post
    #26
    Yeah … I know … I was really pointing out that my CPU/GPU setup still have plenty of headroom, if I continue to play at 1920x1200 for the foreseeable future.

    As for what monitor setup I go for when one of my 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 dual screen setup dies, I am still not sure.

  2. Post
    #27
    Is that showing 48fps? Hard to see, either way the game doesn't seem to be very well optimised to not make better use of the hardware.

  3. Post
    #28
    brand wrote:
    So 90FPS at 1440p is bad and requires a new CPU?
    Current or Average FPS ain't everything - look at the lows of 19fps... that means the game is not smooth and will be stuttery and jarring

    Fragluton wrote:
    Is that showing 48fps? Hard to see, either way the game doesn't seem to be very well optimised to not make better use of the hardware.
    Yep that's what I got out of the picture, looking at CPU usage it's only really using 2 cores properly and rest are intermittent, FPS well under 60 and GPU usage nowhere near 100%. Obvious bottleneck somewhere, but the CPU and GPU looks fine, so I'd be inclined to say it's likely the game engine that's just bad

    I don't like armored warfare but I played a similiar game called World of Tanks and it has the exact same problem, my CPU and GPU usage is low but the framerate is nowhere near my refresh rate, iirc world of tanks ran at out 90fps on my 144hz screen with 1080ti usage around 65% and CPU around 30%

  4. Post
    #29
    My FPS ranges from 48-160 FPS