Honestly this seems to be something that's common in a lot of games released in recent years. I turn a setting down and may or may not see a 1-2FPS difference and even when I do notice it I don't really know if it's because of the change in setting or just something else like poping out of the menu.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Mass Effect: Andromeda PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter MagicWithEarvin
- Start date
dgrdsv
Member
Last hope, eh?
Why would 1080 manage 4K30 maxed out in a 2017 AAA title? 1080 is not a 4K card, never was.
I think games have been leaning far more heavily on the CPU in recent years. The vast majority of graphic options are tied to GPU performance, so lowing them rarely does anything if the CPU is struggling.
What effect does that yield, apart from the SLI profiles?
Uhhh for 30 fps it should be able to.....
Darktalon
Member
There are many custom bits in the unknown section of the Battlefield 1 profile, that pertain to the Frostbite engine.
I have a i7 6700K though, so I doubt I am CPU bound in anything. Unless the game itself isn't utilising CPU properly.
GavinUK86
Member
really having trouble with a 970 at 1080p. on ultra it's a 30fps game, high and medium still gives me drops to 40. the game is, obviously, ugly as shit on low but even then i'm noticing a couple drops here and there. i hope the day one patch and a new nvidia driver can iron these hiccups out. i also keep having a weird bug where cpu usage jumps to 100%, alt tabbing out and back again fixes it.
Guess I'm not getting 3440x1440 on my single 1080
The very picture you quoted shows that a single 1080 gets around 38FPS on avg with minimum drop to 32 at 3840*2160..why wouldn't it do 30FPS at 3440*1440 ?
I'm on the 5820K@4.4GHz, so I got what I need in that department.
If I turn everything down to low in BF1 it at least goes right up to 200fps for the most part.
dgrdsv
Member
Lower some settings and it will, as usual.
Because I'm aiming for 60
SirMossyBloke
Member
I have the same card and run basically everything on high at 60fps. What's your cpu? I have a 4690k @ 4.2ghz.
I don't know what it does, but I get 3-4 FPS more using the 32-bit option.
My setup:
i5-3570K, standard clock
Asus GTX 660 Ti 2GB OC, very slightly overclocked
8 gigs of RAM
Impressions:
At 1080p, very uneven performance. Aliasing is very noticeable when AA is off or on FXAA. Texture pop in is noticeable at some points, and there's some flickering and edge distortion on many scenes. Framerate varies a lot: it's anywhere between 15 and 80-90 on both medium and high settings and even in cutscenes (conversations) it went from sub 20s to something like 250. Average frames on the second planet on High/900p were about 30-40fps.
I also tried 900p resolution scaling, which seemed to work quite well and improved the performance somewhat. Motion blur helped dealing with low framerates a bit but I'd rather turn that off (didn't find the option, the menus are a mess). Loading times are ok even with my old hard drive (not SSD).
In the end the graphics are quite disappointing. I wasn't expecting much with my setup, but still the game manages to look worse than five-year-old ME3 at some points and that's just unacceptable. But the worst thing is the unfinished nature of the performance. Some spots even on the open planets the game runs really well, and then in some small rooms in the spaceships it runs like shit.
i5-3570K, standard clock
Asus GTX 660 Ti 2GB OC, very slightly overclocked
8 gigs of RAM
Impressions:
At 1080p, very uneven performance. Aliasing is very noticeable when AA is off or on FXAA. Texture pop in is noticeable at some points, and there's some flickering and edge distortion on many scenes. Framerate varies a lot: it's anywhere between 15 and 80-90 on both medium and high settings and even in cutscenes (conversations) it went from sub 20s to something like 250. Average frames on the second planet on High/900p were about 30-40fps.
I also tried 900p resolution scaling, which seemed to work quite well and improved the performance somewhat. Motion blur helped dealing with low framerates a bit but I'd rather turn that off (didn't find the option, the menus are a mess). Loading times are ok even with my old hard drive (not SSD).
In the end the graphics are quite disappointing. I wasn't expecting much with my setup, but still the game manages to look worse than five-year-old ME3 at some points and that's just unacceptable. But the worst thing is the unfinished nature of the performance. Some spots even on the open planets the game runs really well, and then in some small rooms in the spaceships it runs like shit.
Come on guys, Intel 6700HQ and 7700HQ are basically top of the line cpus.
GavinUK86
Member
4ghz 2600k. the game's barely using 30% of my cpu so it isn't that. is your 970 overclocked or anything? are you using an ssd? i'm not fyi.
Slackbladder
Member
I had this problem after a Direct X error and crash. Had to uninstall and re-install. Others have reported Direct X crashes too.
Barrow Roll
Member
Thank you, that video is exactly what I wanted to see. My OC isn't quite as high as theirs, but I still only have 8GB of 1600 DDR3 like their rig. Hopefully my 2550k@4.5 won't bottleneck me too hard. If I can bump up the textures to Ultra then I'm fine with everything else on High.
DarkestHour
Banned
Yes. It is awful.
For sure. Ive had several games I struggled to hit 60fps, where the CPU is barely working over 60%, which gives the impression there's no problem with the CPU. And yet, when I upgraded my CPU and tried the same games, many of them improved. In some cases it was quite considerable.
One of the worst offenders was Fallout 4. My CPU never went above 70% usage. I could not manage to get it above 40fps in heavy areas regardless of settings. Stupidly I thought upgrading my GPU would help, so I went from a 960 to a 1060. I gained all of around 3fps. When I upgraded my CPU the performance shot up to 60+.
Even in this very thread, theres this post:-
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232185042&postcount=396
Both his CPU and GPU have plenty of power to spare, and yet it wont hit 60fps.
Games not utilising the CPU properly is far too common unfortunately.
Are you running the Corsair Utility Engine by any chance? If you are, uninstall it and run the the game. It fixed the problem for me. I love Corsair peripherals but their software is terrible. Not the first conflict I've had with the CUE.
Is this on Ultra?
59-64 FPS at 1080. Almost always at 60-61 though.
I see it. It's really distracting. fwiw I have a 1070 and a 3570K
dgrdsv
Member
The test says that it is:
And this is their benchmark run: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3iZ6U8ehzg
Only this video so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQMVq389xXQ
Seems to hold around 75 fps most of the time.
Md Ray
Member
I would also like to know this.
EDIT: Titanfall 2 has native DS4 support with DS4 button prompts, so I hope this one does too.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
So disable Tessellation for a big performance boost and no IQ loss?
Is the setting bugged?
KINGofCRA5H
Member
Hopefully there will be a Geforce guide with all the different settings and what not. Those are usually pretty good for determining what settings affect performance the most.
Skyr
Member
So I get pretty decent framerates in the range of 50-65fps with my GTX1070 @1440p
I have a g-sync monitor so the fluctuation should be barely noticeable which I experienced in other games.
The problem is that I get weird stuttering when i pan the camera around a bit faster.
It almost seems like some kind of frame pacing issues.
Anyone else experiencing this?
I have a g-sync monitor so the fluctuation should be barely noticeable which I experienced in other games.
The problem is that I get weird stuttering when i pan the camera around a bit faster.
It almost seems like some kind of frame pacing issues.
Anyone else experiencing this?
Probably means that it's largely CPU limited.
Do you have aim assist on or off? I noticed with it on it tends to very briefly 'stick' to certain items and characters when panning, giving the illusion of stutter.
Lister
Banned
Guess I'm not getting 3440x1440 on my single 1080
That's what I got 21:9 ultra wide 3440x1440p with a single GTX 1080 running an i5 6600k @ 4.7 Ghz.
Everything on Ultra except HBAO set to HBAO (not HBAO full) and I get a steady 60 FPS in most areas, some areas of the ship I get as low as 50 and some conversations as low as 40. But 90% of gameplay I'm at 60.
Wish there was a settings guide/comparison, so I cna make smarter decisions about what to turn down, instead of just going ultra on everything.
Yeah I am going to wait for that before I decide to buy, I'm struggling to get a stable 30 fps on my GTX 760. I will have to see if drivers and graphics tweaks can fix that, otherwise I'll wait to buy it until I have a new GPU.
Relentless 757
Member
How much RAM do you have and what settings are you playing at? Also how's your fps? Just wondering because I have a 3570k and 1070 and it seems no matter what I do, this game doesn't want to run at a stable frame rate unless I put the game on low-medium settings.
16GB DDR3 and playing at 1080P currently at 60FPS. It does drop to 57, but in cutscenes Textures at ultra everything else high except shadows which are low
Pjsprojects
Member
Just uploaded a vid that might be of help to AMD users,most 290/390/480 cards seem to run games about the same so my vid shows as much as possible with my 290X.
https://youtu.be/cFDFlkjPLhc