I upgraded my Computer's gtx 730 2 GB straight to a gtx 1030 2 GB, (which is remarkable in allowing me now to play Doom 4 and things like that,) however, somehow I still have to enforce things like performance mode, and other forced performance modes and Razor cortex-esc programs that boost FPS for games these days at low graphics modes, even though I'm running with a i7 and 16 GB of ram, I just don't get it.
Start by turning off things like AntiAliasing. The game might look a bit choppier in the edges and you'll see tearing in fast paced scenes, but at least fps will be a lot higher. Also play with other settings in games. Everything affect performance.I upgraded my Computer's gtx 730 2 GB straight to a gtx 1030 2 GB, (which is remarkable in allowing me now to play Doom 4 and things like that,) however, somehow I still have to enforce things like performance mode, and other forced performance modes and Razor cortex-esc programs that boost FPS for games these days at low graphics modes, even though I'm running with a i7 and 16 GB of ram, I just don't get it.
If you really want good performance at high details, then gtx1070 - gtx1080ti is the only option. GTX1050 perform adequately but it's nowhere near the 1070+
The GTX 1030 is a low-end card that's only a small improvement over the 730. With most modern games you will still need to run at low detail.
Why is this the case though, I mean, even if I do upgrade to those cards should I expect the same result as my supposed budget card where It'll be a small increase in frames, but stuck with the same low-end graphics option, or is this really a miracle saver; As I'm only questioning this, as I can only afford to throw money at the wall for so long. Keep in mind I'm not trying for 4K at 60 fps, I am only trying to maintain 60 fps at what one would consider medium par graphics. So I will go for the 1018ti, (as soon as I can afford to spend another $200, or so,) however I am starting to question if it really is my hardware, or for what some can say, the developer's lack of optimization on these games for the most part.
I mean I was thinking about one game I was playing recently out of boredom, "TF2" and to maintain the fastest performance and speed for the more competitive aspect, I purposely lowered the graphics, (Almost everything except the Model quality, on a more personal preference,) and really just gawked at the low quality textures, being as fuzzy as they are, when in games like that came from the n64, ("Super Mario 64" comes to my mind in this case,) made the textures in such a way, that knowing for how pixelated they are, didn't effect the overall aesthetic. Then I look at 3D model recreations of some of the original models, ripped from the game or otherwise, and note the sudden fuzzy aspect the previous textural behavior had successfully dissipated. What is with all that, and why can't we re-emulate that in more modern game's low texture settings? I'm just going on this tangent here to really try to figure out what is going on, as I've only really come to concern myself here after playing some unity games that unfortunately lacked the preferred graphical handling options we usually expect in most games on a professional level, but seemingly was absent in this one particular game I was playing at the time. It was some horror driving simulator called, "Beware" I think? Anyway, when I was looking at footage some more, **I can assume** professional gamers play this same game at its baseline graphical fidelity with no issues at all, I became a bit jealous, as I had just upgraded my machine too. So, yeah.
Last edited by Barman58; 04 Jun 2018 at 15:50.
I would also disable all shadows if available.
Turn off all forms of antialiasing as suggested above.
Use bilinear/trilinear for texture filtering instead of anisotropic (every little bit helps).
Use VSYNC too to maintain an steady framerate and to avoid screen tearing (you will get some input lag though).
Try lowering resolution too (it requires less video memory).
If Doom 4 is the latest Doom try running using both OpenGL and Vulkan and see what runs better for your card. I guess it will be Vulkan, but one can never be sure.
The main change between those Graphics cards is the added features done in hardware with a slight increase in clock speeds of GPU and memory. The change in clock speeds is quite modest and to see the difference means before and after testing with some sort of standard measurement.
What you are calling "performance mode" is actually reducing resolution, graphics effects of various kinds to keep the frame rate up. Some graphics effects can take up a lot of GPU and produce little visible result so can be turned off thus the GPU does the important stuff.
There is always a plethora of settings for these things, after a time you get to know what is important to you. Some have been mentioned in other posts.
Again, changes from i3 > i5 > i7 processors is only slightly increased clock speeds and larger on chip CPU caching.
Extra RAM once above the minimum required for a game only really acts as a much faster paging area rather than the HDD/SSD which is slower. Again probably nothing in terms of frame rate, but faster loading of some parts of games.
Games vary in how they are written/designed, some may use the GPU more than others. Some may not bother with much backwards compatibility with older more modest hardware. The idea there is to push sales of expensive high end hardware.
Development and production costs are enormous and they have to get the money for this which is partly from well off gamers prepared to pay for high end hardware.
Quote