This Week in Battlefield V

2K monitor resolution, scale vs FPS

«13
Plombiz
14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited August 14
Hi,
I just got a 2K 144 hz 27´ monitor which I cannot get to full 144 fps with full resolution and high/medium details in settings.   
Just an average player and trying to figure out which will improve my gameplay the most or maybe doesnt matter!?
I think , maybe in my head, that my 2K doesnt scale well to 1080p (doesnt divide even pixels from 2K to 1080p so stretched)

but all things considered what do you guys think will improve my game the most.

1. ultra with 1080p   60fps   
2. high/medium 2K 60fps  
3 high/medium/low 1080p 144fps 

I am just making some options but you understand were I am going.

Always highest details to see players better or just maximize FPS?

Been killing myself trying to figure out which actually is better and good with someone elses input.

Thanks!
BR, Peter




Post edited by Plombiz on

Comments

  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1440 with as close to 144 frames as you can get with resolution scale in game options at 100% and all graphics settings on off or low (except maybe mesh on high/ultra).

    I'd recommend those settibgs for what you said your goal was.

    Does your display have Freesync/G-sync capabilities?
  • TheNoobPolice
    1577 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The normal / usual shooter game advice of "FPS is always better than visuals" is debatable in BFV.

    Due to an ill-advised permanent / forced TAA and overly complicated & blurry visual design with poor enemy visibility, it's the only FPS game where running at around 90FPS with a higher resolution scale can actually be more advantageous than 144 or higher FPS, since so much of the game's meta is predicated on being able to see the enemy and a higher resolution also renders the TAA in a higher res as well which clears up the image substantially, especially in motion.

    The "Post process" setting also clears up the image quality massively, since it is tied into the general presentation of all the textures (unfortunately) and also the TAA quality (which you can't turn off, because DICE are idiots).

    I could run this game at 160 FPS solid at low settings at 1440p with res scale on 100%, but I choose to play with Post Process on Ultra, Res scale at 160% and end up at a locked 110 fps which is a better balance for me for actually being able to function in this absolute car crash of a game.
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Also, the preciseness of advice we are able to give to you is highly dependent on the hardware you run, since it would be advantageous to know if either your cpu or gpu is a potential bottleneck.
  • Lahoo_Eckbert
    1272 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The normal / usual shooter game advice of "FPS is always better than visuals" is debatable in BFV.

    Due to an ill-advised permanent / forced TAA and overly complicated & blurry visual design with poor enemy visibility, it's the only FPS game where running at around 90FPS with a higher resolution scale can actually be more advantageous than 144 or higher FPS, since so much of the game's meta is predicated on being able to see the enemy and a higher resolution also renders the TAA in a higher res as well which clears up the image substantially, especially in motion.

    The "Post process" setting also clears up the image quality massively, since it is tied into the general presentation of all the textures (unfortunately) and also the TAA quality (which you can't turn off, because DICE are idiots).

    I could run this game at 160 FPS solid at low settings at 1440p with res scale on 100%, but I choose to play with Post Process on Ultra, Res scale at 160% and end up at a locked 110 fps which is a better balance for me for actually being able to function in this absolute car crash of a game.
    I kinda agree with this.
    I'm also guilty of lowering details to get that 144 fps, but the visibility of this game is extremely bad, on my 24" 1080p monitor, I'm actually considering increasing the graphics quality and res scale slightly and sacrifice some input lag and fps just so I can have a clear vision.
  • MOSSAD-RECRUITER
    319 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    high/medium 2k at 60 fps? Should be some difference between those two. Also you could do a custom setup. Set features that is less important to low. If you bothering about distance (like when playing sniper), then mesh should be set to Ultra.  Turn all special effects off. Play around, and you will find the settings that fits you best.
    You can also optimize windows for gaming, through manually adjusting, and gain 5-10 fps just by doing so. The built-in "gaming mode" in windows is not enough. There are plenty of videos on Youtube to do so.

  • OskooI_007
    779 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 14
    1080p on a 2k monitor is going to look more blurry than on a native 1080p monitor. If you can run [email protected] on low settings, do it. Otherwise you're kind of screwed.

    60fps gaming has tons of motion blur. [email protected] on a 2k monitor is also blurry, but less so than [email protected]

    So yeah, I'd choose the higher framerate.
  • Plombiz
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    Thanks a lot for all your replies.  Great feedback!
    I've been playing around with all the settings especially resolution scale and quality settings.

    System is kind of old with I7-3770K oc to 4.5Ghz and a GTX 1060 6 GB

    Read some more and looked at CPU vs GPU usage in HW mon etc.
    Seems my CPU is more the bottleneck than my GPU.

    I could be wrong but seems increasing details and lowering resolution scale uses GPU more and relieves CPU with is often 100%.
    In other words, if I am correct, res. scale puts more effort on CPU and details more on GPU.
    Also FFR improves FPS a lot for me since it puts less strain on CPU, again if I am correct.

    Anyhow, all in all it seems it is time to get a RTX 2070 and a I7-8700K or so.

    Any thoughts!?

    PS! to MOSSAD-  When I write settings i.e. high/medium   I mean I mix those.  I never have all same.  Usually high on some and medium on less important etc.

    Thanks again!

    /Peter

    Post edited by Plombiz on
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The end result always depends on many variables, so it's impossible to say with certainty what the correlation between different hardware components will be with regards to the changes to the software settings.

    As a rule of thumb, playing in 1440p at 60 frames should be less taxing for your cpu than playing in 1080p at 144 frames. So, increasing resolution should increase the load on your gpu and increasing the frame rate will increase the load in your cpu.

    It's all about finding the sweetspot where you'll be able to get the most out of all your components, which means you'll more than likely end up not fully utilizing the strongest components in your build.

    Having a native 1440p 144Hz display will undoubtedly leave you wanting with your combo of cpu and gpu when playing a game like BFV.
  • itsFrancisss
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If you check my post history you'll see I had problems getting 144+ fps.

    I ended up going full barbarian mode and setting the resolution scale to 75%.

    The result was worth it. I could achieve 200 fps average, and 130 fps with ffr off. I had my best game on devastation going 57-14.
    The key is to adjust and pick your battles. You can't fight mid range fights cuz u bloody well can't see anything but damn do I get some snappy revolver clutches. 
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I could run this game at 160 FPS solid at low settings at 1440p with res scale on 100%, but I choose to play with Post Process on Ultra, Res scale at 160% and end up at a locked 110 fps which is a better balance for me for actually being able to function in this absolute car crash of a game.

    Out of curiosity I tried playing with those settings, but I found it very sluggish as the frames dipped closer to 100.

    Naturally things were much sharper, but I couldn't get past the feeling similar to that of driving a car having left the handbrake slightly engaged.

    I have my frame rate hard capped at 162 on a 165Hz display and playing at 1440p with the resolution scale at 100% and with most graphics settings on low on DX12. This gives me the most responsiveness and stability to make aiming consistent under all playing conditions.

    I've found that proper screen calibration helps a lot with picking out the enemy from the environment as there's proper contrast between elements.

    But naturally preferences vary, and I'm not saying those settings aren't something that most players would benefit from trying out.
  • TFBisquit
    1632 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Plombiz wrote: »
    Thanks a lot for all your replies.  Great feedback!
    I've been playing around with all the settings especially resolution scale and quality settings.

    System is kind of old with I7-3770K oc to 4.5Ghz and a GTX 1060 6 GB

    Read some more and looked at CPU vs GPU usage in HW mon etc.
    Seems my CPU is more the bottleneck than my GPU.

    I could be wrong but seems increasing details and lowering resolution scale uses GPU more and relieves CPU with is often 100%.
    In other words, if I am correct, res. scale puts more effort on CPU and details more on GPU.
    Also FFR improves FPS a lot for me since it puts less strain on CPU, again if I am correct.

    Anyhow, all in all it seems it is time to get a RTX 2070 and a I7-8700K or so.

    Any thoughts!?

    PS! to MOSSAD-  When I write settings i.e. high/medium   I mean I mix those.  I never have all same.  Usually high on some and medium on less important etc.

    Thanks again!

    /Peter


    From 100fps and up looks decent on a 144hz screen, but 1440p requires something better than a gtx1060. That 3770k pulls 100fps under dx12, if not more. Game played good with my 2600k and gtx1080.
    So if you want close to that 144fps, you need to upgrade both CPU and videocard.
    I would start with the GPU, if money is an issue, since that will boost your fps at 1440p already.
    After that you can upgrade the CPU to release the full potential of the GPU.
  • Plombiz
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hard to find the sweet spot but I think that res scale 80%  settings high/medium and some effects low  2K I am hovering around 90-120fps
    CPU always max 100% when I check but by lowering details I just put less load on GPU.

    Mainly I realized that it is time to up my system/get new.

    Since I got amazing feeedback. Slight change of topic...

    Old dude so prioritize my kids.  Put together one system with I5-8400 and one with I5-9600K
    Assuming I am getting a RTX 2070 do you think those cpus would last me for a while for BF5 etc or should I def jump to I7-8700 or more?

    or would I get far just getting RTX 2070.  

    /P
     
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    AFAIK the 1060 can do 1440p above 100 frames, but your cpu isn't capable of sending frames fast enough to your gpu.
  • Plombiz
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Actually seems like it since I always have max 100% on all cores on cpu but never see gpu fully utilized.
    So maybe swap the cpu first then if not all.
    Thx!
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    Yeah, you could see what is out there for the same mobo socket, and you might find a good deal on a more powerful cpu, which you could just swap without having to change other components.

    Edit.

    Just had a look and unfortunately that 3770k seems to be the best that Ivy Bridge offers, so you'll need to buy a new motherboard as well.
  • Plombiz
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    Its time to get new stuff. Been holding of for a long time  but then not much trying to RTX 2070 only 1st since CPU will still bottleneck then, right!?
    Easy to just swith gpu. Putting all together always a little more hassle :)
    The mobo etc is old stuff so I think it is time to put it to rest :)   Asus P8Z77 I think
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    302 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    8700k with a 2070 might be a cpu heavy combo, at least when it comes to BFV.

    I have a 8700k with a 1080ti (comparable to a 2080 I guess) and I have my frames hard capped at 162 frames on 1440p - and while the 1080ti is fully utilized, the 8700k hovers around 86-88% peak load on all cores.

    I have the 8700k overclocked to 5GHz on all cores though...
  • TFBisquit
    1632 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why would an Ivy i7 be worse than a Sandy i7? I don't get that. Never sat above 85% for CPU, dx11 or 12.
    Anyway, I agree on the upgrading being overdue. Had the same dilemma.
    I would suggest as many cores as possible with double the threads.
    A ryzen 3700 perhaps?
    Ps. My gtx1080 already feels weak at 1440p. Let alone how a 1060 does at that res.
  • Plombiz
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So you mean too much cpu for the card?   Still easier to up gpu later without redoing the whole pc. Will last little longer :)
  • TFBisquit
    1632 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sure, upgrade is fine.
    What I mean is that at 1440p the workload goes more to the videocard, relieving the cpu. So would you have a faster videocard with that 3770k, you would be above 100fps no matter the settings, under 1440p.
    1080p relies more on the cpu but in my case still brought me around 100fps with dx12, and between 70 and 90 in dx11. So fps wise it didn't change much going from 1080p to 1440p.
    But I agree on your upgrade wish. Have fun picking the parts.
    ps. too much cpu is always fine, it will last longer. Just as my 2600k lasted for 8 years, and still played bfv fine.
    16 threads do help. And in the near future we will see consoles going 8 cores/16 threads also. Games will be programmed to use that, so on pc we are gonna need that also.
Sign In or Register to comment.