RTX 2080TI + i9-9900K || 1440p || Ultra Settings || 40 FPS - WTF?

Hardware & System
#1

Hi. First I want to apologize for my bad English. I have RTX 2080TI + i9-9900K (4.2MHZ)+32GB RAM (3300MHZ), I set ultra settings, and 2K resolution. In the forest, and in other spacious places with FPS excellent. But in cities (for example Rottay) FPS drops to 40. How so? At the moment it is a very good configuration,and it does not pull the game with ultra preset?

Are there owners of similar configurations? How are you? I just found this video, here’s a similar configuration, and FPS is good. https://youtu.be/w6ZAnBSqWWc

But I also found another video like this, and it’s still bad… https://youtu.be/Gk9nDK0FkSQ

P.S. For the sake of interest tried to put all settings on full (including antialiasing). Spacious places - excellent, in cities FPS drops to 30… :frowning:

1 Like
#3

One Word: Cryengine.
My System has a Vega frontier Edition with OC setting. I don’t get more either. It’s not the Hardware alone that makes the fps. It’s also the engine and the programming. I learned this in the past few month.

#4

Ultra is for future hardware. Would it make your precious feelings less hurt if they simply cut off ultra, and renamed high to ultra? Then you your e-peen could say I ran it at X resolution and got Y framerate. I win the internet!

Then in a few years when something comes along that can run it at those settings and get 60/120/144, what ever the e-peen number is at the time, they won’t be able to use the higher settings?

If you’re getting an unacceptable frame rate, lower the resolution or settings. That applies to systems of any budget.

#5

As Aradiel said, and like it is said in many threads with perf issues, ultra is to be avoided, at least for shadows, shaders, lightning. Try to stay in fullscreen too (or the opposite ; borderless).

#6

How does your game run on low, med, high, very high instead?

#7

First of all, ultra settings don’t give much improvement over very high, if at all. Secondly, there is no need for certain settings to be set even to very high, like physics. I have a bit more modest system than yours: GTX 1070TI + i7-7700K and the following settings:

2560x1080p
HD Textures
SMAA 2x,
Object quality, game effects, lighting, textures, water, volumetric, vegetation - very high,
the rest - high (I don’t see any difference),
motion blur - object,
Object distance = 100%
LOD distance = 75% (this one makes no difference in visual, but costs several FPS at 100%)
vegetation distance = 50% (this one is absolutely useless at 100%, but costs several FPS).

With this setup, I normally have 60 FPS stable and smooth (with vsync).

It is easy to blame Cryengine or whatever, but it’s just the user who has to learn to tune their game and system. Because it’s a PC. If one doesn’t want to bother with tuning, they purchase a console. With all its… weaknesses.

#8

See my thread… we have the same cpu. Maybe you can help me with some comparison?

#9

Is it installed on SSD? It constantly reads from drive even if you do nothing in game. I have it on HDD and I/O is 100% when game is running.

#10

I’ve seen your thread, I’d be glad to help you, but I don’t really know what to add to my message here. I just spent a day tuning different options and looking at their impact on quality and performance and I came to my conclusion. I use no fancy settings in the user.cfg. The only thing I’m experimenting with now is the heap size, but I haven’t noticed its effect so far. And yes, installing KCD on SSD helps a lot.

#11

One more thing. I strongly recommend that you turn off the FPS counter and judge the performance by how comfortable you are with the smoothness you’re getting. This should be your primary measure. People are usually too busy chasing the FPS numbers while forgetting to play. It’s not numbers per se, it’s the smoothness you are looking for. And don’t rush through it: change one setting at a time, play a bit, have a look, have a coffee, change another setting etc.

#12

If you’ve read my thread the fps isn’t my real problem. The stutters are. I’m trying to find the right settings now for a long time but I keep the stutters no matter the graphic settings. I think its my cpu due the high usage which doesn’t change with the settings to the lowest.

#13

Well, it’s hard to say. Every setup is different. Stutters happen when something lacks to load or clean up. What’s the amount of free space on your KCD SSD?

1/ Try changing the heap size. Here the guy explains how.
2/ I can also see your CPU is overclocked. Is it really worth it? I’d try to revert to the factory settings and have a look.
3/ Try different Vsync settings, too.
4/ Finally, are you using any graphic settings outside the game? Like Nvidia control panel or Nvidia inspector?

#14

By the way, what about mods? Anything installed? I’d do all experimenting on a clean set up and then add mods one by one. After removing the mods to some temporary location, run the game files validation (right click on the game in Steam, ‘Local files’, Verify integrity of game files).

#15

let’s continue in my thread.

#16

Yes, maybe you’re right, and ULTRA is really for the future (but still, it’s a shame). But why then on the first video FPS is perfectly? I unfortunately can’t test in this place, because the city has burned down.

P.S. Game is installed on Samsung 970 EVO.

#17

Use https://www.nexusmods.com/kingdomcomedeliverance/mods/121
the mod will maker the game look alot better AND run way better i5-8600k @5ghz 16gig 3200mhz 1080ti getting 80-144+ fps on ultra settings with the mod in 1440p. before that i had the same issues as you

#18

Considering how long this game has been in development wouldn’t the 9900k and 2080ti be that future hardware? how far in the future were the developers looking when they designed the ultra settings.

#19

Wouldn’t it be the opposite? Considering how long it’s been in development, and is still in development, wouldn’t the future be a long time from now?

Ask Crysis, which was expecting better single core CPU performance, and still can’t manage 60 FPS in some sections.

Is the 9900k radically better single core than previous gen? I would say no. The same with 2080 Ti. They wasted a lot of the dye size on ray tracing, which is about as useful as hair works.

Like I said, if the game simply locked off the max settings, and high was called ultra, you could have “muh max settings” but that would be pointless.

#20

Will anyone be playing this game when the future tech comes along to run it? how many more generations will we have to wait, 3? 4? Crysis and KCD both have one thing in common, crap optimization. Claiming that the game is more advanced than the current hardware to run it is just a cop out to avoid putting in the work to run it properly. No games these days rely on single core performance alone, if a 8 core 16 thread CPU at 4.8ghz can’t handle a game then something is wrong with the engine. Same goes for the 2080ti, the “wasted space” on the die doesn’t hinder performance because the entire die is much larger. The 2080ti has the same gaming performance of a Titan V. If you are telling me that a game that started development 5 years ago can’t perform well on a top of the line GPU in the current time and you blame it on the hardware then I am afraid you are out of touch with reality. The studio used a known bad engine, spent far too long developing the game, ran out of money and was forced to put the game out on the market as an unfinished product. They wasted time and money developing DLC when they should have been fixing the core game.

On any game that is properly optimized, when you set the game above what your system can handle the CPU and GPU will stay at 100% usage most of the time. This game is held back by their insistence on utilizing texture streaming, even when not necessary, to make the game playable on old hardware while simultaneously claiming the game was built to utilized future high end hardware. the image below is from a benchmarking run I did with hd textures off, effects low, textures ultra and draw distance maxed. On any other game if these settings are too high for your hardware the GPU and CPU will hit 100% and framerate will barely crawl, this game is bottle necked by texture streaming and held back by poor optimization.

My system is a Ryzen 5 1600 at 3.8ghz, 16gb ram, 250gb OS sata ssd, 500gb games sata ssd and GTX 1080

low%20eff%2C%20uh%20text%2C%20uh%20dist%2C%20sd%20text
low eff, uh text, uh dist, sd text.PNG317×1253 13.2 KB

1 Like
#21

Yes, people still play old games.

No, they both run on Cryengine. That’s what they have in common. Also, optimization, well, like I said, just remove ultra settings, and BOOM! Optimization achieved.

What this all comes down to is, should the game hide settings of not? If so, why? So people can have max settings, and then run the game at what resolution and frame rate? Should we have the option to choose for ourselves, or should the game lock settings off, like Watch Dogs did?

I’d rather have the option to adjust my own settings to achieve what I want than locking it down. You seem to think that you should just choose ultra and get… What exactly? 4k 60 FPS? 1080 60 FPS? 1440 120 FPS? People have different expectations. Different concerns.

For me, I like 1080p at around 60 FPS average, but minimums are more important. I hate micro stutters. I do not care so much about shadow or reflection detail, but popup annoys me, so I tend to extend render range. Not everyone shares those priorities though.

I adjust the settings to achieve my desired results. Just because you have current year’s best consumer grade tech does not mean you get to turn the sliders to 11 and get what ever magic frame rate and resolution you think you’re entitled to.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz