Achieving a frame rate of 100 frames per second in modern warfare is possible through careful optimization.
Achieving a frame rate of 100 frames per second in modern warfare is possible through careful optimization.
Hello, I have been playing Modern Warfare since its release and find it lacking in performance, experiencing smoothness issues. My goal is to achieve 100% performance for reasonable visual quality on my 144Hz monitor. I am currently utilizing 50% of my VRAM. I would like to ascertain whether upgrading my graphics card is necessary or if a bottleneck exists. Any FPS recommendations and component upgrade suggestions would be valuable.
I am utilizing an AMD Ryzen 5 2500x 6 core, a GTX 1060 6gb, and 16GB of 2100MHz DDR4 RAM.
My system consists of an R5 2600 and a GTX 1060 3GB. The GTX 1060 was overclocked with a +175 core clock and a +640 memory clock using MSI Afterburner. At 1080p, with all settings set to low and normal textures enabled, along with the lowest anti-aliasing, I achieve 100 frames per second, though frame rates occasionally dip to approximately 60-65 when aiming down sights.
How many sticks are there?
For Ryzen systems, 2x8GB RAM at 3200-3600MHz is recommended. A 2100MHz kit will negatively impact performance.
To test your system's capabilities, run the game on ultra or high settings and record the in-game minimum, maximum, and average FPS. Then, repeat the process on low settings and record those results.
If lowering the settings increased FPS, your CPU and RAM are capable of handling a more powerful GPU. If there was little or no change in FPS, you require faster CPU/RAM.
Graphics settings are basic, low, medium, high, or ultra? And yes, it uses two 8GB sticks. Thank you for the reply; I will do that.
Do not test all of them. Only use low and high settings (or the highest setting available).
Higher frequency RAM improves data transfer rates, resulting in faster system performance and reduced latency for demanding applications like gaming, video editing, and simulations.
Increased frequencies enhance performance when processing power is constrained, a situation that can arise even with a single thread. Therefore, it's advisable to monitor individual cores/threads rather than the entire CPU. What was the performance difference between low and highest settings?
I haven’t finished it yet, but I will inform you. Also, I am attempting to achieve a specific frames per second target in large-scale ground war maps, where my performance typically ranges from 60 to 100 on smaller maps. Consequently, I’m considering whether increased processing power would be necessary for handling these larger environments.
My system consists of an R5 2600 and a GTX 1060 3GB. I overclocked the GTX 1060 to a +175 core clock and a +640 memory clock using MSI Afterburner. On all low settings with normal textures and minimum anti-aliasing enabled, I achieve 100 frames per second at 1080p, with occasional dips to approximately 60-65 frames during aiming down sights. The GTX 1060 struggles to deliver smooth gameplay, even with reduced settings. I plan to upgrade to a 2060 Super next month and recommend that you also consider upgrading your graphics card for improved frame rates. Your 2600x is adequate for 100 frames per second, and you could potentially gain additional frames by increasing your RAM speed to at least 3000MHz, as Ryzen benefits from faster memory.