F5F Stay Refreshed Software PC Gaming Adjusted HardOCP parameters for GTA V to optimize performance. Settings were fine-tuned to stabilize frame rate.

Adjusted HardOCP parameters for GTA V to optimize performance. Settings were fine-tuned to stabilize frame rate.

Adjusted HardOCP parameters for GTA V to optimize performance. Settings were fine-tuned to stabilize frame rate.

Pages (2): Previous 1 2
C
Cherrie24
Member
179
11-30-2016, 09:35 PM
#11
At 980 you are in a strong position.
C
Cherrie24
11-30-2016, 09:35 PM #11

At 980 you are in a strong position.

S
SkyAceDivine
Member
208
12-02-2016, 10:13 PM
#12
Yeah, I was using 2xMSAA and ultra grass which gave me a longer viewing range at 80%. In the city it worked well with 50-65 frames per second, but once I moved to the countryside with Trevor, my frame rate dropped to around 30. Now I stick to HardOCP's settings—FXAA only, soft shadows, maxed out except for very high grass and high-res shadows—and everything runs smoothly. Quality stays great unless I'm tweaking things manually. FPS is now over 75 in most places and 60+ in the rural areas.
S
SkyAceDivine
12-02-2016, 10:13 PM #12

Yeah, I was using 2xMSAA and ultra grass which gave me a longer viewing range at 80%. In the city it worked well with 50-65 frames per second, but once I moved to the countryside with Trevor, my frame rate dropped to around 30. Now I stick to HardOCP's settings—FXAA only, soft shadows, maxed out except for very high grass and high-res shadows—and everything runs smoothly. Quality stays great unless I'm tweaking things manually. FPS is now over 75 in most places and 60+ in the rural areas.

T
Twieeh
Member
50
12-03-2016, 04:36 AM
#13
That’s unusual. It might relate to the increased resolution and your VRAM usage. At around 3.4 GB, I’d expect roughly 20% better performance compared to 1080p with all settings high.
T
Twieeh
12-03-2016, 04:36 AM #13

That’s unusual. It might relate to the increased resolution and your VRAM usage. At around 3.4 GB, I’d expect roughly 20% better performance compared to 1080p with all settings high.

S
72
12-03-2016, 08:13 AM
#14
I was utilizing more than 3700mb of VRAM originally. It turned out MSAA had a big impact, ultra grass plus extended view distance were draining my FPS. Now I'm around 3300mb with HardOCP settings. I haven't tested 1080p yet, but I think lower resolution would let me add MSAA and similar tweaks, though the benefits wouldn't justify it. Resolution really matters to me.
S
scarlett_kadie
12-03-2016, 08:13 AM #14

I was utilizing more than 3700mb of VRAM originally. It turned out MSAA had a big impact, ultra grass plus extended view distance were draining my FPS. Now I'm around 3300mb with HardOCP settings. I haven't tested 1080p yet, but I think lower resolution would let me add MSAA and similar tweaks, though the benefits wouldn't justify it. Resolution really matters to me.

A
Assass_Slayer7
Junior Member
34
12-10-2016, 10:53 AM
#15
Nvidia experience really shines here. I played everything at medium 1440p with a VRAM slider around 1.9GB. I opted for NE’s setup, which pushed everything to the maximum 1440p. The game claimed you were using 2.8GB of VRAM, which was unrealistic. It ran smoothly at about 70fps. Later, I adjusted all settings manually to high resolution in 4K and disabled advanced features. And that’s when things improved—around 65fps most of the time, occasionally dropping to 400, but reaching up to 80fps during gameplay.
A
Assass_Slayer7
12-10-2016, 10:53 AM #15

Nvidia experience really shines here. I played everything at medium 1440p with a VRAM slider around 1.9GB. I opted for NE’s setup, which pushed everything to the maximum 1440p. The game claimed you were using 2.8GB of VRAM, which was unrealistic. It ran smoothly at about 70fps. Later, I adjusted all settings manually to high resolution in 4K and disabled advanced features. And that’s when things improved—around 65fps most of the time, occasionally dropping to 400, but reaching up to 80fps during gameplay.

G
Goddess_Kenzy
Member
165
12-16-2016, 07:50 AM
#16
G
Goddess_Kenzy
12-16-2016, 07:50 AM #16

J
jensinen
Junior Member
8
12-16-2016, 03:39 PM
#17
No, I haven't tested those GTX 970 configurations.
J
jensinen
12-16-2016, 03:39 PM #17

No, I haven't tested those GTX 970 configurations.

Y
yolosolohi48
Member
167
12-16-2016, 04:25 PM
#18
That's unusual. I'm keeping an eye out and will share results tomorrow evening.
Y
yolosolohi48
12-16-2016, 04:25 PM #18

That's unusual. I'm keeping an eye out and will share results tomorrow evening.

K
Kaspolman
Senior Member
434
12-17-2016, 01:23 AM
#19
Added a new article on Shadow features performance.
K
Kaspolman
12-17-2016, 01:23 AM #19

Added a new article on Shadow features performance.

P
Pigeon_Sama
Member
138
01-04-2017, 02:43 AM
#20
You're close to 4K resolution, but your screen is likely displaying 2560x1440p, which is around 3K.
P
Pigeon_Sama
01-04-2017, 02:43 AM #20

You're close to 4K resolution, but your screen is likely displaying 2560x1440p, which is around 3K.

Pages (2): Previous 1 2