Hello everyone,
First of all my setup:
i7-3770
GTX 1060 6GB
16GB DDR3
Before i bought Rust a few days ago i checked a video on youtube from a guy who had the exact same setup as me and had 60FPS without any issues running everything on Ultra. Now i have this annoying situation where it doesnt matter what graphics setting i use, it still stays around 50FPS and 60 at night. I put it to absolute Potato settings, everything at the lowest and extra's turned off, and i still had around 50FPS.
I am honestly confused and don't know what to do. I've tried multiple guides on the internet without any success.
These are my current launch settings:
-nolog -high -window-mode exclusive -nopopupwindow
I have also noticed in the comments from the recent update that everyone has lower frames, but that doesnt answer my issue. Apex Legends runs fine on the lowest settings with around 90-140FPS, World of Tanks 60FPS at ultra settings (HD version).
Thanks in advance
Do you have Rust installed on an SSD or a spinning drive?
The spinning drive lol
That's not going to help performance very much. If you have an SSD with enough free space, try moving Rust to the SSD. (Steam allows you to move game installs to different drives, in properties)
How does an SSD help fix this issue?
I don't think it would fix the issue but it might help with on-demand asset loading, which Rust will be doing frequently enough to matter.
I'm not a developer, I don't have the technical tools or knowledge to know why this is happening.
Its just annoying that other games run fine where Rust reminds me of my crappy pc years ago. I can get an SSD but my motherboard has SATA 2 ports while the SSD is SATA 3. Is it worth buying one then?
I don't know if this helps, but when you are on the staging branch, the settings are overridden no matter what you choose.
This problem might as-well migrated to mainline.
inb4 they know about this problem and they are trying to fix it.
Rust isn't other games, other games like Apex Legends don't involve building houses on randomly-generated terrain and can be optimized down to the tiniest detail because they use hand-built maps and fixed assets (aside from loot spawns/etc.). It's like comparing a pick-up truck to a sporty Fiat, they both have four tires on the ground and an engine driving them, but the similarities only go so far before you can't compare them anymore.
As for the SSD, SATA 2 is still going to be considerably faster than a spinning drive. The difference between SATA 2 and SATA 3, for this discussion, is whether you have 3Gb/s or 6Gb/s transfer. Good spinning HDDs might get 1200Mb/s.
Yeah you're right about the games being different. About the HDD speed, i think you mean 120MB/s :p But yeah my motherboard has SATA 2 ports, did some research and indeed should still be a lot better. Luckily SSD's aren't that expensive anymore. I've seen on a lot of posts that people are still having issues even with better specs and with an SSD, hmm.
Well i dont even have the staging branch downloaded haha thanks tho xd
MB != Mb
The capitalization of the b is a hint that I'm talking about bits and not bytes. 1.2Gb/s = 150MB/s
SATA specification speeds are typically given in bits, not bytes because they're about data transmission, not data storage. A SATA wire pulses with electricity so many billion times a second, even if eight of those pulses is needed to make up a single character on the screen.
I could be wrong here but isn't Staging a default install now? You sure you don't have it in your Library?
Sorry thought it was a typo, my bad.
Well yeah but it isnt downloaded yet.
change your fps limit the should work
I see the same on a different platform & have reported it.
It's not a spinning rust problem, I configured a "ram disc" and it made little difference to stationary FPS.(i'm going to try again today)
I suspect something is thread bound, since I see a "CPU out of time " warning.
Also... don't get fooled by SATA 2/3 discussions...... the speed of the SATA bus in many cases is irrelevant........(yest it's good to go twice as fast.. BUT it's relative)
NEXT BIG myth.......... 6Gb/s is NOT just dividable by 8 or 16 or 32 to get the tx/rx speed, because of the speed these devices operate at
the data clocks need to be recovered from the data stream....... so they use something called "grey code"
The data has a SIGNIFICANT overhead of encoding to TX/RX 8 bits/16 bits of data, where EXTRA bits are added to the "data bits" to aid recovery.
Same myth as 100mb/s is 10 times faster than 10mb/s networking..... but i digress.
Like the links in a chain, it is the weakest link , .... which is the HEAD movement between tracks,, it matters not one jot that you have 3Gb/s or 6Gb/s WHEN the data seek
speed is taken into account.
IF your data access rate on disc surface is 3-10ms, the fact you can transfer faster has little overall effect.
It is this where SSD's win.
HOWEVER.... and this is a BIG however....
SSD's have major flaws when they get aged.... a key flaw in the technology, is that unlike spinning rust, THEY DO NOT have direct overwrite of data.
Unlike the OLD disk sector of 256 bytes, when you wanted to overwrite a sector on disc you just wrote the data to the sector.
with SSD this is NOT POSSIBLE...
The process goes like this:
I want to write data.
find a page, that is "free"
find the block it is in.
check the block is empty
if block NOT empty move EVERY OTHER page to other free pages.
ERASE BLOCK
write data to page
"remap" sector pointer so users sector can be found later at users given address. (wear leveling)
So the "fantastic" speeds you see on SSD are generally only available on reads and the device is mostly empty.
what you are actually seeing, is the SSD controller, rapidly moving data pointers to new "free" areas of the SSD, leaving all the other crap you wrote for "erase" later cycle.
It's why continually testing SSD's destroys them, the erase cycle physically destroys the data storage cells, by moving the base offset voltage.
Gray code is a code that has a hamming distance of 1 between adjacent
words, and not a code for a self clocking signal. That would be an
8b/10b code for example.
With a Ryzen 1600X & GTX 1060 3GB, I was getting around 50-60 fps, but drops to 20-30fps when in combat or running through tree's.. But I opened the game in window mode at 1920x1080. So, I opened the game in full screen mode, same resolution & the FPS didn't change. So, I opened the game in full screen mode at 720p, that's 1280x720 resolution. My fps jumped up between 100-120. But, i didn't like the way distance objects looked. They looked blurred until I got closer. So, I did something by accident. I opened the game in window mode at 128-x720 & maximised to full screen window mode & my FPS remained between 100-120.
Don't ask me how thats happening, but it is. So try playing with your resolution in window mode & then maximise it.
Just finished some testing.
here's what i can say on OSX..... on "MY" machine
changing the resolution :makes NOT A SINGLE DIFFERENCE to the FPS.
running game from a 30GB ram disk :makes NOT A SINGLE DIFFERENCE to the FPS.... that was a BIG surprise, because technically its faster than flash....
Even going into admin mode "F1->tools->turn all shit OFF" blank screen = 43FPS
This would lead me to believe there is a bottle neck some place, that is overriding the other "bottle necks"
potato graphics:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/338038/9c43d23d-a838-4b66-aae2-e91126b11929/setting_potato.jpg
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/338038/23f297f4-fcd7-46eb-be93-f86d292da4ca/potato.jpg
Not potato (thanks jin yang)
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/338038/28ce341e-0b85-4378-a591-ae71be1c4285/not_potato.jpg
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/338038/78aa868a-108e-48cb-b7dd-7494d592719a/20190322081921_1.jpg
Yep I know right!!!!.. spot the difference...
running from spinning rust:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/338038/2772797e-a54b-4066-ad77-11d92b46cfac/spinnig_rust.jpg
running from 30GB RAM disk defragged.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/338038/98f161e9-f7da-40bf-bf30-d599ea07b2e4/ram.jpg
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
