Hello,
I've noticed that my FPS is always between 70 to 90 no matter what resolution or graphics card I use.
I tested the game on 1070, 1070ti & 1080ti, but there's no fps difference on the same settings.
I also have fps_limit on 0, tried setting it on 300 and so on, but it didn't help.
PC specs:
OS: Windows 10
Processor: Intel i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz
RAM: 16gb
Graphics card: NVIDIA GTX 1080ti
Disk: Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500 gb
Why can't I get more fps? Is something bottlenecking?
Thanks for all the answers,
duplxey
This is not a game you will run at 300 fps I am sorry
So GPU doesn't matter nor resolution?
Or maybe your demands are simply higher than most developers can optimize towards?
This is an open world survival building game, even with good optimization you wouldn't be getting a perfect 144hz stable.
What monitor do you have? 60hz or 120hz+?
I have 60hz monitor, so 60 fps should be alright, but I hate when it drops under it. How come some people run it on like 120 fps?
^
To even hope to get that fps you would have to run the game on all of 3 of your cards that you mentioned at the same time. So yeah nothing matters. Just enjoy over 60 fps, I sure as hell would be happy to.
60hz can only see a maximum of 60fps
FPS = Frames per second
Hz = Hertz, it's equal to one cycle per second
You effectively are complaining about 'low' fps even though you're getting above that, and even though 60 is the industry standard.
The reason for 120hz is due to it being faster and superior. I have a 165hz monitor, but I don't complain about getting the standard.
To add to that, you can't expect every game to run like that. That's basically overperforming and usually happens to older games since they are so easy to render now. Don't get greedy with fps, it's a terrible mindset.
The only way you're getting close to 300fps in Rust is if you buy an Intel i9-9900K and overclock it to 8.5GHz using liquid nitrogen or a jet engine to keep the chip from catching fire from being clocked to almost twice its capacity.
And even then you'd probably need to run the game at 640x480 to have stable frames above 200.
Rust is an open-world sandbox with arbitrary and often large amounts of building. You just cannot make a game like this run as fast as a hyperoptimized game with fixed geometry like Quake 3, because arbitrary building removes a huge amount of optimization that would ordinarily be done in a pre-made map.
70 fps isn't even that bad. I played 1000 hours on my laptop with 20-30.
Try lowering settings and running the game on a lower option like potato
Well this game loves vram so GPU does matter. Even at 1080p it uses over 7GB. It's sad because it only uses around 40% GPU.
With a i7-8700k clocked at 4.7Ghz (constant clock, not turbo) it reaches ~100 FPS for me @ 1080p.
The game is CPU bound and the engine itself is the bottleneck.
70fps sounds fine, oddly enough i have a RX 580 4g and i can reach to 100fps on "fast" setting
I don't even play rust but complaining about 70 FPS being low is ridiculous.
I installed Rust and booted it up with the Beautiful preset, averaging 90 FPS.
https://i.imgur.com/OHdrzIt.png
70 is not low.
What's all that storage for? (Not sure if I have asked before)
Data hoarding.
How big is your setup if you are fitting all these harddrives in
https://i.imgur.com/LyzsbPj.png
Pure RAID0 madness. 9Gbps peak transfer rates on the node itself, currently in the planning stages of upgrading my network to 10Gbps. But even over 1Gbps it still loads games like rust really fast.
Debating putting a secondary SSD in there for cache to improve 4k read/write performance.
Also, my node. Speccy seems to have problems identifying hardware:
https://i.imgur.com/wlxVxSs.png
I have like 6 drives, 3 of them being ssd, and various thumb drives
Not that crazy to collect so many drives after a few many years tbh
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.