Is Overwatch poorly optimized? or is my 1080ti just bad?

R

rickjunior89

n00b
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
12
Getting sub 200 fps. Running comp (low) settings.

I was hoping to get a constant 250-300FPS, because my 980ti was around 200.

Running 1440P 144hz.

Here's my configuration-

CPU: i7 6700K RAM: DDR4 2666MHZ SSD: SAMSUNG EVO GFX CARD: EVGA S2 GTX 1080TI

I'm getting a constant 155FPS. It's not detrimental, but I feel as if I'm not getting what I paid for.

Anyone have similar issues? Any settings I should tweak? I'm running only the Nvidia driver, excluding the GeForce Experience.
 
That is strange with mine, I run 1440 and 144 hz and gsync on the "epic" setting with my build in my spec and I still get 120-144
 
They recently had a brand new update which seem to drop the fps on my buddies laptop, I think he runs a 960m. Also GPU's don't scale linearly that way, paying double the price of a 980ti for a 1080ti does double the performance. More than likely a confluence of issues with the new OW updates, CPU holding the game back, and the 1080ti not being the performance boost you wanted exactly.

It's real first world problems when you're complaining about having consistently 155fps.
 
A friend of mine had something similar happen where his performance wasn't anywhere near where it should have with his 1080Ti. In the Nvidia control panel he went into the 3D settings found the game in question and set the power management to something like Maximum Performance and boom everything was fine; it only happened on one game but I don't remember which one.
 
rickjunior89 said:
Getting sub 200 fps. Running comp (low) settings.

I was hoping to get a constant 250-300FPS, because my 980ti was around 200.

Running 1440P 144hz.

Here's my configuration-

CPU: i7 6700K RAM: DDR4 2666MHZ SSD: SAMSUNG EVO GFX CARD: EVGA S2 GTX 1080TI

I'm getting a constant 155FPS. It's not detrimental, but I feel as if I'm not getting what I paid for.

Anyone have similar issues? Any settings I should tweak? I'm running only the Nvidia driver, excluding the GeForce Experience.
Click to expand...
200+ FPS and low settings. I'm almost positive you're CPU bottlenecked. In fact, that's the exact scenario many website use to test CPU's and how much an overclock will increase performance.

The lower the settings, the more CPU that is needed to feed data to the GPU's. Since you already have a 6700k, you're likely near a wall unless you are not overclocked. Buying a better graphics card is not going to fix your problem. In fact, it may make it worse unless you start increasing the graphics settings and actually putting a load on that graphics card.
 
Phlorge said:
A game that works well on a wide variety of settings and lowering and changing settings makes the game run better?? thats what optimization is.
Click to expand...

Well-optimized -> scaling with hardware while making good use of available hardware.

Running well on lower-end hardware with lower settings is an example of this.
 
rickjunior89 said:
Getting sub 200 fps. Running comp (low) settings.

I was hoping to get a constant 250-300FPS, because my 980ti was around 200.

Running 1440P 144hz.

Here's my configuration-

CPU: i7 6700K RAM: DDR4 2666MHZ SSD: SAMSUNG EVO GFX CARD: EVGA S2 GTX 1080TI

I'm getting a constant 155FPS. It's not detrimental, but I feel as if I'm not getting what I paid for.

Anyone have similar issues? Any settings I should tweak? I'm running only the Nvidia driver, excluding the GeForce Experience.
Click to expand...
My 1070 overclocked to run with a 1080 does not run constant 144hz @ high settings 1080P. Dont believe for a second you were getting 200 FPS @ 1440p even with low settings.
 
What is your 6700k and memory clocked at, I wonder if a memory overclock might help some.
 
rickjunior89 said:
Getting sub 200 fps. Running comp (low) settings.

I was hoping to get a constant 250-300FPS, because my 980ti was around 200.

Running 1440P 144hz.

Here's my configuration-

CPU: i7 6700K RAM: DDR4 2666MHZ SSD: SAMSUNG EVO GFX CARD: EVGA S2 GTX 1080TI

I'm getting a constant 155FPS. It's not detrimental, but I feel as if I'm not getting what I paid for.

Anyone have similar issues? Any settings I should tweak? I'm running only the Nvidia driver, excluding the GeForce Experience.
Click to expand...
Do you have a 240 Hz monitor or something? Because the input lag on most monitors is going to render that high framerate moot when it's impossible for the monitor to update images at the rate it's being fed information.

Lowering the settings is just putting more of a load on the CPU. A faster GPU isn't going magically give you more FPS when you're not even putting a load on it. In fact, as seen here, it can actually be detrimental to performance as seen here due to a number of factors. You can try using K-BOOST in Precision XOC and/or setting power management to prefer maximum performance in the NVCP, but it still most likely won't get you above 200 FPS.
 
I just tried Overwatch for the first time this weekend, and expected out of this world graphics, based on what people say about it.

What I got was 60fps maxxed on epic settings. (which I assume I need to remove a limiter) on my 1060 3GB and 1440.

Less than impressed.

Cant help but chuckle in regards to being disappointed in sub-200 fps. I bet most people wouldnt notice without the framerate display.
 
craigdt said:
I just tried Overwatch for the first time this weekend, and expected out of this world graphics, based on what people say about it.

What I got was 60fps maxxed on epic settings. (which I assume I need to remove a limiter) on my 1060 3GB and 1440.

Less than impressed.

Cant help but chuckle in regards to being disappointed in sub-200 fps. I bet most people wouldnt notice without the framerate display.
Click to expand...
If you are expecting out of this world graphics for a competitive FPS game, you need to reset your expectations. Frame rate is king.
 
Did you remember to turn off the graphic settings at the bottom? I sometimes forget about them. Ambient Occlusion and something else. You can also further lower settings in the config file in Documents/Overwatch
 
Armenius said:
Do you have a 240 Hz monitor or something? Because the input lag on most monitors is going to render that high framerate moot when it's impossible for the monitor to update images at the rate it's being fed information.

Lowering the settings is just putting more of a load on the CPU. A faster GPU isn't going magically give you more FPS when you're not even putting a load on it. In fact, as seen here, it can actually be detrimental to performance as seen here due to a number of factors. You can try using K-BOOST in Precision XOC and/or setting power management to prefer maximum performance in the NVCP, but it still most likely won't get you above 200 FPS.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.

I lowered my render scale to 75% from 100% and now I'm at a 299-300 constant for the most part. In regards to putting enough load on my GFX card, what settings should I increase?

I'm using two Dell S2716DGs, got both on sale for an unbeatable price. I have only set to 60hz and the other 144hz, which I game on. Not sure if this matters.
 
Ok, I'll bite. Why in the world do you need 300fps? It seems a bit....silly? I have a hard time believing anyone can even notice the difference between that and say 144fps.

I mean, if that's just what you want, that's cool. I just really want to know if there is a rationale behind it other than "because I bought a 1080ti and thought I'd get that much fps."
 
Last edited:
bpizzle1 said:
Ok, I'll bite. Why in the world do you need 300fps? It seems a bit....silly? I have a hard time believing anyone can even notice the difference between that and say 144fps.

I mean, if that's just what you want, that's cool. I just really want to know if there is a rationale behind it other than "because I bought a 1080ti and thought I'd get that much fps."
Click to expand...

It's a valid question. And was also a firm believer in capping your FPS at your refresh rate. But If you have the ability to test the difference of playing beyond your refresh rate, you'll feel a difference in input lag. As a competitive player, this is very important to me. Hope this helps
 
playing beyond your 144 FPS is worse for you, not better, you should be aiming to get the FPS @ 144 constant on your one monitor, but if you are playing dual screen now your going to have your other 60 monitor dropping frames..
 
There are tests that confirm reduced pixel response times in Overwatch if you are running at 300fps vs 144fps, on a 144hz monitor. It's single digit milliseconds. IMHO, it's only worth doing this if combining with backlight strobing, otherwise just use Free/G Sync with a 142fps cap.
 
Krisium said:
There are tests that confirm reduced pixel response times in Overwatch if you are running at 300fps vs 144fps, on a 144hz monitor. It's single digit milliseconds. IMHO, it's only worth doing this if combining with backlight strobing, otherwise just use Free/G Sync with a 142fps cap.
Click to expand...
The pixel response time doesn't change with a higher refresh rate or framerate. The image processing time can get faster, though, but even this has a limit that is tied to the maximum refresh rate of the monitor. If you're using a monitor like the PG279Q the input lag is already in the lower single digit millisecond range (3.25ms @ 144 Hz). Using ULMB with a game running at a framerate that is higher than the strobe frequency is just going to make the sample and hold issue worse. The best solution for reaction time if you're going to be having uncapped framerates is to use Fast Sync with an NVIDIA card.
 
Yeah, image processing is more accurate to what I meant. In the end, it all comes down to input lag.

F1EYIes.png

from:

Close to 3ms saved, at least on this display. Dunno if it is worth it.

Your last two sentences are incorrect, AFAIK, unless you can elaborate. Not trying to be rude.

1) Fast Sync adds latency. This defeats the point of the competitive player striving for every millisecond. G Sync or Freesync (which adds absolutely no latency) at 2fps below monitor refresh rate would be better for a user that hates tearing.
2) 144fps cap over 300fps has slower image processing.
3) 144fps cap will not sync with the strobe frequency without using a latency adding Sync option, defeating the point. Go ahead and set 144fps cap in Overwatch, it does not run at 144hz perfectly despite what is being said.

And I can't explain a final point that I will make, but tearing is reduced the more you are above the refresh rate (with backlight strobing too). I think this provides a defacto buffer without the latency of an actual buffer setting. Maybe I'm wrong.

Everything points toward driving the highest frequency possible. The competitive scene does this deliberately. If you cannot live with any tearing though, then G/Free sync fps cap -2 display rate is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Looks like gsync -2 is definitely the way to go. There is no way you would ever notice 1ms. That's saying you can tell the difference between 999 FPS and 1000 FPS.

It probably takes 100 ms just to click the mouse?
 
Overwatch is a wreak. It does not scale correctly. It doesn't have the correct FOV and makes many people ill. It doesn't support modern monitors that half of us here already have. It was launched for 2007 not 2017. I am utterly shocked by this. This unbelievably low class configurability of this game and many other blizzard games has gotten me to stop playing and or paying any attention to blizzard products.

Let me know when they pull their head out of the sand and enter this decade.
 
Kill more noobs, don't worry about fps. 150 vs 300 fps won't make you any better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top