Need tips for increasing FPS

Hello, I'm somewhat of a noob to PS2 and I just got a 144hz monitor. I have the game installed on a SSD, I also have a i5-4690k @ 4.2 ghz, 8 gigs of ram, and a GTX970 lightly OC'd (both cpu and gpu could probably OC higher I think, if that's likely to help much).

I have everything on Ultra, and get ~100 frames when not in action, and get drops to 50 in big battles. I'd like to get those #'s up, but try to have a good balance of nice graphics. So any tips on what to try are much appreciated. Thanks!

The drops are unpreventable. What you can do is oc even more to hopefully bring the minimum to 60


Edit: by oc I mean cpu ocing the gpu will probably not help with minimum frames it will raise your maximum and averages though

or try turning shadows to low and flora off. Keep render distance low. Always 500 unless your flying or sniping long ranges or it is a tactical advantage to see more or if you want to see the wide open pretty world

I recommend using these settings for best compromise between performance, quality and visibility: http://ps2guides.besaba.com/performance#suggested_settings

Pointy, the game usually says "GPU" beside the FPS, and I've only rarely seen it say "CPU". I thought maybe that meant GPU oc'ing would be helpful there, but I'm not well versed in the technical aspects of pc's and gaming. I am usually playing close to mid range, so lowering the render distance should work for me.

Iridar, I'll check out that guide for sure.

Thanks for the tips

You have a very nice rig there

I'll try to be simple here. You do not need to raise your FPS to 144 Hz to match your monitor. There is no real advantage on it, and you will be only stressing up your GPU. Human eyes can't tell the difference betwen 75, 144, 500 or 1000 Hz. That's a fact.

144 Hz makes sense if you are going 3D, and if I understood right, that's not your case.

Human eye have trouble recognizing changes in frecuencies above 30 FPS. Monitors goes up to 60 or 75 just because people can get annoyed or eyes tired in frecuencies below 30.

In my opinion, you should set your monitor to 60 FPS and cap GPU to the same frecuency. Go 144 if you will play or see a movie on 3D.

My 2 cents.

The difference between 60hz and 120 is very obvious to my eyes, and I say 120 instead of 144 because 120 is what I was able to get consistently in BF4 to use as a benchmark. Not sure another 24fps would be very noticeable, but I'm certainly a fan of higher frame rates. PS2 is apparently much more taxing in big battles, which makes sense with the insane large scale, I just hoped to mitigate the frame drop.

I'm not sure if I'm putting too much stress on the components, but I'd guess not from what I've read so far. The CPU overclock seems lite @ 4.2ghz, and with a decent cooler the temps hover in the mid 50's, never going over around 60c.

The GPU I have oc'd by 150 core clock, 300 memory clock, and 106% power limit with no core voltage added. It stays in the mid 60's to mid 70's while playing PS2.

You get 50 fps in action? That's the best most of players can have. You can get to 55 with this configuration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(supercomputer)

Too bad I'm renting my supercomputer to the Pentagon atm :-/

experiment for you
try playing with 50% render quality and find out your minimum fps.
use the same method you did to find minimum fps of 50.
if its significantly higher minimum then you need to overclock your gpu
if its same then it means you need to overclock cpu.

and also whats with all these other people telling you you don't need this and you don't want that?
but I gotta agree that 50 in good large battles is a nice frame rate. especially with ultra

Turn everything down, then start turning thing back up, 1 thing at a time.

Oh please, get out of here with that nonsense.

Nonsense? Why, please explain.

You (everyone) can do some research. For example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2221299/fps-gaming.html

There are plenty of articles out there. If you can see above 100 Hz you are an ace pilot. Most of us won't see any difference. If we can sense any difference above 60 FPS it would be so small and almost unperceptible that tweaking or OCing hardware would be too much for too little.

Of course, that's my personal opinion, based in my own experience and some research done from long ago about this.

So, please, don't call it just "nonsense" because it is not.

To OP. Just tweak your rig until you get the FPS you want. You will for sure ending with settings bellow ultra or high on many things, and even some of them set to low.

See Iridar51 guide, it's very good and self explanatory. But honestly, having a GTX 970 and not PS2 on Ultra is... well I don't know.

I have a GTS 760 4Gb with a small factory OC, an i7-4790 and 16 Gb or RAM and I get 90-100 FPS all the time, and down to 45 FPS in big battles (96+/96+, I'll say 400 players maybe) in Hossin, and I can't tell the difference (not in any way to be annoyed or compromissing gameplay)

So your research is what random people on the internet say? You said the human eye can't see the difference. You even said it's a fact. Let's see the scientific evidence to back such a claim.

The funny thing is that thread you posted doesn't even have anyone who agrees with your own claim.

Ehmm Ramdom search?

I would call "random" something unrelated to this topic, like "What color is the center of the sun?" or How many bones an aligator skeleton has?", Now that's random.

In the link I posted, is said there are no noticeable difference for common people going above 60 FPS. Of course, you have to read it to notice that.

All in all, this come and go between you and me is pointless and is not helping the creator of the thread. I'll leave it here. There are enough responses, some helpfull and other helpless. I'm sure he will solve his issue.

PD: scientific fact is this: some people can see a diffrence in FPS that others do not. For instance, figther pilots are reported to detect differences in 250-300 FPS. Comon people, are ok with 60 FPS and woill not notice anything above. I wonder why there are not monitors out there of 1024 FPS?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or something? I said random people, not random search.

That thread has people who disagree with you. You even contradict yourself when you say fighter pilots can see more than 200 fps. Fighter pilots don't have superhuman abilities, they are just people. I guarantee there are people who play PS2 with the ability to see more frames per second than the average fighter pilot. So if you admit that people can see over 200 fps, how can you also claim that anything over 60 fps will go unnoticed? I don't think you've thought this through.

And it would make no sense for a monitor to refresh at 1024hz when the vast majority of games won't even be playing at a comparable fps. There are probably other technical reasons for why a monitor with such a high refresh rate isn't plausible, but I'm no expert on the matter. That sounds like something you should look up.

people can tell the difference

blind test by a reputable website proved people can tell the difference between 60 and 120hz and was able to pick the 120hz monitor 88% of the time
http://techreport.com/news/25051/bl...ers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates

of course there is
I noticed a difference between 75 and 60
I used to have an older lcd at 75hz 1400x900
now I have a 60hz 1080p
the 75hz was noticeable smoother.

oh and 120hz is awesome
I believe that 120hz should be the new standard.

so i see the myth that people can't tell the difference between 60 and 100 FPS is still around. that's cute.

@ OP:sorry i don't have any tips besides turning down graphics. but you shouldn't have to lower them much with your rig. how much did that cost btw and did you build it yourself?