Will my system go as high as 60 fps 1080p (Rise of the Tomb Raider)
My config, i7-3770 gtx 760 2 gb 16 gb. So I think that I hardly have Lara of 2013, ate ate pulls at high 60 fps and here. Maybe the fact is that the system is fucked up?Do not be afraid to go to high without problems! and Lara 2013 at your maximum
speed should go without problems .. on her FX8350, 12Gb of RAM and video Radeon R280X at maximum speed in 2013 went fine, and Rise of the Tomb Raider goes to very high only textures on high, they eat video memory a lot! of course a clean system makes the game run well ..
LoginCom
Hmm, like I recently reinstalled the system and already picked up all sorts of rubbish
especially for Rise of the Tomb Raider the patch was released, the game became more stable !!! dig deeper with the settings and everything will go ..
On my GTX950 (2Gb) + FX-6300 + 16 Gb RAM in closed rooms and caves at high gives 60 FPS, but in open spaces it drops to 30 (and sometimes freezes, but rarely). So the optimization here is crappy, worse than in Lara 2013. But in general, you can play relatively comfortably.
JustiVoy
At high it will go, but not at 60 fps 100%. At the very computer with gtx 980ti on max, it gives out 60 fps only at the beginning, then only 24-50 fps.
Therefore, wait for patches, or play at 25-40 fps.
Vitaly Yaroslavtsev
Lisstoman
Cool) A man bought a top-end video card so as not to be able to play on maxmals! The logic is great! Optimization in Lark is not good at all!
PS On my overclocked 970 to 1502 MHz, of all the new products, only this one lags! Since I consider 30 fps lags!
Vitaly Yaroslavtsev
I don't need a game on my computer for 200k that he can't pull on max !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lisstoman The fxaa anti-
aliasing is worth ....
6ytupat
what does the optimization have to do with it? These ultra-textures for 4k are created and gobble up 6 gigs of video memory. There is no difference between high and ultra, just show-off.
killycrok
Your business. Either play with 60 FPS and with absolutely the same graphics, or with 30 and show-off that I have "everything at ultra".
Vitaly Yaroslavtsev
Well, judge for yourself, I took this expensive computer in order to play games at maximum settings in 4k from 55-60 fps, arkham knight went to 4k at max in 51-60 fps, and this is shit, in which the graph should not be worse go to 60 fps, what's the logic?
killycrok
you already don't play at max if you have fxaa anti-aliasing. I tell you, there is no difference there, you are simply deliberately cutting off your FPS due to the fact that "a computer for 200k".
And to scold the graphone in Lark is generally nonsense. He's gorgeous.
Vitaly Yaroslavtsev
If you play in 720p then the difference is zero yes) But in 1080p there is a difference and is very noticeable!
Man has 980ti with 6 gb of video memory on board! What kind of fright does he have up to 25 frames? If you don't see the difference in the texutra, I can throw off screenshots where it is clearly visible!
PS I run with high textures, and on large locks, sagging up to 40 fps! This is not adequate!
6ytupat
and I have 970 and it does not sag. All on max, only textures on high. The main thing for me is the picture, and not the number of sliders in the settings, twisted all the way.
Vitaly Yaroslavtsev
Record a demo where you have a Soviet camp in your locations and a geothermal valley produces a stable 60 fps! Or is 40 a cool optimism for you?
