Just a quick example of what a little settings tweak can do...

[schuck6566]

The Higher frame screen shot is at the default setting of 50% for the Screen Resolution Multi and the lower FPS is when I increased it to 60%.  At 100% it knocked the FPS down to the upper 30's-low 40's average with high spikes in upper 60's and lowest spikes in bottom 20's.  The Game used was Assassin's Creed Valhalla using the built in Benchmarking test. Included a shot of my memory also since that wasn't in the info provided by the test.

[pio]

So its basically a render size difference of what, 1920x1080 on top vs approximately 2560x1440 on the bottom screen then right?  Yeah, that's about the right amount of a jump.   I've been having a "fun" time tinkering with resolution scaling too since I'm back on an RX 580 for a little while myself.

[schuck6566]

On 28/09/2022 at 18:33, pioneerisloud said:

So its basically a render size difference of what, 1920x1080 on top vs approximately 2560x1440 on the bottom screen then right?  Yeah, that's about the right amount of a jump.   I've been having a "fun" time tinkering with resolution scaling too since I'm back on an RX 580 for a little while myself.

a little less than 1440, but that's the area. here's the actual settings used by the math.

[pio]

2 hours ago, schuck6566 said:

a little less than 1440, but that's the area. here's the actual settings used by the math.

That's right, "1440p" would be basically 2/3 right on the nose, so yeah 0.6 is just a hair under.  1080p being 1/2.  Silly numbers.  

 

Honestly with modern dynamic resolution scaling options, its really not even all that bad going with a lower resolution if you absolutely have to.

[GanjaSMK]

@schuck6566

 

Curious question, did you play the game with both to see how it 'feels' per-se? 

 

The second pic shows a low of 42fps while the upper shows a low of 18fps; probably no big deal FPS-wise for a game like AC, but I've had my own fair share of low FPS quarrels with 3rd person games.  I notice it in heavy scenes in RDR2 but the game just looks so friggin good in Ultra.

[schuck6566]

On 30/09/2022 at 11:18, GanjaSMK said:

@schuck6566

 

Curious question, did you play the game with both to see how it 'feels' per-se? 

 

The second pic shows a low of 42fps while the upper shows a low of 18fps; probably no big deal FPS-wise for a game like AC, but I've had my own fair share of low FPS quarrels with 3rd person games.  I notice it in heavy scenes in RDR2 but the game just looks so friggin good in Ultra.

I haven't played the game yet on pc, where the 18 dip came from I can't figure where it came from.I'm gonna re-run the test again later to see if it was something that spiked somewhere else causing it to dip. It's the same scenes being run in the test so it should have been lower in the bottom 1. 

Edit: New test results including 70% and 100% More stable results, made sure nothing going on in background and waited for each to start and stop completely before trying to start new test.(Test has a long wait period at beginning that threw me off when I first ran it and I restarted it thinking it wasn't running right) 1st image = 50% 2nd = 60% 3rd = 100%  & 4th = 70%.Scale only let's me adjust in multiple of 10,was trying for the 66% but had to settle for 70.

Edited October 2, 2022 by schuck6566
added new test results

[GanjaSMK]

I'm guessing benchmarks - just like anything, produce statistical outliers, probably where the 18fps came in

 

Solid results for stable and increased FPS with tweaking one single setting - now you just gotta tell us when you play how it 'feels'

 

The drop in render time by cutting in half probably produced way smoother visuals too

 

100%  

 

 

vs

 

50%