Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Is 1660ti enough for smooth game?
Aliyeh
Member
I recently added an ultrawide monitor to my laptop which has 3440*1440 resolution and obviously most of the games i used to play 60+ fps now are down to 30-40..Graphicly this game doesnt look that much demanding but with the amount of players and all these skill effect and etc do you think my laptop can do 60 fps?
1
Comments
I would start saving up for a faster PC for release. You probably have at least 2 years.
which is similar to MMOs like New World or Throne and Liberty, your resolution is higher and a 1660ti would likely not get anything over 30 fps even on low settings,
I will say, even during A1, my 1080 (non ti) ran smoother than @Virtek's 1660 (can't remember if it was a ti)
I only saw those in correlation with tech in studio, and when developing you need heavier duty rigs to handle the processing, I'm hoping it gets optimized more-so in the future
2070 and 3070 are not similar GPUs in terms of performance lol the 3070 is over 50% faster. There's no way they're targeting both for 1440p 60fps unless they're targeting the lowest settings on a 2070 and ultra/max settings on a 3070
It was a different engine for A1 of course, but I ran my 1080Ti with a 8700K overclocked to 5Ghz on my 4K monitor and the FPS varied quite a bit. For solo/low player gameplay I would often exceed 60 FPS (up to 90 or so), with lows in the 50s. It was perfectly playable and fairly smooth. During the castle sieges I sometimes went as high as 60 FPS, but a lot of the time it was below that, with lows in the 20s and highs in the 50s. It wasn't very smooth, but it was playable. Sure, the 2160p resolution is a lot more demanding than 1440p, but I wouldn't have gotten a smooth 60+ FPS if I ran the same setup at 1440p.
@Aliyeh, a lot also rides on your CPU in this case, but unless it's uncommonly strong for a laptop with a 1660 Ti, you won't get smooth performance even with very low graphics settings.
The CPU handles the game logic (AI, positions, interactions) the scene building (behaviours of objects, environment, characters, properties) and it determines the culling before it sends draw calls to the GPU, which then handles drawing pretty pixels on the screen. It's a constant back and forth, and the more players there are doing crazy unpredictable things, the heavier the load on the CPU and on the back and forth. UE5 tries to optimize that process a lot, so ultimately we'll still have to wait and see how it handles large scale combat, but my guess is that the large player battles and big nodes are going to be very taxing, and that is where you need the smooth FPS the most.
Also, in recent MMOs I've noticed ram making a significant difference in performance. How much ram are you running?
@chibibree @patrick68794 mb I should have linked the soruce, but yea they are targeting the 2070 to run the game at ultra settings on 1440p
this is what John Waynick, one of the developers said around 6 months ago
Throne and Liberty, using DLSS 3 and FG showed that we are finally in the golden age for MMOs where CPU limit is no longer a problem, without FG the game would drop to less than 40 FPS during mass pvp, with FG I got constant +80 FPS even with hundreds of players on screen, it's awesome
now, DLSS 3 + FG is ony for 40 series, but AMD's FSR does the same job and includes AMD GPUs and 20/30 series, and they are working with UE5 for integration, with that tech I have absolutely no doubts that we will be doing +500 or +1000 player battles with +60 FPS as long as your GPU supports it
Nice, and no issues with input latency or visual artifacts or anything like that with the frame gen on? With tab target combat I guess input latency only matters a little though.
I wouldn't use the few games out right now as an indication of how games on UE5 from competent developers will run on the consoles, or in general really. Fortnite runs extremely well with the UE5 upgrade and Layers of Fear also runs really well though. Remnant 2, Immortals of Aveum, and to a lesser extent Lords of the Fallen (this one actually has the graphical fidelity to at least partially excuse the poor performance), were clearly made by studios with little technical experience and run terribly on all platforms.
Hellblade 2 has only been shown running on Series X for example and based on the gameplay trailers will be hands down the best looking game ever made, even when running on the Xbox.
Games like Fortnight are designed to run on as many outdated systems as possible. Ashes is going to do its best to reach as large of an audience as possible but they are making a stunning game. That being said. A solid 30 series will run Ashes well at the settings you are asking for. In a year or two, you should be able to get a card at a song that will give you 1440p at 60FPS. I'm saying don't rush into a card now that's designed for Ashes. There is no rush for that.
Right, my point was simply that the few games built on Unreal 5 that are out now shouldn't really be used as an indication on how other UE5 games will run on console level hardware as most of them are made by small, inexperienced studios and the only one that isn't runs great.
Probably the smartest option financially and tech wise. There's in-game options to turn certain features on and off if you're actually planning to test vs play-test. Plus in-game metrics do not always reflect the true metrics due to the optimisation issues. May as well buy a card you will utilise more on a day to day basis when the game launches vs "testing". I'm still using my 1660 super for another year or so. 1080p isn't the end of the world compared to 1440p. Plus feed back on the "lower" cards is good for optimisation goals.
We'll have updated minimum spec requirements as we get closer to Alpha 2's launch in Q3 this year