I dont know why but even when i have a 3090 and a i7 10700k my fps drops in raid (to 50) and in ogri fps are stuck between 60-80, even when i play in 1080. Pd: i have raytracing off
1 Like
Is your FPS in foreground setting capped? Can find it in graphics I think, also is v sync on? If it is and your monitor refresh rate is say 60 it will try to keep FPS at 60.
no its not capped, in zones where there are less people my fps’s valors increse to up 120 or 140 sometimes.
Hey there,
I wouldn’t say 60-80 FPS is “low”. 50 FPS in raids sounds about right. If you have all the graphics settings maxed out maybe try turning down some of the settings that impact FPS the most, like view distance and shadows.
If you have a 60hz monitor there isn’t much benefit to run the game at over 60 FPS as well. So you may just need to adjust settings to get things to where you can maintain a stable 60 FPS.
Thus why i love my new Ryzen pc , no trouble with fps or dips capped frames at 80 fps never moves really in raid or open world. could be a heat issue ? monitor temps
I have a 144 monitor. Are you telling me that a 3090 with i7 10700k cant support max graphics on wow?
Nope. At that level of hardware, it’s more of a CPU issue than anything. Single core threads only go so fast(the majority of the engine is single). Can’t render a frame until the CPU is done with it’s job for that frame.
MMOs, like WoW, are pretty hard on CPUs.
1 Like
You can absolutely run max graphics with that hardware, as long as you are realistic about what kind of FPS you expect to get with everything maxed out.
60 FPS in most gameplay scenarios with maxed settings? Yeah.
144 FPS in most gameplay scenarios with maxed settings? Probably not.
That’s why I mentioned you may just need to adjust your graphics settings, if you are wanting to try and get a consistent FPS to match your monitor’s refresh rate. There may be guides or tutorials available online that you can use to optimize your settings for the best balance of visuals and FPS, if that’s something you’re interested at looking into.
What cpu do u have?
A Golden 5600x, nothing against intel i just love my Ryzen, i play other games with it aswell mostly cpu intensive anything i throw at it always has buttery smooth frames, ofc it’s water cooled all the new ryzens tend to run warm.
The human eye is incapable of rendering anything beyond 60fps. Set your monitor to 60hz refresh and top your foreground frame limit to 62 and i’d almost put money on it that your experience improves… and as stated shadows and particle density being turned down will make quite a difference as well. i have an rx580 and i play with settings maxed aside from shadows/etc also in linux 
.
Please don’t perpetuate this myth, even if trolling. 
More info.
4 Likes
I generally run 100-150 FPS. that’s open world, dungeons, raids, whatever. I dropped down to 4 FPS today for no reason. I’ve updated graphics driver only after the issue started.
We don’t see in frames anyways, more like a random noise patern of updating cones/rods. That being said, there’s an extremely sharp diminishing return beyond 90fps.
That link you posted is biased because all of those tests and studies are using a single image flash, with objects that our brains are wired to recognize quickly. In terms of actual real world applications, like gaming, anything over a locked 90fps, you would only be able to guess correctly 50% of the time. Tons of people have double-blind tested this, even I’ve rigged tests like this and tested people (did the experiment on dozens in college for a class).
I think my point stands that we’re not capped at seeing 60fps. But I appreciate all the clarification points.
1 Like
60’s good enough. 90 if you want to be overkill. Plus, yo-yoing between something like 150fps and 70, when there’s some stutter going on, is far more noticeable than going from 90 to 70.
That’s completely subjective. You can’t really tell me whether I find 60 more acceptable than 90 or vice-versa. 60 is good enough for you.
Regardless of the conjecture about persistence of vision*, there is nevertheless a perceivable difference between 60fps and 90fps.
Whether that difference is due to frame rates, cones, rods, lighting, squirrels, Venus transiting Saturn - or if indeed it’s a psychologically-induced illusion due to the higher numbers - people can perceive it, and people have subjective preferences about what they perceive.
*(To be fair, whether or not fighter pilots can distinguish distinctly individual frames at 1/200 of a second really has no bearing on whether 90fps appears more fluid than 60fps in a modern video game where frame 44 is virtually identical to frame 45. Vice-versa, just because we stop seeing much of a graphical improvement above 90fps does not mean we cannot pick out individual changes at a much higher framerate. These aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.
They’re also so vastly different that using one to “disprove” the other doesn’t make sense at all.)
1 Like
60 and 90, yes. 90 and 144, no in most cases.
You have to keep in mind the OP is complaining about poor performance on maxed out ultra settings and is upset they can’t get a stable frame rate in the 100+ range. Locking his frame rate to a reasonable level will do far more in the long run for his comfort.
The argument is that it’s pointless beyond a certain point and that 99% of people would fail a double-blind test, as in only correctly guessing 50% of the time, of stable locked 90 vs stable locked 120fps. Having a frame time yo-yo all over the place is going to be faaaaar more obvious.
Placebo is a powerful snakeoil in the gaming industry. Don’t even get me started on the 4k non-sense with people playing on a 24in monitor from two feet away… Anyways, enough beating the dead horse already. His question has been answered.