Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 11

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2017

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message


Tuesday, December 19th 2017, 2:08pm

In my experience, Battlefield 1 is pretty well optimized. I'm still running with my ASUS Z-170A MOBO, i5 6600k, GTX 970, and 2x8GB DDR4-3000 RAM. My newest addition, however, is a Dell S2716DG monitor with 2560x1440p resolution, 144 Hz refresh rate, and NVIDIA G-SYNC. At ultra settings and 2560x1440p resolution, I still generally average from 60 to 80 FPS. Sometimes it'll drop a bit lower than that, and sometimes it'll go slightly higher. All-in-all, I'm doing fairly decent at 2560x1440p while utilizing a GPU that's meant for optimal 1920x1080p performance instead.

Sadly, GPU prices have seem to stagnated at a fairly high retail price. All of the GTX 1000 series GPUs ended up being like $50-$100 more expensive than originally advertised.
>running 144hz at well below 144fps

this is heresy

I would have settled for 60 Hz or 100 Hz at the same resolution, but this specific monitor had its price slashed by $250 for Black Friday. If anything, I have a pretty future-proof monitor for whenever I upgrade. I've been eyeing GTX 1070 models for a while, and now there's the GTX 1070 Ti.

Yeah, but why not drop the res (maybe understandable as non-native resolutions usually look quite shit) or graphical settings to get stable 100fps, and in stead play at 100hz? Then again I'm pretty anal about fps, anything below 60 is LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE and below 80-90 is certified lag.