Here Are Nvidia's Recommended Specs For 'PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds'

[Guest]

"PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" will finally leave Early Access on December 20.

Here Are Nvidia's Recommended Specs For 'PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds' : Read more

 

[Mark RM]

Wow, what the heck is it using all that hardware for? Doesn't look all that great to me. Guess I'm the odd man out.

 

[Matt_550]

Wow, what the heck is it using all that hardware for? Doesn't look all that great to me. Guess I'm the odd man out.

It's poorly optimized most likely.

 

[TechyInAZ]

That's really sad, that much GPU horsepower is need just for a game that doesn't look better than ARMA 3??

That's some sad developer coding right there.

 

[Brian_R170]

Game developers are now letting the hardware manufacturers specify the recommended hardware... and nobody has a problem with that?

 

[Tanyac]

Well, for a game that can effectively warm a large house, I guess you want to spend a lot on a graphics card. We have 3 people here playing this game with temps in the high 70s low 80s (Celsius), with CPUs like 6700K and 16GB 3000 DDR4. Fans are running on high speeds and you can really feel the computers pumping out the heat.

Poorly optimized indeed.

 

[notofthiswar]

I'm confused and here is why,
Non test server:
intel i7 7770k
16gigs ram = avg 60 fps on hight- Ultra-54 fps lowest
ssd
Nvidia 970 4gb

1080ti 8 gig = avg 90-120 fps


Test server=

970 = 80-88 fps

1080ti = 144-160 fps


This is based off a 1080p asus 144hz monitor 27 inch



Friend with a 1060 with a intel 17 4790K and 8 gigs of ram gets 80-100 fps

 

[www.gasmushroom]

That game doesn't need GPU power, its just awful cpu optimisation until now. lets see what v1.0 brings.

 

[The Paladin]

I get with my 970 @1080 on Ultras, 80-110 5FPS on regular server and test server (which looks and feels like a different game engine) gets 90-125 FPS
I run a OC to 4.7 4790k with 32GB ram and ssd.

so I expect to get the same results in v1.0

 

[photonboy]

Brian_R710,
I don't understand your concern that NVidia or AMD are recommending specs. They are simply running the game on their own hardware then figuring out what you need to hit say 60FPS/1080p/High settings.

Their recommendations should be similar to anybody else who tests the game, though you can and should get more than one opinion if concerned.

The game appears reasonably WELL OPTIMIZED so far on PC. Yes, it needs some CPU improvements but overall it's looking great.

As for the GPU, a GTX1050Ti (has 4GB of VRAM) does a pretty good job of you properly tweak the settings.

TANYAC,
The temperature of a CPU or GPU alone doesn't tell you anything about how optimized a game is. I'm not saying it's well optimized or not, though I can tell you if the GPU is running HOT, and FPS is unlocked, then the code is actually using more of its processing capabilities than a game that is less hot, so in that sense it's actually MORE OPTIMIZED.

So if a GPU runs relatively cool in one game vs another there's either:
a) an FPS cap (i.e. VSYNC), or
b) CPU bottleneck, or
c) the game code isn't fully utilizing the GPU's resources

 

[The Paladin]

just for the record I use in steam launch option of the game the following command line. Open steam, goto librady, right click on PUBG, properties, set launch options and add this
-maxMem=28000 -malloc=system -force-feature-level-11-0 -sm4

I have 32Gb of ram , adjust the -maxmem=xxxx according to your ram.

 

[therealduckofdeath]

This game does look like it's optimised for the Very Low settings. I guess, it's because most FPS gamers choose than for the reduced lag. Looking at side-by-side comparisons between very low and ultra seems to show that you're mostly adding disadvantages with "higher" settings, adding shadows and all sorts of useless antialiasing effects that just blends everything.

 

[Emanuel Elmo]

Game developers are now letting the hardware manufacturers specify the recommended hardware... and nobody has a problem with that?

obviously not cause game sales are still booming. With devs letting hardware manufacturers specify the recommended hardware lets the devs make super shitty coded games. Less work for them more money for the hardware manufacturers.

This is where we are not and there is nothing we can do about it. There will always be more uneducated people than educated at any given time, so nothing will every change. EI. Day one patches are not the things that were left over that the dev couldn't get to anymore. Day one patches now are like a complete overall of a game because faces of characters are not on the actually faces but 500 feet in the landscape of a game.

When we all come together and stop buying pre-orders and the games first day, than the devs will get the message till than welcome to the new age.

I am still waiting when Bungie will not Alienate there fan base with Destiny 2. Oh right, they still couldn't get it right even with the DLC they just release.

 

[Crystalizer]

Now that we have a good game, people complain about graphics and performance lol

 

[valeman2012]

Wow, what the heck is it using all that hardware for? Doesn't look all that great to me. Guess I'm the odd man out.

It's poorly optimized most likely.

So Player Unknown Battle Grounds going get released without fully addressing the performance issues.
Performance matter much (what happen if you cant play and you cant play 1fps??)

The Performance issues from the developers must be resolved.

_
A Intel i7 6700K and Geforce GTX 1060-6GB should be able to get 60FPSat Max settings 1080p
or
Intel i7 8700K (6C/12T) and Geforce GTX 1050 TI 4GB (60FPS) at 1440x900

 

[tbjamies]

Any update on mobile optimization? I still struggle to get 30 fps on Low (1080) with an 870m 3GB.

 

[tbjamies]

Any update for mobile? This game is still unplayable with i7 4710HQ / 870M 3GB. I'm struggling to hit 30 @ 1080 on Low. Garbage optimization.

 

[techy1966]

I have not played this game & most likely will never play it. I have watched a few videos
of people playing it and to me this game looks so dated in the graphics department as in early to mid 2000's graphics. I fail to see why it would require such good grapics cards to churn out good FPS with the way it looks.

CPU wise yes because of it being open world and online with lots of people in the game. But even still if they could actually optimize the game code better most likely this below average game should be able to run on a potato PC.

Heck my old i7 Sandy Bridge 2700K@ 4.9-5.0GHz and a Sapphire 390x 8GB & 32GB ram can run games like BF1,BF4,BF Hard Line,any COD game maxed out @1080p and stay above my refresh rate without issues as well as many other new released games. All of which have have nicer graphics and much much more going on in them that should tax the system to the max.

Yet I believe if I was to buy this game and try to run the game it probably would be a stuttery mess. I am not trying to diss anyone that plays the game I am sure it is fun for them to do so I just think that if a game company is actually charging for something they really need to weed the performance issues out before releasing it to full retail. Oh & lets stop charging people to beta test your stuff as well.

 

[TJ Hooker]

The GeForce GTX 1060 graphics card was recommended over the rest of the pack for its ability to run PUBG at 60 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution without frame drops. The card managed to produce 72 FPS on average at 2560x1440, with dips to 61 FPS at some points. Comparatively, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti ran at 60 FPS with settings on High.

This paragraph is in need of some editing. According to Nvidia, the 1060 ran 70/60 average/min fps at 1080p. A GTX 1070 ran at 72/61 average/min at 1440p. Looks like the quoted text forgot to mention the 2nd sentence is talking about a 1070 rather than a 1060. Also, the last sentence needs to clarify it's talking about 4K.

 

[darth_adversor]

Might've been nice if this article had addressed cards below the 1060.

The mainstream space is still where the majority of sales occur, right?

 

[anbello262]

The GeForce GTX 1060 graphics card was recommended over the rest of the pack for its ability to run PUBG at 60 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution without frame drops. The card managed to produce 72 FPS on average at 2560x1440, with dips to 61 FPS at some points. Comparatively, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti ran at 60 FPS with settings on High.

I think that shouldn't be "1080 ti". Maybe 1050 ti? Or what resolution? I'm somethwat confused...

 

[TJ Hooker]

@anbello262 that whole paragraph is a mess, you're better off clicking the link in the article to the Nvidia page to see how each card performs.