Question New GPU low usage!

[tiagofp]

Hello everyone.
So recently I upgraded my GPU, I went from 1050ti to a 3060ti. Everything was fine, I tried games like Rocket League, Cod Warzone and CS:GO and it gave me really good FPS results. But as soon as I go to games like Valorant, League of Legends and Fortnite it seems that the game is running the same or even worse with this new GPU. I noticed something, my GPU usage on Valorant, League of Legends and Fortnite doesn't go beyond 20%-40%, which might be causing me to lose some performance. I've done some research and people with the same build as me can get 500 FPS on Fortnite and I'm barely getting 200-250 fps.

I've tried change power plans, updating chipset drivers, gpu drivers and almost everything but the issue keeps happening on those games I named.

GPU: RTX 3060 TI.
CPU: I7 8700
16GB RAM

Please help if you know what's wrong with this situation, I would really appreciate!

 

[Wayfall]

Since you refuse to say anything i am saying to face value

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA&t=139s


Put it on 2:10 and listen to what he says . This goes for any refreshrate, 120 144 240. if you still dont believe me watch the whole video.

Well the conversation on the HZ thing ended and I never look for an argument. It's called an opinion. I'm just going to chalk it up to a misunderstanding. I don't understand where all this is coming from.

This seems to answer most of what I'm was saying: [SOLVED] - Can I see more than 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor? | Tom's Hardware Forum (tomshardware.com)

"A 60hz monitor refreshes the screen 60 times per second. Therefore, a 60hz monitor is only capable of outputting 60fps. It can still feel smoother to play at a higher framerate than your monitor can display however, because input lag with your mouse will be reduced. You might also start to see tearing though, which happens when your videocard is rendering frames faster than your monitor can display them.

Asus actually sells a nice line of 120hz displays, and if they have some reason to exist other than their capability to display 120fps, I'd like to hear it. "

 

[jeremy0118]

Well the conversation on the HZ thing ended and I never look for an argument. It's called an opinion. I'm just going to chalk it up to a misunderstanding. I don't understand where all this is coming from.

This seems to answer most of what I'm was saying: [SOLVED] - Can I see more than 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor? | Tom's Hardware Forum (tomshardware.com)

"A 60hz monitor refreshes the screen 60 times per second. Therefore, a 60hz monitor is only capable of outputting 60fps. It can still feel smoother to play at a higher framerate than your monitor can display however, because input lag with your mouse will be reduced. You might also start to see tearing though, which happens when your videocard is rendering frames faster than your monitor can display them.

Asus actually sells a nice line of 120hz displays, and if they have some reason to exist other than their capability to display 120fps, I'd like to hear it. "

So make it knows it is your opinion. you are litteraly presenting it as fact in your past 2 comments to me, you are in fact so ballsy to say that me and everyone else "has it in their heads" other words its a mandela effect?. arguing with a vegeran gamer about this kind of stuff to me is a bad idea, i know what i am talking about, i know what i am seeing. But again you dont need to believe what im saying Linus talked to people from Nvidia to explain how it works. Accept defeat, I presented you the proof. FPS above refresh rate means updated frametime and less input delay. its a FACT. Have a nice day.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Accept defeat, I presented you the proof. FPS above refresh rate means updated frametime and less input delay.

That much is true. However it's not really useful if those frames aren't presented in a way that makes them useful. For instance multi-GPU setups are notorious for micro-stuttering because of frame pacing issues. So a tool might measure 120FPS, but if every other frame is being presented at the bottom quarter of the screen and maybe at the first 10% of the top, that frame isn't really useful.

 

[jeremy0118]

That much is true. However it's not really useful if those frames aren't presented in a way that makes them useful. For instance multi-GPU setups are notorious for micro-stuttering because of frame pacing issues. So a tool might measure 120FPS, but if every other frame is being presented at the bottom quarter of the screen and maybe at the first 10% of the top, that frame isn't really useful.

You are right, thanks for confirming though.

 

[Nighthawk117]

Well to me its all in peoples heads, take that with a pinch of salt. Even if you have a 250HZ monitor and your getting 400fps you are still only seeing 250. The monitor can not do more than its HZ.

There is merit to it because it reduces input lag on your controls, I used to play BF1 at a high frame rate on a 60hz monitor for this reason. If the frames are not synced to the refresh rate then what you see on screen is made up of multiple frames, so you will get partial visibility of a more recent frame than you otherwise would running at a locked 60hz. So your controls will feel more responsive but you could potentially see part of the action more quickly too.

Hardware Unboxed did a good video about this years ago:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzp8z1i5-Hc


While there is a benefit to it, if your playing at 500 FPS on a 250hz display you are as you suggest not getting the full benefits of doing so because of the technical limitations of the monitor, the latter of which is already running at a very high refresh rate. So I would tend to agree with you, this is pointless in most cases for most people.

 

[jeremy0118]

There is merit to it because it reduces input lag on your controls, I used to play BF1 at a high frame rate on a 60hz monitor for this reason. If the frames are not synced to the refresh rate then what you see on screen is made up of multiple frames, so you will get partial visibility of a more recent frame than you otherwise would running at a locked 60hz. So your controls will feel more responsive but you could potentially see part of the action more quickly too.

Hardware Unboxed did a good video about this years ago:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzp8z1i5-Hc


While there is a benefit to it, if your playing at 500 FPS on a 250hz display you are as you suggest not getting the full benefits of doing so because of the technical limitations of the monitor, the latter of which is already running at a very high refresh rate. So I would tend to agree with you, this is pointless in most cases for most people.

agree first bit , 2nd bit is wrong. i wonder how many of you people who argue this kind of thing have actually ever played on a 240 hz monitor, let alone one of the fastest monitors in the esports industry, a csgo standard. the benq xl2540. because if you did , you would notice capping to 240 or uncapping it to let it go wild up to 600. the diffrence is big. go into any professional csgo players stream, people with over 10k hours, who get paid 30k per month to play csgo for a living. and ask them .

 

[hotaru.hino]

Well to me its all in peoples heads, take that with a pinch of salt. Even if you have a 250HZ monitor and your getting 400fps you are still only seeing 250. The monitor can not do more than its HZ.

You may be only seeing 250 images as a whole, but you're also getting partial frames presented. Screen tearing goes both ways. So all 400 frames are being presented. Whether or not they're being presented in a useful manner is another thing.

 

[Nighthawk117]

agree first bit , 2nd bit is wrong. i wonder how many of you people who argue this kind of thing have actually ever played on a 240 hz monitor, let alone one of the fastest monitors in the esports industry, a csgo standard. the benq xl2540. because if you did , you would notice capping to 240 or uncapping it to let it go wild up to 600. the diffrence is big.

I'm not saying it's unnoticeable, I believe that it is. I'm just suggesting that the benefits apply in niche circumstances, by that I mean it would depend on the game and the ability of the player. I'm not sure 600 FPS vs 240 FPS is going to make much difference to someone that is very average at the game.

While it may be beneficial for someone to play 600 FPS on a 240hz display, it would be more beneficial if the display were also 600hz. Your correct I don't play on a 240hz display, I play on 165hz. I do however have experience playing some FPS games at higher rates than the monitor refresh rate, I would say you can feel the difference but there is a limit to how much it benefits me in actual play because I'm not good enough at FPS games.

It's kind of got into a debate about the merits of high frame rates. I'm not suggesting that the OP shouldn't do this, they want to do this and they are asking if their PC is performing sub optimally. Got no problem with that and it seems like it might be, but we need more information to determine if that's the case.

 

[kerberos_20]

cs go players can react withing 3ms, so those ~250fps are valid (for them)
but t mouse/keobard will also need to wait for those 3ms if you lock framerate, so user interaction will be longer then 3ms (waiting for next frame)

me as a rpg player can tell than uncapped framerate gives me more dps then locked framerate even if fps is same

 

[ötzi]

How about you guys go hijack a thread?

 

[Wayfall]

How about you guys go hijack a thread?

Ye i was wondering what was going on, looking at you
'jeremy0118'

 

[muhaideennmk]

Did you find any solution ? because looks like im also having same issue from a GTX 1050TI upgrade