Instructions to optimize PUBG smooth, latest update 2018

After re-testing everything since PUBG was officially released, the article researched by PCgamer will tell you which customizations should be adjusted to optimize PUBG, increase the number of frames per second, play smoother. .

PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds is one of the most massively multiplayer multiplayer games available today, elevating the Battle Royale genre and having a concurrent player count of 1.5 million. No matter how you play, this game always brings moments of tension and excitement…unless your computer is not “money” enough to run this game.

When I took a look at PUBG last year, there were a lot of performance issues with the title. In addition to the network code and lag problems, the game engine favors Nvidia’s graphics card. But I’ve been playing through the latest (at the time of writing this is 3.6.8.2) with new hardware with updated drivers. It seems time has healed all, with the game’s performance increasing by up to 30% compared to last year.

That still doesn’t mean PUBG is a lightweight game, and still requires much higher hardware power than other esport titles like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Overwatch. Part of that is thanks to Unreal Engine 4, which delivers very good image quality, but can make it difficult for the most powerful engines.

However, unless you plan to play this game at extremely high resolution with ultra graphics quality, PUBG’s configuration requirements are not too high. Minimum recommended GPU is GeForce GTX 660 2GB or Radeon HD 7850 2GB, but you can still use weaker cards, just will… won’t get to 60 FPS. CPU requirements are even more modest, with the i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300 for the bare minimum, and I didn’t see too much of a difference in the different CPU models in testing.

Battlegrounds has quite a few graphics options. Resolution support is good, and aspect ratio support worked fine when I tried them, with variable viewing angles on an ultrawide monitor. There is a bar to increase and decrease the angle of view (FOV) but only widens the view when you play in first person.

There are still a few downsides. First, the 144 FPS max limit is still there, and I wish they could remove it. Second thing, the network tickrate only runs well below 20Hz at the start of the game and can go up and down quite a lot, Bluehole should look into this issue first. Regarding mod support, it has been officially announced that it is not accepted – although hacking problems still appear here and there, PUBG has been quite active about controlling and locking offending accounts very strictly.

Calibrate PUBG settings

Using the available presets is the easiest way to get started on tuning the performance of your game, but sometimes you have to tweak a few things to get a better balance. Using a GTX 1070 with a test resolution of 1440p, I got the following results:

• Ultra preset hits 61 fps
• High preset set to 81 fps
• Medium preset reaches 90 fps
• Low preset hit 101 fps
• Very low preset reaches 136 fps (sometimes the frame limit is reached)

In percentage comparison, high will run 33% faster than ultra, medium plus 11%, low plus 12% more, and very low will add a pretty big 35% in terms of frames (all with a significant reduction in display quality, of course)

If you want to customize each setting individually for better performance, we tested which settings affect the frame the most, using the Ultra preset as the factory setting. I then reduced each option to the lowest level to measure the effect of each.

Screen scale: There are custom ranges from 70-120. It is recommended to leave this option at the default level of 100.

Anti-Aliasing: Surprisingly, this isn’t a very impactful option. Switching from ultra to very low with this option did not result in a significant frame change.

Post-Processing: General options for elements to be processed after rendering. This option has a pretty big impact on performance – going from ultra to very low increases the frame rate by 15%.

Shadows: This option is related to the previous “ambient occlusion” option as well as other types of shadow rendering, and adjusting from ultra to very low results in a 16% increase in the frame rate.

Textures: Only a slight increase in performance, assuming your graphics card has enough VRAM. Ultra down very low gain 5%.

Effects: This setting is related to explosions and a few other factors. Currently this is the most resource consuming option in the game. Adjusting from ultra to very low improves performance by 25%.

Foliage: Looking at the amount of vegetation in the game, you would think this option would have a pretty big effect, but I only measured a difference of 2% (1 FPS) after adjusting from ultra to very low.

View Distance: This option consumes more CPU than GPU, so if your processor is good, leave it ultra. Even on a system with a Core i3 CPU, dropping to very low only gives 3% more frames per second.

Motion Blur: There is a reason this option is already disabled by default. Seeing moving enemies will become more difficult if you enable this option. But if anyone likes this effect, turning it on will reduce the amount of frames received by 2%.

Benchmark

Starting with medium configuration at 1080p, the first 6 graphics cards have similar frame rates because of game limitations, but the lowest FPS is still different. But you really don’t use the most powerful graphics cards just to play 1080p games.

Down to mid-range cards, we can see two names 1060 6GB and 3GB beat the RX 580 8GB and RX 570 4GB in PUBG, while in other games AMD will prevail. At low profile settings, the Nvidia GPUs seem to handle better. Similar case with 1050 vs. The RX 560, when the 560 was only at 60 FPS, even had 4GB of VRAM, and the 1050 with 2GB of RAM was a bit more than 60 FPS. Older graphics cards like the GTX 770 are on par with the GTX 1050.

What about the onboard graphics card? We’ve only tested it with the HD Graphics 630, which is 20-30% faster than the HD Graphics 4600 in the 4th CPU generation. The results aren’t very good, even the RX 560 is four times more powerful than the HD 630. If you turn the resolution down to 720p and play at the lowest setting, the HD 630 will give you a “fire-fighting” 25 FPS. The upcoming Ryzen APU will probably have more positive results.

Raising to the ultra setting reduces most frames by 33% compared to medium. Most mid-range and above cards will work fine, but you should tweak some options with a GTX 1060 or RX 570 card to get more than 60 FPS.

Compared to the results measured from the Early Access version, the performance has improved on all GPU lines, but the results show a noticeable difference in the AMD GPUs and Nvidia’s high-end series. The AMD GPU is up to 30%, and the 1080 Ti is 40% faster, but other cards like the 1060 see only a slight increase, around 5-10%.

Going to 1440p at ultra has the same difference as at 1080p ultra, with some minor changes. The 8GB RX 580 now wins the 1060 6GB, and the 4GB RX 560 also delivers higher frame rates than the GTX 1050 (though not significantly more). Vega cards continue to fall between the 1070 and 1080, and if there’s a 1070 Ti in this table, it’ll be on par with the Vega 64. If you want to hit the 60 FPS mark, you’ll need at least a GTX 1070 or Vega.

If you want to push the limit of 144 FPS on a 4K monitor, the only way is probably the SLI 1080 or the $3000 Titan V. But usually 70-80 FPS at this resolution is too good, especially if your monitor has G-Sync or FreeSync.

You can still hit more than 60 FPS on popular cards like the 1060 and 570, provided you set some options to medium or high. The important names for frame enhancement are shadows, post-processing, and effects, so focus on these three options if you’re looking to increase performance.

4K ultra is often the arch-enemy for most GPUs, but the Titan V is still alive and well at 75fps. It’s also partly down to overclocking, which is the same as factory overclocking on MSI Gaming X graphics cards. More powerful overclocking on 1080 Ti cards will also put frames above 60, but it gets easier if you tweak a few tweaks. option.

PUBG CPU performance

Moving on to the gaming laptop segment, the CPUs on laptops are not powerful enough to keep the GPUs running well at 1080p medium. The fact that laptop RAM is somewhat weaker is also a reason. When we go to 1080p ultra, the difference between laptop and PC is just the speed of the GPU.

The difference is 10%, and the 10 series of Nvidia GPUs for laptops (not the Max-Q versions) are very close in performance to cards of the same name on PCs. Max-Q versions will be about 15% slower than non-Max-Q cards on laptops.

One thing worth mentioning is that although PUBG was installed on the Samsung 850 Pro SSD when testing on a PC, due to the limitation of the SSD on the laptop, I installed the game on the laptop’s HDD. There’s a huge difference in jerks and glitches, most noticeable when jumping from a plane, which shows the weakness of an HDD. That weakness is twice as big if the HDD has a speed of 5400RPM. So if you are experiencing bottlenecks in PUBG, it is recommended that you upgrade to an SSD.

By PC Gamer